The assistance of the Business Ombudsman prevented the failure of the investment project in SKR
The absurd situation with one day of delay in the customs warehouse, which threatened to disrupt the investment project, ended in favor of the entrepreneur. In Astana, a final decision was taken on the administrative case for the confiscation of goods intended for LLP “Ordabasy Kus”. A point has been put in a dispute over a customs offense that lasted more than 9 months. LLP "Ordabasy Kus"Recall appealed for help to the Chamber of Entrepreneurs of SKR in October last year. The only turkey production complex in the country, which decided to double its capacity, concluded an agreement on the financing of the investment project with JSC “KazAgroFinance”. "KazAgroFinance" was supposed to purchase and lease Turkish equipment. Almost all the equipment was already delivered, only one of its parts remained - a flat-bottomed silo for grain storage. It is for this reason that JSC KazAgroFinance (due to its negligence) did not customs clear the goods on time and did not extend the temporary storage at the temporary storage facility. Due to one day of delay of the goods, the court attracted "KazAgroFinance" to the administrative penalty in the form of a fine in the amount of 106 thousand tenge and an additional measure of recovery - confiscation of flat-bottomed silo for 60 million tenge. Equipment that has not been put on the balance by the entrepreneur and was owned by a quasi-state enterprise was confiscated by the court in favor of the state. The entrepreneur ran around all the authorities in search of a solution to this issue, at a time when the culprit of the problem - KAF - took a wait-and-see attitude and did not particularly try to save the allocated budget money. There was an impression that KAF did not care, and it did not understand the consequences of the negligence of their employees. The matter is that the purchase of the whole equipment was financed from the National Fund by 900 thousand US dollars. And when the confiscated goods are sold (177.3 thousand US dollars), it will be sold at the price of scrap metal, since this is only one part of the whole equipment, and it is not needed by anyone in Kazakhstan, except Ordabasy Kus. The arguments of the lawyers of the Chamber of Entrepreneurs of the South Kazakhstan region have not been heard in all instances that the state agencies confiscation of state goods in the state's income is economically inexpedient. As well as the arguments that this harms the development of the agro-industrial complex and the further functioning of the enterprise as a whole. And if you consider that the company in advance prepared new staff for the new project, the disruption of the investment project threatened to reduce workers (unemployed could be residents of 6-7 nearby villages) and social tensions. The issue that did not find its solution at the regional level, it was raised at the Council for the Protection of the Rights of Entrepreneurs and Anti-Corruption and was sent to the Atameken Scientific and Production Enterprise. The businessman also attended a personal reception, at which he met with the Commissioner for the Protection of the Rights of Entrepreneurs of Kazakhstan, Bolat Palymbetov. The Business Ombudsman sent a letter to the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the cancellation of confiscation of goods in this administrative case. The Prosecutor General made a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. On 3rd of July 2017 by decision of the Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the cassation protest of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the petition of "Kazagrofinance" was satisfied, the judicial acts on this administrative case have been changed - confiscation of goods worth more than KZT60 million was canceled. Thus, NCE RK "Atameken" and the Office of the Ombudsman assisted not only the domestic commodity producer - LLP Ordabasy Kus, but also helped with the court's decision on the principle of fairness - taking into account the economic effectiveness of the imposed punishment.
Leave comment:
Comments: