Interesting “URVEST” projects in 2013-2014


Undelivered goods:

The case on administrative offence under the Part 1 of the Article 16.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation

The case on administrative offence under the Part 1 of the Article 16.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation was initiated against the Client.

The reason for initiation of the case was – identification by the customs authority in the vehicle LLC “Grifas-Auto” absence of the goods specified in the shipping documents, i.e. committing an administrative offense under the Part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Article 16.9, expressed in loss of goods which are under the customs control.

As a result, LLC “Grifas-Auto” has been found guilty of an administrative offense under the relevant article of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced to a fine of 300000 rubles (8231.33 $).

The Client turned to our company for help after the decision on the appointment of a fine. Based on the analysis of the case, it was found that Client did not commit the violation willfully or negligently, as the goods were stolen in the course of movement of the vehicle.

To confirm this fact, the court had before it the relevant documents as well as documents confirming the proper organization of work in the company on the international road transportation. Thus admitted violation could not be socially dangerous.

On these grounds our lawyer (Vladimir Malgin) has built a position, according to which the Client, in the absence of public danger, applied for recognition of minor violations (sentencing as an oral reprimand without material penalty) and requested to apply in relation to him a clarification of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the basis of which imposed sanctions can be decreased.

As a result of this work, the Court of First Instance accepted the position of Client and reduced the appointed fine to 100000 rubles (2743.78 $).

(The case against “Grifas-Auto” initiated by the Moscow Regional Customs, case at the customs №10130000-1417 / 2013, case in the Arbitration Court of Kaliningrad region №A21-1796 / 2014).