14.01.2019

Odesa Customs allows export of timber from the Romanian supplier 

Customs issues: Clearance delay/refusal Odesa region

Subject of complaint: Odesa Customs of the State Fiscal Service of Ukraine (Odesa Customs) 
 
Complaint in brief: On February 4, 2018, a Romanian supplier of timber addressed the Council. Odesa Customs did not allow the export of the Complainant’s wood products. 
 
In January 2017, the company experienced difficulties with exporting raw materials. The fact is that on January 1, 2017, a moratorium on the export of timber, the same as the Complainant’s, came into force on the territory of Ukraine. Meanwhile, according to the company, it had the right to export goods as they were brought to the customs terminal before the ban.
 
To prove he was right, the Complainant appealed to the Odesa Administrative Court. The court ruled in favor of the exporter and ordered Odesa Customs to complete the customs clearance of goods.
However, notwithstanding the court ruling the customs delayed the release of the exporter’s goods. The Complainant turned to the BOC with the said issue. 
Actions taken: The Council’s investigator thoroughly studied the circumstances and materials of the case. He asked the Head of Odesa Customs in writing to check the status of customs clearance of the cargo and facilitate its prompt dispatch. But the customs authority had no clarification of the State Service for Food Safety (Derzhprodspozhyvsluzhba) at first. Then Odesa Customs reminded the export of timber was prohibited. 
 
The case had not been resolved within 90 day term set by the Council to investigate. Therefore, the BOC issued a recommendation to the Department of Customs Control of the SFS to comprehensively and impartially consider the company’s complaint and comply with a court decision. 
Result achieved: It took the government agency three and a half months to implement the Council’s recommendation. On November 7, Odesa Customs finally allowed the export of the Complainant’s freight. The case was closed. 
 

Next case:: SFS drops a fine for a sewing equipment supplier