Has the customs authority changed the product code? – We will provide legal protection in court!

The issue of determining the product code under the UKTzed (Ukrainian Classification of Goods) during customs clearance is very relevant, as customs authorities often question the accuracy of its determination by the declarant.

At the same time, the product code directly impacts the application of the customs duty rate and the amount of customs payments.

During the verification of the product code under the UKTzed during customs clearance, customs authorities may assign a different product code than the one declared by the declarant.

The consequences of changing the product code can include: changes in the import duty rate, an increase in the amount of customs payments, the imposition of a fine, and even the confiscation of goods.

An enterprise approached AO WinnerLex that faced the issue of the customs authority unilaterally changing the UKTzed product code.

To determine the product code under the UKTzed, the company submitted all the necessary documents to the customs authority. During the customs clearance, the customs authority made a decision changing the product code under the UKTzed, resulting in the import duty rate changing from 2% to 10%. The customs decision was based on the fact that the imported goods were intended for household use.

Our client planned to continue importing the goods to Ukraine. Therefore, it was crucial for them to defend their position and prove the unlawfulness of the change in the import duty rate.

AO WinnerLex’s lawyers filed a lawsuit to recognize and annul the customs authority’s decision on the product code determination.

During the court hearing, AO WinnerLex’s lawyers proved that the customs authority’s decision to assign a different product code was unlawful, as the product code declared by the declarant was supported by a certificate of origin, an expert examination report from the Chamber of Commerce, the export customs declaration from the country of origin, and other evidence submitted to the court. The lawyers also proved that the imported goods were not for household use but were industrial equipment, refuting the customs authority’s arguments.

The customs authority opposed the satisfaction of the claims, but considering all the evidence and legal grounds presented, the court ruled in favor of our client, recognizing the customs authority’s decision as unlawful and annulling it.

Additionally, the court ordered the customs authority to reimburse legal costs and court fees.

The customs authority disagreed with the first-instance court’s decision and filed an appeal. However, since the customs authority did not fully pay the court fee, the appeal was returned without consideration. The court’s decision became final, and the client’s rights were protected and reinstated. Therefore, the dispute was resolved in the court of first instance.

The case was handled by AO WinnerLex’s Dnipro office lawyers, Viktoriya Chekhuty and Tetiana Kryvonos, under the leadership of Managing Partner Anna Vynnychenko.