A disputed signature on a contract can appear fatal to a debt claim. In a cross-border transport dispute heard in Ukraine, it initially was.
A Polish company sought to recover PLN 71,454 from a Ukrainian carrier after goods moving under the EU external transit procedure were not presented to the customs office of destination in France. The resulting customs debt was paid by the Polish company. When it later pursued recovery from the carrier in Ukraine, the court of first instance dismissed the claim in full after a handwriting examination concluded that a signature on one of the contractual documents had not been made by the defendant.
The foreign creditor was represented in the dispute by Grandliga’s legal team.
On 7 August 2026, the North-Western Commercial Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance judgment in case No. 902/756/25 and allowed the creditor’s claim.
The significance of the decision goes beyond the successful recovery itself. The appellate court found that the dispute could not properly be decided by isolating one contested contractual document from the wider legal relationship, the customs rules governing the transit operation and the other evidence showing the parties’ actual roles.
For foreign creditors pursuing complex claims in Ukraine, the case illustrates an important point: a weakness in one contractual document does not necessarily destroy a claim where liability is independently supported by applicable law and a broader body of evidence.
How the customs debt arose
The dispute originated in an international road shipment from Ukraine to France.
On 27 October 2022, the Ukrainian carrier transported goods from a Ukrainian consignor to a recipient in France. At the Polish border, the goods were placed under the EU external transit procedure under two T1 transit declarations and two CMR consignment notes.
The Polish company acted as the holder of the transit procedure.
Under Article 233 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 establishing the Union Customs Code, the holder of a Union transit procedure is responsible for ensuring that the goods and the required information are presented at the customs office of destination within the prescribed period.
Importantly, the obligation does not rest only with the holder of the procedure. Article 233(3) also provides that a carrier or recipient that accepts goods knowing that they are moving under the Union transit procedure is responsible for presenting the goods intact at the customs office of destination within the required time.
In this case, the goods were due to be presented to the designated French customs office by 3 November 2022. According to the court record, they were not properly presented there.
The documents before the court included copies of CMR consignment notes bearing what appeared to be a recipient’s stamp and signature. However, information obtained through the customs procedure indicated a substantially different situation. The French customs authorities reported that the consignee identified in the transit documents had not received the goods and that the stamp appearing on the CMR as proof of receipt was false.
The transit procedure therefore had not been properly completed.
Why failure to complete transit can create a customs debt
The Union Customs Code treats compliance with customs supervision as a substantive obligation.
Under Article 79, a customs debt on import may arise where an obligation imposed by customs legislation concerning the movement of non-Union goods or their removal from customs supervision is not fulfilled.
Article 233 is particularly relevant to transit movements because it defines the obligation to present the goods intact at the customs office of destination within the prescribed time.
Where more than one person is liable for the same customs debt, Article 84 provides that they are jointly and severally liable for payment.
That combination of provisions became central to the Ukrainian litigation.
Polish customs authorities issued decisions concerning the two transit operations and identified both the Polish company and the Ukrainian carrier as persons liable for the relevant customs debt. Those administrative decisions were subsequently upheld in Poland.
The Polish company paid the customs debt and later sought reimbursement from the Ukrainian carrier, ultimately claiming PLN 71,454 before the Ukrainian commercial court.
Why the first-instance court rejected the claim
The case became unusual because the dispute was not limited to whether the transit procedure had failed.
The defendant challenged the contractual basis of the relationship.
During the first-instance proceedings, the court ordered a forensic handwriting examination concerning a signature on a document described in the proceedings as an urgent services order dated 10 August 2019.
The expert concluded that the relevant signature had not been made by the defendant.
The Commercial Court of Vinnytsia Region treated that finding as decisive. On 2 February 2026, it dismissed the Polish company’s claim in full.
In substance, the court considered the disputed document to be the contractual foundation of the claimant’s case. Once the defendant’s signature on it was not established, the court saw no sufficient reason to proceed with a detailed assessment of the claimant’s other arguments and evidence.
That approach became the central problem on appeal.
A disputed contract was only one part of the legal relationship
The appellate court did not reject the handwriting expert’s conclusion. That distinction is important.
The issue was not whether the expert examination should be ignored. The issue was whether the result of that examination could be given decisive weight while the rest of the evidentiary and legal framework remained substantially unexamined.
The appellate court concluded that it could not.
The relationship between the parties was supported by considerably more than the disputed urgent services order.
The case materials included, among other evidence:
- the T1 transit declarations;
- the CMR consignment notes;
- evidence that the defendant’s vehicles and drivers performed the relevant carriage;
- customs documents from Poland and France;
- evidence of payment of the customs debt;
- a standing authorisation concerning indirect customs representation;
- the Polish customs decisions establishing liability;
- and the provisions of the Union Customs Code governing the obligations of a carrier and persons liable for a customs debt.
This changed the legal analysis.
Even if one document could not be relied upon in the manner originally alleged, that did not answer the separate question of whether the carrier had obligations arising from its actual participation in the transit movement and from directly applicable customs rules.
Why the carrier’s role mattered independently of the disputed signature
One of the strongest aspects of the appellate decision was its treatment of the carrier’s status.
The appellate court expressly relied on Article 233 of the Union Customs Code. A carrier that accepts goods knowing they are moving under the Union transit procedure has its own obligation to present those goods intact at the customs office of destination within the prescribed period.
The court therefore rejected the idea that the parties’ relationship was governed exclusively by the disputed services order.
The customs legislation itself was relevant to determining responsibility.
The appellate court also referred to Articles 79 and 84 of the Union Customs Code. Failure to comply with customs obligations can give rise to a customs debt, while several persons liable for the same debt may bear joint and several liability.
That was particularly important because the Polish customs decisions had already identified the Polish company and the Ukrainian carrier as persons liable for the customs debt arising from the two transit operations.
The Polish company had then actually paid that debt.
The dispute before the Ukrainian court therefore involved not merely an unpaid contractual invoice, but the financial consequences of a failed EU transit operation and the allocation of those consequences between participants in that operation.
Why a court must examine the evidence as a whole
The case also contains an important procedural lesson for commercial litigation in Ukraine.
Article 86 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine requires a court to assess evidence on the basis of a comprehensive, complete, objective and direct examination of the evidence in the case.
No item of evidence has predetermined force. Evidence must be considered both individually and in its relationship with the other evidence.
The appellate court found that the first-instance court had effectively given one piece of evidence — the disputed services document and the expert conclusion concerning its signature — priority over the rest of the case.
By declining to evaluate evidence and arguments that went directly to the claimant’s alternative legal basis, the first-instance court had not properly established all circumstances relevant to the dispute.
For creditors, this is a particularly useful aspect of case No. 902/756/25.
Cross-border claims rarely depend on a single document. A commercial relationship may be evidenced by transport documents, customs declarations, invoices, payment records, powers of attorney, correspondence, administrative decisions and the parties’ actual conduct. In regulated sectors such as customs and international transport, statutory obligations may also exist independently of the wording of an individual contract.
A litigation strategy that relies only on a signed agreement can therefore be unnecessarily vulnerable.
The appeal reversed the result completely
On 7 August 2026, the North-Western Commercial Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, cancelled the judgment of the Commercial Court of Vinnytsia Region dated 2 February 2026 and issued a new judgment granting the creditor’s claim.
The Ukrainian carrier was ordered to pay the claimed debt together with recoverable costs incurred in the proceedings, including court fees, document translation expenses and professional legal fees.
Grandliga’s lawyers represented the foreign creditor in the dispute and successfully challenged the first-instance judgment on appeal.
The result demonstrates the practical importance of challenging a judgment where a court has reduced a complex cross-border relationship to a single disputed document while failing to assess other evidence and independent legal grounds for liability.
What foreign creditors can learn from the case
The most useful lesson from this dispute is not that a signature challenge is unimportant. It may be extremely important.
The lesson is that the claim should not depend unnecessarily on one signature if the legal relationship can be established through other independent evidence and legal obligations.
For a foreign company preparing litigation against a Ukrainian counterparty, several steps can materially strengthen the case.
First, preserve the entire documentary chain. In an international transport dispute this can include CMRs, customs declarations, transit records, invoices, payment confirmations, powers of attorney, correspondence and records identifying the vehicles and drivers involved.
Second, identify statutory obligations separately from contractual obligations. A carrier may have responsibilities under customs or transport legislation even where the content or authenticity of a particular contractual document is disputed.
Third, retain evidence of the actual financial loss. In case No. 902/756/25, proof that the Polish company had actually paid the customs debt was fundamental to the recovery claim.
Fourth, foreign administrative decisions should be treated as substantive evidence requiring proper preparation for Ukrainian proceedings. Translation, procedural admissibility and an explanation of their legal effect may all become important.
Finally, an adverse first-instance judgment should be analysed for evidentiary as well as substantive legal errors. If the court has failed to examine material evidence or has given one document predetermined weight, that may create a serious appellate issue.
Building a cross-border claim around the full evidentiary chain
Cases involving customs debt, international transport and parties in several jurisdictions are rarely straightforward debt claims.
They may involve EU customs legislation, foreign administrative decisions, Ukrainian procedural law, transport evidence and questions about how the parties actually performed their obligations.
Case No. 902/756/25 shows why the creditor’s case must be built around the full evidentiary chain, rather than around a single contract.
For companies facing a debtor or carrier in Ukraine, the broader options for pre-litigation recovery, court proceedings and enforcement are explained in Grandliga’s guide to debt collection in Ukraine.
Where the underlying transaction involves customs procedures or international carriage, however, the first task is more specific: identify every source of liability, preserve the documents proving actual performance and determine whether the debtor’s obligations arise not only from contract, but also directly from the applicable regulatory framework.
