A company can win a dispute with Customs and still owe money to the warehouse. Setting aside an unlawful refusal to release the goods does not extinguish the storage contract: the warehouse claims payment for services rendered, while the company must establish from whom it can recover the additional costs caused by the delay. These are two distinct claims. The first is assessed against the contract and invoice; the second against the cause of the expenditure and the evidence of a breach. This article concerns commercial consignments and storage in Russia. Customs matters are governed by the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU Customs Code), while contractual obligations and compensation for loss fall under Russian law.
Start with the document recording placement of the goods in storage and the identity of the customer who ordered the service. Under Article 410 of the EAEU Customs Code, dealings with a privately operated temporary storage warehouse (SVH, the Russian abbreviation) are contractual. The person who undertook the payment obligation must pay: this may be the declarant, a freight forwarder or another customer. Where an intermediary arranged storage, establish on whose behalf it acted and whether it is entitled to pass the costs on to its client. An offer, its acceptance, warehouse records and actual performance may establish the contract even without a separate signed document. Ownership of the goods does not, by itself, determine who owes the debt.
Next, check the calculation itself. Compare the agreed tariff with the weight and number of packages recorded on receipt, the storage period and the evidence of additional operations. Check the rounding of days, minimum chargeable periods, loading, weighing and operations carried out for customs examination. If the rate changed, establish the basis for amending the contract, rather than simply the date of the new price list. The register maintained by the Russian Federal Customs Service (FCS) helps verify the warehouse operator, the storage location and the operator’s status during the disputed period, but not the accuracy of the invoice. The duties under Article 414 of the EAEU Customs Code—to safeguard the goods, keep records and enable customs control to be carried out—do not make contractual services free of charge. Where payment is made to another organisation, its entitlement to receive the money must be supported by documents.
A written objection should identify the disputed line and set out the company’s calculation: which rate, operation, weight or date has been applied incorrectly. Refusing to sign a certificate of services rendered does not undo a service already provided; the significance of signing or remaining silent depends on the contract and the other evidence. If the disputed amount has to be paid to obtain the goods, record the company’s position and calculation in a covering letter. This evidences its disagreement, but a separate basis for repayment must still be established—for example, proof that the charge was calculated incorrectly. The letter alone does not turn a valid debt into an overpayment.
Charges may continue after the agreed storage period has ended if the goods have not been collected. Article 896 of the Russian Civil Code provides for proportionate remuneration for continued storage unless the contract provides otherwise. Withholding goods because of a debt requires consideration of Article 359 of the Russian Civil Code: the overdue claim, contractual terms and basis on which the warehouse holds the goods all matter. Customs release does not extinguish a lawful right of retention. Equally, a disputed debt does not entitle the warehouse to retain just any goods belonging to someone else. For charges accruing after permission to hand over the goods, establish when the warehouse was ready to do so and what action it was waiting for the customer to take.
A single invoice may include warehouse charges, container-use charges and vehicle waiting charges. For each amount, check the contract, what is being charged for, the relevant period and the events that start and stop the charges, including any agreed free period. Under the carrier’s terms, demurrage relates to a container inside the terminal, detention to one outside it, and storage to the space occupied; combined charging is also possible. This is a contractual model, not a universal definition. Container and space charges may relate to different services. Nor is the recipient of the payment necessarily responsible for the loss: a valid carrier’s invoice may evidence expenditure caused by a breach on the part of Customs.
Reconstruct the chargeable period separately from the customs time limit. Under Article 100 of the EAEU Customs Code, temporary storage begins when the documents are registered, unless the Code provides otherwise. The general four-month period under Article 101 runs from the following day; it is not a free storage period. Contractual charges may begin with a different event. Under FCS Order No. 444 of 18 March 2019, the warehouse operator’s duties normally arise when the goods are handed over and accepted; where the operator is itself the authorised person, they arise on registration of the documents. For a closed-type temporary storage warehouse holding the operator’s own goods, paragraph 8 makes specific provision by reference to the completion of arrival or transit formalities. These dates must be reconciled, not substituted for one another.
Then establish what happened after customs release. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Annex 1 to Order No. 444 allow one hour from completion of the relevant documents for the notification constituting permission to hand over the goods to be sent as those provisions require. This is a deadline for Customs, not for loading. Paragraph 15 allows time to prepare the goods for transport or the period agreed in the contract; operational schedules are specified for airports and railway stations. For the disputed period, obtain the times when permission was sent and received by the warehouse, the collection request, evidence of cargo readiness and the vehicle’s arrival time. This separates waiting for a customs document from a delay in collection after it was received. Where goods were seized or placed under attachment, also establish how the legal basis for storage changed.
A claim against the state must link the invoice to a specific unlawful decision, act or omission. The legal basis is paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 352 of the EAEU Customs Code and Articles 15, 16 and 1069 of the Russian Civil Code. Paragraph 3 of Article 352 excludes compensation for loss caused by lawful decisions and acts of officials, except in cases provided for by Member States’ legislation; Article 16.1 of the Russian Civil Code also applies in Russia. Ordinary storage that would have been required without the breach must therefore be separated from additional expenditure. The dividing line does not necessarily fall on the date of customs release: further time to obtain permission, prepare the goods and arrange collection may still be necessary, provided that necessity is proved.
In Case No. A32-4089/2020, the dispute concerned not only the number of days but also the price of storage. The court took account of the need to protect the goods from precipitation and moisture. Customs failed to establish that cheaper or alternative storage was genuinely available in light of its own refusal to release the goods. The court awarded RUB 3,244,900 for storage and RUB 209,599.52 for container use beyond the standard period—a total of RUB 3,454,499.52. The invoices evidenced the amounts; the storage requirements and the absence of an established alternative explained why the expenditure was necessary.
The first-instance court nevertheless disallowed a further RUB 104,000. The goods were released on 5 September 2019; the company said that it received the customs letter on 17 September and collected the goods the next day. The court found that collection had been possible from 6 September. The judgment of 21 July 2020 was upheld on appeal on 13 October 2020 and by the district cassation court on 10 February 2021. On 24 May 2021, a Supreme Court judge refused to refer the FCS’s appeal to the Judicial Chamber; the Chamber did not hear the merits of the dispute. That outcome establishes no universal rule about late notification: for another consignment, it is necessary to identify which documents actually made handover possible.
In Case No. A46-1496/2022, an unlawful tariff classification decision did not account for the entire waiting period. The courts took into account separate lawful customs control measures, a repeat expert examination requested by the company and a request for documents that had not been complied with. The company had not established that conditional release under the first declaration was unavailable, although it used that procedure when declaring the goods again. Recovery of RUB 19,775 in temporary storage charges was refused. On 19 April 2022, the first-instance court had awarded a total of RUB 256,551.64; on 10 August 2022, the appellate court left only RUB 160,000 for examination and certification in place.
On 12 December 2022, the Commercial Court of the West Siberian District upheld the appellate ruling. On 29 March 2023, a Supreme Court judge refused to refer the appeals lodged by the FCS and Omsk Customs to the Judicial Chamber. The refusal concerned those appeals, not an appeal by the company against the rejection of its storage claim. Again, the Chamber did not examine the merits. The practical distinction between the two cases lies in the available courses of action: no alternative storage arrangement was established in the first; a specific conditional-release procedure mattered in the second. Before relying on a failure to take steps, it is necessary to establish whether the company could have taken them.
While the goods remain in the warehouse, contemporaneous correspondence should establish whether those options are available. Ask Customs what prevents release and what stage the control process has reached; ask the warehouse for its calculation and handover conditions; ask the carrier for the earliest collection opportunity. Retain applications, replies and refusals, declarations, notifications, customs control records, transport requests and payment records. Explanations already submitted, with all their attachments, are also needed: they show what information the parties had and why a particular action was expected.
If documentary checks cannot be completed within the time limit for release, assess whether release before their completion is available under Article 121; where an expert examination was ordered before release, consider Article 122 of the EAEU Customs Code. Check whether the payments have been made in the amounts calculated in the declaration and whether the required security has been provided, taking account of the applicable exceptions. If Customs has identified indications that prohibitions, restrictions or the internal market protection measures specified in paragraph 5 of those Articles apply, and the declarant has not confirmed compliance, these release provisions do not apply. Under Article 123, administrative offence or criminal proceedings do not, by themselves, prevent release if the goods have neither been seized nor placed under attachment; all other requirements for release remain applicable.
Conditional release followed by the subsequent submission of authorisation documents has a different legal basis. Point (2) of paragraph 1 of Article 126 of the EAEU Customs Code and Article 107 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ of 3 August 2018 concern release for domestic consumption where the applicable rules permit compliance with prohibitions and restrictions to be confirmed after release. A reasoned application, permission from Customs and an undertaking to provide the documents are required; the general limit is 45 calendar days after release. If the declarant was held liable under Article 16.20 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences in the year preceding the application, permission must be refused. Until compliance with the prohibitions and restrictions has been confirmed, the goods must not be transferred to third parties. Use, including operation and consumption, is also prohibited if restrictions on importing the goods into the Union have been imposed in connection with verification of their safety.
Article 90 of Law No. 289-FZ provides a basis for exploring cheaper storage. Part 8 expressly identifies a reasoned application by a person with authority in relation to the goods as one of the grounds for changing the storage location. It is useful to explain the reason for the move and propose a location, comparing the saving with transport and handling costs. This is a practical justification, not a right to send the goods to another warehouse unilaterally: permission and compliance with the prescribed transfer procedure are required. In a subsequent dispute, Customs’ response and the actual conditions for moving the goods matter, not merely the existence of a procedure in law.
Check the time limit for release under Article 119 of the EAEU Customs Code. The basic four-hour period runs from registration of the declaration or, for advance declarations, from the event specified in paragraph 2. If registration or that event occurs less than four hours before Customs closes, the period starts when work resumes. Paragraph 3 provides for particular cases in which release must be completed no later than the following working day. The general limit where the period is extended is ten working days from the day following registration or the relevant event; for transit, paragraph 6 sets a five-working-day limit. The Code permits longer periods in specified cases. The grounds for an extension, permission from the authorised senior official and the notification must therefore also be checked.
For an expert examination under Article 390 of the EAEU Customs Code, the initial period is no more than twenty working days from the date the expert accepts the materials. Extensions and suspensions are assessed under the applicable national rules. The time Customs took to send the materials is a separate question. An expert’s compliance with the deadline does not account for any inaction before the materials were passed on.
Different rules apply where Customs itself stores the goods or they have been placed in storage under a specific exercise of statutory powers. At a customs authority’s temporary storage warehouse, Article 93 of Law No. 289-FZ provides for a public contract. The warehouse is an open-type facility, and a customs storage fee is charged instead of a commercial storage charge. The obligation to pay the fee arises for the person placing the goods in storage from the date of placement; it must be paid before the goods are physically handed over. That obligation does not arise where Customs itself places the goods in storage. Russian Government Resolution No. 1082 of 11 September 2018 sets a rate of RUB 1 per 100 kilograms per day, or RUB 2 in premises specially adapted for particular types of goods, with each incomplete 100 kilograms and day rounded up to a full unit. These rates do not cap private warehouse tariffs; for earlier periods, the version then in force applies.
Where Customs itself placed the goods in storage, the person liable to pay is determined by the basis for the measure and Article 94 of Law No. 289-FZ. Where goods are seized during a vehicle stop under part 18 of Article 261, Customs initially pays for storage from the federal budget. Those costs are then reimbursed jointly and severally by persons with authority in relation to the vehicle and/or goods if customs control identifies breaches of customs rules or Russian legislation covered by part 3.1 of Article 94, or if the goods remain unclaimed beyond the period specified in part 36 of Article 261. The amount to be reimbursed is based on evidenced tariffs in a public offer or for comparable storage during the disputed period; where the tariffs are not substantiated, the warehouse’s documented costs are used. Part 5 provides for reimbursement to a person who, on collection, paid for storage of goods placed there by Customs, within the limits of part 4 and subject to the specific allocation of costs.
Seizure during an on-site customs audit under Article 233 of Law No. 289-FZ requires a reasoned order and a seizure report. Storage, dismantling, transport and related operations are initially paid for by the person from whom the goods were seized. Under part 14, the specified costs are reimbursed from the budget under a special procedure if no breach of customs rules is established in relation to those particular goods. If a different measure is subsequently applied, the costs must be allocated to the respective periods.
Detention under Article 317 requires an official record and a handover report; the costs specified in part 10 are reimbursed by the person who actually receives the returned goods. The general period is 30 calendar days from detention. Article 380 of the EAEU Customs Code limits storage of perishable goods to 24 hours and goods detained under paragraphs 4–5 of Article 12 to three calendar days. Seizure under Article 318 of Law No. 289-FZ is recorded in an order and a seizure report. The one-month period and the provisions in parts 7–13 on declaration, payment, return and costs do not apply to the categories in part 14: goods prohibited from importation, goods seized from unlawful circulation and included in a government list, goods subject to quantitative import restrictions and other goods on a government list. Separate rules on destruction and costs apply to them. Under the ordinary procedure, the costs specified in part 12 are reimbursed by the persons identified in part 1 to whom the goods were returned; one month must not be treated as thirty days.
Where goods are seized or placed under attachment in administrative offence proceedings, Article 24.7 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences applies: documented storage, transport and examination costs may be treated as costs of the proceedings and allocated in the final ruling. For a legal entity or an individual entrepreneur, whether costs are borne by the budget when proceedings are discontinued depends on the grounds listed in part 3. Discontinuance because no offence occurred or because the elements of an offence are absent has different consequences from discontinuance on limitation grounds. Part 2 applies to individuals. Under Article 27.14, goods under attachment may remain with their owner or be handed to another custodian. The official record and the document identifying the custodian allow the costs of that measure to be distinguished from those of the preceding contractual storage.
In a claim for loss caused by unlawful conduct by Customs, the defendant is the Russian Federation, represented by the FCS, and the award is payable from the Russian Federation’s treasury. Representation is determined under paragraph 14 of Resolution No. 13 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 28 May 2019 and the FCS’s powers as a principal administrator of budgetary funds. The involvement of the territorial customs authority and the proper court are considered under paragraph 15. The Ministry of Finance’s role in enforcing the judgment does not make it the state’s representative in this claim; nor is the claim brought against the individual inspector.
A damages claim does not require an individual customs decision to have been set aside in separate proceedings first. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Review accompanying Information Letter No. 145 of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the Russian Federation of 31 May 2011 allow the decision’s lawfulness to be examined in the damages proceedings themselves. Rejection of a separate challenge solely because the filing deadline was missed does not prevent this. But where lawfulness has already been determined on the merits, those findings cannot be reconsidered on the same grounds: the subject matter of the earlier case, the reasons and the operative part of the judgment must be taken into account. The limitation period for the damages claim itself still applies.
The company substantiates unlawfulness, the existence of loss and causation, and establishes the amount with a reasonable degree of certainty. Under paragraph 5 of Review No. 145, however, the defendant proves the circumstances on which the customs decision or action was based. That evidential burden should not be shifted wholesale to the company, particularly where the records are held by the authority. The defendant also bears the burden of proving absence of fault where liability depends on fault.
Under paragraphs 12 and 13 of Resolution No. 25 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 23 June 2015, actual loss also covers necessary future expenditure. An unpaid invoice is therefore not excluded merely because there is no payment order: the obligation to pay, the necessity of the expenditure and its amount must be substantiated. Nor does a payment already made establish causation. For the disputed period, explain why the goods remained in storage and what costs would have arisen without the breach. The inability to calculate the amount with absolute precision is not, by itself, a ground for refusing compensation where the other necessary circumstances have been established.
Costs caused solely by the customer’s lack of available transport may fall outside the loss attributable to Customs altogether. That is a question of causation. Reducing compensation for loss already caused under paragraph 2 of Article 1083 of the Russian Civil Code requires gross negligence on the part of the injured party that contributed to the occurrence or increase of the loss, rather than merely imperfect conduct. An error by a customs representative—a request not passed on, a missed deadline or failure to communicate release—is assessed under the rules governing contractual liability. Whether a means of reducing storage was available is established from the facts, not inferred simply from the absence of an application.
Where several persons jointly cause the same loss, Article 1080 of the Russian Civil Code generally provides for joint and several liability; the involvement of a state authority does not, by itself, exclude it. At the injured party’s request and in its interests, the court may instead apportion liability. Joint causation must be proved: the ordinary involvement of a warehouse, a carrier and Customs in the same consignment is insufficient. Costs arising from independent causes are separated, and the same loss is not compensated twice.
The time limit for bringing a claim depends on the relief sought. For an organisation or individual entrepreneur in a commercial dispute, part 4 of Article 198 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code generally allows three months from the date the applicant became aware of the infringement of its rights and legitimate interests; the court may permit a late application where there is a valid reason for missing the deadline. For damages, the general limitation period under Article 196 of the Russian Civil Code is three years. Under Article 200(1), it begins when the claimant knew or ought to have known of the infringement and the identity of the proper defendant, unless the law provides otherwise. Neither the final invoice nor the later setting aside of a decision is a universal starting point for limitation. The three-year period does not extend the time for challenging a decision; special time limits must be checked for contractual claims against carriers and other participants.
In a dispute over storage charges, establish for each amount who is obliged to pay it, why it was charged and whose breach made it an additional cost. A tariff error is addressed with the warehouse. A properly charged amount caused by another person’s breach is claimed from that person as damages; reimbursement under a special statutory mechanism is sought on the conditions applicable to the measure concerned. Collect the supporting documents while it is still possible to remove the goods and stop the bill growing. Waiting for the final amount does not suspend the time limit for seeking judicial relief.