The Business Ombudsman Council provides recommendations to state bodies on the basis of individual cases and in accordance with published systemic reports. Here we have collected information on the implementation status of systemic recommendations only.

To update the Explanation Letter, dated August 4, 2016 № 26593/7/ 99-99-19-01-01-17 or issue a new one or methodical recommendations for the customs to clarify the procedure for enforcing court decisions as well as decisions adopted within the framework of the administrative appeal procedure, approved in declarant’s favor. Due attention should be paid to the need to take into account not only the operative but also the reasoning part of the court decisions on the merits of the dispute. If a court decision were to find decision or action of the customs authority that led to (resulted in, caused) payment of excessive amount of customs duties as being erroneous or false – to state that such a language constitutes sufficient ground to proceed with the refund of overpaid sums of customs duties without initiating an additional judicial procedure.

State Customs Service

To prepare amendments to the existing Draft Law of Ukraine No.4614 dated 06.05.2016 “On Introducing Amendments to the Customs Code of Ukraine to Ensure Protection of Intellectual Property Rights While Moving Goods Across Customs Border of Ukraine” No.4614 dated 06.05.2016; or to introduce an alternative draft law to ensure implementation in Ukraine of the requirements set forth in (i) Regulation (EC) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding customs enforcement of intellectual property rights; as well as (ii) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1352/2013 establishing the forms provided for in Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, in particular:1.1.To bring the concept "goods infringing Intellectual Property Rights" in line with EU requirements, including exclusion of goods that are objects of so-called "parallel trade” from the substantial scope of this concept (in accordance with Clauses 3-5 of Article 1 of Regulation No. 608/2013);1.2.To set forth clear procedural terms, unified with European Union requirements, applicable within the procedure for suspending customs clearance of goods suspected of infringing IPR (as stipulated by Articles 3, 7, 9, 11-12, 17-18, 23, 26 of the Regulation No.608/2013);1.3.To improve the regulation of the procedure for destruction of goods, whose customs clearance has been suspended on suspicion of violating IPR, including laying down the "tacit consent” principle for their destruction in the absence of objections from a declarant or owner of goods; establishing a simplified procedure for the destruction of goods containing in small consignments (according to Articles 25 – 26 of Regulation No. 608/2013);1.4.To approve unified IPR protection measures related forms in accordance with European Union standards (as prescribed by Regulation No.1352/2013).

Ministry of Finance
State Customs Service