THE MODEL EVIDENCE FILE

XE335C

3 evidence records explicitly name this label.

In plain language: Use these records to prepare questions about a machine. A catalogue listing is not proof of stock or local approval. Price and finance records are dated references, not current offers.

This is the exact label stated in the evidence. No exact match was found in the supplied October 2026 model catalogue. A missing match does not establish that the model never existed or is unavailable. Specifications and related variants are not inferred. Evidence-record counts are not unique-document or independent-source counts.

3 evidence records in the same source group. These are not 3 separate incidents or failures.

Russia · Court records

XE335C hydraulic-distributor defect: appeal, А04-6842/2023

Read record, response & limits

Court decision · Sixth Arbitration Appeal Court, via Sudact · Full-text judgment date: 2024-12-10

Court-accepted manufacturing defect in one unit

The court accepted expert evidence of a hidden manufacturing defect in the hydraulic distributor of XE335C unit XUGC3351ANKA00964 and upheld damages against supplier Promeks. XCMG’s Russian representative disputed the expert methodology. Rescission was refused because the defects were repairable.

Outcome and response
Appeal rejected; March 2025 cassation also upheld the ruling (ME002).

Reading limits

Court text independently read on an unofficial mirror; the official registry and any unreviewed later decisions were not independently checked. This concerns the identified dispute, not model-wide prevalence or a recall. The mirror heading says 9 December; the judgment body dates the full text 10 December. Do not aggregate its inconsistent damages totals.

Full judgment text read on public Sudact mirror.

Case А04-6842/2023; expert-evidence assessment, repairability discussion, and operative disposition.

Russia · Court records

XE335C hydraulic-distributor defect: cassation, А04-6842/2023

Read record, response & limits

Court decision · Far Eastern District Arbitration Court, via Sudact · Full-text judgment date: 2025-03-25

Cassation upholding the same unit finding

Cassation upheld the July 2024 judgment and December 2024 appeal concerning the same XE335C unit. It declined to reassess accepted manufacturing-defect expert evidence.

Outcome and response
Supplier’s cassation dismissed; possible subsequent Supreme Court proceedings not verified.

Reading limits

Court text independently read on an unofficial mirror; the official registry and any unreviewed later decisions were not independently checked. This concerns the identified dispute, not model-wide prevalence or a recall. This is a later decision about ME001’s machine, not another failure. The mirror heading says 24 March; the body states full text 25 March.

Full judgment text read on public Sudact mirror.

Case А04-6842/2023; final evidentiary discussion and operative disposition.

Russia · Court records

XE335C follow-on damages, А04-2503/2025

Read record, response & limits

Court decision · Amur Region Arbitration Court, via Sudact · Full-text judgment date: 2025-09-11

Follow-on damages for the same defective unit

The court awarded further lost profit and repair expenses connected to the same XE335C unit and the earlier manufacturing-defect finding. It reduced the lost-profit component by 50% for failure to mitigate.

Outcome and response
First-instance judgment; later appeal status not verified.

Reading limits

Court text independently read on an unofficial mirror; the official registry and any unreviewed later decisions were not independently checked. This concerns the identified dispute, not model-wide prevalence or a recall. Count with ME001–ME002 as one unit event. The mirror heading says 10 September; the body states 11 September.

Full judgment text read on public Sudact mirror.

Case А04-2503/2025; connection to А04-6842/2023, mitigation assessment, and operative disposition.

All reviewed model evidence · Manufacturer catalogue