UFAS: the condition of printing on the requirement for an independent guarantee does not always violate Law No. 44-FZ
According to the customer, the provision of the guarantee on printing on documents for payment is illegal, because it is not in the additional requirements for such security. Because of this, the winner was recognized as a dodger.
The winner appealed the decision because:
the disputed provision did not oblige the customer to certify the documents, as it included the words "entitled" and "if available";
the guarantee allowed sending documents to the bank, including in electronic form;
the customer did not report its shortcomings and thus did not allow to re-provide the security.
The controllers supported him and noted the following:
according to additional requirements for an independent guarantee, it is not necessary to include a controversial provision in it. It is in the warranty, but in the form of an optional condition;
the customer did not notify the winner of the comments to the guarantee before he recognized it as evaded, and did not allow it to be corrected;
the provision corresponded to Law No. 44-FZ. The customer should have accepted it.
Note that there is another approach in practice. Thus, the St. Petersburg Federal Antimonopoly Service recognized that the seal condition may prevent the customer from receiving payment, therefore it cannot be included in the guarantee.