The Federal Customs Service explained 16.7 of the Administrative Code: why both the declarant and the broker are fined
The Federal Customs Service has prepared a review of law enforcement practice under Article 16.7 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, one of the most "unobvious" norms for business. It does not work at the stage of filing the DT directly by the declarant, but in conjunction with "declarant → customs representative → customs authority": when exactly the documents or information transmitted to the broker then formed the basis for the application of false information about the product and had the effect of underestimating payments or violating prohibitions / restrictions.
According to the survey, in January–November last year, the customs authorities initiated 292 cases under Article 16.7 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation against legal entities, which is 63% more than in 2024 (179 cases). At the same time, this is less than 1% of the total number of anti-corruption cases against legal entities initiated by customs authorities (80,078 cases). The practice of sanctions is also indicative: in 147 cases, a fine of over 7 million rubles was imposed, and in 92% of cases the fine was minimal.
The main risk factor that the FCS identifies as the most frequent is that declarants submit false documents/information to the customs representative that affect the underestimation of customs payments. This is an important detail for foreign economic activity: even if an "error" occurs on the side of the shipper/supplier or within the declarant's company, legally it can "land" on both sides of the chain — both the declarant (16.7) and the broker (16.2).
The review identifies three typical decision models that Customs chooses depending on the nature of the information, the type of document, and the causal relationship.:
- involving only a customs representative in accordance with Part 2 or 3 of Article 16.2 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation;
- initiation of proceedings only under art. 16.7 in relation to the declarant;
- "double bind": representative — according to part 2/3 of art. 16.2, declarant — according to art. 16.7.
The key conclusion that businesses often underestimate is that the guilt of the declarant (or his staff) does not automatically release the customs representative. That is, "we were given the wrong documents" is an argument, but not an indulgence. The FCS explicitly states that the initiation of proceedings under 16.7 against the declarant is not an unconditional basis for the broker's release from liability under 16.2.
What does this mean in practice for importers and exporters:
- Primary control becomes critical: invoice, specification, packing lists, certificates/permits, cost and origin documents — any "gluing", substitution, discrepancies in description/ quantity/price can develop into a bundle of 16.2 + 16.7.
- Record the data transfer processes to the broker: who forms the package, who verifies which checklists are used, where the "as sent" version is stored. In a dispute, this turns into evidence of due diligence.
- Review the contract with the customs representative: the distribution of responsibility, the procedure for approving information, the timing of verification, the client's obligation to confirm key parameters (cost, classification, non-tariff regulation measures).
The increase in the number of cases of 16.7 is a signal that customs increasingly considers unreliable documents not as a "private shoal", but as a systemic source of understatement of payments. For companies, this is a reason to strengthen compliance at the stage of document preparation, otherwise the risks will be realized not only by a fine, but also by a chain of consequences — from payment adjustments to suspensions of releases in future shipments.
Link to the review
