NeThe VAC has issued a ruling stating that the mere fact that a carrier has spoiled food in its possession does not equate to the importer having that food and placing it on the market. The ruling contradicts the position put forward by voivodship food quality inspectors.

In a border inspection of 20 603 kg of frozen blackberries imported from Serbia, voivodship food quality inspectors found that the blackberries contained spoiled fruit with indications of mold and visible larva, resulting in a fine of approximately PLN 24 000 for placing the products on the market. The fined company  appealed to the Head Inspector, who stated that as the importer, the company was responsible for the trade quality of the batch of blackberries.

The case eventually reached the VAC, which found delivered at place (DAP) conditions in the documentation.  Under international rules, DAP means that when the seller delivers the goods, the related risk passes to the buyer when the goods are placed at the buyer’s disposal, ready for unloading at the stipulated destination or agreed location in the vicinity.  The seller bears any risk related to delivering the goods to the stipulated destination or agreed location in the vicinity. This means that the company takes possession of the goods, as the buyer, when the shipment reaches the stipulated location, and not before. Until that time, and specifically during the border inspection, the goods were in the possession of the seller (exporter) or, alternatively, carrier as the dependent holder.

Under DAP rules, the goods could not be considered in any way to be in the possession of the company as the buyer, and thus the company could not have committed the administrative offense. Such an offense is only committed by someone who trades in foodstuffs. Meanwhile, the term trade means placement on the market, meaning having possession of foodstuffs or fodder with a view to selling them, including offering for sale or for use in some other way, with or without charge, and also sale, distribution, or making use of them in some other form. The findings in the case, and the documents as well, show that the company cannot be considered to have taken possession of the goods or had them at its disposal in any way, and thus the company did not trade in the goods, according to the legal definition.

What implications does this have for entrepreneurs?

1. The authorities cannot automatically consider an importer to be responsible for goods while they are still being shipped, and are required to demonstrate that the importer did in fact place them on the market. They need to prove that the importer did indeed take possession of or had the goods at its disposal.

2. The judgment demonstrates that the crucial factor is the moment the goods are transferred and possession is taken of the goods, and not the mere physical presence of the goods in the supply chain. The delivery conditions, such as DAP rules, can determine responsibility in the administrative sense, so it’s worth ensuring you have the necessary documentation.

Ruling by the Voivodship Administrative Court in Warsaw of 23 July, 2025, V SA/Wa 164/25, LEX No. 4015515.