An Atyrau transport company must pay more than 20 million tenge for six tractor units that, according to its management, long ago returned to Russia and Belarus. In Kazakh databases, the same VIN numbers are listed against other vehicles, and the Astana court decided that since there is an entry in the register, the company must pay. But where the “doubles” in the databases actually came from, the court for some reason does not establish.
WHAT HAPPENED
Earlier, FBRK already reported on this story. From 2017 to 2021, VEKTOR SHIPPING Co LLP carried cargo using tractor units rented from companies in Russia and Belarus. The vehicles entered Kazakhstan under the temporary import regime, and afterwards, as the company claims, were deregistered on time.
However, in the databases of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the same VIN numbers continued to be listed against Kazakh owners and already with different state number plates. At the same time, extracts from the Russian register showed that the original vehicles really are registered in Russia. For two tractor units, the body colour also changed in the Kazakh records. And yet the same vehicles seem to exist simultaneously in several countries.
WHAT THE COURT DECIDED
The claim was filed by JSC “Zhasyl Damu”, which collects payment for the future recycling of imported equipment. The operator considered that the company had imported six tractor units and had paid nothing. At first it tried to recover the debt through a notary, but was refused and went to court.
According to the court decision, which FBRK has obtained, the court sided with the operator. It stated that the obligation to pay arises at the moment of import, and the parties do not dispute the import and registration of the tractor units to the company. The arguments about temporary import and return to the lessors were not accepted by the court. Yet temporary import presupposes that the owner does not pay the recycling fee, customs duties and VAT, which are mandatory when importing a vehicle for subsequent sale or permanent operation in the country.
The court referred to a response from the police of the Kyzylorda region, according to which one tractor unit was sold under a written transaction on 30 September 2020, and the new owner registered it on 27 April 2023. This, in the court’s view, does not fit with the version about the return of all the vehicles. The court called the “doubles” version a supposition: data that the originals are abroad and differ in colour does not disprove the official databases. As a result, the company was ordered to pay 20.6 million tenge in fees and 618 thousand tenge in state duty.
WHERE THE LOGIC IN THE DECISION DOES NOT ADD UP
The main contradiction, it seems to us, lies in what the court nevertheless believed. It acknowledged that the company’s documents make the fate of the vehicles unclear, but concluded that this was not enough, since state databases show the opposite. It turns out that the register is simultaneously disputed and serves as the main evidence against those who complain about it.
The only example of turnover also looks like a weak point. For one tractor unit out of six, there is a 2020 transaction and a 2023 registration, and the seller is not named in the decision. It is also not explained how a vehicle imported temporarily and with a ban on alienation was sold. For the remaining five, the court limited itself to a general phrase about registration “to other persons”.
Some answers to the questions are not reflected in the decision at all. The police forwarded a request from the Karaganda region to “Government for Citizens”, where archival registration files are stored, but what came of it is not in the text.
The position of the representative of the Administrative Police Committee of the MIA, who participated in the proceedings, is also not set out. It is not stated how the company’s appeal to law enforcement agencies ended.
Finally, the decision does not discuss the main question for the company: whether it is necessary to pay for vehicles imported temporarily and, according to its version, exported. Whether deregistration on time was verified is also unclear from the text.
As a result, the money has been recovered, and where the repeated registrations of the same VINs in the database came from, no one seems to be obliged to establish. The impression is that the system cares more about recovering the debt itself than about understanding whose vehicle actually stands behind the entry in the register.
The FBRK editorial team has approached the relevant agencies for comment and will continue to monitor the development of the situation.
