Shareholders of “ELL Partnership” Law Firm, Norayr Balayan and senior attorney Gohar Avagyan, have achieved a significant victory before the Administrative Court of Appeal of the Republic of Armenia in case No. VD/4724/05/17 — “Papirus Global” LLC v. State Revenue Committee of the Republic of Armenia.
The case concerned the appeal of “Papirus Global” LLC against the administrative acts issued by the SRC — namely, the Outbound Customs Inspection Act No. 0008-A dated 15.05.2017, and the decisions Nos. 0008-O-1 and 0008-O-2 of the same date, with a request to declare them invalid.

The Court of Appeal granted our legal team’s appeal, marking an important development in judicial practice regarding the scope of case review determined by higher courts.

The litigation has been ongoing since 2017, traversing from the court of first instance to the Court of Cassation, and, following remand, through new examinations at both the first instance and appellate levels.
In its latest ruling, the Court of Appeal had instructed the court of first instance to determine, through 31 customs declarations, what portion of the goods imported into Armenia under customs duty exemptions had been sold, and only thereafter decide whether the administrative acts should be partially annulled or the claim rejected.

However, the Administrative Court interpreted the case scope narrowly, focusing solely on that instruction and disregarding other arguments raised by the appellant, including the legal practice developed by the Court of Cassation in a related long-standing dispute between the same parties.
The appellant argued that the above reference was merely intended to identify possible errors in the prior judgment, and not to define the full scope of the renewed examination. Only by combining the cited passage with the operative part of the decision could one correctly determine the intended scope of the new proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found this clarification crucial and concluded that the entire case had been remitted for full reconsideration. Therefore, the new examination should have been conducted comprehensively — addressing all factual and legal issues, including but not limited to the specific question raised — to ensure a thorough, complete, and objective review.

The Administrative Court, however, rejected the claim, misinterpreting the applicability of the 1950 New York Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials to the present legal relationship.
Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal granted our complaint in full, finding that Papirus Global could not have violated Article 126(2) of the EAEU Customs Code, as the exemption from customs duties or other import-related payments was not conditioned by any restrictions on the use or disposal of the imported goods. Hence, the cited legal provision was inapplicable in this case.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that the Outbound Customs Inspection Act No. 0008-A dated 15.05.2017, issued by the SRC’s Post-Clearance Control Department, had been adopted in violation of the law, unlawfully interfering with the claimant’s constitutional right not to bear obligations not prescribed by law.
As a result, the court found sufficient legal grounds to declare the disputed administrative act invalid and to eliminate its consequences — thereby fully satisfying our appeal.