Russia | The Supreme Court has issued a review of case law on customs disputes

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has summarized case law on customs disputes by issuing “Thematic Review of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 9/2026. On the Consideration by Courts of Disputes Related to the Application of Customs Legislation,” which was approved by Resolution No. 12A/2026 of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 17, 2026.

The document contains 32 legal positions, organized by key categories of customs disputes. Some of the positions presented in the overview are discussed below.

1. Classification of Goods in Accordance with the EAEU Foreign Economic Activity Commodity Nomenclature

When classifying goods, their objective properties and technical characteristics (functional purpose) are decisive, rather than individual words or phrases contained in the commercial name of the goods. Priority is given to the General Rules for the Interpretation of the HS. The courts proceed on the basis that classification must be based on the intended use of the goods. For example, fasteners intended for use in aircraft must be classified under the appropriate commodity heading as specialized aircraft structural components, regardless of whether the general term “bracket” appears in their description.

2. Determining the Country of Origin and the Customs Value of Goods

Confirmation of the country of origin. The list of grounds for deeming a country of origin unconfirmed is exhaustive. A change in the consignee or a change in the route of the goods, provided that the authenticity and accuracy of the certificate of origin are preserved, does not result in the invalidation of such a certificate and does not constitute grounds for the imposition of additional anti-dumping duties, provided that such actions are carried out in the ordinary course of business.

Customs Value When the Parties to a Transaction Are Related. When declaring the customs value of goods sold between related parties, the declarant bears the burden of proving that this relationship did not influence the transaction price. To do so, the declarant must disclose all information in its possession regarding the pricing. Simply submitting invoices and bank payment documents is insufficient if the customs authority challenges the pricing mechanism itself, rather than the mere fact that the transaction took place.

Accounting for License Fees and Dividends. According to the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, license fees (royalties) for the use of intellectual property must be included in the customs value of imported goods, even if the obligation to pay them is not expressly stipulated in the supply contract. This requirement may stem from general rules governing business operations within a group of companies operating under a specific brand.

Similarly, dividends paid to a foreign supplier that is part of the same group of entities as the buyer may be included in the customs value if such payments are, in fact, part of the seller’s revenue from the sale of the imported goods, rather than investment income.

3. Customs Value of Repair and Processing Transactions

The costs of conducting the mandatory annual inspection of a seagoing vessel shall not be included in the customs value of repair or conversion operations performed outside the customs territory. This position is based on the fact that the inspection is a procedure to confirm the vessel’s compliance with established safety requirements and does not create new economic value or improve the consumer properties of the vessel.

4. Movement of Goods by Individuals for Personal Use

Burden of Proof. If there is doubt regarding the accuracy of the customs value of a vehicle declared by an individual, the burden of proof regarding the need to adjust that value rests with the customs authority. A screenshot of an online auction page containing only an offer to sell a similar vehicle, without confirmation of an actual transaction, cannot serve as sufficient grounds for recalculating customs duties.

Documents Required for Registration. For the state registration of a single vehicle imported by an individual for personal use, a vehicle type approval document is not required. A vehicle design safety certificate is sufficient.

5. Value-Added Tax (VAT)

VAT amounts paid upon the importation into the EAEU of spare parts provided free of charge by a foreign supplier for warranty repairs of previously imported main equipment are deductible. The fact that the spare parts themselves were received free of charge does not deprive the taxpayer of the right to claim a tax deduction for the tax paid at customs.

6. Imposition of Late Payment Penalties for Delayed Payment of Customs Duties

The mere existence of unpaid customs duties does not, in and of itself, constitute an unconditional basis for the assessment of penalties. A mandatory condition for applying this enforcement measure is that the customs authority must prove that the budget system has suffered losses. If, at the time the payment obligation arose, the customs authority had advance funds from the payer on hand in an amount exceeding the amount of the additional charges, there are no grounds for concluding that the budget has suffered losses.

7. Administrative Liability

Classification of the Offense. Declaring goods using an incorrect EAEU Customs Tariff classification code that covers the entire volume of goods being transported across the border is classified under Part 2 of Article 16.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation as providing false information about the goods, which served as the basis for exemption from customs duties, taxes, or the understatement of their amounts. The elements of this offense are not present unless it is proven that, as a result of specifying an incorrect code, an understatement of the amounts due occurred or could have occurred.

The court must provide a rationale for imposing the confiscation of items related to the administrative offense as a sanction. The court ruling must contain a justification for the necessity of such a sanction and its proportionality as a means of balancing public and private interests.

Link: https://vsrf.ru/documents/reviews/36054/