How courts examine customs valuation evidence

The ruling is No. 305-ЭС25-11921 of 25 December 2025, issued by the Russian Supreme Court's Judicial Chamber for Economic Disputes in case No. А40-173573/2024, discussed in paragraph 4 of Supreme Court Thematic Review No. 9/2026. It shows why document volume does not determine the outcome. The invoices and bank records established delivery and payment, but customs questioned whether the related-party price was acceptable for customs valuation.

Document gaps can emerge during customs control. If checks cannot be completed within the release period and the information affects the amounts payable, customs informs the declarant about release under Article 121 of the EAEU Customs Code. Release requires payment of the declared amounts and, unless an exemption applies, security for the potential additional liability. In Russia, this procedure uses a cash deposit, bank guarantee or surety. The business commits cash or guarantee capacity and bears security costs until the checks end. If the declared information is confirmed, customs notifies the declarant that the review is complete and the security may be returned or credited.

After release, the main change is the financial impact of an error. Checks started before release may continue under Article 325; separate checks may first begin after release under Article 326. By then, the goods may have been sold and their cost accounted for. A customs decision can change the financial result of a completed shipment. In court, the grounds for doubt, procedural compliance and evidence for every amount affecting the calculation will need to be examined.

Method 1 starts with the price actually paid or payable for goods sold for export to the EAEU. Article 38(10) of the EAEU Customs Code requires reliable, quantifiable and documented valuation information. Only additions listed in Article 40(1) may be made, and only to the extent not already included in the price. Amounts covered by Article 40(2) are excluded if separately identified, declared and documented. Additions outside Article 40(1) are prohibited.

Even a complete document set does not remove Article 39's other conditions. Method 1 is unavailable where restrictions on the buyer exceed the permitted exceptions, the sale or price depends on conditions whose effect on value cannot be quantified, the seller is entitled to later proceeds that cannot be included as an addition, or the parties' relationship influenced the price and the transaction value is unacceptable for customs purposes.

Deferred customs valuation is not a remedy for ordinary missing documents. EEC Board Decision No. 103 applies only to the cases expressly listed in paragraph 3 of its Procedure and subject to its conditions concerning the goods, customs procedure and pre-agreed formula. It covers exchange-based pricing, royalties, later proceeds and prices dependent on characteristics established subsequently. The final value must be declared within the contractual period and no later than 15 months after registration. The procedure does not cover a business that simply lacks a freight breakdown or ordinary transaction documents.

Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 49 presumes the accuracy of documents and information submitted by the declarant during customs control. Customs bears the burden of rebutting them. That presumption does not supply missing information. If the materials cannot establish the transaction, match price to quantity or identify delivery and payment terms, the declared value lacks the necessary support. A formal defect that does not prevent the transaction and its essential terms from being established is not, by itself, grounds for rejecting the information.

A framework contract generally sets the parties' working arrangements but rarely gives the price for goods in a particular declaration. Where orders, specifications or order confirmations establish quantity, product codes and price, those documents connect the general terms to the imported consignment.

In an electronic ordering process, the absence of a paper specification does not mean that no price was agreed. Establish who sent and confirmed the order and how its identifiers connect to the invoice, packing list and transport documents. Emails and digital documents can serve as written evidence. Preserve original messages, addresses, attachments and timestamps to establish origin and date. These are practical checks, not an exhaustive statutory list of mandatory details under the Commercial Procedure Code.

A document prepared after a customs request may confirm an earlier agreement. Compare it with the order, correspondence, invoice, shipment and payments. A later date alone does not deprive it of evidential value. A price or other essential term first changed after declaration registration is different: it does not automatically reduce customs value. Establish the substantive basis for the change and its connection to the goods. Article 112 governs amendment of declared details; it does not itself establish an entitlement to a lower value.

An invoice records the seller's goods, quantity and price, but may not show when or how the buyer agreed to them. A discount entry gives the resulting amount without necessarily explaining why the price of this consignment was reduced. The discount must relate to the specific goods and be supported by transaction documents.

A reduced payment for defects in an earlier shipment may settle an earlier claim rather than reduce the price of new goods. A credit note or set-off can reduce the bank transfer while leaving the new consignment's price unchanged. Establish the new price separately from settlement of the buyer's earlier claim. Calling the deduction a discount does not resolve that distinction.

Higher price data held by customs may justify checks, but does not alone prove undervaluation. Compare the goods, import period, quantity, commercial level and delivery terms. Customs cannot reject a value solely because a benchmark is higher without testing comparability of the goods and transaction circumstances.

The transaction price may already be paid or remain payable. Under deferred or instalment terms, the absence of a transfer on the declaration date does not prevent Method 1. The documents must establish the agreed price, buyer's obligation, due date and payment arrangements. Later payment provides additional evidence of performance.

Where payment has been made, bank records should link the amount to the goods, either directly or together with contractual and accounting records explaining the allocation. A payment order records an instruction to the bank; an execution mark establishes execution to the extent stated; an account statement records money movements. A SWIFT message's significance depends on its type and content. It may show transfer details and routing without proving final credit to the recipient.

If the payment reference and transaction documents do not allocate one transfer across several invoices, provide an explanation and calculation. The total must reconcile to the bank statement, while invoice allocations, remaining advances and outstanding debt must match the accounts. There is no mandatory statutory form for this calculation. It should explain an existing transaction, not invent a payment arrangement after the request.

For a third-party payment, explain its legal and commercial basis. An assignment, factoring arrangement, agency contract or written seller instruction may establish that paying another recipient discharged the buyer's obligation for the imported goods. EEC Board Decision No. 283 recognises direct and indirect payments to third parties for the seller's benefit. A different recipient does not itself exclude Method 1. The documents must connect the payment to the goods, the seller's benefit and discharge of the buyer's obligation.

Not every payment to a third party forms part of the goods price. If it does not affect the seller's price and is not an Article 40 addition, a connection with the import alone does not make it an indirect payment to the seller.

Accounting records do not establish the terms agreed with the foreign counterparty. They support the accounting treatment: use of advances, recognition of debt, and allocation of payments and expenses. Assess them alongside orders, invoices, bank records, reconciliation statements and other underlying documents.

Formalities depend on the document's nature. Legalisation or an apostille under Article 255 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code concerns official documents issued, drawn up or certified by competent foreign authorities, unless a treaty provides otherwise. Ordinary contracts, invoices and commercial correspondence do not require legalisation simply because they are foreign. Their origin, the signatory's authority, copy authenticity and translation accuracy may still be disputed. During customs control, a translation is supplied at an official's request. In a Russian commercial court, foreign-language documents must be accompanied by a duly certified translation.

Paragraph 6 compares two transport-cost disputes. In the first, a DAP shipment's pre-arrival and onward carriage costs were separately recorded in orders, invoices and bills of lading. The buyer had no separate carrier contract because the supplier arranged transport. Customs did not rebut the amounts, but refused the deduction for lack of that contract. The Supreme Court found the valuation arbitrary and held that the company's application should be granted.

In the second dispute, the calculation came solely from a related foreign supplier. The documents did not establish the rates' source or their actual use by carriers. The Supreme Court did not declare the calculation inadmissible. It set aside the judgments and remitted the case because the reliability of the amount could not be decided without examining the figures' origin.

The transport disputes turned on where the figures came from and whether they could be verified. A missing separate contract does not refute a calculation where other reliable records establish the actual transport arrangement and expense.

Where a combined forwarder's bill covers several independent shipments, first establish the amount attributable to each. EEC Board Decision No. 83 does not prescribe a universal way to make that division. Then classify the invoice lines under Article 40. Additions under Article 40(1), subparagraphs 1–3, 6 and 7, covering several goods are generally allocated by their value, subject to Decision No. 83's special options. Carriage, loading, unloading, transhipment and related operations under subparagraphs 4 and 5 are allocated by gross weight. For free carriage or the buyer's or consignee's own transport, use rates for that transport mode during the journey or the corresponding period, allowing for seasonality. If rates are unavailable, use accounting cost calculations containing all necessary cost categories or elements.

An export declaration, price list or email is useful only for the fact it establishes. A value in a foreign declaration may be a transaction price, statistical value or another figure. Before comparing it with an invoice, check the field's purpose, currency, consignment, document origin, amendments and translation. A price list can explain pricing where its effective period, goods specifications, delivery terms and discounts are clear; these are not mandatory details of every such document. Correspondence can establish negotiations where the participants, date, attachments and order connection are identifiable. A supplier's bare assurance that the price is correct does not replace a calculation.

Record procedural defects in a request, but relying only on objections to its form is risky. Submit available documents and substantive explanations by the deadline. Separately identify unsupported demands, documents never created and information that genuinely cannot be obtained. An unexplained archive does not state the declarant's position or show which material answers each doubt, even though customs must examine all documents submitted.

Decision No. 42 allows an explanation that a document does not exist or is not used in the transaction. If another person holds it, state when it was requested and whether they refused or failed to reply. Explaining its absence is insufficient if nothing else supports the disputed fact. The actual transaction arrangements and remaining materials must allow the fact and amount to be verified.

Keep the explanations, attachment list and proof of transmission. A court needs to establish what customs held before deciding. Referring to a file that was never transmitted does not prove that customs could assess it.

Under Article 200(5) of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code, customs must prove the challenged decision's legality, its authority and the underlying circumstances. Under Article 65(1), the applicant proves the facts supporting its claims and objections. Article 71 gives no evidence predetermined weight: each item is assessed alongside the rest of the case.

Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 49's special rule on late documents concerns valuation checks begun before release. Evidence first produced in court may be admitted if the applicant establishes objective obstacles to obtaining it before the customs decision, or customs failed to provide a real opportunity to answer its doubts. For checks first begun after release, late documents are assessed under the applicable procedure and the Commercial Procedure Code's general rules.