Data

Date:
05-06-2012
Country:
Russian Federation
Number:
06AP-1856/2012
Court:
Sixth circuit Arbitrazh Court of Appeal
Parties:

Keywords

SALES CONTRACT - BETWEEN A RUSSIAN COMPANY AND A CHINESE COMPANY - UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES AS A MEANS FOR INTERPRETING APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (RUSSIAN LAW)

CONTRACT INDICATING DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR DELIVERY OF GOODS - CUSTOM AUTHORITY REQUESTING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DOCUMENTS DETERMINING EX OFFICIO HIGHER PRICE FOR PAYMENT OF CUSTOM DUTIES PURPOSES THAN THAT AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN THEIR CONTRACT - CUSTOM AUTHORITY´S DETERMINATION ILLEGAL - REFERENCE TO ART. 65 OF THE CUSTOMS CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND TO ART. 1.1 OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES

Abstract

Claimant, a Russian company, entered into a contract with a Chinese company for the purchase of clothes, footwear and other goods of common use. In an additional contract the parties agreed on the delivery term FCA according to the "Incoterms-2000". Respondent, the Customs office of Khabarovsk (the Russian Federation), when checking the documentation provided by Claimant to justify the price of the goods as agreed between the parties in their contract, requested the submission of additional documents. When Claimant refused to provide these documents, Respondent ex officio fixed a higher price and accordingly requested from Claimant the payment of increased custom duties.

Claimant did not accept Respondent´s deliberation and filed a claim with the court. The arbitrage court decided in favor of Claimant, prompting Respondent to challenge the decision of the arbitrage court with the sixth arbitrage appellate court. The Appellate Court rejected the appeal, invoking Art. 65 of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 1.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles according to which the parties are free to enter into a contract and determine its content. The court decided that Claimant was not obliged to provide for this piece of information under the contract N HLTJ-344, that contained the terms on the sufficiency of the documents for the delivery of goods and the article, stating that the supplier did not have to provide for the price lists. The Respondent`s decision to correct the price of the goods was held illegal.
Basing on Art. 258, 268-271 of the Arbitrage Procedure Code of the Russian Federation the appellate court left the decision of the arbitrage court of Khabarovsk N A73-1666/2012 unchanged.

Fulltext

}}

Source

}}