On the assignment of the obligation to accept declarations and release goods

6001-22-00-6ap/2082 dated 03/16/2023

The plaintiff: IP "I"

Respondent: Russian State Institution "State Revenue Committee, Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan"

The subject of the dispute: the obligation to accept declarations and release goods

Review of the defendant's cassation complaint PLOT:

On October 26, 2021, the plaintiff and the supplier, LLC G, signed contract No. 27 for the supply of goods produced and grown on

territories of the Republic of Tajikistan (fresh fruits and vegetables, dried fruits, nuts, legumes). The agreement was concluded on the terms of EXW –Tajikistan. The goods were imported on the basis of DT 559 (dried mulberry, dried apricot, dried grapes) and DT 560 (fresh pomegranate).

Due to discrepancies in the submitted documents of the SRC, requests for additional documents and information were sent to the plaintiff, as well as an explanation was requested under contract No. 27, where there are discrepancies in information about the supplier of the goods. So in the contract, the party indicated LLC "G", but the contract was signed by LLC "T", the contract lacks the signature of the plaintiff.

In response to the request, the same documents are provided with corrections. The payment for the plaintiff has not been reliably determined.

Judicial acts:

1st instance: the claim is satisfied, the part about the recognition of illegal requests is returned.

Appeal: the decision is overturned, the claim is denied.

Cassation: the decision is upheld.

Conclusions:

On November 17, 2021, the Taraz-CTO customs post actually conducted a customs inspection, the plaintiff did not immediately submit the goods for inspection. According to DT 559, a discrepancy has been established – an underestimation of the volume of goods in the declaration.

Both DTS specify the EXW delivery basis (the buyer bears all types of risks and all costs for moving the goods from the seller's territory to the specified destination). The seller's export declaration specifies a different delivery basis – FCA (the seller will transfer the goods to the carrier at the named location, which will affect the obligations for loading and unloading the goods at this location). The cost of the goods on the terms of delivery of EXW and FCA cannot be the same, since the conditions and the basis for adding up the costs associated with the delivery of goods are different. The information requested by the defendant on loading, unloading, reloading, and insurance of goods was not provided by the plaintiff.

Method 1, declared by the declarant under DT 559 and DT 560, is not applicable due to the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 67 and paragraph 1 of Article 396 of the Customs Regulation Code.

The plaintiff's demand for acceptance of declarations where the specified method was used was not subject to satisfaction.

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases