MEDT finally drops special permit rules against a book factory

Subject of complaint: Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (MEDT) 
Complaint in brief: On April 2, 2018, a book factory filed a complaint against MEDT actions. The Ministry was failing to comply with a court ruling cancelling special requirements against the Complainant.
In 2015-2016, the factory, which works with leading Ukrainian publishers, exported printed materials abroad. The total value of these shipments was over UAH 50mn. However, a UK buyer delayed payment and some invoices had to be collected through court, which led to earnings of about GBP 3,000 coming to Ukraine with a delay. Because of this, in early 2017 the State Fiscal Service requested that MEDT switched the company to individual licensing for foreign economic activities. This meant that, for each export or import operation, of which the book factory handles quite a lot, it now had to request separate permission from the government agency.
Arguing that applying such a severe penalty was disproportionate to the supposed violation, that this was the first such instance, and that the company paid its taxes diligently, the company appealed the MEDT decision in court. The court agreed and ordered the Ministry to cancel the individual licensing regime.
However, the MEDT has been dilatory in complying with the court’s ruling, which drove the Complainant to turn to the BOC.
Actions taken:  The Council studied the case materials and supported the Complainant’s position. The Council’s investigator turned to the MEDT to check the progress of the implementation of the court decision. Having lost the appeal and planning to challenge it, the Ministry was looking for options that would allow it to keep the special requirements in place. However, the BOC investigator pointed out that the ruling had already come into force and had to be acted upon. The investigator kept pursuing the case for a month, constantly monitoring its status. 
Result achieved: The MEDT complied with the court decision and dropped the individual licensing requirement against the Complainant. The case was closed successfully.