Last year, only about 14% of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) specializing in parallel imports remained active. This figure comes from a report cited by a major newspaper, which references a survey conducted by PSB Analytics in collaboration with the National Agency for Financial Research (NAFI).
The study highlights a clear preference among many firms for alternative strategies to import substitution. Specifically, 39% of SMEs expanded their supplier networks, while 27% ventured into new business areas. A notable portion of market participants continue to rely on products that have already entered the country for resale. Others seek functional analogues from friendly nations, and a growing number of enterprises have begun to manufacture the necessary items themselves. This reflects a broader adaptability in the market as businesses seek to mitigate disruption from international trade pressures.
Alexander Isaevich, the general director of SME Corporation, notes that small companies struggle to keep pace with the frequently shifting rules of parallel import mechanisms. For many, it is easier to source goods that have already been imported or to identify new products rather than continually recalibrate supply chains. Parallel imports appear better suited to larger players and to simple consumer goods that do not require ongoing service or after-sales support. This assessment points to a structural imbalance in the system, where scale and product complexity determine resilience in a volatile environment.
For smaller enterprises, the parallel import mechanism carries notable risks. Tracking changes in the lists of permitted goods proves challenging, and importing items from unfriendly countries often necessitates elaborate import schemes that involve multiple intermediaries. Such complexity increases administrative burden and elevates the chance of non-compliance, payment delays, or missed opportunities. SMEs may lack the experience, expertise, and trusted partners needed to navigate customs procedures effectively, and some brands explicitly prohibit importing their products into the country in principle, further constraining options for smaller firms.
Despite these hurdles, the parallel import framework was introduced with the aim of ensuring access to goods whose Russian analogues are not yet produced domestically. Isaevich, however, believes this mechanism should gradually be phased out as the market stabilizes and domestic production grows to meet demand. The intention behind its inception remains to soften the impact of sanctions by widening the initial supply of goods in the short term, while long-term policies focus on strengthening local manufacturing and diversifying supply chains.
From a broader perspective, the mechanism offers certain advantages during sanctions, such as maintaining availability of goods that might otherwise become scarce. Yet it also carries substantial drawbacks. One major concern is inflation: importing goods through parallel channels can push up prices, contributing to higher living costs for consumers. A second concern is that the presence of parallel imports may slow down the development of domestic production and the broader process of import substitution in the country. This tension between immediate relief and longer-term industrial growth remains a central topic for policymakers and business leaders alike.
In early February it emerged which vehicle models were most frequently imported into the country via parallel channels during 2023. The data sheds light on the sectors most affected by policy choices and market dynamics, illustrating how consumer demand intersects with regulatory frameworks and international trade patterns. Analysts note that the distribution of these imports often correlates with changes in tariffs, restrictions on certain brands, and the responsiveness of local distributors to shifting consumer preferences.
Earlier discussions by economists have explored potential timelines for the eventual abolition of parallel imports in the country. As different stakeholder groups weigh the short-term benefits against long-term economic objectives, the debate continues to evolve in step with geopolitical developments and the trajectory of domestic industrial policy. The central question remains how best to balance immediate access to goods with the goal of nurturing robust, self-sufficient domestic production that can withstand external shocks.