Customs Refusal to Release Goods for Import: Legal Grounds, Appeals, and Case Law

 

April 29, 2026

BRACE Law Firm ©

 

A customs authority’s refusal to release goods is one of the most serious procedural decisions made by customs authorities, as it can paralyze a foreign trade operation and lead to significant financial losses.

The relevance of this topic has increased significantly due to the extensive digitalization of customs procedures, the introduction of new control systems, stricter requirements for confirming conformity, and the development of the parallel import framework. New rules create additional formal requirements, and failure to comply with them becomes an independent ground for refusing to release goods. This requires importers to review their customs clearance strategies and methods for protecting their rights.

Below, we examine the grounds for refusing to release goods, the procedures for challenging such decisions, analyze current case law, and provide practical recommendations for foreign trade participants (the "Foreign Trade Participants") in the context of changing regulations.

Normative Grounds and Formalization of Refusal to Release Goods Under the EAEU Customs Code

As established by the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union (the "EAEU Customs Code"), the release of goods means an action by a customs authority, after the performance of which interested parties are entitled to use the goods in accordance with the declared customs procedure (Article 2). This is the final stage of the customs clearance of goods, at the end of which the customs authority decides on the possibility or impossibility of using and (or) disposing of the imported (exported) goods.

The customs authority releases goods provided that the person has complied with the conditions for placing the goods under the declared customs procedure or the conditions established for using specific categories of goods not subject to placement under customs procedures in accordance with the EAEU Customs Code, except for cases where such conditions, such as compliance with prohibitions and restrictions in accordance with the Treaty on the EAEU dated May 29, 2014, and (or) the legislation of the member states, can be confirmed after the release of goods (Article 118 of the EAEU Customs Code).

When Can Customs Refuse to Release Goods?

The system of grounds for refusing to release goods is established in Article 125 of the EAEU Customs Code and is exhaustive.

A customs authority may refuse to release goods in the following cases:

• failure to fulfill the conditions for the release of goods – the most common ground, covering a wide range of violations, from non-payment of customs duties to non-compliance with prohibitions and restrictions;
• failure to comply with requirements for changing information in the goods declaration, applied if the declarant failed to execute a customs authority's order to amend the declaration within the established timeframe;
• the occurrence of circumstances provided for by paragraph 6 of Article 114 of the EAEU Customs Code during preliminary declaration (goods are not placed in the customs control zone specified in the customs declaration; regarding goods transported by water vessels, the customs authority has not issued permission for their unloading at the place of arrival specified in the customs declaration;
• the customs authority that registered the customs declaration was not notified of the placement of goods in the customs control zone specified in the customs declaration;
• the customs authority was not provided with missing information by changing (supplementing) the information declared in the customs declaration, or the customs authority was not notified of the absence of the need to make such changes (additions);
• failure to comply with the specifics of periodic declaration, concerning violations of the special procedure for regular deliveries. Thus, in periodic customs declaration, a goods declaration is filed for all goods that will move across the customs border in two or more batches during the delivery period to fulfill obligations under one transaction. The goods declaration is filed before the start of the declared delivery period. The delivery period means the period declared by the declarant, which does not exceed 31 calendar days and during which it is planned to present the imported goods to the customs authority or ship goods exported from the customs territory (Article 116 of the EAEU Customs Code);
• failure to present goods upon the request of the customs authority, which is a formal ground that can be applied even if all necessary documents are present;
• failure to resume the period for the release of goods due to the expiration of established terms without the declarant taking measures to extend them;
• failure to fulfill the requirements of Article 325 of the EAEU Customs Code. Requested documents confirming information declared in the customs declaration must be submitted by the declarant before the expiration of the term established for the release of goods;
• failure to categorize goods as goods for personal use. The customs authority categorizes goods as goods for personal use based on a physical person's statement about such goods in oral or written form using a passenger customs declaration; the nature and quantity of the goods, as well as the frequency of the physical person crossing the customs border and (or) moving goods across the customs border by this physical person or to their address (paragraph 4 of Article 256 of the EAEU Customs Code);
• detection during customs control of violations of international treaties and acts in the field of customs regulation and (or) the legislation of member states, except for cases where the detected violations were eliminated and are not grounds for initiating an administrative or criminal case, or the detected violations were eliminated, the declared goods were not seized, and no arrest was placed on them in accordance with the legislation of the member states.

According to paragraph 2 of Article 125 of the EAEU Customs Code, the legislation of member states may provide for an additional ground – the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against the declarant. However, at present, this ground is not provided for by Russian legislation or the legislation of other EAEU member states.

How Is a Customs Refusal to Release Goods Formalized and What Should It Contain?

In accordance with Article 110 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ dated August 3, 2018, On Customs Regulation in the Russian Federation and On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation (the "Customs Regulation Law" or "Law No. 289-FZ"), a refusal to release goods is formalized using an information system by generating an electronic document or by placing corresponding marks on a paper customs declaration or on an application for the release of goods before filing a goods declaration submitted in paper form.

When formalizing a refusal to release goods, all reasons that served as the basis for such refusal must be indicated, as well as recommendations for their elimination, if provided for by the legislation of the member states.

Customs operations related to the refusal to release goods are performed by the customs authority before the expiration of the release period. A refusal to release goods must contain the following information:

• the registration number of the corresponding customs document in the customs authority;
• the code of the decision to refuse the release of goods in accordance with the classifier of decisions made by customs authorities;
• the date in dd.mm.yy format (day, month, last two digits of the calendar year) and the time of the refusal to release goods;
• the reasons that served as the basis for the refusal to release goods, and recommendations for their elimination.[1]

It should be noted that the decision to refuse release must contain precisely the reasons that served as the basis for making such a decision.

In Case No. А40-223689/2024, the customs authority's contested decision justifying the refusal to release goods for all declarations stated "subparagraph 9 of paragraph 1 of Article 125 of the EAEU Customs Code, Article 83 of the EAEU Customs Code". The courts noted that "it is impossible to determine from this indication exactly which violations of customs legislation were committed by the company, which deprives it of the opportunity to eliminate the committed violations. Subparagraph 9 of paragraph 1 of Article 125 of the EAEU Customs Code states that the customs authority refuses to release goods in case of detection of violations of international treaties and acts in the field of customs regulation and (or) legislation of member states during customs control. However, when refusing to release goods, customs officials do not specify which specific regulations the company violated. A reference to Article 83 of the EAEU Customs Code without specifying a particular paragraph does not allow for determining which specific condition defined by this article was not met".[2]

If a decision to refuse the release of goods is recognized as unlawful, then upon repeated customs declaration, at the declarant's request, the customs duty rates, taxes, the official foreign currency exchange rate against the Russian ruble established by the Bank of Russia, and the restrictions that were in effect on the day of registration of the initial goods declaration shall apply. The declarant shall draft this application in free form. If the decision to refuse release is recognized as unlawful after the registration of a repeatedly filed goods declaration or after the release of goods in accordance with such a declaration, the application is submitted to the customs authority together with an appeal filed by the declarant to amend the information declared repeatedly in the goods declaration (paragraph 5 of Article 110 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ).

It is important to note that according to part 3 of Article 45 of the Customs Regulation Law, in the event of a decision to refuse the release of goods in accordance with the declared customs procedure or in the event of the customs authority's annulment of the release of goods, customs fees for customs operations are not refunded, except for cases where the customs authority's decision to refuse release is recognized as unlawful.

How to File a Complaint Against a Customs Refusal to Release Goods?

The procedure for appealing decisions, actions (omissions) of a customs authority and its officials is regulated by Chapter 51 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ.

A complaint is filed with the superior customs authority through the customs authority whose decision, action (omission) is being appealed. A complaint against a decision, action (omission) of a customs post is filed with the customs house. The customs authority whose decision, action (omission) is being appealed forwards the complaint with a conclusion and documents necessary for making a decision to the superior customs authority no later than 5 working days after the day of its receipt (Article 288 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ).

A complaint may be filed within 3 months:

• from the day when the person became aware or should have become aware of the violation of their rights, freedoms, or legitimate interests, the creation of obstacles to their realization, or the unlawful imposition of any obligation on them;
• from the day of expiration of the period for the customs authority to make a decision or perform an action.

The term for appealing an action (omission) may be restored upon the applicant's motion if the customs authority recognizes the reason for such omission as valid. A motion for the restoration of the term is submitted in writing as an independent document simultaneously with the complaint, or it may be contained in the text of the complaint. Documents confirming the reasons for missing the appeal deadline are provided with such a motion. The restoration of the missed appeal deadline is expressed in the customs authority's actual acceptance of the complaint for consideration on the merits (Article 289 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ).

The complaint is submitted to the customs authority in written or electronic form and must contain (Article 290 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ):

• the name of the customs authority whose decision, action (omission) is being appealed;
• the surname, first name, and patronymic (if any), place of residence of the individual, or the name of the legal entity filing the complaint, tax identification number, and its location;
• the essence of the appealed decision, action (omission);
• the grounds on which the person filing the complaint believes that their rights have been violated.

The complaint must be considered by the superior customs authority within 1 month from the day of its receipt by the customs authority authorized to consider the complaint. The period for considering the complaint may be extended by the head of this customs authority or an authorized official, but for no more than 1 month (Article 297 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ).

The customs authority's decision on the complaint must contain (Article 298 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ):

• the name of the customs authority that considered the complaint;
• the decision number;
• the date and place the decision was drafted;
• the position, surname, and initials of the customs official who made the decision on the complaint, and details of the document confirming their authority to consider the complaint (except for the head of the customs authority);
• the surname, first name, and patronymic (if any) or the name of the person who filed the complaint;
• the essence of the complaint, including information about the customs authority whose decision, action (omission) is being appealed;
• the actual circumstances of making or performing the appealed decision, action (omission) established during the consideration of the complaint;
• the grounds and conclusions for making the decision on the complaint;
• the decision made on the complaint;
• information on the procedure for appealing the decision made on the complaint.

Based on the results of considering the complaint, the customs authority either (a) recognizes the appealed decision, action (omission) of the customs authority as lawful and refuses to satisfy the complaint, or (b) recognizes the appealed decision, action (omission) of the customs authority as unlawful in whole or in part and makes a decision to satisfy the complaint in whole or in part.

A copy of the decision made based on the results of the complaint consideration is sent to the applicant by registered mail within 3 working days after the decision is made. The said decision may be sent to the applicant as an electronic document.

If the pre-trial procedure did not yield results, the Foreign Trade Participant is entitled to apply to an arbitration court. Jurisdiction is determined by the location of the customs authority that made the contested decision or allowed the omission.

Such an application will be considered in accordance with Chapter 24 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (the "APC RF"). Paragraph 4 of Article 198 of the APC RF provides for a three-month period for filing the application. This period is calculated from the day when the violation became known. A deadline missed for a valid reason may be restored by the court.

Refusal to Release Goods in Case of Problems with Certificates and Declarations of Conformity

According to Article 29 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ dated December 27, 2002, On Technical Regulation (the "Technical Regulation Law"), the import of products subject to mandatory confirmation of conformity is allowed only with documents confirming such conformity – a certificate of conformity or a declaration of conformity. The absence of these documents is an absolute ground for refusing to release goods.

Documents confirming conformity, conformity marks, and reports of research (tests) and measurements of products obtained outside the territory of the Russian Federation may be recognized in accordance with the international treaties of the Russian Federation (Article 30 of the Technical Regulation Law). Currently, such a treaty has been concluded only with the Republic of Belarus among EAEU countries.[3]

Compliance with technical regulation measures regarding imported (imported) products is confirmed in the following cases:

• the imported (imported) products are included in the lists of products subject to mandatory assessment of compliance with the requirements of technical regulations, for which compliance with technical regulation measures is confirmed when placed under customs procedures, as approved by the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission (the "EEC"). To date, the EEC has adopted 42 decisions defining such lists. The documents confirming compliance with technical regulation measures for such products are:
  • a certificate of conformity with the requirements of technical regulations;
  • a declaration of conformity with the requirements of technical regulations;
  • a certificate of classification of a small craft;
  • a certificate of registration (state registration);
  • a vehicle type approval (chassis type approval) or another document provided for by the technical regulation;
• the imported (imported) products are included in the Unified List of Products for which mandatory requirements are established, approved by Decision of the Customs Union Commission No. 526 dated January 28, 2011, and mandatory requirements regarding conformity assessment are established for these products in accordance with the legislation of the EAEU member states. Documents confirming compliance with technical regulation measures for such products are a conformity assessment document provided for by the legislation of the member state on whose territory the products are placed under customs procedures, or a certificate of conformity or declaration of conformity formalized according to a unified form for products included in the relevant list.[4]

In Case No. А40-54096/2024 regarding the recognition of a customs authority's decision to refuse the release of goods as invalid, such refusal was motivated by the declarant's failure to fulfill the obligation to submit a vehicle type approval in which the declarant is named as the applicant.

Type approval is a special form of product conformity assessment established by TR CU 018/2011 On the Safety of Wheeled Vehicles, which differs from other forms (state registration, confirmation of conformity). In accordance with paragraph 25 of this technical regulation, a manufacturer who is not a resident of an EAEU member state appoints a representative in each member state who bears joint responsibility with the manufacturer for ensuring that products placed into circulation and having passed type approval comply with the requirements of the technical regulation. All manufacturer representatives are indicated in the vehicle type approval (chassis type approval). The applicant during the type approval of vehicles (chassis) imported into the unified customs territory of the EAEU may be one of the above-mentioned representatives of the foreign manufacturer, authorized by the manufacturer to conduct an assessment of their products' compliance with the requirements of TR CU 018/2011. [5]

Confirmation of compliance with technical regulation measures is not required regarding imported (imported) products if such products are:

• product samples (probes) imported (imported) for conducting research (tests) and measurements, provided the declarant has a contract with a conformity assessment body or a letter from such a body confirming the necessary quantity of imported product samples (probes) for these purposes;
• product samples (probes) imported (imported) for conducting interlaboratory comparative tests (interlaboratory comparisons), verification or calibration of measuring instruments, or comparison of standards, provided the declarant has a corresponding contract;
• product samples (standard samples, specimens) imported (imported) in the quantity, weight, or volume provided for by the transaction;
• product samples (specimens) imported (imported) in the quantity, weight, or volume provided for by the transaction, and will be used for representative purposes as souvenirs or advertising materials;
• spare parts imported (imported) by a person authorized by a foreign manufacturer of finished products for the maintenance and (or) repair of previously imported or imported finished products by the said person, provided that conformity assessment documents for the finished products requiring maintenance and (or) repair (including those with an expired validity period) and (or) information about such documents are submitted to the customs authority;
• components, parts, raw materials, and (or) materials for the production (manufacture) of products imported (imported) for the production (manufacture) of products exclusively for the declarant's purposes, provided the declarant has a document confirming the transaction;
• goods imported (imported) to the address of diplomatic missions and consular offices located in the EAEU territory, representations of states to international organizations, or international organizations or their representations, provided they submit a motivated appeal to the customs authority regarding the consumption (use) of these goods exclusively by such representations, offices, or organizations;
• humanitarian and technical assistance imported (imported) in the manner established by the member state's legislation, if provided for by the legislation of that member state;
• goods necessary for eliminating the consequences of natural disasters or natural and man-made emergencies;
• used products (unless otherwise established by the technical regulation);
• a separate specimen of a piece product or a combination of elements of a piece product specimen possessing compatibility and having a single purpose for manufacturing a single specimen from them, which are imported (imported) in accordance with a transaction and will be used for needs excluding their distribution on the customs territory during commercial activities on a free or paid basis.[6]

EEC Board Decision No. 293 dated December 25, 2012 (the "EEC Decision") established a unified form for the certificate of conformity and declaration of conformity and rules for their formalization.

We note that the customs authority may recognize certain discrepancies in a certificate or declaration during their formalization as a violation of technical regulation requirements and, accordingly, refuse to release goods.

Thus, in Case No. А40-227904/2020, the customs authority issued an order to terminate the validity of declarations of conformity because grain safety declarations contained unreliable information about the place of activity for the manufacture of products. The courts concluded that the order was illegal in this part, "since indicating the address of a separate subdivision not registered as a branch cannot be qualified as a violation of legislative requirements, as the company is obliged to indicate the place of activity for the manufacture of products in the declaration, which was done by the applicant in this case".[7]

Government Decree No. 2425 dated December 23, 2021, approved a unified list of products subject to mandatory certification and products subject to declaration of conformity.

Meanwhile, during control, the customs authority may consider that for imported goods, it is necessary to provide documents confirming their compliance with technical regulation requirements.

In Case No. А56-39239/2023 regarding the recognition of a customs authority's decision to refuse the release of goods as illegal and the recovery of damages, the refusal was motivated by the failure to provide such documents for the imported goods "electric hanging and wall lamps".

The courts established that for the imported goods, the submission of documents certifying the confirmation of compliance with TR CU 020/2011 Electromagnetic Compatibility of Technical Equipment was not required, and therefore concluded that the customs authority's refusal to release the goods was illegal. Having established the fact that the customs requirement was unfounded and based on proof of a causal link between the customs authority's actions and the incurred damages, the courts satisfied the claim for recovery of damages.[8]

In practice, Foreign Trade Participants quite often have to prove that the products they import are not subject to mandatory confirmation of conformity. A declarant applies to certification bodies for certification work but receives a motivated response that the given products are not subject to mandatory confirmation of conformity. The Foreign Trade Participant attaches this letter to the declaration during customs clearance. The customs authority, in turn, may disagree that the imported and declared goods are not subject to mandatory certification, which leads to negative consequences for the declarant. In such a case, the Foreign Trade Participant faces a refusal to release goods and the imposition of administrative liability.

In Case No. А33-16864/2023, upon a customs authority's request, the declarant submitted a letter from a conformity confirmation center stating that the imported products were not included in the product lists approved by Government Decree No. 2425 dated December 23, 2021, and were not included in the list of technical regulation objects subject to confirmation of compliance with EAEU technical regulation requirements. The customs authority, establishing that the center lacked mandatory accreditation, repeatedly requested a conformity assessment document for the imported goods, refused to release the goods, and imposed administrative liability on the declarant.

Satisfying the claim to recognize the resolution on the appointment of administrative punishment as illegal, the courts proceeded from the customs authority's failure to prove the existence of an administrative offense in the company's actions. The courts also established that "the customs authority did not provide absolute evidence of the objective side of the imputed administrative offense in the company's actions, as well as the company's guilt in its commission (taking into account the certification body's refusal to conduct certification of these products)".[9]

The simplified procedure for confirming the conformity of imported products was extended until September 1, 2026, allowing in certain cases for the acceptance of declarations of conformity based on the applicant's own evidence without testing in an accredited laboratory. Thus, it is permissible not to submit documents on conformity assessment with mandatory requirements (information about such documents) to customs authorities for products that are:

• spare parts imported for the maintenance and (or) repair of previously released finished products on Russian territory. For example, parts intended for replacing (repairing) worn, faulty, or failed identical parts without the purpose of their distribution on Russian territory;
• components, parts, raw materials, and (or) materials for the production (manufacture) of products on Russian territory;
• single specimens in the quantity provided for by one foreign trade contract exclusively for the declarant's own use (including for research or representative purposes excluding its distribution during commercial activities on a free or paid basis).[10]

Compliance with technical regulation measures when importing products subject to mandatory conformity assessment is confirmed by submitting information about documents on conformity assessment with mandatory requirements to customs authorities without the need to submit the originals of such documents.

When importing products for which certificates of conformity and (or) declarations of conformity with mandatory requirements for mass-produced products have been issued (registered), the declarant is not required to confirm the right to use such documents to the customs authorities.

Also, until September 1, 2026, it is permissible to import products into Russia intended for circulation exclusively on Russian territory without the labeling provided for by mandatory requirements, including labeling with the unified product circulation mark on the EAEU market. This labeling must be applied to the imported products before such products are sold to the consumer (user).[11]

Please note that on October 1, 2026, Federal Law No. 289-FZ dated July 31, 2025, On Certain Issues of Regulating the Platform Economy in the Russian Federation comes into force, according to which a product card on a marketplace must contain a link to the register of declarations of conformity or certificates of conformity (Article 7).

These changes create additional risks for importers, requiring a more thorough check of conformity documents and their compliance with the new requirements.

From January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2029, inclusive, to confirm the origin of goods, an electronic or paper copy of the certificate of origin may be submitted, provided that the original of the said certificate is obligatorily submitted later, within a period of no more than 6 months from the date of registration of the goods declaration.[12]

At the same time, the declarant states in the goods declaration information about the obligation to submit the original certificate of origin within the specified period.[13]

Parallel Import and Its Specifics in the Context of Customs Refusal to Release Goods

As a reminder, parallel import is the import of original goods placed into civil circulation on the territory of a foreign state by the right holder or with their consent, without the right holder's permission on the territory of the importing country. Parallel import was legalized in Russia in 2022 as a response to sanctions. The goal is to provide the domestic market with high-demand goods, eliminate shortages, and stabilize prices under external restrictions.

Ministry of Industry and Trade Order No. 2701 dated July 21, 2023, approved a list of goods (product groups) to which the provisions of Articles 1252, 1254, paragraph 5 of Article 1286.1, Articles 1301, 1311, 1406.1, subparagraph 1 of Article 1446, Articles 1472, 1515, and 1537 of the Civil Code do not apply, provided that these goods (product groups) were placed into circulation outside Russian territory by right holders (patent holders) or with their consent.

Thus, the key condition for applying the list of goods allowed for parallel import is the placement of the goods provided therein into circulation outside Russian territory by right holders or with their consent.

Customs authorities may refuse to release goods if:

• the product is not included in the Ministry of Industry and Trade list;
• there are signs of counterfeit (forgery);
• the necessary documents confirming the legality of the product's origin (contracts, invoices, certificates of conformity, etc.) are not provided.

For example, in Case No. А22-3320/2025, the courts refused to satisfy a claim for the recovery of compensation for the violation of exclusive rights to an international trademark, stating that the products named in the lawsuit were authentic products (goods), did not possess signs of counterfeit, were legally placed into circulation outside the Russian Federation by authorized suppliers, and were included in the Ministry of Industry and Trade list. The courts found no evidence in the case materials regarding the sale of non-original products.[14]

In Case No. А40-266261/2024, during the customs clearance of vehicles, the applicant was refused import because they did not provide a vehicle type approval. Guided by Government Decree No. 855 dated May 12, 2022, On Approval of the Rules for Applying Mandatory Requirements Regarding Individual Wheeled Vehicles and Conducting Their Conformity Assessment, the courts recognized the customs authority's decision as illegal and violating the applicant's rights in the business sphere. At the same time, the courts proceeded from the fact that the imported "cars are single vehicles, included in the Ministry of Industry and Trade list, and therefore, the submission of a vehicle type approval was not required".[15]

To minimize risks of refusal to release goods during parallel import, we recommend the following:

• thorough preparation of documents. A full set of documents confirming the legality of the product's origin should be collected;
• verification of Ministry of Industry and Trade lists. It is necessary to ensure that the product is included in the current list and that its TN VED code corresponds to the one indicated in the list;
• compliance with labeling requirements. If the product is subject to labeling, ensure its presence and the correctness of the application of control identification codes;
• control over product safety;
• avoiding counterfeit products.

Case Law on Challenging Refusals to Release Goods

An analysis of court decisions over recent years reveals a trend toward strict assessment of technical regulation documents.

In cases where declarants submit invalid documents on compliance with technical regulation measures (certificates of conformity, declarations of conformity) to the customs authority during declaration, customs authorities' refusals to release goods based on subparagraph 1 of paragraph 1 of Article 125 of the EAEU Customs Code are recognized as lawful by courts.

A number of cases concern customs authorities' refusals to release goods due to the non-compliance of product labeling with the requirements of relevant technical regulations.

Thus, within Case No. А56-29029/2021, a declarant challenged a customs refusal to release goods due to the products' non-compliance with the requirements of Technical Regulation of the Customs Union TR CU 022/2011 Food Products in Terms of Their Labeling and Technical Regulation of the Customs Union TR CU 021/2011 On Food Safety, since the "fresh pineapples" were labeled with a manufacturing date of 02.11.2020 and an expiration date of 02.02.2020, which expired before the manufacturing date.

The courts of first and appellate instances in the named cases considered that the declarants committed a violation of technical regulation requirements. Meanwhile, the court of cassation disagreed with this conclusion because "together with the declarations, the foreign trade participants submitted valid declarations of conformity to customs regarding the imported pineapples, which contained information on the compliance of the declared goods with the requirements of TR CU 021/2011 and TR CU 022/2011. Customs did not claim that these declarations of conformity could not be correlated with the imported goods. The discrepancy in the product labeling on its packaging could not be a basis for refusing to release the goods, taking into account the declarant's submission of a valid declaration of conformity confirming the product's compliance with technical regulation requirements and, as a result, compliance with prohibitions and restrictions".

Given the stated factual circumstances, the circuit court recognized that customs lacked legal grounds for making the contested decisions to refuse release and therefore overturned the court acts adopted in the named cases and satisfied the stated claims, recognizing the customs authority's decisions as illegal. [16]

In Case No. А51-9116/2023, the customs authority refused to release goods because the information specified about the labeling of the disputed goods and in the submitted certificate of conformity differed regarding the manufacturer. On the packaging (cardboard box) in which the goods were placed, there was an inscription stating that the manufacturer was one company, while in the technical documentation for the goods, as well as directly on the goods, a manufacturer other than the one specified in the declarations was indicated. Thus, the courts concluded that the declarant failed to fulfill the requirements of TR CU 007/2011 On the Safety of Products Intended for Children and Adolescents, as the submitted certificate of conformity could not extend to the disputed goods. Furthermore, the courts specified that "the company's assertion that the customs authority, in order to verify the disputed certificate of conformity, needed to send a corresponding request to the body that issued the certificate, is subject to rejection, as the declarant is obliged to perform the customs declaration of goods".[17]

Please note that when importing goods, a declarant is obliged to comply not only with the provisions of the EAEU Customs Code and Federal Law No. 184-FZ dated December 27, 2002, On Technical Regulation, but also with the provisions of the relevant technical regulations, which establish other mandatory conditions for import, including product labeling requirements.

When violations of customs legislation are committed during declaration that can be eliminated by amending the customs declaration, and upon their elimination such violations will not be grounds for refusing release, the customs authority is entitled to demand that the declarant make the corresponding amendments. The declarant's failure to fulfill the customs authority's requirements for changing (supplementing) information declared in the customs declaration is a ground for refusing to release goods.

Case No. А56-4446/2021 concerned a situation where, when declaring the product "steel road wheels assembled with tires" originating from the People's Republic of China, the declarant indicated information about tire control identification marks in column 31 of the customs declaration for the purpose of transmitting said information to the information monitoring system (the "Chestny ZNAK" system) and confirming the placement of imported tires into circulation in the established manner.

The customs authority believed that when declaring wheels assembled with tires, the declarant had no grounds to specify product labeling codes provided for tires under number 13 in column 31 of the declaration. A requirement was sent to the declarant to exclude the information on control identification marks specified under number 13 in column 31 of the goods declaration. Since the declarant did not fulfill the said requirement, the customs authority made a decision to refuse the release of goods. The courts, "establishing that under the disputed goods declaration the company imported a product consisting of a rim and a tire intended for use on trucks, and noting the absence of a prohibition on specifying identification codes of components in the goods declaration, recognized as possible the indication in column 31 of the goods declaration under number 13 information on tire labeling codes that are a component of the steel road wheel assembly. The company's indication of the disputed information in column 31 of the goods declaration under number 13 rather than number 1 does not indicate a violation of the Procedure's provisions. [18] In view of the foregoing, the courts recognized the contested requirement and decision of Customs as invalid".[19]

Failure to present goods upon the customs authority's request within the established release periods may serve as a ground for refusing to release goods.

Within Case No. А21-11524/2020, a declarant filed an electronic goods declaration for "fresh plant parts, flowers, and buds for bouquets, fresh cut flowers" at a customs post.

The customs authority decided on the need to conduct a customs inspection of the declared goods and sent the declarant a notice of customs inspection and a requirement to present the goods at a temporary storage warehouse. The declarant notified the customs post of the "impossibility of conducting a customs inspection in a closed temporary storage warehouse facility, on the ramp, and in a refrigerated container due to the failure to maintain the required temperature regime at the temporary storage warehouse and the possible spoilage of the goods, stating that the temperature regime for storing and transporting the goods (flowers) must not exceed +4 °C". Due to the failure to present the goods upon the customs authority's request, the customs post made a decision to refuse the release of goods.

The courts of first and appellate instances recognized the customs authority's decision as illegal because customs had information about the need to ensure a special temperature regime for the inspection but did not extend the period for conducting the customs inspection for the time necessary to ensure the possibility of conducting the inspection with compliance with the necessary conditions.

Meanwhile, the court of cassation took into account that "the declarant and the temporary storage warehouse company sent a notice to the customs post about the impossibility of fulfilling the customs authority's requirement to conduct cargo operations due to weather conditions and the presence of special requirements for product storage conditions (refrigeration equipment: refrigeration chambers, refrigerators). The case materials do not contain evidence of the declarant's request to move the goods to another place having sufficient equipment for conducting a customs inspection. The company did not apply to Customs with a request to extend the period for fulfilling the customs authority's requirement. The notice sent by the company to the customs authority about the impossibility of fulfilling the requirement to conduct cargo operations did not contain statements about extending the period for fulfilling the requirement". Accordingly, since the goods were not presented to the customs authority within the established terms, the legal requirement of customs to present the goods was not fulfilled by the company, and the declarant did not comply with the necessary requirements and conditions for placing the goods under the chosen customs procedure, there were no grounds for releasing the goods.[20]

Thus, interaction between the declarant and the customs authority is an important factor. Declarants must take adequate and reasonable measures to fulfill the legal requirements of customs authorities.

Distribution of Risks During the Release of Goods Between Foreign Trade Participants (Importer, Supplier, Customs Broker)

A declarant is a person who declares goods or in whose name goods are declared.

As a declarant, the importer bears primary responsibility for:

• the accuracy of information declared in the goods declaration;
• the authenticity and compliance of the submitted documents;
• the payment of customs duties;
• compliance with prohibitions and restrictions.

The declarant bears responsibility for non-fulfillment of obligations provided for by customs legislation.

A customs representative is a legal entity included in the register of customs representatives, performing customs operations on behalf and by the instruction of a declarant or another interested person.

• the customs broker acts on behalf and by the instruction of the declarant but bears independent responsibility for the correctness of performing customs operations;
• for the accuracy of information submitted to the customs authority;
• for the payment of customs duties, if such an obligation is provided for by the contract.

The customs representative's obligations do not include compliance with the conditions for using goods in accordance with customs procedures and other obligations that, in accordance with international treaties and acts in the field of customs regulation, are imposed only on the persons they represent.

In the event of performing customs operations by a customs representative on behalf of a declarant, the customs representative bears joint and several liability with such declarant for the payment of customs duties, taxes, special, antidumping, and countervailing duties in the full amount of the obligation to be fulfilled.

In Case No. А56-80465/2024, the courts stated that "since the obligation to pay customs duties is imposed precisely on the declarant, the customs representative who fulfilled the said obligation, as a joint and several debtor, has the right of a recourse claim against the defendant in the amount of the paid customs duties".[21]

Risks associated with the supplier include:

• the provision of invalid or forged certificates of conformity;
• the goods' non-compliance with declared characteristics;
• the violation of delivery terms, affecting customs clearance periods.

In a contract with a foreign supplier, the following should be specified:

• the supplier's guarantees regarding the authenticity and validity of provided documents;
• penalties for providing unreliable documents;
• a condition on the importer's right to compensation for damages caused by the unreliability of documents.

Minimization of Risks of Customs Refusals to Release Goods

Based on an analysis of legislation and case law, the following recommendations for importers can be formulated:

• thoroughly checking the product for compliance with technical regulations before concluding a contract;
• verifying authorization documents through Rosakkreditatsiya registers and other official sources;
• including guarantees in contracts with suppliers regarding the authenticity and validity of provided documents;
• checking formal requirements for certificates and declarations (details, stamps, signatures, validity periods);
• timely responding to customs authorities' requests and orders;
• conducting correspondence in writing with records of all interactions;
• collecting evidence of good faith at all stages of the foreign trade operation.

Customs authorities' refusal to release goods remains one of the most serious risks for importers. To minimize risks, importers should carefully prepare documents taking into account all formal requirements. Successful work for an importer requires not only knowledge of regulatory requirements but also the ability to build relationships with customs authorities and respond promptly to changes in regulation.

_________________________

References

[1] EEC Board Decision No. 188 dated December 19, 2017, On Certain Issues Related to the Release of Goods.

[2] Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeals dated May 23, 2025, in Case No. А40-223689/2024.

[3] Protocol between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Belarus dated February 12, 1999, On Approval of the Procedure for Mutual Recognition of Licenses, Certificates, and Permits for the Import and/or Export of Goods.

[4] Customs Union Commission Decision No. 620 dated April 7, 2011, On the Unified List of Products Subject to Mandatory Confirmation of Conformity with the Issuance of Certificates of Conformity and Declarations of Conformity According to a Unified Form.

[5] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated May 26, 2025, in Case No. А40-54096/2024.

[6] Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission Decision No. 130 dated November 12, 2021, On the Procedure for Importing Products Subject to Mandatory Conformity Assessment on the Customs Territory of the Eurasian Economic Union into the Customs Territory of the Eurasian Economic Union.

[7] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated December 1, 2021, in Case No. А40-227904/2020.

[8] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District dated February 1, 2024, in Case No. А56-39239/2023.

[9] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District dated April 9, 2024, in Case No. А33-16864/2023.

[10] Government Decree No. 353 dated March 12, 2022, On the Specifics of Permitting Activities in the Russian Federation.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission Decision No. 85 dated May 19, 2022, On Using Copies of Certificates of Origin for the Purpose of Providing Tariff Preferences.

[13] Customs Union Commission Decision No. 257 dated May 20, 2010, On the Form of the Goods Declaration and the Procedure for Its Completion.

[14] Resolution of the Sixteenth Arbitration Court of Appeals dated February 9, 2026, in Case No. А22-3320/2025.

[15] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated October 14, 2025, No. А40-266261/2024.

[16] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District dated July 6, 2022, in Case No. А56-29029/2021.

[17] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District dated September 10, 2024, in Case No. А51-9116/2023.

[18] Customs Union Commission Decision No. 257 dated May 20, 2010, On the Form of the Goods Declaration and the Procedure for Its Completion.

[19] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District dated January 14, 2022, in Case No. А56-4446/2021.

[20] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District dated January 14, 2022, in Case No. А21-11524/2020.

[21] Resolution of the Thirteenth Arbitration Court of Appeals dated November 5, 2025, in Case No. А56-80465/2024.