{"id":13407,"date":"2025-11-20T09:31:59","date_gmt":"2025-11-20T07:31:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/11\/case-no-420-31215-24-dated-november-12-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-11-20T09:31:59","modified_gmt":"2025-11-20T07:31:59","slug":"case-no-420-31215-24-dated-november-12-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/11\/case-no-420-31215-24-dated-november-12-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 420\/31215\/24 dated November 12, 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices issued by Odesa Customs, which increased the amount of the monetary obligation of Kranship LLC for customs duties and VAT on goods imported into the territory of Ukraine.<\/p>\n<p>2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not fully and comprehensively clarify the circumstances of the case, in particular, did not examine the specifics of the legal relations that simultaneously existed under bareboat charter and time charter agreements with different shipowners, and did not establish which of the agreements was valid at the time of actual use of the vessel during its stay in the customs regime of temporary import. The court noted that the courts of previous instances focused on the formal validity of the agreements concluded by the plaintiff, without taking into account the principle of substance over form, which requires an analysis of the real economic content of business transactions. Also, the court of cassation emphasized that the courts did not properly assess the arguments of the customs authority that at the time of import of the vessel, there was already a chain of bareboat charter agreements with other companies that carried out crewing, insurance and technical management of the vessel. In addition, the court of cassation supported the conclusion of the court of appeal that the dispute is of a public law nature and is subject to consideration in an administrative court, since it concerns the verification of the legality of the decision of a subject of power. The court stated that it agrees with the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which departed from the previous conclusion regarding the predominant application of the norms of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures in disputes regarding the determination of the amount of tax liabilities of the debtor.<\/p>\n<p>3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/131801103\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against tax assessment notices issued by Odesa Customs, which increased the amount of the monetary obligation of Kranship LLC for customs duties and VAT on goods imported into the territory of Ukraine. 2. The court of cassation found that the courts of previous instances did not&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13407","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}