On 12 August 2026 the Arbitrazh Court of the North Caucasus District (presiding judge A.N. Gerasimenko, judges A.V. Gidankina and M.V. Posazhennikov) announced the operative part of its ruling in case No. А32-13622/2025; the full text was issued on 21 August 2026. The customs authority's cassation appeal was dismissed and the ruling of the Fifteenth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal of 8 April 2026 was upheld in full.
As a result, the judgment declaring the customs authority's VAT assessment unlawful has entered into force. The customs authority is required to refund the company RUB 12,518,794.19 of overpaid customs charges, together with RUB 80,000 in state duty.
Background
In December 2023 the company imported a Robinson R44 Raven II civil helicopter into the customs territory of the EAEU under a foreign trade contract with a Turkish supplier on FCA Istanbul terms. On declaration, the company claimed the exemption provided for by sub-clause 20 of Article 150 of the Russian Tax Code — relief from import VAT on civil aircraft subject to state registration in the State Register of Civil Aircraft of the Russian Federation.
The exemption operates on a deferred basis. Where the aircraft registration certificate has not yet been issued at the time of customs clearance, the declarant may undertake to submit it to the customs authority within 90 calendar days of the date the declaration is registered. The company did precisely that: the undertaking was entered in box 44 of the declaration under code 07012 and certified by the signature of the company's director. The goods were conditionally released on 29 December 2023.
An Administrative Deadlock
The company applied to Rosaviatsiya, the Russian civil aviation authority, for state registration of the helicopter. Two refusals followed, on 19 February and 18 March 2024. Their grounds were administrative rather than proprietary: the regulator required additional documents, including confirmation that the aircraft had been struck off the foreign register and evidence of compliance with the special regime for transactions with foreign persons introduced by Presidential Decree No. 81 of 1 March 2022.
The company challenged the refusals before the Arbitrazh Court of the City of Moscow and, in parallel — well before the 90 days expired — notified the customs authority of the status of the registration and applied for an extension of the deadline. The extension was refused on the ground that the legislation in force provides for no such procedure.
On 11 June 2024 the helicopter was registered: the company obtained certificate No. 10191, and its title was recorded in the Unified State Register of Rights to Aircraft and Transactions Therewith. On 14 June 2024 the declarant applied to the customs authority to amend the information declared in box 44 of the customs declaration, enclosing the certificate obtained.
By that moment the substantive condition of the exemption had been fully satisfied. Nevertheless, following a desk customs audit (report of 16 August 2024), on 27 September 2024 the customs authority decided to amend the information declared in the customs declaration and assessed VAT of RUB 12,518,794.19 — solely on the ground that the 90-day deadline had been missed.
On 16 January 2026 the court of first instance dismissed the company's claim, holding that the declarant had itself failed to observe the procedure for filing registration documents, which had caused the delay. That judgment was already being cited in the professional press as further confirmation that formal compliance with statutory requirements prevails over the substance of, and reasons for, the breach.
The Defence Case
The line of defence developed by advocate Yury Morozov rested on a consistent distinction between the procedural instrument and the substantive condition of the exemption.
The deadline is not preclusive. Sub-clause 20 of Article 150 of the Tax Code exempts from VAT the importation of aircraft registered, or subject to registration, in the Russian register. The helicopter was registered — the substantive condition was met. In its ruling of 7 March 2018 No. 308-КГ17-13459 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held expressly that a failure to comply with the requirements of a customs procedure does not in itself entail the loss of relief from customs charges where the grounds for the relief continue to exist.
Exercising the right to the exemption after release of the goods is permissible. Articles 66 and 112 of the EAEU Customs Code, and sub-paragraph (d) of clause 11 of the Procedure for amending information declared in a goods declaration (Decision of the EEC Board No. 289 of 10 December 2013), expressly allow amendments to a declaration after the release of goods, including in order to claim relief upon subsequent submission of supporting documents.
The consequences of another state authority's conduct cannot be visited on the declarant. The timing of the administrative registration procedure does not depend on the applicant's will. The company acted in good faith: it did not evade submission of the documents, notified the customs authority before the deadline expired and applied for an extension. Taking into account the suspension of time while the Rosaviatsiya refusals were under judicial review, the 90-day period expired on 27 May 2024, so the delay was minor.
A systemic argument. On a subsequent sale of the aircraft the zero VAT rate applies (sub-clause 15 of clause 1 of Article 164 of the Tax Code), with the result that the company would be unable to recover the import VAT paid. The amount would remain irrecoverably in the budget, contrary to the neutrality principle underlying VAT as an indirect tax.
Findings of the Cassation Court
The Arbitrazh Court of the North Caucasus District agreed with the appellate court and set out a number of findings whose significance extends beyond this particular case.
First, the deadline established by the second paragraph of sub-clause 20 of Article 150 of the Tax Code is not preclusive; accordingly, missing it cannot serve as a ground for refusing to exempt the goods from taxation.
Second, the court gave a systemic reading of the provision itself: the second paragraph lays down a transitional, not a prohibitive, rule — where no certificate exists at the time of declaration, an undertaking to submit it later is permitted. The third paragraph describes the consequence of missing the deadline as the arising of an obligation to pay the tax, not the automatic loss of the right to the exemption as such. The legislature has employed a construction of deferred exemption.
Third, the cassation court distinguished between the loss of the right to the exemption itself and non-compliance with the conditions for applying it in a given case: a breach of the deadline entails only a temporary loss of the exemption — until the document is in fact submitted.
Fourth, the court confirmed that the lawfulness of Rosaviatsiya's conduct falls outside the subject matter of the dispute, and that the customs authority's argument that the declarant's own conduct caused the late issue of the certificate was insufficiently substantiated and legally immaterial.
Finally, the court held that after the release of goods the declarant is entitled to amend the information declared, and that submission of a copy of the aircraft registration certificate constitutes a ground for making such amendments. Payment of the tax was evidenced by a payment order, the monetary claim was brought within the three-year period (clause 7 of Article 78 of the Tax Code), and the customs authority produced no evidence of any outstanding liability — accordingly, the order requiring a refund of the overpaid charges was lawful.
The case illustrates a systemic problem: a good-faith declarant that has satisfied every substantive condition of the exemption is held hostage to the administrative timetable of a state regulator over which it has no real influence. The cassation ruling restores the economic rationale of sub-clause 20 of Article 150 of the Tax Code: the exemption is granted for the fact of the aircraft's registration, not for the speed at which the registering authority works.
Significance for Practice
The district court's ruling provides a reference point for all participants in the civil aviation market importing aircraft under the VAT exemption. The key conclusion is that missing the 90-day deadline does not in itself extinguish the right to the exemption where the aircraft has in fact been entered in the State Register: the payment obligation arising on expiry of the deadline is removed by submitting the certificate and amending the declaration after release of the goods.
For operators and importers of aircraft this means that delays on the part of the registering authority cease to be an unconditional basis for losing a multi-million-rouble exemption. At the same time, the case confirms the practical value of timely procedural conduct: advance notice to the customs authority, an application to extend the deadline and judicial challenge of the registrar's refusals created the factual basis on which the appellate and cassation courts found the declarant to have acted in good faith.