NINTH ARBITRAL APPELLATE COURT
127994, Moscow, GSP-4, passage Solomnaya Storozhka, 12 e-mail
address: 9aas.info@arbitr.ru
web-site address:
http://www.9aas.arbitr.ru.
CONSTRUCTION
¹ 09АП-6255/2019
г. Moscow Case No. A40-29025/17
23 April 2019
The resolution part of the Resolution was
announced on April 16, 2019 The Resolution was made in full on April 23, 2019.
Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal composed
of: presiding judge S.L. Zakharov,
judges: EV Pronnikova,
S.P. Sedov,
at the record keeping by the secretary of
the court session S.E. Israfilov, having considered
the appeal in open court session in the hall № 13
public joint stock company "Uralkali"
the judgment of the Moscow City Arbitration
Court dd. 26.12.2018 passed by the judge A.N. Nagornaya
in case No. A40-29025/17 (75-227)
at the request of Uralkali
public joint stock company to the Federal Tax Service
third party: Interregional Inspectorate of
the Federal Tax Service for the largest taxpayers № 5
invalidation of the decision of 05.12.2016
№ 13-1-14/0088DSP, with participation:
from the applicant: Y.V. Pyaskorskaya, arguments dated 17.05.2018; N.V. Shvedskaya, arguments dated 23.04.2018;
from the defendant: V.V. Zvankov dated 08.11.2018; I.E. Kabisov
dated 21.01.2019; I.G. Streltsova dated 21.01.2019;
from the third person: V.V. Zvankov, dated 25.10.2018; I.E. Kabisov,
dated 24.12.2018; I.G. Streltsova, dated 24.12.2018;
ESTABLISHED::
Public Joint Stock Company "Uralkali" (hereinafter - the applicant, the company,
PJSC "Uralkali") has applied to the
Arbitration Court of Moscow with an application to the Federal Tax Service
(hereinafter - the tax authority) for invalidation of the decision of
05.12.2016 No. 13-1-14/0088DSP "On refusal to be held liable for a tax
offense upon verification of completeness of calculation and payment of taxes
in connection with transactions between related parties".
By the decision of the Moscow City Arbitration
Court dated 16.06.2017 the claim of the applicant was satisfied and the
challenged decision of the tax authority was declared invalid.
By the decision of the Ninth Arbitration
Court of Appeal of 18.10.2017 the said decision was annulled, the claim of the
applicant was denied.
By the Resolution of the Moscow District
Arbitration Court dated 14.03.2018 the court acts in the case were cancelled,
the case was sent for a new consideration to the Moscow City Arbitration Court.
During the new hearing, the Interregional
Inspectorate of the Federal Tax Service for the largest taxpayers № 5 was
involved in the case as a third party, which does not make independent claims
about the subject of the dispute.
By the decision of the Moscow City
Arbitration Court dated 26.12.2018 the claim of the applicant was dismissed.
Disagreeing with this decision, the
applicant appealed to the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal, in which he asked
to cancel and adopt a new judicial act to satisfy the claimed claim.
At the court session of the court of appeal
the representatives of the applicant supported the appeal on the arguments
stated in it. Representatives of the interested person and the third person
objected to the satisfaction of the appeal on the arguments stated in written
responses to it.
The legality and validity of the adopted
decision have been verified by the court of appeal in the order established by
Articles 266, 268 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation
(hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian
Federation).
Having studied the materials of the case,
having listened to the explanations of the representatives of the persons
participating in the case, the court of appeal comes to the conclusion that
there are no grounds for satisfaction of the appeal on the following grounds.
As it follows from the case materials, on
the basis of the notification of the company about the controlled transactions,
submitted on 20.11.2013, the tax authority carried out an inspection of the
completeness of calculation and payment of taxes in connection with
transactions between interdependent persons.
Based on the results of the audit, he drew
up a report dated 27.06.2016 № 13-1-14/0043dsp and adopted a decision of
05.12.2016 № 13-1-14/088DSP, according to which the company was charged
additional corporate income tax in the amount of 980,156,716.54 rubles, penalties for his failure to pay 3,281,584.49 rubles, proposed the necessary corrections to the
accounting and tax accounting documents.
The tax authority considered that the
Company had incorrectly applied the method of comparable profitability
(hereinafter, the SR method) to justify the market price level in transactions
for the supply of potassium chloride with an interdependent counterparty - Uralkali Trading SA (Switzerland) (hereinafter, Uralkali Trading SA), which led to an understatement of the
tax base for income tax for 2012 and, as a result, underpayment of tax to the
budget. In its decision, the tax authority concluded that the comparable market
price method (hereinafter, the SRC method) was applicable in this case, as
information on comparable market prices is available in a publicly available
source of information, namely, in the Argus Media price information agency quotes,
and assessed additional income tax based on price information published by the
relevant agency.
The company disagreed with the contested
decision and challenged it in court.
In accordance with part 1 of article 198 of
the Russian Federation, citizens, organizations and other persons have the
right to apply to the arbitration court with the statement on recognition as
invalid of substandard legal acts, illegal decisions and actions (inaction) of
the bodies which are carrying out public powers, officials if they believe that
the challenged substandard legal act, decision and action (inaction) do not
correspond to the law or other regulatory legal act and violate their rights
and legitimate interests in the sphere of business and other economic activity.
Refusing to satisfy the claim of the
applicant, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the
contested decision complies with the tax law and therefore does not violate the
rights and legitimate interests of the company in the sphere of entrepreneurial
activity. At the same time, the court of first instance agreed with the
position of the tax authority that the SR method was applied by the company on
the basis of improperly confirmed data, and also recognized that in the case
under consideration, based on the established factual circumstances, the tax
authority used the SR method with the use of Argus Media price agency data to
verify the marketability of prices in controlled transactions.
The Court of Appeal, contrary to the
arguments set out in the complaint, which are limited to disagreement with the
above findings of the court, considers them to be true, based on the evidence
in the case and made with the correct application of substantive law, based on
the following.
in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article
105.3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - ncr), if in transactions between related parties commercial
or financial conditions are created or established that differ from those that
would have occurred in transactions recognized under Section v.1 of the said
Code as comparable between persons who are not interdependent, then any income
(profit, revenue) that could have been received by one of these persons, but
because of this difference were not received by him, shall be accounted for for the purposes of taxation.
in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article
105.3 of the Russian Tax Code, for the purposes of taxation of income (profit,
revenue) of interdependent persons who are parties to a transaction that could
have been received by such persons but were not received as a result of the
difference between the commercial and (or) financial terms of the said
transaction and the commercial and (or) financial terms of the same transaction
to which the parties are persons who are not recognized as interdependent,
shall be determined by the federal executive body authorized to control and
supervise taxes and dues from the application of the Code.
By virtue of Clause 1, Article 105.7 of the
Tax Code of the Russian Federation, when performing tax control in connection
with transactions between related parties (including when comparing commercial
and/or financial conditions of the analyzed
transaction and its results with commercial and/or financial conditions of
comparable transactions and their results), the tax authority uses the
following methods: 1) the method of comparable market prices; 2) the method of
the price of subsequent sale; 3) the cost method; 4) the method of comparable
profitability; 5) the method of profit distribution.
It is allowed to use a combination of two or
more methods (paragraph 2 of Article 105.7 of the Code).
At the same time, due to the direct
indication in paragraph 3 of Article 105.7 of the Russian TC, the priority
method is the comparable market price method. Other methods may be used if
application of the comparable market price method is impossible or if its
application does not allow to draw a reasonable conclusion about correspondence
or non-conformity of prices applied in transactions to market prices for
taxation purposes.
Based on subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 of
Article 105.15, paragraph 5 of Article 105.17 of the Tax Code to determine the
comparability of commercial and (or) financial conditions of controlled
transactions with the conditions of comparable transactions between persons who
are not interdependent to apply the methods specified in paragraph 1 of Article
105.7 of the Code or a combination thereof.
At the same time, it follows from the above
norms in their interrelation with the norm of paragraph 3 of Article 105.7 of
the Tax Code that the taxpayer must prove the validity of the application of a
particular method in the documentation on the controlled transaction (including
the impossibility to apply a priority method), as well as document the
calculations made.
Under the general rule provided for in
paragraph 5 of Article 105.17 of the Tax Code, the tax authority for the
purposes of tax control shall apply the method (combination of methods) applied
by the taxpayer. Application of another method (combination of methods) is
possible if it proves that the method (combination of methods) applied by the
taxpayer based on the conditions of the controlled transaction does not allow
to determine comparability of commercial and (or) financial conditions of the
controlled transaction to the conditions of comparable transactions between
persons who are not interdependent (paragraphs two, three).
Thus, the tax authority is entitled to
provide evidence that the application of the method chosen by the taxpayer
based on the conditions of the controlled transaction is unjustified, and the
calculations made are not based on documented information.
When considering this case, it was found
that the company applied the method of comparable profitability to justify the
conformity of prices applied in transactions with Uralkali
Trading SA.
The comparable profitability method
consists in comparing the operating profit margins of a party to the
transaction under analysis with the market interval of operating profit margins
in comparable transactions determined in accordance with the procedure provided
for in Article 105.8 of the Russian TC (paragraph 1 of Article 105.12 of the
Russian TC).
At the time of the audit, the Company
submitted the prepared documentation on the controlled transactions (hereinafter,
the documentation) confirming that the sales profitability level of 12
independent companies whose activities are comparable to those of Uralkali Trading SA is between 1.83% and 5.59%, and the
sales profitability level of Uralkali Trading SA (the
party under review) is 1.81%, which led to the conclusion that the price
applied in the controlled transactions was in line with the market level.
At the same time, when considering the
case, it was found that the company did not meet the conditions for application
of the SR method.
In particular, the tax authority found that
part of the goods purchased under controlled transactions were sold by Uralkali Trading SA to its interdependent entity, Uralkali Trading Chicago (USA), which does not comply with
subparagraph 1 of paragraph 5 of Article 105.12 of the Tax Code.
The company's arguments that the share of
sales of Uralkali Trading SA to Uralkali
Trading Chicago is insignificant (as the company pointed out, it amounts to
9.83% of total sales) were rightfully rejected by the court of first instance,
as unjustified by the materials of the case (only the trader's letter is
presented in confirmation), as well as unimportant from the point of view of
the provisions of the Tax Code on the conditions of application of the SR
method.
Also, the tax authority found that a
significant part of the expenses of Uralkali Trading
SA in the structure of the expenses were the costs of supporting the activities
of the dependent company Uralkali Trading Gibraltar,
the relevance of which to the controversial transactions is also not reliably
confirmed by the case materials.
In addition, neither during the audit, nor
the materials of the case the company has not provided reliable information
that served as a source for calculating the profitability of Uralkali Trading SA. The case file contains a letter of
confirmation from the company, according to which the revenue, cost, selling
and administrative costs, profit (loss) from sales and profitability of sales
for transactions by sea and rail correspond to those specified in the
documentation for the shopping center, which in
itself can not serve as proper evidence to confirm the reliability of
information specified in this documentation.
Thus, in this case the company in violation
of subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 of Article 105.15 of the Tax Code has not
documented the validity of the calculation of profitability Uralkali
Trading SA.
In the appeal, the company also expresses
its disagreement with the findings of the tax authority and the court of first
instance on the inconsistency of the companies included in the sample on which
the calculation of the profitability interval, the conditions specified in
Article 105.8 of the Tax Code.
At the same time, these arguments have no
legal value and are not accepted by the court of appeal, because in the absence
of a documented calculation of the profitability index of the company under
test, the application of the SR method was in any case carried out by him
illegally.
Besides, it was found out that by applying
the SR method, the company calculated the trader's profitability level based on
the annual activity results.
However, such approach, as the court of
first instance reasonably pointed out, does not comply with the provisions of
the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, in particular, the provisions of
paragraphs 1 and 8 of Article 105.12 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation,
from which it follows that the operating profitability of the company under
test is calculated on the basis of a controlled transaction (a group of
homogeneous transactions) and not on the basis of the results of the audited
period.
Thus, since in the case under review the
conditions for application of the SR method were not met, which was proved by
the tax authority, it was entitled to apply another method for the purposes of
tax control.
The Court of Appeal rejects the company's
arguments that the tax authority had to prove in the case under review that the
trader's profitability index indicated in the documentation was overestimated
by presenting an alternative documentary calculation, as well as to calculate a
correct, in its opinion, profitability interval in case of rejection of the
relevant calculations made by the company.
As stated above, the obligation to document
the validity of the applied method and the reliability of the calculations made
for the purposes of its application rests with the taxpayer. Accordingly, the
establishment of the fact of non-compliance with this obligation by the
taxpayer gives the tax authority the right in accordance with paragraph 5 of
Article 105.17 of the Tax Code to apply a different method of control.
In the case under consideration, the tax
authority, having established the unreasonableness of the company's application
of the SR method for the purpose of determining the conformity of prices in
controlled transactions to the market level of the SR method, applied the SR method.
Paragraph 1 of Article 105.9 of the Russian
TC provides that the method of comparable market prices is a method of
determining whether the price of goods (works, services) in a transaction under
review corresponds to the market price by comparing the price applied in the
transaction under review with the market price interval determined in
accordance with the procedure provided for in paragraphs 2-6 of this Article.
Applying the method under consideration,
the tax authority compared the prices in the controlled transactions with the
prices quoted by Argus Media information and pricing agency (hereinafter, Argus
Media) for potassium chloride on the basis of FOB CIS supply.
The comparison revealed a deviation of
transaction prices from the minimum limit of the market price interval, which
served as a basis for adjusting the prices applied in controlled transactions
of the company for tax purposes.
Clause 6, Article 105.9 of the Tax Code
states that when using data from information and pricing agencies on prices
(price intervals) for identical (homogeneous) goods (works, services) for the
purpose of applying the method of comparable market prices in accordance with
Clause 7, Article 105.7 of the said Code, the minimum and maximum values of the
market price interval may be recognized as the minimum and maximum values of
prices, respectively, for transactions made in the same period of time under
comparable conditions.
When considering the case, the Company
referred to the fact that the transactions on the basis of which Argus Media
quotations were calculated are not fully comparable with the controlled
transactions, and the tax authority based on these quotations did not make the
necessary adjustments, which led to the erroneous results obtained by applying
the SRC method.
These arguments were validly dismissed by
the court based on the following.
In accordance with clause 2 of Article
105.5 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, for the purposes of the said
Code the comparable transactions are deemed to be comparable with the analyzed transaction if they are executed under the same
commercial and/or financial conditions as the analyzed
transaction.
If commercial and/or financial conditions
of the compared transactions differ from commercial and/or financial conditions
of the analyzed transaction, such transactions may be
recognized as comparable with the analyzed
transaction, if differences between these conditions of the analyzed
and the analyzed transactions do not significantly
affect their results, or if such differences may be taken into account by
applying, for tax purposes, appropriate adjustments to the conditions and/or
results of the compared transactions or the analyzed
transaction (clause 3).
The court of first instance has rightly
pointed out that full comparability of the analyzed
and compared transactions for the purposes of application of the SRC method is
required in the case provided for by paragraph 2 of Article 105.9 of the Tax
Code.
In its turn, for the application of
information sources containing generalized price data in certain groups of
homogeneous transactions, including data from information and pricing agencies,
the Tax Code specifies certain rules for comparison.
At the same time, paragraph 6 of Article
105.9 of the Russian TC, which establishes the procedure for applying the SRC
method, does not contain a specific list of comparable conditions to be taken
into account when determining comparability of commercial and/or financial
conditions of the compared transactions with the conditions of the analyzed transaction.
In this connection, to determine
comparability, when using data from information and pricing agencies, the terms
and conditions of the analyzed transaction are used,
which are determined with due regard to Clause 3, Article 105.5 of the Russian
TC, and the terms and conditions of selecting transactions, which price
indicators are based on.
Based on the results of the analysis of the
relevant data, the court of first instance came to a reasonable conclusion that
Argus Media quotes can be used in the case under consideration.
Thus, the court found that, depending on
the particle size distribution (mass fraction), potassium chloride is divided
into two main categories: standard and granular.
This characteristic of potassium chloride
is the main indicator that can affect the price of its specific brand, and
therefore, this gradation is an accepted global trade practice in the potassium
chloride market.
Information and pricing agencies that
perform pricing analysis of the mineral fertiliser market, including Argus
Media, also divide potash into standard and granulated potash in order to quote
it.
On this basis, the court concluded that
Argus Media publishes price quotations for the goods corresponding to the
qualitative characteristics of the goods sold in the analysed transactions
(standard potassium chloride (pink and white) and granulated 7 grades).
At the same time, they legally rejected the
company's arguments that each separate nomenclature (brand) of potassium
chloride has its own special characteristics, which affects the price of the
goods sold, and this fact was not taken into account by the tax authority when
applying the SRC method.
As established by the court, Argus Media
publishes a range of prices, not a single weighted average price for all brands
of goods, where the minimum quote is the lowest price for standard or
granulated potassium of all brands presented, and the maximum price is the
highest.
At the same time, in this case the tax
authority has adopted the lowest quotes (minimum quotes at contract prices) as
comparable transactions with regard to the company's
controlled transactions in accordance with the provisions of Article
105.9 of the Tax Code.
The Court found that Argus Media quotes
reflect data on transactions with the minimum volume of 5,000 tons in terms of
volumes of supply, however, it mainly analyzes
transactions for tanker lots for vessels of 60,000-85,000 tons.
In the analyzed
transactions the goods were mainly sold in lots of 5000 tons and more.
The company's arguments that Argus Media
quotations are calculated in aggregation and do not allocate the corresponding
volumes have been validly rejected, as Argus Media determines the minimum
volume of consignment for which a separate valuation for that consignment is
formed, from which a ranked range of prices with minimum and maximum values is
subsequently formed, at that Argus Media does not aggregate the specified
prices and does not publish weighted average estimations of consignments.
According to the shipping time Argus Media
publishes quotations for transactions for which shipments are made after 3
months from the price setting date.
Delivery of goods under the analyzed transactions was made within two months from the
date of conclusion of an additional agreement setting the price.
At the same time, the court found that in
the period from August 2011 to December 2012 there was no volatility of prices
on the potassium chloride market.
Therefore, in the circumstances of this
case, the delivery period of the goods is not an essential condition for
ensuring comparability of the analyzed and compared
transactions.
It was also found that the potassium
chloride quote applied by the tax authority on the basis of FOB CIS supply,
according to Argus Media methodology, reflects prices for the goods at the
following ports: St. Petersburg, Reni, Nikolaev, the Caucasus and Ventspils.
In turn, the analyzed
transactions were carried out on the following bases: St. Petersburg, Reni,
Nikolaev, Caucasus, Ventspils: DAF Batevo, FOB Ventspils, FOB
Caucasus, DAF Grodekovo, DAF Zabaikalsk,
CPT Klaipeda, FOB Nikolaev, DAF Mamonovo, FOB Reni,
FOB St. Petersburg, CPT St. Petersburg, DAF Vertsilya,
DAF Uzhgorod.
In this regard, a reasonable conclusion was
made that this quotation can be used as a comparable transaction for the
shipping bases of FOB St. Petersburg, FOB Reni, FOB Nikolaev, FOB Caucasus, FOB
Ventspils. For transactions with different shipping
bases this quotation can be used as a comparable transaction subject to
adjustment for delivery terms.
At the same time, it was found that the
respective adjustments were made in the challenged decision of the tax
authority on the basis of the company's primary documents (railway
transportation and transshipment costs were taken
into account).
With regard to payment terms, Argus Media
methodology states that for Indian contracts a loan (payment delay) of 180 days
is provided. According to FOB CIS quoting methodology, the lower limit of the
quote is determined by calculating netback from cfr
India quote.
The Court found that for the analyzed potassium chloride sales transactions the payment
delay is also provided, actually the payment was made within 180 days.
The prices under analyzed
transactions were set in US dollars and Euro.
Argus Media quotation was published in US
dollars.
Transaction currencies are given by the tax
authorities to a comparable type using the euro to the U.S. dollar rate of the
European Central Bank.
Thus, according to the analysis, the
commercial and financial conditions of the transactions, on the basis of which
Argus Media quotes are calculated, correspond to the commercial and financial
conditions of the controlled transactions, and the differences, which could
have had a significant impact on prices, were taken into account by the tax
authority by applying adjustments.
When considering the case, the company stated
that the agency also took into account the transactions of CJSC BPC, which is
an interdependent entity with the company, which, in its opinion, excluded the
possibility of applying such quotations.
At the same time, the court found that the
agency took into account BPC's potash sales to independent customers,
information on BPC's transactions with the company, as well as information on
transactions between BPC and other companies affiliated to the company.
Therefore, the company's arguments that in
this case the comparison was actually made with transactions to which it is a
party are unjustified.
The company has also pointed out that
functions of the parties to the transaction were not taken into account when
making quotations. In turn, BPC was a reseller of goods purchased from the
company. Therefore, controlled transactions are not comparable to transactions
about which information was used by the agency to form quotations, which
excludes their application for tax control purposes.
At the same time, according to Argus Media
Methodology, provided that there are a sufficient number of transactions on the
market, the information about which is reliable and representative, the upper
limit of the price range is taken as the highest, and the lower limit is taken
as the lowest transaction price for the trading period.
Accordingly, Argus Media does not form the
quotation of standard "fob CIS, in bulk, contract" potassium chloride
based solely on the prices of "BPC" CJSC transactions. These
transactions were taken into account, among other things, when forming this
quotation by settlement from the most liquid world markets. At the same time
Argus Media does not publish weighted average transaction prices when forming
the mentioned quotation, but publishes a range of prices with determination of
upper and lower price range limits in transactions the information about which
was used for forming the quotation.
In the same case, the tax authority used
the lowest quotes for all transactions used in the calculation as comparable
transactions with respect to controlled transactions of the company.
In such circumstances the court of appeal
agrees with the findings of the court of first instance that the tax authority
has legally used the minimum quotes published by Argus Media for the standard
"fob CIS, bulk, contract" when comparing the prices in the Company's
transactions with Uralkali Trading SA.
The Court of Appeal believes that the court
of first instance in a new examination of the case, contrary to the arguments presented
in the complaint, fully complied with the instructions of the Moscow District
Arbitration Court, which were given in its decision of 14.03.2018.
During the consideration of the case, it
was found that the company applied the SR method on the basis of documentary
unconfirmed data on the actual profitability of Uralkali
Trading SA, as well as made methodological mistakes in the application of this
method (the trader's profitability index is calculated not on the controlled
transaction, but on the results of the audit period; the sample of companies
for calculating the interval of profitability includes companies that do not
comply with the provisions of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), in
connection with which he concluded that the prices in controlled transactions
are in line with the market.
In its turn, the tax authority correctly
applied the SRC method, the application of which showed that in controlled
transactions there was an understatement of prices in comparison with their
market level in comparable transactions, in connection with which price
adjustments were made to determine the actual tax liabilities of the company.
The significant amount of additional tax
accrued was a direct consequence of the adjustment and was due to the
significant volume of turnover under controlled transactions.
Having established that the Company's
application of the SR method in this case was unmotivated and not documented by
the court, the court reasonably acknowledged that its actions were aimed at
obtaining tax savings.
Also at the new hearing of this case, the court of first instance
assessed the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, including the
additional expert opinions presented by them. The evidence available in the
case files in their totality was sufficient to establish the legally
significant circumstances of the case, and therefore, there was no need to
conduct a forensic examination in the case. The appellate court proceeded from
the presence in the case of necessary evidence for adoption of the legal and
grounded decision, rejecting the application of the company for appointment of
the forensic examination.
Taking into account that the circumstances
of the case are fully investigated by the court, the submitted evidence is
evaluated according to the rules of Article 71 of the APC of the Russian
Federation in their totality and interconnection, the court of appeal has no
grounds for revaluation of the circumstances established in the case. In turn,
the rules of substantive law have been correctly applied by the court contrary
to the arguments of the complaint.
Taking into account the above, guided by
Article 71 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation,
the Court of Appeal, in its turn, applied the substantive law norms contrary to
the arguments of the complaint. 266, 268, 269, 271 of the Arbitration Procedure
Code of the Russian Federation,
DELIVERY :
The decision of the Moscow City Arbitration
Court dd. 26.12.2018 in case No. A40- 29025/17 shall be upheld, the appeal
shall be upheld.
The decision of the Ninth Arbitration Court
of Appeal comes into force from the date of its adoption and may be appealed within
two months from the date of the decision in full in the Arbitration Court of
Moscow District.
Presiding judge S.L. Zakharov
Judges E.V. Pronnikova
S.P. Sedov