The state contract was concluded with the second participant at an inflated price — the court did not recover the difference from the winner
The winner signed the draft contract and provided a security guarantee. Since he was dumping, he also sent data on 3 contracts to confirm good faith. Later, the winner saw a mistake — one of them was still being performed. He informed the customer about this and asked to conduct the contract conclusion procedure anew.
The customer offered to increase the provision. The winner received a new guarantee, but he was already recognized as a dodger. The deal was concluded with the second participant at a higher price. The customer has applied to the court to compensate for the losses.
Three instances did not recover the money:
the winner signed the contract on time and confirmed his good faith. He himself informed the customer about the error and tried to fix it. This cannot be considered an evasion;
the controllers did not include the information in the RNP. Their decision was not appealed;
the winner's documents could be checked in advance. They offered to increase the amount of collateral just 2 days before the end of the contract signing period;
The Law No. 44-FZ does not define deadlines for the fulfillment of anti-dumping requirements, but the winner was given little time to get a new security. Given the measures he has taken, there is no reason to recover damages.
It should be noted that in practice there is an example when the winner also tried to correct a mistake, but the appeal recovered the difference in price:
the absence of intent to evade has no legal significance for the recovery of damages. This is just an excuse not to include information in the RNP;
the fact that the winner did everything to conclude the contract does not justify his evasion. Force majeure, which prevented the fulfillment of obligations, was not proved.
Document: Resolution of the AC of the Volga District of 03.08.2022 in case N A06-7178/2021