A certificate of origin can help prove entitlement to a reduced duty rate, but why can customs deny the preference even when the document exists? The reason may lie in the way the certificate was completed, or in other conditions for the preference. Depending on the applicable rules, the route of the goods and the purchase terms may matter. Replacing the certificate will not solve that kind of problem.
A tariff preference is an exemption from import duty or a reduction in its rate. Which goods and countries qualify depends on the particular agreement or preference system. The certificate therefore has to be assessed together with the goods' TN VED code - the code under the Commodity Nomenclature of Foreign Economic Activity - the country of origin, the date of importation, and the legal basis for the reduced rate.
| Country A | Equipment manufacturing |
|---|---|
| Country B | Seller’s registration |
| Country C | Transit warehouse |
The contents of the certificate, the authority of the body that issued it, and the origin criteria are governed by the rules of the relevant regime. Articles 28 and 31 of the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU Customs Code) link the determination of origin and the document requirements to those rules. If the certificate uses a different origin criterion, the document is not accepted for the relevant purpose.
Country of origin can matter even without a preference: for example, an anti-dumping duty - a separate duty imposed against dumped imports - may depend on it. Preferential and non-preferential rules serve different purposes. Article 37 of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) distinguishes between them.
The certificate should therefore be read together with the other shipment documents. They may identify different parties: the manufacturing plant, the seller under the contract, the consignor, an intermediary, and the consignee. This is normal in international trade, but the documents should make clear what goods were produced, who sold them to the Russian importer, and how that particular shipment reached the EAEU border.
If the applicable rules link origin to sufficient processing, information from the manufacturer will be needed. Sufficient processing is a criterion used to determine the country of origin when foreign materials are used. The specific operations or calculations that matter are set by the rules of the relevant regime. A manufacturer's letter saying 'the goods were made at our plant' may therefore not answer the customs authority's question if customs is checking a particular production criterion.
The certificate itself must also be linked to the imported shipment. This is done by comparing it with the invoice - the supplier's commercial bill - the specification, packing list, model, article number, quantity, weight, and markings. If the certificate describes the goods one way and the commercial documents use another description, an explanation from the manufacturer may show that they refer to the same products.
The route becomes material when the applicable regime imposes requirements on purchase or transportation. A particular agreement may contain rules on direct purchase, direct consignment, and exceptions to those rules. The mere fact that goods passed through a third country or were bought from an intermediary therefore does not answer the question. The specific rules under which the preference is claimed must be checked.
Consider a hypothetical example. Equipment was manufactured in country A. The Russian importer bought it from a company in country B. On the way, the cargo was stored in country C. Assume that a tariff preference is claimed for these goods from country A. The manufacturer's documents are then relevant to origin, the contract with the intermediary explains the sale, and the transport and warehouse documents show the route of the particular shipment. If the rules allow transport through a third country subject to certain conditions, those conditions must be proved; the mere existence of a transit waybill is not enough.
The carrier's documents may confirm the dates of acceptance and dispatch, the place of storage, and operations performed on the cargo in transit. The information needed depends on the requirement that led customs to deny the preference. A general request for 'all documents for customs' does not identify which fact about the route needs to be proved.
A separate rule applies to copies of certificates. From January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2029 inclusive, Decision of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) No. 85, as amended by the Decision dated November 26, 2025 No. 91, allows an electronic or paper copy of a certificate to be submitted in the cases it provides for.
This rule has a limited scope. It applies to the rules of origin referred to in paragraph 4 of Article 37 of the EAEU Treaty, that is, to the relevant international free trade agreements of the Union. It cannot be used for every certificate or every tariff preference.
If the applicable rules require the original certificate in order to grant the preference, it must be submitted no later than six months from the date the goods declaration - GD - is registered. The GD itself must state the obligation to submit the original within that period. If this is not done, the origin of the goods is treated as unconfirmed.
This six-month period should not be confused with customs verification of the certificate. Submission of the original and verification are different procedures. Article 314 of the EAEU Customs Code allows the customs authority to send a request to the body or organization that issued the certificate or is authorized to verify it. The purpose of such a request is to verify the authenticity of the certificate, the information it contains, or to obtain additional documents.
If the reason for denial was the absence of a response to such a request, it is necessary to see where the request was sent, exactly what customs asked for, what response period is provided by the applicable rules, and what was actually received. A supplier's letter may help obtain missing materials, but it does not replace the authority's response when the rules attach significance to that verification.
Paragraph 7 of Article 314 provides that if origin is subsequently confirmed, measures that depend on origin are applied on the basis of the confirmed country. What should then be done with a particular preference - amend the GD, seek a refund of payments, or use another procedure - is determined by the rules of the relevant regime. Article 314 does not establish one general period within which every tariff preference can be restored.
An illustrative dispute is included in paragraph 3 of Thematic Review of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 9/2026, approved on June 17, 2026. The goods originated in Thailand. The certificates named a company in China as the consignee, while the Russian importer bought the goods from a company in the UAE. Customs concluded that the certificates did not relate to the imported goods and assessed anti-dumping duty.
The Supreme Court left in force the first-instance judgment in favor of the importer. The materials explained why the certificate named a different consignee, and the authenticity of the document was not disputed. The Court stated that, in those circumstances, a change in the country of destination or consignee in the course of ordinary commercial transactions did not require replacement of the certificate that had already been issued.
That dispute concerned anti-dumping duty. A tariff preference additionally requires compliance with the applicable agreement, including purchase and route conditions if the agreement imposes them. Proof of origin remains relevant, but the other requirements for the specific preference are checked separately.
Andrey Bernev, customs lawyer