Abstract: The subject of the study is judicial practice in cases of administrative offenses in the field of customs, detected during customs control after the release of goods. The relevance of the research topic is due to a decrease in the verification actions carried out by customs authorities at the stage of declaring goods, as well as the general trend to simplify and accelerate the process of moving goods across the customs border of the Eurasian Economic Union. The liberalization of customs policy leads to an increased risk of violations of the customs legislation of the EAEU and the legislation of the Russian Federation on customs regulation, as well as an increase in the role of customs control after the release of goods in the customs administration system. In the process of monitoring after the release, a large number of facts of violation of customs legislation are revealed annually, cases of administrative offenses are initiated accordingly, additional customs payments are charged to the budget of the Russian Federation. At the same time, in parallel, there is an extensive judicial practice on appeal by participants of foreign economic activity against these decisions. When writing a scientific paper, the following methods were used: logical method (when presenting the material of a scientific article); method of system-structural analysis (when studying concepts related to the implementation of customs control after the release of goods); comparative legal method; statistical method, etc. Based on the analysis of judicial practice, it was found that the most frequent subjects of appeal are decisions of customs authorities: on changing the classification code of goods; on adjusting the customs value, as well as improper application by customs authorities of substantive law, violation of procedural legislation. In turn, the most common cases of unreliable declaration of goods are the following illegal acts: incorrect determination of the customs value of goods aimed at underestimating the amount of customs duties payable, in particular: incorrect inclusion in the structure of the customs value of the costs of transporting goods; not including in the structure of the customs value of additional charges in the form of licensing and other similar payments for use of intellectual property objects; provision of invalid documents containing information on the customs value of goods; indication of the HS code that does not correspond to the transported goods, which has a lower customs duty rate.

Abstract: The subject of the study is the legislation of the EAEU member states on administrative offenses in the field of customs. A comparative analysis of the norms on administrative responsibility for non-declaration of goods operating in the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic is carried out. The comparison of the list of administrative offenses in the field of customs affairs provided for by the national legislation of the Russian Federation and the Kyrgyz Republic was carried out. The relevance of the research topic is due to the fact that unified customs regulation is carried out on the territory of the EAEU, but administrative responsibility for violation of customs regulations is regulated by the national legislations of the EAEU members. At the same time, the sanctions and the list of compositions in each state differ significantly. The disproportionality of administrative penalties provided for by the administrative legislations of the EAEU member states has been established, and the need for unification of the composition of administrative offenses in the field of customs affairs, i.e. the establishment of a general list of articles providing for administrative liability for violation of customs rules, has also been identified. The importance of legal regulation of administrative responsibility in the field of customs in the EAEU states is underestimated, despite the fact that the institute of administrative responsibility is an effective tool for ensuring compliance with the customs legislation of the EAEU and national legislation on customs regulation. The directions of unification of legislation on administrative responsibility in the field of customs affairs in the EAEU states are formulated.