Court rules FOP fine for selling Apple and EcoFlow equipment unlawful

Appellate court confirms entrepreneur's right to trade

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal concluded the review of case No. 140/15087/24, ruling to cancel the fine sanctions imposed on an individual entrepreneur (FOP). The judicial instance recognised that the controlling authority had failed to take into account the presence of necessary primary documents for goods held on a consignment basis.

Clarifying the circumstances of the inspection in Kryvyi Rih

The tax conflict arose following a physical inspection of the shop conducted by officials of the State Tax Service in July 2024. Auditors claimed that FOP Oleksandr Zorin had sold eight units of equipment and accessories worth 168,000 hryvnia without proper recording. The list of goods, which, according to tax officials, were not recorded in the established order, included iPhone smartphones, Apple Watch smartwatches, an EcoFlow charging station, and a Dyson straightener.

Based on these findings, the Main Directorate of the State Tax Service in Volyn Oblast issued a tax notification-decision applying fine sanctions.

Defence arguments and first-instance ruling

Oleksandr Zorin challenged the actions of the controlling authority by appealing to the court. In support of his position, he provided a consignment agreement, goods acceptance and transfer acts, and a completed form for recording stock. The entrepreneur emphasised that the disputed goods had been officially transferred by the consignor and properly documented.

The Volyn District Administrative Court reviewed the case materials and fully satisfied the plaintiff's claim, recognising the tax authority's decision as unlawful.

Position of the appellate instance

The tax service disagreed with the first-instance decision and filed an appeal. However, on 9 October 2026, the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the satisfaction of the claim.

In its ruling, the court noted that since the entrepreneur acted on the basis of a consignment agreement, he does not acquire ownership of the goods. The existing acceptance and transfer acts sufficiently confirm the lawful origin of the products. The court also emphasised that the primary documents were provided to the controlling authority at the stage of reviewing objections before the final decision was made, therefore the State Tax Service was obliged to take these pieces of evidence into account.