Challenging Electronic Customs Decisions in Russia: CED Appeals and Litigation Strategies

September 22, 2026

BRACE Law Firm©

Customs authorities constitute a unified federal centralized system.[1] Since early 2012, the Federal Customs Service of Russia (FCS of Russia) has prioritized implementing remote goods release, transitioning goods declaration to an electronic format using automated customs processes at Electronic Declaration Centers (the "CEDs"). These centers operate as customs posts that perform customs operations related to registering declarations for goods and releasing goods electronically, without the physical submission of documents and goods.

As a general rule, the CEDs have the authority to register declarations for goods in the form of an electronic document.[2] They operate both within the structure of electronic customs (for example, the Central Customs Post (CED) of the Central Electronic Customs) and within the structure of other customs (for example, the Aviation Customs Post (CED) of the Sheremetyevo Customs). The CEDs register and review declarations, while the customs posts of actual control physically inspect the cargo within their operational regions.

The implementation and development of the CEDs eliminated the territorial link of the declarant and the goods to the nearest customs post. This transformation allows stakeholders to:

Facilitate interaction between the declarant and the customs inspector regardless of the distance between them;
Place goods at any chosen border terminals;
Transfer goods to any internal customs post by applying the customs transit procedure.

We will analyze the primary types of disputes with electronic customs, including disputes over the refusal to register a declaration and accept CED documents, as well as registration delays caused by technical failures in the customs authorities' information systems.

Strategies for Administrative and Judicial Defense of Declarant Interests in Electronic Customs Disputes

Chapter 51, Appealing Decisions, Actions (Inaction) of Customs Authorities and Their Officials, of Federal Law No. 289-FZ dated August 3, 2018, On Customs Regulation in the Russian Federation and on Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation (the "Law No. 289-FZ") establishes the procedure for appealing decisions, actions (inaction) of Russian customs authorities and their officials. The procedure defined by this chapter of the Law No. 289-FZ does not apply to appealing decisions of customs authorities and their officials on administrative offenses, as well as other decisions, actions (inaction) of customs authorities and their officials subject to a special appeal procedure.[3]

Stakeholders may appeal decisions, actions (inaction) of customs authorities and their officials to customs authorities and (or) to court.[4] Filing a complaint against a decision, action (inaction) of a customs authority and its official with customs authorities does not preclude the simultaneous or subsequent filing of a similar complaint in court. However, if the appealed decision (action) is already subject to judicial review, the customs authority will refuse to consider the complaint on the merits.[5]

The following parameters of departmental appeal are essential for disputes with electronic customs:

Submitting a complaint against a decision, action (inaction) of a customs post, including a CED, to the customs office through the customs post itself;
Observing the 3-month deadline for filing a complaint from the day the person became aware or should have become aware of the violation of their rights;
Anticipating a 1-month review period for the complaint, which the authority may extend by no more than 1 month;
Filing the complaint as an electronic document (with an enhanced qualified electronic signature for a legal entity).

As a general rule, filing a complaint does not suspend the execution of the appealed decision. Exceptions include decisions aimed at recovering customs payments upon the provision of security. The law establishes a 3-month deadline for judicial appeals.[6]

Stakeholders must also consider territorial jurisdiction. According to the general rule of Article 35 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (APC RF), the arbitration court at the location of the respective customs office hears applications to challenge decisions of electronic customs. This location may not coincide with either the declarant's location or the location of the goods. For instance, the Arbitration Court of the Belgorod Region initially initiated case No. A40-214476/2023, but subsequently transferred it to the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow.[7]

The most common disputes with electronic customs include:

Challenging the refusal to register a declaration and accept documents by the CED;
Litigating customs value adjustments (the "CVA");
Disputing goods classification under the Commodity Nomenclature of Foreign Economic Activity (TN VED);
Determining the country of origin of goods;
Handling administrative offense cases, primarily under Article 16.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (CAO RF) (non-declaration or false declaration of goods).

At the same time, disputes with electronic customs have a specific nature tied to electronic document flow, as interaction with customs occurs electronically. The submission of documents, responses to requests, and provision of records take place through the declarant's (customs representative's) software interacting with the customs authorities' information system, and (or) through the foreign trade participant's personal account. Such electronic documents serve as the evidentiary basis in disputes with customs.

Refusal to Register Declarations and Accept CED Documents: Litigation Landscape

The interaction between the CED and actual control customs posts during customs operations required for the import (export) of goods involves several steps.

After the goods cross the customs border, they are placed in a temporary storage warehouse (the "TSW") or in an adjacent customs control zone, following which:

The warehouse dispatcher processes the necessary reporting documentation;
The staff transfers the document package to the actual control customs post;
The declarant submits an electronic declaration for goods (the "EDG") to the customs authorities' information system;
The system automatically distributes the EDG in accordance with the customs authorities' jurisdiction and routes it to the appropriate CED.

Subsequently, the authorized CED official receives the EDG electronically and verifies compliance with the conditions for registering the declaration by analyzing the data specified in the EDG. To verify whether the goods are physically located at the TSW, the system sends an electronic request to the actual control customs post (within whose operational region the warehouse is located). In practice, software generates this request automatically (for example, in case No. A40-32032/2022, just 11 seconds after the declaration submission).[8]

Upon receiving the request from the CED, the official at the actual control post:

Acknowledges receipt of the request;
Confirms whether the goods are placed in the temporary storage warehouse;
Transmits the response to the CED.

If the goods are absent from the warehouse, the actual control post notifies the CED, prompting the CED official to refuse the EDG registration and send an authorized refusal message to the declarant. The actual control post's response includes the remark: "The specified goods are absent".[9] Note that paragraph 5 of Article 111 of the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union (the "CC EAEU") lists the grounds for refusing to register a customs declaration, and the customs authority must specify all underlying reasons when issuing a refusal.[10]

Thus, in case No. A40-32032/2022, the appellate court noted that "the ground for refusing to register the declaration was the response provided by the customs authority from the Vladivostok Sea Port customs post, according to which no goods were found in the monitored TSWs or other temporary storage places. Rejecting the applicant's inaccurate argument regarding the submission of an inspection report during customs declaration, the trial court reasonably noted that the submitted document inventory listed the inspection report, but according to the AIST software screenshot provided by customs, the Company did not actually submit these documents during the customs declaration process".[11] Notably, the authorities issued the refusal referencing only paragraph 5 of Article 111 of the CC EAEU without specifying a concrete ground, yet the courts upheld its legality because the absence of goods at the TSW was confirmed.

If the system confirms the placement of goods, it automatically initiates the format and logic control of the EDG. Upon successful completion of the check, the declaration receives a registration number. In some cases, the customs authorities' information system executes the registration automatically, without the involvement of officials.[12]

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 111 of the CC EAEU, the customs authority performs operations to register a customs declaration or refuse its registration no later than 1 hour of the customs authority's working time from the moment the customs declaration is filed. Under paragraph 1 of Article 119 of the CC EAEU, the customs authority must complete release operations within 4 hours from the declaration's registration (in case of preliminary customs declaration, from the occurrence of the circumstances specified in paragraph 2 of Article 119 of the CC EAEU). If the declaration is registered less than 4 hours before the end of the customs authority's working hours, the authority must complete operations within 4 hours from the start of the authority's next working day. However, if the customs authority requests documents confirming the information declared in the customs declaration, decides to conduct customs control, or if the declarant submits a reasoned request to amend the EDG data, or fails to fulfill a customs authority requirement for such an amendment, the release of goods must be completed no later than 1 business day following the day of the customs declaration registration (paragraph 3 of Article 119 of the CC EAEU). The authority may extend this period to conduct customs control, but as a general rule, the release must be completed no later than 10 business days from the day following the declaration registration day (paragraphs 4–6 of Article 119 of the CC EAEU). When conducting a document and information review or a customs examination, the release period can be extended even further, covering the duration of such procedures (paragraphs 7, 8 of Article 119 of the CC EAEU). When calculating periods defined in hours, the term begins from the hour following the hour the event occurred (paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the CC EAEU). For instance, in case No. A40-32032/2022, the court, citing Article 4 of the CC EAEU, ruled that the customs authority met the deadline for operations related to the refusal of registration, even though the refusal was issued more than an hour after the declaration was filed.[13]

After assigning a registration number to the EDG, the authorized CED official sends the following to the actual control post:

Data from the EDG;
An inventory of documents attached to the declaration.

In turn, the actual control post acknowledges receipt of the message and verifies the EDG data against information in transport, commercial, and other documents, including:

Registration numbers of transport vehicles;
Consignee name;
Country of departure;
Country of origin;
Delivery terms;
Currency code;
Total value;
Name of the goods;
Number of cargo spaces;
TN VED code;
Gross and net weight;
Value of the goods;
Document requisites.

Following the verification, the post sends a report containing the EDG number and the verification results to the CED.

Subsequently, the system transmits information about the release of goods under the EDG to the actual control post and the declarant via electronic communication channels. Transport and commercial documents are stamped with the EDG number and CED goods release marks (indicating the name of the customs authority).

As a general rule, filing an EDG does not require submitting documents confirming the declared information to the customs authority. However, during customs control, customs authorities have the right to request documents and (or) information from the declarant necessary to conduct customs control (paragraph 7 of Article 109, Articles 325, 340 of the CC EAEU). At the same time, the declarant generally must possess the documents confirming the information stated in the declaration at the time of its filing (paragraph 3 of Article 108 of the CC EAEU).

The declarant may submit documents required in hard copy for scanning and placing their electronic images into the customs authorities' information system in the following cases:

Prior to filing the declaration to minimize the number of customs authority requests for the original document during customs declaration;
After filing the declaration but before the release of goods upon the customs authority's request;
Following the release of goods upon the customs authority's request or at the declarant's initiative to verify customs and other documents and (or) information after the release of goods.[14]

Customs posts, excluding electronic declaration centers and rear customs posts, handle the placement of electronic images of hard-copy documents submitted by the declarant. To initiate this, the declarant must send an electronic request for scanning hard-copy documents to the customs post, containing the following details:

Identifying the customs post selected by the declarant for document submission;
Specifying the document submission stage (before filing the declaration, after filing the declaration prior to goods release, after goods release);
Detailing the reason for submitting hard-copy documents for scanning;
Outlining the planned date for document submission;
Indicating the organization's name and the declarant's Taxpayer Identification Number (INN);
Providing the code of each submitted document, its name, date and number, as well as the quantity and format of the pages.

The customs authority reviews the scanning request within 1 hour of the customs post's working time and either assigns a time for submitting the hard-copy documents for scanning within the declarant's requested date, or refuses to accept the documents (if scanning is technically impossible or if hard-copy submission is not required). A request received outside the customs post's working hours is not registered: the declarant receives a message indicating the post's working hours and the option to send the request to another customs post.[15]

Next, the customs official verifies the hard-copy documents. Upon completion, the official scans the documents, generates an electronic message containing the document's electronic image and the verification sheet, signs it with a qualified electronic signature, and sends it for placement in a dedicated section of the declarant's electronic document archive. The declarant receives a message containing the identifier of the placed document, along with the date and time of its placement. After scanning, the customs authority returns the hard-copy document to the declarant.

Interested parties and customs authorities may also exchange electronic documents using the "Personal Account" automated software system. Specifically, stakeholders may use the "Personal Account" to submit documents and (or) information to customs authorities electronically in accordance with the procedure approved by FCS of Russia Order No. 901 dated June 3, 2019 (the "Order No. 901").[16]

When selecting the function in the Personal Account that provides for the electronic submission of documents and (or) information to customs authorities, the stakeholder performs the following:

Generates documents and (or) information electronically by filling out a screen form in the "Personal Account" or uploading an electronic document;
Places the electronic documents and (or) information in the Electronic Archive information service of the Personal Account, specifying their identifiers;
Routes the generated electronic documents to the customs authorities;
Monitors the document statuses and the customs authority's decisions regarding the documents and (or) information electronically submitted by the stakeholder.

Appendix No. 2 to the Order No. 901 outlines the procedure for accessing the Personal Account.

Distribution Framework for EDGs Across Customs Posts

The Unified Automated Information System of Customs Authorities (the "EAIS TO") distributes EDGs among customs posts in accordance with Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 45n dated April 8, 2025, which entered into force on December 1, 2025 (the "Order No. 45n").[17]

Upon receiving a declaration for goods as an electronic document, the EAIS TO automatically verifies whether customs posts (CEDs) possess the competence to perform customs operations concerning specific categories of goods and (or) goods moved by certain categories of persons, specific transport modes, or placed under particular customs procedures. If the customs posts possess the requisite competence, the EAIS TO routes the electronic declaration to the appropriate customs post (CED).

The original version of the Order No. 45n, effective from December 1, 2025, to May 7, 2026, mandated a procedure where, in the absence of specific customs post competence, the EAIS TO verified the mode of transport used (or planned to be used) to move the declared goods across the EAEU customs border, as well as the customs authorities' operational region. The EDG distribution occurred as follows:

Routing goods imported into or exported from the EAEU customs territory via water transport through maritime, river (lake), or mixed checkpoints in the Northwestern Customs Directorate's operational region to the Baltic Customs Post (CED) of the Northwestern Electronic Customs.
Directing goods imported or exported through air checkpoints or other movement locations in the operational regions of the Vnukovo, Domodedovo, and Sheremetyevo customs to the Aviation Customs Post (Electronic Declaration Center) of the Sheremetyevo Customs.
Allocating electronic declarations for goods not distributed by transport mode based on the declarant's tax registration location. For instance, declarations from declarants registered with tax authorities in the federal city of Moscow (provided the goods were in the Moscow Customs operational region) and the Moscow Region were routed to the Moscow Customs Post (CED) of the Moscow Customs.
Redirecting the declaration to a reserve CED specified in the Appendix to the Procedure (e.g., routing from the Central Customs Post (CED) of the Central Electronic Customs to the Moscow Customs Post (CED) of the Moscow Customs) if the primary CED experienced excessive workload, lacked technical capacity for 30 minutes or more, or received the declaration outside working hours.[18]

Notably, amendments to the Order No. 45n entered into force on May 7, 2026, terminating the distribution based on transport criteria and registration region.[19] Additionally, the special rule for distributing declarations of authorized economic operators and the appendix listing "reserve" CEDs lost their force. Currently, special distribution rules apply only in two scenarios: a declaration for goods released prior to its filing (Article 120 of the CC EAEU) is routed to the CED where the application for release before filing was submitted, while declarations under processing procedures go to the CED specified in the processing authorization.[20]

In the absence of specific customs post competence, and in cases not covered by the aforementioned special rules, the EAIS TO distributes the electronic declaration for goods by checking the customs posts (CEDs) for the following:

Calculating the number of electronic declarations per customs post official authorized to release goods during the working day (shift), taking into account customs declaration specifics, the number of goods in the declaration, the customs procedure type, and applied risk minimization measures;
Assessing the customs posts' technical capacity to perform customs operations related to registering electronic declarations and conducting customs control upon goods release;
Verifying the customs post's working hours at the exact moment the EAIS TO receives the electronic declaration for goods.

Based on the verification results, the system distributes the electronic declarations to a customs post that meets the following conditions:

The customs post holds the minimum number of goods declarations per official;
The facility possesses the technical capacity to perform customs operations related to registering electronic declarations and conducting customs control upon goods release, or such technical capacity has been unavailable for no more than 30 minutes;
The declaration arrived during the customs post's working hours.

The practical consequence of the new procedure is that the declarant does not know in advance which CED (and, consequently, which customs office) will execute the customs operations for a specific shipment. Since electronic customs are located in different constituent entities of the Russian Federation, this uncertainty dictates which arbitration court will hear challenges to the customs authority's decisions. Stakeholders must consider this when planning litigation strategy, as judicial practice may vary for certain dispute categories.

The CED and the actual control post (customs post) are independent customs authorities performing distinct tasks. Because customs posts may lack legal entity status,[21] the customs office that includes the post typically acts as the interested party in litigation. In all the cases reviewed below, stakeholders challenged CED decisions against the respective customs offices. Actions of both authorities are appealed only when each has adopted an independent unlawful decision or committed an action violating the declarant's rights.

For instance, CED officials issue decisions on the CVA, TN VED goods classification, or refusal to release goods during pre-release customs control. In this scenario, the declarant challenges the specific decision of the CED. Conversely, customs offices with the relevant competence generally make decisions based on post-release customs control results (including customs audits). For example, in case No. A40-214476/2023, the Central Energy Customs made decisions to amend the declarations following a desk customs audit, while the Belgorod Customs issued the notices of unpaid customs payments.

If the customs post delayed the inspection, unlawfully took samples, or created obstacles during the physical control of the cargo, but the CED executed the actual release and declaration decisions, the declarant appeals the specific actions of the officials at that customs post.

Navigating Operational Frictions Between CEDs and Actual Control Posts: Declarant Safeguards

Meanwhile, despite the positive impact of deploying and operating information technologies in customs administration, several significant issues persist in this area, demanding a systemic resolution.

During the digital transformation of customs authorities and the implementation of end-to-end customs control mechanisms, safeguarding information systems from cyberattacks, malicious software, and other digital threats becomes highly relevant. Customs authorities must ensure such protection in accordance with Russian legislation on information, information technologies, and data protection,[22] employing a comprehensive set of technical and organizational security measures.

The following key problems stand out within this context:

Risks associated with using foreign software. Relying on foreign IT solutions entails potential liabilities stemming from possible changes in licensing agreements, as well as the likelihood of unilateral blocking of protocols and services by foreign developers. This creates a threat to the uninterrupted operation of mission-critical information systems.
Cybersecurity vulnerabilities. The imperative to robustly protect information and communication systems, digital platforms, IT infrastructure, and processed data from unauthorized access, damage, distortion, or unlawful use is growing. This requires deploying comprehensive security measures tailored to modern attack vectors and the evolving cyber threat landscape. Any emergency situations inevitably affect the timeframe for authorized customs officials to execute operations, thereby increasing the duration of customs control.

In the event of customs information system failures caused by technical glitches, communication breakdowns, or power outages, the CC EAEU allows for registering a hard-copy customs declaration without using information systems (provided there are no other grounds for registration refusal). In such instances, release deadlines are calculated from the moment the written declaration is registered.[23]

The untimely transmission or complete failure to send instructions for customs examination/inspection of goods by CED officials constitutes an independent organizational and procedural problem that directly impacts customs operation timelines and actual control quality.

In case No. A40-23469/2025, which featured a combination of technical failure and lack of coordination between the CED and the actual control post, the courts established that technical maintenance was underway on the FCS website when the preliminary EDG was submitted, making the initial filing impossible. The declarant submitted a request to FCS technical support regarding the inability to file the EDG. Due to software glitches, the system partially registered the EDG with errors. The EDG was drafted based on scanned copies of the goods' shipping documents provided by the supplier via email. The declarant sent an application to amend the data (regarding specific discrepancies) one hour after filing the preliminary customs declaration and well before the goods were imported.[24]

The CED repeatedly refused to amend the declaration, citing the need to submit an invoice bearing the actual control post's marks and asserting that quantity and weight adjustments would be made "based on the results of actual control". A subsequent customs inspection revealed an excess of 80 bags of goods, leading to a refusal to release the goods, while the Chelyabinsk Customs initiated an administrative offense case under Part 1 of Article 16.2 of the CAO RF. The Chelyabinsk Regional Court later overturned the fine imposed by the district court. Arbitration courts across three instances ruled the refusal to amend the declaration unlawful, reasoning that data declared during preliminary customs declaration subject to clarification must be amended prior to the release of goods (paragraph 2 of Article 114, paragraph 1 of Article 112 of the CC EAEU). Furthermore, the declarant did not declare different goods, and the adjusted data did not affect the customs value or customs payments calculated based on the actual quantity of goods. In addition, the courts recovered 205,544.63 rubles in damages from the Russian Federation represented by the FCS of Russia, paid from the treasury, covering the declarant's TSW storage expenses caused by the customs authority's unlawful decisions (paragraph 11 of Article 310, Article 352 of the CC EAEU, Articles 16, 1069 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).[25]

The discrepancy in the working schedules of CED officials and actual control posts is another challenge. This stems from their geographical distance from each other, as well as their location in different time zones. This factor impacts the timeframe for conducting necessary customs control forms. For example, in case No. A40-32032/2022, the declaration was filed at 16:46 Moscow time (23:46 Vladivostok time, where the goods were located), and the registration refusal was issued at 17:56 Moscow time (00:56 the following day Vladivostok time), citing the lack of response from the actual control post regarding the goods' arrival.[26]

In case No. A40-160969/2024 involving an application against the customs authority to order the refund of an overpaid antidumping duty to a unified personal account and to recover interest, the declarant omitted information about non-preferential certificates in the disputed declarations. This occurred because, during prior customs clearance of identical goods utilizing similar non-preferential certificates, the CED reached an erroneous conclusion that the certificates failed to meet non-preferential origin rules, refused to release the goods, and mandated filing new declarations with payment of the antidumping duty. Consequently, the applicant paid the antidumping duty at the maximum rate of 41.5%, totaling 2,222,972.11 rubles.

Decision of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 47 dated April 5, 2022,[27] amended the non-preferential rules of origin and simplified the goods identification requirements. As a result, the grounds on which the CED previously rejected the declarant's non-preferential certificates verifying the goods' origin ceased to exist. The declarant sent written electronic requests to the CED to amend (supplement) the declarations, attaching the adjustments. However, the authority rejected the applicant's requests to refund the overpaid antidumping duty for the disputed declarations, citing the failure to provide certificates upon the customs authority's demand.

It is essential to consider that under non-preferential rules,[28] if a customs authority identifies signs that data in the certificate of origin are inaccurate, it has the right to request the certificate. Such a request must be reasoned and contain information specifying which data in the certificate of origin might be inaccurate. If signs indicate that data in the provided copy of the certificate verifying the goods' origin (in hard copy or as a graphic electronic copy) do not match the original certificate's data, the member state's customs authority may request the original hard-copy certificate, unless the authorized body issues the certificate exclusively in electronic format without generating a hard-copy original. When filing the requests for the disputed declarations, the applicant submitted the non-preferential certificates to the actual control customs post.

Courts of three instances acknowledged that the declarant proved the goods did not originate from the PRC, ordered the customs authority to refund the overpaid antidumping duty of 2,222,972.11 rubles, and recovered interest accrued on this amount pursuant to Part 11 of Article 67 of the Law No. 289-FZ. The cassation court, citing paragraphs 33-35 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 49 dated November 26, 2019, On Certain Issues Arising in Judicial Practice in Connection with the Entry into Force of the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union (the "Resolution of the Plenum No. 49"), indicated that filing a property claim in court to refund customs payments does not mandate compliance with the administrative refund procedure, and interest accrues regardless of whether the payments were made voluntarily or collected forcibly.[29]

In case No. A40-214476/2023 concerning the invalidation of notices on overdue customs payments, special, antidumping, countervailing duties, interest, and penalties, as well as decisions to amend data declared in the goods declaration, the courts upheld the additional assessment of customs payments (excise tax) following a post-release desk customs audit, classifying the imported hexane solvent as straight-run gasoline within the meaning of subparagraph 10 of paragraph 1 of Article 181 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (TC RF). The cassation court specifically noted that the customs authority relied on the goods' data declared by the declarant, and interpreting the undisputed physical and chemical properties of the goods to apply the TC RF criteria constitutes a legal issue. Therefore, the failure to conduct a customs examination and the critical assessment of expert opinions submitted by the declarant did not demonstrate court error.[30] Thus, releasing goods without objections during the declaration stage does not preclude subsequent post-release customs control within the timeframe established by paragraph 7 of Article 310 of the CC EAEU.[31]

In accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 325 of the CC EAEU, during an audit initiated before the release of goods, the customs authority has the right to request commercial and accounting documents, a certificate of origin, and (or) other documents and (or) information, including written explanations, necessary to verify the accuracy and completeness of the audited data stated in the customs declaration, and (or) information contained in other documents, in the following cases:

The documents submitted alongside the customs declaration lack necessary information or fail to properly substantiate the declared data;
The customs authority uncovers signs of non-compliance with the CC EAEU provisions, other international treaties and acts in the sphere of customs regulation, and (or) member state legislation, including the inaccuracy of data contained in such documents.

A request for documents and (or) information from the declarant under paragraph 4 of Article 325 of the CC EAEU must be justified and list the signs indicating that the data declared in the customs declaration and (or) the information contained in other documents are not properly substantiated or may be inaccurate, outline the additionally requested documents and (or) information, and specify the timeframe for submitting such documents and (or) information (paragraph 5 of Article 325 of the CC EAEU).

In case No. A63-8234/2021 regarding the invalidation of customs authority decisions refusing to reinstate tariff preferences and refusing to register a goods declaration adjustment, the customs authority demanded original Form CT-1 certificates or properly certified copies. The company transmitted the certificates as scanned images bearing the applicant's electronic signature, which the customs authority accepted without objections. Concurrently, the company provided the original certificates to the actual control customs post, where they remained stored for an extended period, allowing the customs authority to verify the certificates' issuance. The courts ruled that "the customs authority's demand to submit the original disputed certificates, given the previously submitted certificates as electronic documents and the originals to the actual control customs post, is unjustified". The cassation court also noted that "the applicant submitted the original disputed certificates during customs clearance and for the court's review; the parties to the case do not dispute the legality of the disputed certificates' issuance, nor the legality of the seal and signature of the authorized person who certified these documents".[32] Meanwhile, the proceedings regarding the claim to invalidate the post-release document and information audit report were dismissed because such a report is not subject to independent appeal;[33] courts applied a similar approach, for instance, in case No. A51-11076/2024.[34] Consequently, stakeholders must challenge the customs authority's decisions based on the audit report, rather than the report itself. Furthermore, according to the FCS of Russia's position, the declaration customs authority does not require the declarant to submit original documents already presented to the actual control customs authority.[35]

Electronic Evidence in Disputes with Electronic Customs: Typology, Admissibility, and Judicial Assessment

The digitalization of customs administration and commercial turnover has positioned electronic evidence as a central element of proof.

Electronic evidence comprises data regarding facts relevant to a court case recorded in a digital format.

The types of electronic evidence utilized in disputes include:

Electronic documents: contracts, invoices, tax invoices, and transport waybills executed electronically, including those signed with an electronic signature;
Electronic correspondence, including emails and messenger texts verifying transaction terms and supply coordination;
Internet source data, including screenshots of websites, foreign trading platforms, and pricing aggregators utilized by customs to justify value adjustments;
State and commercial information system data, including extracts and certificates obtained from automated customs systems, the Federal Tax Service (FNS), and cargo tracking records;
Metadata and system logs, including technical data validating file creation or modification times, message dispatch events, or online service connections.

As clarified by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, when hearing disputes related to the results of a customs value audit initiated before goods release, including claims for customs payment refunds due to the payer's disagreement with the audit results, courts must consider that the customs authority formulates its conclusion regarding the unconfirmed declared customs value based on the volume of documents, information, and explanations collected by the authority and provided (disclosed) by the declarant at that stage of customs control. A judicial proceeding must not supplant the execution of customs control within the respective administrative procedure. Courts recognize new evidence as relevant to the case and may accept (request) it if the petitioning party demonstrates objective obstacles that prevented obtaining this evidence before the challenged customs authority decision was issued.[36]

In practice, courts admit new evidence if the customs authority failed to provide the declarant a genuine opportunity to submit documents during the audit. For instance, in case No. A09-1177/2024, the courts applied paragraph 14 of the Resolution of the Plenum No. 49, acknowledged that the deadlines set by customs for responding to requests were inherently insufficient given the volume and specificity of the requested documents, and accepted the evidence presented by the declarant in court. To verify the mailing date of one letter to customs, the party utilized a notarial protocol of inspecting the email and its attachments.[37]

Given the public nature of customs legal relations, when assessing the declarant's compliance with the requirement that the customs value and related data must rely on accurate, quantifiable, and documented information (paragraph 10 of Article 38 of the CC EAEU), courts must operate on the presumption that information (documents, data) submitted by the declarant during customs control is authentic, shifting the burden of refutation to the customs authority.[38]

Internet-hosted information can serve as evidence if properly recorded. Courts generally reject a simple website link without additional corroboration, given that page content is subject to modification.

When utilizing electronic evidence, the critical issue is ensuring compliance with the criteria of relevance, admissibility, and authenticity (Articles 67, 68, 71, 75 of the APC RF). The arbitration court evaluates the authenticity criterion under Part 2 of Article 71 of the APC RF in conjunction with other case evidence, while Parts 1 and 3 of Article 75 of the APC RF govern the admissibility of electronic documents as written evidence.

The origin of digital data holds fundamental significance for the court. The accuracy and completeness of data regarding the evidence recipient and sender (if applicable) can prove decisive in litigation. Judges may reject materials bearing questionable authenticity and improper formatting, such as an email lacking an electronic signature (ES) or messenger correspondence. Courts generally assign greater weight to ES-signed documents, screenshots displaying the URL, date, and time, and protocols of notarial inspection.

In case No. A40-281714/2024, which involved an application against the Central Electronic Customs challenging a decision to amend (supplement) data declared in the goods declaration post-release (export goods customs value adjustment), the appellate court rejected the trial court's finding that the applicant failed to submit documents and information during customs control. The case review established that to verify the submission of documents and data during customs declaration and in response to the customs request, the applicant provided the case file with document inventories listing materials sent to the customs authority, alongside screenshots from the electronic document management system proving the applicant's sent letters resided in the customs archive.

Consequently, the case materials "confirm that the declarant routed documents and information to the customs authority through the electronic document management system <...> during customs declaration and control".[39]

Given the high probability of electronic evidence modification or deletion, recording information correctly is absolutely critical. In practice, practitioners employ the following methods for this purpose:

Executing a notarial inspection of the internet page;
Generating an inspection protocol utilizing specialized software;
Saving the webpage with a time and date stamp;
Engaging an expert to validate data authenticity.

A notary inspects electronic evidence as part of the evidence preservation process.[40] Following the review, the notary executes a protocol documenting the established facts. Generally, notifying parties and stakeholders is mandatory; however, in urgent situations or when future case participants remain unknown, evidence preservation proceeds without notification, precluding the deletion of materials (e.g., email correspondence or comments) before the documents are finalized. Note that a notary does not preserve evidence for a case already pending in court; in such scenarios, the party must file the evidence preservation motion directly with the court.

Electronic evidence operates as a fully functional defense instrument in arbitration proceedings if its authenticity, immutability, and source traceability are secured. Judicial practice demonstrates that courts accept both internet data and correspondence, alongside ES-signed documents, but their evidentiary weight depends entirely on the method of recording and presentation. To guarantee the legal validity of such data in potential litigation, companies must structure operational workflows around evidence admissibility and authenticity requirements. To achieve this, it is advisable to:

Implement corporate electronic document management (EDM) utilizing a qualified electronic signature;
Strictly define communication channels in contracts (authorized channels like email, messengers, EDM, official contact details, and the timeframe after which a message is deemed delivered);
Formalize agreements in written form (via email or other methods);
Promptly address violations (record evidence, dispatch official notices, and, if necessary, execute a notarial inspection of publications or webpages);
Retain digital footprints of transactions (access logs, correspondence, video call recordings with participant consent, and metadata tracking modification times and authors).

Successfully navigating a dispute with electronic customs demands that foreign trade participants possess not only profound knowledge of substantive customs law but also procedural competence in handling electronic evidence, strict adherence to electronic interaction protocols, and readiness to litigate against the customs authorities' formalistic approach to digital information assessment.

To mitigate procedural liabilities tied to proving facts in remote interaction environments, adhering to statutory deadlines, and recording technical failures, stakeholders should:

Document technical failures during EDG filing (FCS technical support requests, screenshots, notarial inspection in case of a dispute);
Monitor compliance with deadlines under Articles 111 and 119 of the CC EAEU by recording the declaration filing moment and accounting for the rules for calculating hourly deadlines (paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the CC EAEU), the customs authority's working hours, and time zone differences;
Compile a complete package of documents and explanations submitted to customs before the customs authority issues a decision based on customs control results, mindful of paragraph 14 of the Resolution of the Plenum No. 49, which stipulates that courts accept new evidence only if the party demonstrates objective obstacles to submitting it earlier;
Utilize the Personal Account software system and retain all dispatched and received messages;
In preliminary customs declarations, submit a declaration adjustment to clarify data (including goods quantity and weight) immediately after discovering discrepancies—prior to placing goods in the customs control zone and before receiving a customs inspection notice (paragraph 2 of Article 114, paragraph 1 of Article 112 of the CC EAEU), and litigate unlawful refusals while simultaneously claiming damages (TSW expenses, etc.), matching the strategy used in case No. A40-23469/2025;
Appeal the substantive decisions of the customs authority (amending the declaration, refusing release, refusing tariff preferences) rather than audit reports, which do not constitute an independent subject of appeal;
Safeguard messages confirming document placement in the electronic archive (including identifier, date, and time) when original documents (such as certificates of origin) are submitted to the actual control post and scanned, as this data can serve as decisive evidence in a dispute with the CED.

_______________________

References

Part 1 of Article 253 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ dated August 3, 2018, On Customs Regulation in the Russian Federation and on Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation.
Paragraph 2 of Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 45n dated April 8, 2025, On Determining the Powers of Customs Authorities to Register Customs Declarations and Approving the Procedure for Customs Authorities to Perform Customs Operations Related to the Distribution of Declarations for Goods in the Form of an Electronic Document Among Customs Posts Through the Information System of Customs Authorities Without the Involvement of Customs Officials.
Part 3 of Article 286 of the Law No. 289-FZ. Decisions on administrative offense cases are appealed according to the procedure stipulated by Chapter 30 of the CAO RF.
Part 1 of Article 286 of the Law No. 289-FZ.
Clause 3 of Part 1 of Article 293 of the Law No. 289-FZ.
Part 1 of Article 288, Part 1 of Article 289, Articles 292, 297, 300 of the Law No. 289-FZ; Part 4 of Article 198 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated June 20, 2025, in case No. A40-214476/2023.
Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Appellate Court dated August 30, 2022, in case No. A40-32032/2022.
Glazkova G.V., Sukhareva I.V. Digital Transformation of Customs Clearance and Customs Control Technologies. "Auditor" Journal, 2022, No. 9.
Paragraphs 5, 6 of Article 111 of the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union (Appendix No. 1 to the Treaty on the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union dated April 11, 2017); Part 7 of Article 99 of the Law No. 289-FZ.
Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Appellate Court dated August 30, 2022, in case No. A40-32032/2022.
Part 3 of Article 99 of the Law No. 289-FZ.
Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Appellate Court dated August 30, 2022, in case No. A40-32032/2022.
Order of the FCS of Russia No. 218 dated April 6, 2022, On Approving the Action Procedure for Russian Customs Officials Using Information Systems to Place Scanned Documents.
Paragraphs 7–9 of the Procedure approved by Order of the FCS of Russia No. 218 dated April 6, 2022.
Order of the FCS of Russia No. 901 dated June 3, 2019, On Approving the Procedure for Using the Personal Account and Organizing the Exchange of Electronic Documents and (or) Information Between Customs Authorities and Declarants, Carriers, Persons Operating in the Sphere of Customs Affairs, Authorized Economic Operators, Rightholders and Other Persons, as well as the Procedure for Providing Access to the Personal Account for Declarants, Carriers, Persons Operating in the Sphere of Customs Affairs, Authorized Economic Operators, Rightholders and Other Persons; Article 284 of the Law No. 289-FZ.
Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 45n dated April 8, 2025, On Determining the Powers of Customs Authorities to Register Customs Declarations and Approving the Procedure for Customs Authorities to Perform Customs Operations Related to the Distribution of Declarations for Goods in the Form of an Electronic Document Among Customs Posts Through the Information System of Customs Authorities Without the Involvement of Customs Officials (as amended by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 19n dated March 2, 2026).
Paragraphs 3–7 of the Procedure approved by the Order No. 45n, and its Appendix (in the version effective until May 7, 2026).
Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 19n dated March 2, 2026, On Amending Order of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation No. 45n dated April 8, 2025 (entered into force on May 7, 2026).
Paragraphs 3, 4 of the Procedure approved by the Order No. 45n (as amended by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 19n dated March 2, 2026).
Part 6 of Article 253 of the Law No. 289-FZ.
Article 306 of the Law No. 289-FZ; Federal Law No. 149-FZ dated July 27, 2006, On Information, Information Technologies and Data Protection.
Paragraph 9 of Article 111 of the CC EAEU; Parts 5, 6 of Article 99 of the Law No. 289-FZ.
Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Appellate Court dated February 18, 2026, in case No. A40-23469/2025.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated June 16, 2026, in case No. A40-23469/2025.
Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Appellate Court dated August 30, 2022, in case No. A40-32032/2022.
Decision of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 47 dated April 5, 2022 (on amending the non-preferential rules for determining the origin of goods).
Decision of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 49 dated July 13, 2018, On Approving the Rules for Determining the Origin of Goods Imported into the Customs Territory of the Eurasian Economic Union (Non-Preferential Rules for Determining the Origin of Goods). See Paragraphs 34, 39 of the Rules (as amended by Decision of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 3 dated January 26, 2024).
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated July 15, 2025, in case No. A40-160969/2024.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated June 20, 2025, in case No. A40-214476/2023.
Paragraph 7 of Article 310 of the CC EAEU; paragraph 23 of the Resolution of the Plenum No. 49.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District dated November 24, 2023, in case No. A63-8234/2021.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North Caucasus District dated November 24, 2023, in case No. A63-8234/2021; paragraph 6 of Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 21 dated June 28, 2022, On Certain Issues Regarding Courts' Application of Provisions in Chapter 22 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation and Chapter 24 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District No. F03-3891/25 dated December 1, 2025, in case No. A51-11076/2024.
Letter of the FCS of Russia No. 01-11/61649 dated October 7, 2019, On the Procedure for Performing Customs Operations. The letter does not constitute a normative legal act and serves for informational and explanatory purposes.
Paragraph 14 of the Resolution of the Plenum No. 49.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District No. F10-2904/2025 dated February 17, 2026, in case No. A09-1177/2024.
Paragraph 8 of the Resolution of the Plenum No. 49.
Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Appellate Court dated May 25, 2026, in case No. A40-281714/2024.
Articles 102, 103 of the Fundamentals of Legislation of the Russian Federation on Notaries (approved by the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation No. 4462-1 dated February 11, 1993); Article 72 of the APC RF.