A company receives a customs request covering several dozen items. Some documents are held by the bank or a foreign supplier, some have already been submitted to customs, and some were never created for the transaction at all.
The first step is to identify the procedure under which the document was issued: that determines the deadline, the consequences of failing to provide the materials, and the next procedural step.
A request containing the same list of documents may arise before release of the goods, during post-release document verification, in the course of a desk or on-site customs inspection, or as an independent customs-control measure under Articles 338 and 340 of the EAEU Customs Code. The word “request” alone does not determine the procedure. The legal basis, the subject of control, preceding documents and the date of receipt must be examined.
Before release, several different rules under Article 325 of the EAEU Customs Code may apply. Paragraph 1 concerns documents whose details are stated in the customs declaration but which were not submitted together with it. Those documents must be provided no later than four hours before expiry of the release period. If the documents requested under paragraph 1 are not submitted, paragraph 3 provides for refusal to release the goods.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 325 govern an additional request. Such a request may be issued where documents already submitted do not contain the necessary information, do not properly substantiate it, or customs has identified indications of non-compliance with Union law. The request must be reasoned: it must identify the relevant indications, specify the additional documents and information required, and state the deadline for submission. The requested materials must relate to the information being verified, the terms of the transaction, the characteristics and intended use of the goods, and other circumstances of the particular shipment.
The deadline for an additional request depends on the basis for the request. Paragraph 7 of Article 325 provides three possibilities: no later than four hours before expiry of the release period where the request concerns information in the customs declaration and documents submitted when it was lodged; no later than two hours before expiry of that period where the information in the customs declaration and documents submitted under paragraph 2 of Article 325 is being checked and does not affect the amount of customs payments; or no later than one working day before expiry of the release period extended by customs where such information is being checked and does affect the amount of customs payments.
If the verification cannot be completed within the release period, customs informs the declarant of the possibility of release under Article 121 of the EAEU Customs Code. Such release is not a universal right to release “against security”. Security is not required in certain cases expressly provided for in Article 121, while paragraph 5 of that Article excludes the ordinary mechanism for release before completion of the verification where there are indications that prohibitions, restrictions or certain domestic market protection measures may apply and compliance with them has not been substantiated.
If the goods are nevertheless released under Article 121, a verification started before release does not turn into a new verification under Article 326. It continues after release under paragraphs 13–18 of Article 325. Documents not submitted within the initial deadline may be provided within no more than 60 calendar days from registration of the customs declaration. Once those documents are provided, or once that period expires, customs must complete the verification within 30 calendar days. Within that 30-day period customs may issue an additional request; the response must be submitted within 10 calendar days from registration of that request, and the 30-day period is suspended for that interval. If the necessary documents and explanations are not provided, or do not substantiate the information being checked, customs makes its decision on the basis of the information available.
A separate procedure applies where document verification is first commenced after release. Such verification is carried out under Article 326 of the EAEU Customs Code together with Articles 225 and 226 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ. As a general rule, it lasts no more than 60 calendar days from the date it begins. That period is suspended from the date on which customs registers the request and resumes on the date on which customs receives the requested documents and information or, if they are not provided, on expiry of the period allowed for their submission. Where the verification is conducted by an official rather than automatically by the customs information system, the request sent to the person being checked must state the date on which the verification began.
A request under Article 340 of the EAEU Customs Code does not by itself mean that a desk or on-site customs inspection has begun. Article 338 classifies the requesting, demanding and obtaining of documents as measures supporting customs control and permits them to be used independently.
There is no universal five-, ten- or fifteen-day deadline for a request under Article 340. Customs sets the specific deadline, and it must be sufficient for the requested documents and information to be provided. In Russia, Article 239 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ provides that the period is calculated in calendar days from the date the request is received.
Where a request is delivered personally, receipt is evidenced by the recipient’s or representative’s acknowledgement. Where the request is sent by registered post, it is treated as received on the date of delivery if information confirming delivery reaches customs before the sixth working day after dispatch; if no such information has reached customs by then, the request is deemed received on the sixth working day after dispatch. For electronic communications, the system records showing delivery and registration should be retained.
If the deadline is objectively insufficient, paragraph 3 of Article 340 permits an extension on a reasoned application by the addressee. The application should identify the materials already prepared, the documents requested from a bank, carrier or foreign counterparty, the dates of those requests, and the additional period required. The extension may not exceed two months from expiry of the original deadline. The application itself does not alter the deadline; the original date remains in force until customs issues a decision.
A desk customs inspection has its own time limit. It is governed by Article 332 of the EAEU Customs Code and Article 228 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ. Notice is sent on the day the inspection begins. The general period is no more than 90 calendar days from the date on which the notice is sent. The interval between the dispatch of a demand for documents and their receipt by customs is excluded from that period. Where the grounds listed in Part 6 of Article 228 exist, the inspection may be extended once by 120 calendar days.
An on-site customs inspection is appointed by a separate decision. Under Article 333 of the EAEU Customs Code, its ordinary duration is no more than two months and may be extended by a further month. The period between service of a demand for documents and their receipt by customs is excluded from that two-month period. The inspection may be suspended on the grounds provided by the Code; as a general rule, the suspension period may not exceed nine months unless Russian legislation permits a longer period. Where documents are requested during an on-site inspection and are not required by law to be kept at the inspection site, Article 335 requires customs to set a sufficient period for submission of no less than three working days.
The duration of the inspection and the deadline for responding to a particular request are different periods. They may run at the same time and may be suspended under different rules. The calendar therefore has to be calculated separately for each incoming document.
The scope of a request is determined primarily by Article 340 of the EAEU Customs Code. Customs may require documents and information necessary for carrying out control; the list is determined by reference to the information being verified, the terms of the transaction, the characteristics and intended use of the goods, and other circumstances. Before release, paragraph 5 of Article 325 imposes a similar requirement that the additional material requested be connected with the subject of the verification.
This does not entitle the addressee simply to ignore an item it considers excessive. Where the connection with the subject of control is unclear, the response should identify the disputed item, provide the relevant documents that are available, and explain why a particular document was not created, is held by another person, or, in the company’s view, does not substantiate the circumstance under review.
The documents to be submitted depend on the subject of control. A contract confirms the terms of the transaction, but does not always prove payment of a particular shipment. A payment document shows movement of funds, but may not explain which invoice the amount relates to. A technical passport confirms product characteristics, but not origin. The response should make clear which fact each document proves and which circumstances remain unsubstantiated.
Any inconsistency between documents should be explained in the response itself. If the contract refers to one specification number, the payment to another, and the customs declaration to a third, simply attaching all three documents leaves the reason for the inconsistency unexplained. The response should identify the source of the error, the document that was effective on the date of the transaction, and how the correction was reflected in the records. Original documents must not be altered retrospectively, and documents that did not exist on the transaction date must not be created afterwards and presented as contemporaneous.
A missing document also requires a precise explanation. If it was never created, that should be stated expressly, together with the materials that actually documented the transaction. If it is held by a foreign supplier, bank or carrier, the response should state when and how it was requested from the holder and what reply, if any, was received. If the document has been lost, the circumstances of the loss and the steps taken to restore it should be described.
A further rule applies to desk and on-site customs inspections under Article 236 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ: where documents are unavailable or there are circumstances preventing their timely submission, the inspected person must explain the reasons for non-compliance in writing before the deadline expires. This specific obligation applies to a customs inspection and should not be extended automatically to every request.
In customs-value disputes, an additional evidential standard applies. Paragraph 6 of Thematic Review No. 9/2026 of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation states that requirements for substantiating customs value must be compatible with ordinary commercial practice. Where the declarant was objectively unable to obtain a particular document and explained that fact to customs in due time, the absence of that document alone cannot be the sole basis for recalculating customs value. Evidence of price is considered in more detail in the separate article “Customs requested documents on customs value”.
Documents under Article 340 may be submitted in original form or as copies unless an original is specifically required. Copies are certified by the person submitting them; customs may compare a copy with the original. Where a document is drawn up in another language, a translation is provided at the request of the customs official.
If a document has already been submitted to customs, it may in some cases be unnecessary to submit it again. Parts 5–7 of Article 239 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ permit this where the same person previously submitted the document in the course of customs control commenced after release and the information in it has not changed. Within the new response period, the person must identify the customs authority and the details of the earlier submission. There are exceptions, including cases where an original or paper document is now required, or where customs has reported that the previously submitted document has been lost.
Proof of dispatch must be retained separately from the content of the response. For electronic communications, the system receipt, registration date and time, message identifier and actual set of attachments should be retained. For paper submissions, keep the cover letter and schedule of attachments bearing a receipt mark, or postal records that link the consignment to its contents. Where documents are sent by a customs representative, the company should retain the same set that was actually sent to customs together with proof of transmission.
Failure to provide documents within the prescribed period may result in liability under Part 3 of Article 16.12 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences. For a legal entity, the sanction is a warning or a fine of RUB 50,000 to RUB 300,000. Liability requires proof of the duty to provide the documents, the deadline, the fact of breach, fault and compliance with the applicable procedural rules.
Paragraph 30 of Thematic Review No. 9/2026 of the Supreme Court also identifies a limit on liability. Where several instances of failure to provide documents under the same part of Article 16.12 are identified within a single control measure, Part 5 of Article 4.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences must be taken into account when the penalty is imposed. Separate offence reports for different episodes do not in themselves mean that each episode must automatically result in a separate penalty.
A decision in an administrative offence case is not appealed under Chapter 51 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ, but under Chapter 30 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The general time limit for appeal is 10 days from service or receipt of a copy of the decision. A missed deadline may be restored by the judge or official competent to hear the appeal. Where the decision concerns a legal entity or individual entrepreneur and arises from entrepreneurial or other economic activity, Part 3 of Article 30.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences assigns the appeal to the commercial court.
For desk and on-site inspections, the response to document demands is not the final opportunity to state the company’s position. The results are recorded in an inspection report. Under Article 237 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ, the inspected person may submit written objections to all or part of the report within 15 working days from receipt.
A separate timetable applies after objections. Depending on whether objections were filed and whether a conclusion on those objections was prepared, Part 29 of Article 237 provides a 15-working-day period from the relevant procedural event for the decision to be made. The adopted decision must be sent to the inspected person no later than five working days afterwards. Failure to file objections does not remove the right to challenge the subsequent decision.
Once a non-regulatory customs decision has been issued, the administrative and judicial routes should be considered separately. Article 286 of Federal Law No. 289-FZ permits a customs decision, act or omission to be challenged before a customs authority and/or in court. A decision of the Federal Customs Service itself is challenged in court.
For an administrative complaint, Article 289 establishes a general three-month time limit. Part 2 expressly provides for restoration of a missed time limit for challenging an action or omission where the reason for the delay is accepted as valid. However, Parts 3 and 4 of Article 289 govern restoration of the time limit established by Part 1 without the same restriction, while Article 293(1)(2) also refers to an application for restoration where the time limits established by Article 289(1) have been missed. The statutory text therefore does not support an unqualified statement that the time limit for an administrative challenge to a decision cannot be restored; if that time limit has been missed, an application for restoration should be filed together with the complaint.
Judicial review of a non-regulatory decision has its own deadline. Under Part 4 of Article 198 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code, an application must be filed with the commercial court within three months from the date on which the organisation became aware of the violation of its rights; a missed deadline may be restored by the court for a valid reason. An administrative complaint and a court application are separate remedies and their deadlines are not interchangeable.
As a general rule, an administrative complaint is filed with the superior customs authority through the authority whose decision, act or omission is being challenged. A complaint concerning a customs post is filed with the relevant customs office. Filing a complaint does not in itself suspend enforcement of the decision. Where the challenged decision is aimed at recovery of customs payments, Article 292 permits an application for suspension if security is provided in an amount no less than the amount to be recovered; the principal forms of security are a cash deposit or a bank guarantee.
A response to a customs request should make clear which requested item is addressed by each document, which fact the document proves, and what remains unsubstantiated. If a document does not exist or cannot yet be obtained, the reason should be explained before the deadline expires. If the period is objectively too short, an extension request should be filed before expiry and should state the specific circumstances. Evidence of what was sent and when should be retained.
When the procedural stage changes, the previous timetable cannot be carried over automatically. A verification commenced before release may continue after release under Article 325; a separate post-release verification proceeds under Article 326; desk and on-site inspections end with an inspection report and allow 15 working days for objections; and a non-regulatory customs decision and an administrative offence decision are challenged under different rules and within different periods. Each new customs document therefore requires a fresh procedural classification.