This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Our Cookie Notice is part of our Privacy Policy and explains in detail how and why we use cookies. To take full advantage of our website, we recommend that you click on “Accept All”. You can change these settings at any time via the button “Update Cookie Preferences” in our Cookie Notice.
Technical cookies are required for the site to function properly, to be legally compliant and secure. Session cookies only last for the duration of your visit and are deleted from your device when you close your internet browser. Persistent cookies, however, remain and continue functioning on repeat visits.
We does not use any cookie based Analytics or tracking on our websites; see details here.
Personalisation cookies collect information about your website browsing habits and offer you a personalised user experience based on past visits, your location or browser settings. They also allow you to log in to personalised areas and to access third party tools that may be embedded in our website. Some functionality will not work if you don’t accept these cookies.
06/2016
As the customs system of the Eurasian Economic Union has undergone significant changes in recent years, the Russian case-law on many customs issues has become largely outdated. It is in this context that the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adopted a resolution clarifying some controversial issues of the practical application of the requirements of customs regulations by the courts. We consider below the key aspects of Resolution No. 18 dated 12 May 2016.
The Plenum, first and foremost, has established that the method for determining the customs value of imported goods must be based on their actual value, which should as much as possible reflect the contract price of the goods.
Accordingly, persons declaring the customs value of imported goods must confirm that the declared information corresponds to reality. Moreover, the courts must presume the correctness of the information provided by the declarant. If such information is verified, the customs authorities are required to give the declarant an opportunity to clear any doubts. The customs authorities have to provide full details of the grounds on which the information was considered insufficient. Thus, the onus of rebuttal of the presumption of correctness of the information provided by the declarant for the purposes of justifying the customs value of imported goods rests entirely on the customs authorities.
At the same time, even in cases when the customs authorities accept the customs value declared by the declarant, this will not deprive them of the right to make customs checks of the goods after clearance.
The Plenum has also established a new procedure for refunding tax and customs duty overpayments. Under this procedure, any refund claim will only be considered if the declarant made the relevant changes in its declaration either when filing the refund claim or before such filing.
Finally, the Plenum has confirmed that if customs duties are overpaid by the declarant, interest will accrue on the relevant amount from the date following its payment until the date of its refund.
Overall, the adoption of this resolution conveys the idea that the state control in the customs field is weakening. It should therefore have a rather positive impact on the activities of international trade players.