The supplier of Chinese goods did not object to the national regime under Law No. 223-FZ — the court did not recover damages
The priority of Russian goods was set in the purchase. The customer reduced the contract price by 15%, since Chinese products were offered in the application.
The participant signed and executed the contract because of the risk of getting into the RNP. Then he went to court to recover the lost profits. In his opinion, goods from the WTO or EAEU countries have equal priority with Russian ones. The customer should not have lowered the price.
Three instances did not recover the money:
the agreement was signed without objections and without a protocol of disagreement. The participant did not file a complaint with the FAS, did not dispute the results of the bidding and the provisions of the procurement documentation. Obligations were terminated by proper execution;
the procurement regulations allowed the participant not to conclude a deal on controversial terms, but he did not use this right.
It should be noted that recently the AC of the Ural District in a similar dispute took the opposite position, because:
goods from the WTO or EAEU countries are equated with Russian ones. The customer had no reason to apply priority to the Chinese product and reduce the price;
the winner could not refuse to enter into a contract at a reduced price because of the risk of getting into the RNP. He repeatedly asked the customer to change it, sent a protocol of disagreements, but the latter refused. The fact that the actions of the customer have not been appealed to the FAS does not prevent the supplier from defending his right in court.
This approach is supported by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
Document: Resolution of the Moscow District Court of 14.07.2022 on the case N A40-210773/2021