The Supreme Court clarified that the 10% preferential VAT does not apply to foodstuffs that have not passed the phyto-control.

The Supreme Court clarified that the 10% preferential VAT does not apply to foodstuffs that have not passed the phyto-control.
Most Popular
24.03
Hohhot will receive 29 trade facilitation measures and a logistics upgrade
23.03
Brazil wants to reset ICMS on diesel imports: a blow to logistics costs
23.03
Iran has signaled to Japan: vessels of the “Japanese contour” are ready to pass through Hormuz
23.03
Hormuz “according to the lists”: to whom Iran gives passage and why it changes logistics
23.03
China expanded trade facilitation: 45 pilot cities and new measures
23.03
Technological fee: business has been given rules for calculating and refunding overpayments
The Supreme Court clarified the procedure for applying a 10% preferential VAT on the import of foodstuffs. The benefit does not apply if the products do not pass phytosanitary control and are prohibited from being put on the market.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has put an end to the dispute over the application of a reduced rate of "import" VAT of 10% to food products that were refused release due to failure to pass phytosanitary control. The SCES of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reviewed the case of the Matrix company and came to the conclusion that the benefit can only be applied to products approved for food use, and not to those whose sale in Russia is explicitly prohibited by regulatory requirements.

The company imported condensed milk from Iran to Russia under HS code 0402 91 590 0, which is included in the list of food products subject to VAT at a rate of 10%. However, the products did not pass phytosanitary control, which ruled out the possibility of their release to the domestic market. The goods were supposed to be shipped in the reimport mode, but the transit period was violated.

The customs authorities calculated the payments, considering that the goods had actually been released, and charged VAT at a total rate of 20%. The company insisted that the rate should remain preferential, since the product code is included in the government list.

The appellate and cassation instances supported the declarant, but the Supreme Court took the opposite position. The court explained that the list of codes for preferential taxation is focused on the actual use of goods for socially significant purposes — that is, as food or feed. If the product does not meet phytosanitary requirements and is not allowed for circulation, this excludes the possibility of applying a 10% rate.

Thus, the court linked the use of the tax benefit not only to the classification of goods according to HS, but also to their compliance with industry rules and safety requirements.

Experts note that this decision strengthens the link between the application of tax benefits and actual compliance with regulatory standards. This creates a tougher approach for importers in situations where goods do not pass mandatory controls, even if they formally fall under preferential lists.