As part of the fulfillment of the state defense order, our client undertook to supply telecommunications equipment of Chinese production. After the delivery of the equipment, it turned out that the characteristics stated in the technical documentation were overstated compared to the actual ones. The state customer refused to accept and applied to the Moscow Administration of the Federal Antimonopoly Service with a statement to include our client in the register of unscrupulous suppliers.
During the consideration of case 23/44/104/90GOZ in the Administration of the Federal Antimonopoly Service, we drew the attention of the antimonopoly authority to the fact that the discrepancy between the declared and real characteristics of the equipment occurred due to an inaccuracy committed by the Chinese manufacturer. In fact, equipment with the characteristics that the state customer required when organizing procurement is not produced. When undertaking obligations under the state defense order, the contractor relied on official information from the manufacturer and found themselves in a situation in which they objectively could not fulfill the terms of the state contract. At the same time, the contractor acted in good faith, promptly finding out the reasons for the discrepancy between the declared and real characteristics of the equipment, contacting the manufacturer and alternative suppliers to obtain equipment with the necessary characteristics.
The antimonopoly authority took into account the above arguments and evidence of the good faith actions of our client in the execution of the state order, refusing by its decision of March 2, 2023 in case 23/44/104/90GOZ to include the company in the register. The state customer did not challenge this decision of the Administration of the Federal Antimonopoly Service through the court or higher antimonopoly authorities.
