The Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation continues the practice of including the commission fees of payment agents in the total customs value of imported goods. Such actions lead to declarants being accused of artificially understating the customs value, resulting in the initiation of administrative cases under Article 16.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (CAO RF). This occurs despite official clarifications from the Russian Ministry of Finance indicating that such an approach is unlawful.

Participants in foreign economic activity are successfully challenging these decisions in arbitration courts. The judicial authorities consistently side with importers in cases where the payment agent performs an exclusively technical function of transferring funds, rather than providing full-fledged intermediary services for purchasing products abroad.

"The agent was not a third party to the transaction, had no legal relationship with the seller, and was engaged solely to perform the technical function of transferring funds from the buyer to the supplier due to the sanctions imposed by unfriendly states against the banking and payment system of the Russian Federation," states the official ruling of the arbitration court in one of the reviewed cases.

Legal Precedents of 2025
Several recent proceedings with the Sheremetyevo Customs that ended in favor of the declarants are indicative:

• Case No. A41-35195/2025 (Promarket LLC): The court found that the declarant correctly applied the first method of determining customs value. The customs authority was ordered not only to return the illegally withheld financial security but also to pay the company interest in the amount of 76.5 thousand rubles.

• Case No. A41-67608/2025 (Telecom Soft LLC): The Tenth Arbitration Court of Appeal confirmed that the agent performed only a technical function due to sanctions restrictions. The customs authority is obliged to return excessively collected payments amounting to more than 536 thousand rubles to the company. In its decision, the court directly relied on paragraph 3 of Article 39 of the EAEU Customs Code.

• Case No. A41-52604/25 (Trans-Business Ramenskoye LLC): The court confirmed that concluding an agreement with a payment agent was the buyer's own initiative for the technical provision of payment, and not a mandatory condition of the export contract for the supply of goods. The appellate court upheld the decision declaring the company not guilty.

For Chinese manufacturers and exporters of FMCG food products, this legal practice is of crucial importance. The use of payment agents (including through third countries) for transferring RMB or rubles has become a standard operating procedure due to current financial restrictions and difficulties with direct bank transactions. Protecting importers from additional customs charges allows Russian food distributors to maintain profitability, avoid disrupting customs clearance deadlines for perishable cargo, and keep stable retail prices for Chinese products in the Russian market.