Representative Cases
No.1
Case of Retrieving Goods Seized in China-Kazakhstan Cross-Border Transportation
●Case Background
A Kazakh trading company procured a batch of urgently needed electronic equipment from Shenzhen, China, but the goods were temporarily seized by Chinese customs due to inconsistent information in some customs clearance documents and incomplete procedures for certificates of origin. The detention of the goods left the Kazakh client facing supply chain disruptions and significant financial losses, creating an urgent situation. Despite language barriers encountered by the staff of the Kazakh company, our firm promptly provided legal support.
●Legal Service Process
Upon receiving the client's mandate, our legal team acted swiftly to assess the situation. On one hand, we guided the Kazakh client in urgently supplementing and rectifying documentation domestically while completing the necessary certifications. On the other hand, we coordinated simultaneous actions in Shenzhen and at the port, representing the client in multiple rounds of legal communication and factual clarification with customs authorities, regulatory warehouses, and domestic suppliers. We submitted comprehensive power of attorney documents and detailed explanations, formally applying for the inspection and release of the goods in strict accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
Ultimately, the customs authorities accepted the supplemental materials, and the goods in question were successfully released.
Knowledge Sharing
Case of Retrieving Goods Seized in China-Kazakhstan Cross-Border Transportation
1
Nature of the Issue
How can extraterritorial evidence provided by the Kazakh client—such as trade contracts, certificates of origin, invoices, and authorization documents—meet the formal requirements under Chinese law to be admissible to Chinese customs authorities or courts?
The core lies in resolving the issue of "localizing extraterritorial evidence."
2
Key Legal Basis
1. Article 16 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures:
This article distinguishes the proof requirements for three categories of extraterritorial evidence: "official documentary evidence," "private documentary evidence," and "evidence concerning identity relations," while clarifying the principle of "treaty priority."
In light of the bilateral arrangement between China and Kazakhstan, the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents has applied to both countries since November 7, 2023, significantly simplifying procedures for official documentary evidence and replacing the traditional "notarization + consular authentication" process.
2. Article 33 of the Implementing Regulations on Administrative Penalties for Customs:
Customs authorities review extraterritorial evidence based on the three principles of "legality, authenticity, and relevance." While emphasizing "immediacy and relevance" over judicial proceedings, such evidence must still satisfy the formal requirements of foreign-related evidence rules.
It also specifies procedural requirements for customs investigations (e.g., at least two officers presenting law enforcement credentials), where procedural compliance directly affects the admissibility and linkage of extraterritorial evidence with evidence obtained by customs.
3. Supplementary References:
Provisions on the Collection, Extraction, and Review of Electronic Data in Handling Criminal Cases (applicable to the preservation of electronic evidence); Minutes of the National Symposium on Foreign-Related Commercial and Maritime Trial Work (clarifying exceptions to notarization and authentication requirements for extraterritorial evidence).
3
Practical Summary
The core of admitting extraterritorial evidence from Kazakh clients lies in "categorizing and adapting to formal requirements + procedurally compliant preservation": prioritizing Apostilles for official documentary evidence, supplementing notarization for private documentary evidence as needed, and ensuring notarized preservation of electronic evidence throughout the process to guarantee integrity; translations must be issued by compliant institutions and accompanied by proof of qualifications. Meanwhile, communicating evidence format requirements with customs in advance and promptly supplementing questionable evidence can significantly increase the admissibility rate.
Profile of the Contributing Attorney
