The company imported one PET bottle production line from China. The customs broker classified the whole line as one product under one UKT FEA code.

The customs authorities have amended the product code and reported on the infringement of customs regulations. Depending on the customs, each node of the line is a separate commodity with its own UKT FEA code. The declarant was charged with deliberately identifying the wrong product code in order to reduce duties.

The customs decision to establish the product code has been appealed to the courts. During the trial, the legal team proved that all parts of the line are designed to fulfill a single function - shredding PET bottles. Therefore, all equipment must be treated as a combined machine and classified under a single UKT FEA code. Court decision can be viewed at: https://goo.gl/ZVsPPj

At the same time, the court appealed the customs decision on the imposition of a fine for non-compliance with customs rules. The lawyers showed that the declarant reported reliable information about the goods. The court reversed the customs decision: https://goo.gl/vGEkg9

Customs has decided to arrest the container of imported toys. According to Customs, procedural violations occurred in the certification process for toys. The importer was charged with submitting illegally obtained documents and a report on the violation of customs regulations was drafted. The container containing the toys was seized prior to the court's consideration of the protocol. To justify their claims, Customs forwarded the documents to the police.

The importer insisted upon its accuracy. Initially, a team of lawyers focused on closing criminal proceedings: preparing documents, preparing the director for examination and filing complaints against the investigator and prosecutors. The qualified actions of the lawyers confirmed the legitimacy of the accreditation. The investigator closed the criminal procedure because of the absence of corpus delicti.

The next step is the examination before the court of the protocol concerning the violation of customs rules. The arguments of the lawyers were once again cogent. The customs authorities were not entitled to monitor compliance with the certification procedure and to check the certificates of conformity. Certificates of compliance are obtained lawfully. The court confirmed the importer's position, closed the matter and remitted the goods.

Court decision can be viewed at: https://goo.gl/oCJ9zw

The utility purchased electrical equipment for water treatment installations at the expense of European donors. During the clearance process, customs independently determined the commodity code. The declarant declared the goods under the customs decision.

Six months later, the Customs Audit Service completed a document inspection. Subsequent to the inspection, it would have been found that documents had not been submitted for the classification decision. Following the inspection, the customs control revoked the earlier classification decision and adopted a new one. The utility company received a tax notice from the ruling for UAH 270 thousand, and the declarant was sentenced to UAH 810 thousand for breaking customs rules.

In court, the lawyers proved that the declarant did not conceal any documents at customs, had no intention of evading customs duties, could not indicate a product code other than that determined by customs. The court confirmed the position of the declarant and overturned the customs decision: https://goo.gl/UG713a

The client delivered cold storage equipment to one of the companies. Someone did not read the instructions and cleaned the stainless steel surface with a prohibited chemical. In consequence - corrosion. The buyer goes to court with an application for the replacement of the refrigerator, which is supposedly of poor quality, not providing equipment for the review.

During the hearing, the court was able to convince the customer that the customer had provided good quality equipment. and damage was caused due to inadequate maintenance. The court dismissed the request. The decision can be viewed at: https://goo.gl/9xzhxA

The enterprise prints products for the tobacco industry. One element in printing is embossing. To emboss different shapes, you have to constantly change the rollers within the printing machine. The company imports the machine as well as its components.

For several years, the registrant has classified all spare parts in the printing press as separate goods. The Customs Audit Service inspected and modified the classification of these goods. The importer received customs payments over a two-year period.

Sviatoslav has convinced the SFS that the stamping paper rolls form an integral part of the stamping cassette. And the embossing cartridge itself is a separate product, not auxiliary equipment to a printmaking machine.

The SFS has revoked the decision of the Customs Audit Service on the classification of goods and the Notice of Tax Decision.

Customs issued a fine to the manager of the customs warehouse for the loss of goods. While the court was examining the case against the decision to impose a fine, the customs did not respect the deadline for presenting it for enforcement. Nevertheless, the State Enforcement Service initiated enforcement proceedings.

A team of lawyers launched a prosecution to appeal the decision to start enforcement proceedings. The court agrees with the arguments of the lawyers, since an appeal against the customs decision imposing a fine does not exclude his request for enforcement. Consequently, the customs did not comply with the deadline for implementation of the decision. The decision to commence enforcement proceedings was revoked: https://goo.gl/QQpYsX

Once, an agricultural inspector came to the company to verify compliance with land laws. The reasons for the inspection are a resolution and a letter from the district attorney's office. The inspector walked through the area, asked for documents and left.

Several days later, the company received an inspection report in which it learned that it had seized land under its warehouse. Following the inspection, there was an order to eliminate offences under the property legislation - within 30 days, you must complete all documentation for the ground below the building. Furthermore, the inspector also calculated the damage caused by the so-called unauthorized seizure and asked for a voluntary refund.

The team of lawyers filed an appeal against both the inspection and the order issued on the basis of its results. In court, the lawyers proved that neither the letters nor the decisions of the public prosecutor could justify an inspection. The court also agreed that the inspection was carried out with substantial violations of the law. However, the most important thing for the client was that the court supported the position of lawyers on the unauthorized occupation of land: if the company takes measures to register the rights to land, it does not allow any violations of land legislation. Therefore, the court concluded that the inspector's actions to conduct the inspection were illegal and revoked the inspector's order. The decision can be viewed here: https://goo.gl/zNsaQh

The businessman was a constant importer of radiators. In the process of clearing the next batch of goods, the customs decided to adjust its customs value "to the price in the database" and doubled the price.

The customs decision was appealed to the court. Proper customer behaviour during clearance helped to win: the client has provided reasonable responses to all customs requirements for the supply of additional documentation. During the examination of the case, the lawyers proved that the customs claims on the existence of discrepancies in the accompanying documents were totally unfounded. The court also agreed that customs unreasonably failed to take into account the price of identical heaters imported by the contractor earlier.

The court overturned the customs decision to adjust the customs value: https://goo.gl/wUi3MK

The distinctive feature of the case was the method of defence chosen by the lawyers. In the clearance process, the contractor provided financial security to the customs account to cover the difference in customs payments. The lawyers asked the court to force customs to return this financial security. This method of protection enabled the client to receive his funds immediately after the effective date of the court decision. Contractors usually first appeal the customs decision to adjust the value for duty and then remove overpayments from the budget. This often concludes with another trial.

The company regularly imports couches from different models. Before the New Year's Eve celebrations, the manufacturer slightly lowered prices and Ukrainian customs did not appreciate it. In the clearance process, customs made a decision to adjust the value for duty. At the same time, Customs tackled the pricing of couches in a very original manner. To compare the customs value, the customs took a customs declaration, according to which the company imported couches a month earlier, and compared the price per 1 kilogram of couches in this declaration with the price of 1 kilogram of couches in the current delivery. Of course, customs did not take into consideration the design, colour and equipment of the couches.

In court, the lawyers cancelled all the claims for discrepancies in the documents submitted during customs clearance. The lawyers also prepared a comparison chart, which helped convince the court that the prices of sofas depend on many characteristics. and therefore their value cannot be compared on a per kilogram basis.

The court supported the position of the importer and overturned the customs decision: https://goo.gl/J1PtvC