Marketplace order, Alipay and bank show different amounts: which value will customs accept?

A parcel held because of these discrepancies does not necessarily contain an incorrect figure. The problem may be the missing connection between the goods, price, payment and shipment. Without that connection, it is impossible to distinguish the goods' value from delivery, insurance, currency conversion, bank fees or a later refund.

This article concerns goods an individual orders abroad for personal use and receives in the EAEU. Customs assesses that status using the individual's declaration, the nature and quantity of the goods, and the frequency of cross-border movements by or to that person. Where the circumstances indicate a business purpose, the special rules for personal purchases do not apply.

Article 267 of the EAEU Customs Code governs the value of these goods, separately from the Chapter 5 rules for commercial imports. Buyers may substantiate the price with receipts, bills and other purchase records. Originals or copies may be used for goods delivered by a carrier. A file labelled invoice can help, but it has no predetermined evidential weight. Order details, an electronic receipt and payment history can establish the purchase without a conventional commercial invoice if they identify the goods, seller and price.

The delivery method determines which document provides the starting point for the check. For international post, the value appears in Universal Postal Union documents, usually a CN 22 or CN 23 customs declaration. For express delivery, goods for personal use are declared using the passenger customs declaration for express consignments. Marketplace and Alipay records explain the purchase and payment; they do not replace the documents used to declare that shipment to customs.

For international post, a declared postal value higher than the goods' value in the accompanying Universal Postal Union documents is treated as the goods' value. Recipients often discover this only after a parcel is held. An inflated figure entered by the sender therefore cannot simply be disregarded because the buyer's account records a lower purchase price. The discrepancy must be addressed with reference to the postal documents.

Transport and insurance costs are excluded from the value of goods for personal use, but the records must identify those amounts. A single Alipay total does not automatically separate the goods, delivery and insurance. A calculation prepared later by the buyer, unsupported by the order, carrier's tariff or insurance document, does not establish the payment breakdown.

Suppose the original price was CNY 1,200. The seller applied a CNY 150 discount and the marketplace added a CNY 50 coupon. The buyer paid CNY 1,000 for the goods, CNY 120 for delivery and CNY 10 for insurance. Alipay recorded CNY 1,130. Every figure is correct, but each describes a different part of the purchase.

For Article 267, the goods are worth 1,000 yuan if the discounts and payment breakdown are documented. Shipping and insurance are excluded. The 1,130-yuan Alipay transaction records the total paid to the marketplace or seller, not just the price of the goods. The bank statement records the next step: conversion into the account currency and any bank fee.

A ruble debit cannot be compared directly with an order total in yuan. It depends on the bank's exchange rate, the processing date and the card or payment service terms. A bank fee charged on top of the amount sent to the seller or marketplace pays for a banking service; it does not become part of the goods' price. Customs charges use the exchange rate prescribed for the relevant import procedure, not the bank's commercial rate.

Fees and taxes included by the marketplace in the purchase total need a different assessment. Article 267 expressly excludes transport and insurance, but does not allow every marketplace charge to be deducted. The order, electronic receipt and transaction terms establish whether a charge forms part of the purchase price, pays for a separate service or is unrelated to the goods' value.

Different names do not automatically make the documents unreliable. One person may own the account, a relative may pay, the platform may receive the money, a warehouse may dispatch the goods and someone else may receive them. Explain each person's role consistently. Without that explanation, customs sees documents naming different payers, payees and senders rather than a coherent family purchase.

The label 'refund' explains little on its own. It may refer to cancellation before dispatch, an unavailable item, refunded shipping, compensation for delay, a price reduction for a defect or a different purchase. The relevant evidence is the date, reason, amount, currency, item, original payment ID and credit to the bank account.

A price reduction agreed before declaration for goods the buyer keeps may affect the declared value. A shipping refund does not reduce the goods' price: shipping is already excluded under Article 267. Compensation that does not change the contractual price, and payments made after release, need separate assessment. A screenshot labelled 'refund' without a link to the transaction does not establish what changed in the parties' accounts.

Customs may use price information for comparable goods when documents are missing, cannot be linked to the imported goods or give reasonable grounds to doubt their reliability. It may also do so where the declared value does not reflect the market value of comparable goods in the country of purchase under normal trading conditions. Article 267 permits foreign retail catalogues and websites, but the selected reference must concern genuinely comparable goods.

A matching product name is not enough. Relevant factors include the model, purpose, specifications, quality, condition, configuration, country of sale, offer date and what the published price includes. A reference price that includes shipping, a marketplace fee or different equipment cannot be compared directly with a price that excludes those elements without an appropriate adjustment.

The Russian Supreme Court's Thematic Review No. 9/2026 addresses two related points under Article 267. Customs bears the burden of showing why the declared value needs recalculation; a single unsubstantiated web page does not disprove the buyer's documents. Unresolved inconsistencies in the declarant's own records, however, may justify using prices for several comparable goods. The cases concerned cars, but their treatment of the burden of proof and conflicting documents rests on the general valuation rules for goods imported for personal use.

A lower price is not unreliable merely because it differs from an online offer. The individual must provide complete and accurate purchase details. Customs must explain why those documents do not establish the declared value and why its chosen comparison is valid. Where the buyer's records agree, one price reference will not usually replace a proper assessment of them. Conflicting order, payment and shipment records make the customs position considerably stronger.