To form a uniform approach, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (SC) decided to summarize the practice on the most common disputes between business and customs. As Kommersant learned, the clarifications concern such pressing issues as determining the customs value and country of origin of goods, the differences between personal imports and commercial ones, and situations in which participants in foreign economic activity risk being held liable. The courts and customs will now have to strictly follow these positions of the Supreme Court.
On June 17, the Presidium of the Supreme Court approved a review of practice in customs disputes (Kommersant has it). Previously, the Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation (FCS) ignored a number of decisions of the Economic Board of the Supreme Court, notes Alexander Kosov, head of the practice of customs law and foreign trade regulation of Pepeliaev Group. But now the approval of these conclusions at the presidium level should ensure their priority application both in the courts and in the work of the department, points out Inna Elisanova, head of the customs practice of Taxology.
Origin and nomenclature
The explanations begin with basic questions – the rules of classification according to product nomenclature. The Supreme Court emphasizes that the objective characteristics and intended use of the product, and not just its name, should be decisive. Classification cannot depend on the discretion of customs authorities and the formal presence of a particular word in the description, the document notes.
A large number of import disputes concern the country of origin of the goods. The review explains that the certificate of origin is reliable until customs proves otherwise (point 3). In particular, the mere change of consignee or country of destination during normal transportation does not require a replacement certificate and does not give customs grounds to charge anti-dumping duties.
Speaking about customs value, the Supreme Court draws attention to transactions between related parties. If the Federal Customs Service reveals signs of underpricing in such contracts, the declarant himself is obliged to prove that the relationship between the seller and the buyer did not affect the price (“Kommersant” wrote about such a dispute December 9, 2025).
According to Sergei Vasiliev, head of the foreign trade and customs regulation practice at Denuo, this legal position is especially important since control over interdependent parties has recently increased.
To reduce risks, he advises businesses to collect a “safety file” in advance with documents on pricing, transaction circumstances and calculations of test values. At the same time, for independent participants in the turnover, the presumption of reliability of the documents presented is preserved, Mr. Vasiliev clarifies.
Separately, the Supreme Court spoke about the accounting of royalties (license payments). Customs may include them in the cost of imported goods if their payment is an actual condition for the sale of products to the country of import (see. “Kommersant” dated May 30, 2024). Alexander Kosov finds this explanation the most controversial. In his opinion, the current positions of the Supreme Court on royalties change the law enforcement practice favorable for importers and conflict with the recommendations of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) dated November 15, 2016 No. 20.
But if the documents cannot accurately determine the part of the royalty related to imported products, customs has the right to determine it by calculation based on available information, and with a certain degree of flexibility in approaches, the Presidium of the Supreme Court established. In Inna Elisanova’s opinion, this will significantly reduce the amount of additional charges to businesses based on the results of inspections.
Personal or commercial
The Supreme Court also clarified when goods transported by individuals can be recognized as commercial consignments. The review states that the consumer properties and volume of the product may directly indicate the impossibility of using it for personal purposes. As an example, a citizen transports 8 kg of ore under the guise of research materials.
However, the passage of a citizen along the green corridor with a large number of things does not automatically make him a violator. According to paragraph 25, it is necessary to evaluate a set of criteria: the nature of the goods, their homogeneity and the frequency of crossing the border.
An example is a dismissed case against a citizen who was carrying 48 items of clothing without tags while moving from the Netherlands to Russia. Customs could not prove that he was conducting commercial activities.
If an individual declares an imported car, the burden of proving that its value is understated lies solely with the customs authority, the Supreme Court pointed out. Moreover, the presumption of authenticity of the declarant’s documents means that customs cannot simply refer to screenshots from online auctions. If the citizen has provided a sales contract, bank statements and a reasonable explanation for the low price, the adjustment of the customs value will be illegal (see. “Kommersant” dated October 14, 2025).
Limits of liability
The Presidium of the Supreme Court also touched upon issues of punishment. Sergey Vasiliev notes the position of the review, which requires motivating the grounds for confiscation of the subject of the offense. For example, if a company used a temporarily imported vessel under a time charter agreement for only eight days, its seizure would be a disproportionate measure, the Supreme Court explains.
Inna Elisanova also considers the position of the Supreme Court on penalties useful for business.
They cannot be accrued if there is a sufficient advance on a single personal account to repay the debt, since the budget in this case does not lose money, the review says. This conclusion, according to Ms. Elisanova, will help companies avoid unreasonable additional charges.
Finally, the Supreme Court puts an end to the debate about the fate of counterfeit alcohol and tobacco. Customs will not return seized drinks and cigarettes to the owner – such goods are subject to destruction, since their circulation in the Russian Federation is prohibited by law.
