Customs requests price evidence: the transaction value method (Method 1) and release of the goods

Two responses are tempting: send every available file without explaining which doubt it answers, or accept a higher value when customs requires an amendment, simply to obtain release. The first can bury the necessary evidence in an unconnected archive. The second risks higher payments or excessive security without examining customs' method, data source and calculation.

A request alone does not mean customs has rejected the transaction value, abandoned Method 1 or assessed additional payments. The response will, however, remain in the control file and may later be assessed as part of the declarant's position. The task is more than resolving a valuation query: preserve the possibility of release without committing, under deadline pressure, to an account contradicted by payments, accounting records or supplier documents.

Business correspondence often uses 'customs value adjustment' (КТС) for the entire price dispute. Legally, that is imprecise. A document request, security calculation, pre-release amendment requirement, post-release decision, goods declaration adjustment (KDT), customs value declaration (DTS) and administrative offence proceedings are distinct documents and procedures. If only a request has arrived, challenging a supposedly completed adjustment is premature. Once a decision exists, resending the old documents without addressing its reasons is not an adequate response either.

The valuation and control rules discussed here are those of the EAEU. Administrative and court appeals, suspension of enforcement and administrative liability are addressed under Russian law. 'Importer' is used for convenience. Each case still requires identification of the declarant, the person who filed, the customs representative's involvement and the person potentially liable.

On receipt, identify the request's legal basis. Article 325(1) of the EAEU Customs Code applies to documents referred to in the declaration but not submitted with it. They must be supplied at least four hours before the period in Article 119(3) expires. Failure to supply them results in refusal of release.

Article 325(4) applies where submitted documents omit necessary information, do not adequately support the declared details or show signs of possible inaccuracy. The request must give reasons, identify those signs, list the additional documents and information, and state the deadline.

The paragraph 7 deadline depends on what is being checked and whether it affects the amounts payable, not simply on when the message was sent.

For information in the declaration and documents submitted with it, respond at least four hours before the Article 119(3) period ends. For information in documents submitted under Article 325(2), the deadline is two hours before that period ends if the information does not affect payments, or one working day before the extended release period ends if it does.

Customs also refuses release where supplementary documents, written explanations or reasons for their absence are not supplied on time and Article 121's release conditions are not met. 'Send it later' is therefore not a universal answer to a pre-release request.

Submit the documents and information for each request together as one package. Other evidence supporting the declared details may be included. For an unavailable document, include the explanation, evidence of requests to the counterparty and alternative supporting material in that same package. Fragmented submissions complicate review and may leave part of the response outside the deadline.

Where an Article 325(4) request concerns information affecting payments, customs informs the declarant about Article 121 release and generally supplies a security calculation. The exceptions are cases in which Article 121 does not require security. Article 325(12) separately addresses checks that cannot be completed within the release period. Both rules may operate in one procedure, but their triggers differ.

Assess release against security against the economics of the shipment. Check payment of the declared amounts, whether security is required, which legally available form can be used in the relevant jurisdiction, whether its amount matches the calculation and whether it will remain valid through completion of control. Compare storage and waiting costs with the cost of obtaining security or tying up funds. Record separately why security was provided, how it was used and its return or credit.

The first hours are not the time to document the company's entire trading history. Address the stated doubts. For a low price, identify how this consignment differs from the benchmark. For a mismatch between payment and invoice, reconstruct the allocation. For a requested price list, establish whether one existed and applied to the sales arrangement. Before responding, identify customs' concern, the fact to prove, the primary document and what remains unsubstantiated after reviewing it.

The company does not have to rebut mere suspicion about the price. Paragraph 8 of Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 49 of 26 November 2019 requires courts to presume the accuracy of documents and information supplied during customs control; customs must rebut them. The declarant still has to substantiate its own transaction, but a low price or higher database figure cannot replace evidence of inaccuracy.

Before gathering attachments, establish whether the transaction itself permits Method 1. Article 39 of the EAEU Customs Code and the Rules approved by EEC Board Decision No. 283 of 20 December 2012 require a sale for export to the Union's customs territory and a price actually paid or payable.

Method 1 does not prohibit every restriction on the buyer. Restrictions imposed by law, limiting the geographical resale area or not substantially affecting value are permitted. Other restrictions, and conditions or obligations whose price effect cannot be quantified, can prevent its use. A seller's entitlement to part of the proceeds from later disposal also does not exclude Method 1 if it can be included as an Article 40 addition.

A relationship between seller and buyer does not itself make the transaction value unacceptable. If customs identifies signs that the relationship influenced the price, it must notify the declarant and examine the circumstances of sale. The usual contract, invoice and payment evidence may then be insufficient.

Explain how the price was set: whether it follows normal industry practice, whether the seller prices related and independent sales consistently, and whether it covers costs and a normal profit. The declarant may establish the absence of influence through the circumstances of sale or, on its own initiative, comparisons with Article 39 test values. Those values establish acceptability; they do not become an independent basis for valuing the imported consignment.

The exact customs value may not be known at declaration registration. EEC Board Decision No. 103 of 19 June 2018 permits deferred determination in specified cases where the contract already sets a formula or calculation procedure and the necessary variable becomes available after release, such as an exchange quotation, quality, quantity, royalties or a share of later proceeds.

Valuation checks begun before release have a special rule for repeat shipments. Paragraph 6 of the Regulation approved by EEC Board Decision No. 42 of 27 March 2018 prevents certain circumstances from being treated as signs of inaccuracy where all its conditions are met together.

The rule concerns identical goods imported under the same foreign trade agreement or contract on unchanged terms, including price and delivery, where the new check identifies the same circumstances already examined for the earlier consignment. The earlier value must have been determined using Method 1, and the accuracy and/or completeness of the relevant information confirmed. The new declaration must identify the earlier DT. The interval is set by the risk management system and cannot exceed 180 calendar days.

The interval generally runs from release of the earlier goods to registration of the new declaration. If the earlier goods were released under Article 120 or 121 before the relevant checks ended, it runs instead from notification of their completion. This is not an exemption from all customs control. It prevents only the specified circumstances in paragraph 5 of Decision No. 42 from being treated as signs of an inaccurate value.

Once Method 1 is established as legally available, assemble the transaction evidence. The contract sets obligations and pricing; the specification or order connects them to the consignment. The invoice records the amount charged. Bank records trace payments and recipients. Transport, packing and acceptance documents connect the price to the goods actually imported. Accounting records and reconciliation statements show how the obligation was recognised and discharged.

No document substitutes for the others. An invoice does not prove payment; a payment does not explain the price components; a contract does not prove import of this consignment. For a payment covering several invoices, the allocation must be traceable by amount, date and reference. For an advance, show the pro forma invoice, advance payment, final invoice, additional payment and balance. If payment is not yet due, provide the agreed terms rather than a general assertion of deferred payment.

A discount depends on whether the price term was effective when declared to customs, not on a letter's title. The offer, agreement, quality claim, correspondence and calculation must establish a genuine agreement consistent with the final invoice, payment arrangements and accounts. A later document may confirm an earlier agreement; it should not retrospectively create a discount solely to answer customs.

Third-party payments and intermediary fees require different classifications. First establish whether the amount is direct or indirect payment to the seller for the goods, or discharges a separate buyer obligation. The seller's instruction, contract, invoice, bank trail and reconciliation must explain why another recipient was paid and the effect on the debt to the seller.

Selling intermediary fees and brokerage are added to the extent borne or payable by the buyer, related to the imported goods and not already included in the transaction price. A buying commission paid by the buyer to its purchasing agent is not added where the criteria in EEC Board Decision No. 112 of 15 July 2014 are met.

For a broker, also examine the actual functions performed, whose interests were represented and who bore the cost. A payment or financial intermediary may be neither a buying nor selling agent, so its service requires separate classification.

A requested document may not exist, may not be used in the relevant trading arrangement or may be held by a foreign counterparty that refuses to provide it. Decision No. 42 permits documents and explanations substantiating those reasons. 'We do not have it' is insufficient: establish whether it had to be created, who holds it, when it was requested, the response and what else proves the same fact.

An explanation may justify non-production without proving the price. Customs assesses it with the remaining evidence. If the other documents establish how the consignment's price was set and paid, one missing file should not itself lead to rejection of Method 1. If an essential fact remains unsupported, explaining the gap does not fill it.

Litigation is not an unrestricted opportunity to rebuild the evidential record. For valuation checks begun before release, Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 49 of 26 November 2019 directs courts primarily to the materials available to customs when it decided. New evidence may be admitted where objective obstacles prevented its earlier acquisition, or customs did not give the declarant a real opportunity to resolve its doubts during control.

Examine the structure of customs value separately. A dispute about one addition does not necessarily displace Method 1. Customs may accept the transaction price but consider that an Article 40 component was omitted: certain intermediary or brokerage fees, containers and packing, goods or services supplied by the buyer, royalties, later proceeds, or carriage, loading or insurance up to the prescribed arrival point.

The list of additions is exhaustive. For each component, establish the legal basis and whether reliable, quantifiable and documented data can determine its amount. If the omitted component can be calculated reliably, Method 1 remains available with that addition. Later methods become necessary where the addition cannot be established on a verifiable basis or another Article 39 condition is unmet.

Post-arrival carriage included in the transaction price may be excluded from customs value where separately identified, declared and documented. Supreme Court Thematic Review No. 9/2026, 'Judicial consideration of disputes concerning the application of customs legislation', dated 17 June 2026, does not prescribe one indispensable document. The evidence must nevertheless allow verification of the actual carrier, route, rate, allocation and consignment. An invoice from a related party without the underlying rate or basis for recharging costs may be insufficient.

For royalties, examine whether the payment relates to the imported goods and is a condition of sale. That condition may follow from the relationship structure, the rights holder's control, a mandatory licence, or production and sales arrangements, not only an express contract clause. A general licence agreement does not automatically justify adding the whole payment. Payment to someone other than the seller does not automatically exclude an addition either.

A pricing database, catalogue, website, auction or another declaration can serve three different purposes: a trigger for checks, evidence for assessing explanations, or a permissible basis for a particular valuation method. A trigger does not automatically become a lawful valuation basis. Compare the goods, manufacturer, model, condition, period, quantity, commercial level, delivery terms, route and price components.

Methods 2 and 3 use the Method 1 customs value of identical or similar goods, subject to the relevant time period and documented adjustments. Where several admissible values are available, the lowest applies. The declarant may choose the order of the deductive and computed value methods. The fallback method comes last and does not permit arbitrary, fictitious or minimum values.

Do not begin reviewing a valuation requirement or decision with the final additional amount. Identify the Method 1 condition customs considers unmet and the doubts remaining after the response. Check the sequence of methods and the chosen method's requirements. Then examine the source, comparability and adjustments for quantity, commercial level, condition, transport, insurance and completeness. Check currency, exchange rate, units, duty rates and arithmetic last.

The KDT records amended declaration details; the DTS records the declared method and calculation. Neither replaces a reasoned decision. The file should separately identify the legal basis, revised valuation calculation, amended boxes and payment consequences. Correct arithmetic cannot cure an unlawful source, and a permissible source cannot justify an unsupported adjustment.

After Article 121 release, checks begun before release continue under Article 325. Documents requested under paragraph 4 but not supplied within paragraph 7's deadlines may be submitted within a period not exceeding 60 calendar days from DT registration. This does not extend to paragraph 1 documents or the Article 314(2) origin-check exception. Customs must complete the review within 30 calendar days after receiving the requested package, or after expiry of the submission period if it is not provided.

If the first package does not resolve the doubts, customs may send a further request under Article 325(15) before the review period expires. The response is due within ten calendar days of registration of the request. The 30-day review period is suspended from registration and resumes on receipt of the materials or expiry of the response deadline. The outcome is confirmation of the information and the possibility of returning or crediting security, or a decision to amend the declaration.

A valuation issue first raised after release follows Articles 326 and 340 of the EAEU Customs Code and, in Russia, Articles 225, 226 and 239 of Federal Law No. 289-ФЗ. The review generally cannot exceed 60 calendar days from commencement unless EAEU or Russian customs law sets another period. Time awaiting requested materials is excluded. A request issued during a review involving an official must state the review's starting date.

The response period must reflect the documents' volume and availability. A reasoned extension request may be submitted before expiry; the extension generally cannot exceed two months after the original deadline. Results are recorded under Article 226 of Federal Law No. 289-ФЗ. Where grounds exist, this form of control may lead to a desk-based or on-site customs audit. It must not be presented as a continuation under Article 325(13).

An appeal begins with the exact act and receipt date. 'Challenging the value adjustment' does not identify what created the payment consequence. Establish the particular requirement, decision, act or omission, its author, number and date, affected declarations, delivery method and the event starting the challenge period.

Under Russian law, an administrative customs appeal generally has a three-month period from when the person knew or should have known of the infringement. Applications under Chapter 24 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code also generally have three months unless federal law provides otherwise. Paragraph 31 of Supreme Court Plenum Resolution No. 49 of 26 November 2019 excludes time spent on the administrative appeal from the court-filing period, even where the appeal is not examined on its merits. It does not restart a full three months.

An appeal does not automatically suspend enforcement. Article 292 of Federal Law No. 289-ФЗ provides for a separate written application concerning a decision aimed at collecting payments, with security at least equal to the amount payable under that decision. A cash deposit or bank guarantee is normally used. The guarantee must be effective when submitted and expire no earlier than seven months after the application. Customs has seven working days to decide.

Filing in a Russian commercial court does not itself suspend the decision either. Seek suspension separately, substantiating the grounds for interim relief, its connection to the claim and proportionality. Identical parallel filings are not a neutral safeguard. If the decision, conduct, omission or facts to be established on the administrative appeal are already before a court, Article 293 of Federal Law No. 289-ФЗ requires refusal to examine that appeal on the merits.

Assess administrative liability separately from the valuation dispute. Failure to provide documents and information needed for control on time may constitute a distinct offence under Article 16.12(3) of the Russian Administrative Offences Code. It is not the same as inaccurate declaration.

Article 16.2(2) concerns inaccurate information declared by the declarant or customs representative, including customs value, where it caused or could cause exemption from payments or an understatement exceeding the equivalent of EUR 5 per declaration. Customs must prove the person's specific declaration, its payment consequences and fault, not merely point to a decision amending the declaration.

Constitutional Court Judgment No. 9-П of 5 March 2024 requires examination of the actual payment effect. In that case, reallocating figures between goods in one consignment with identical bases, rates and payment components did not and could not reduce the total liability. That reallocation alone was insufficient for liability under Article 16.2(2).

Voluntary correction is not a universal escape from administrative liability. Note 4 to Article 16.2 concerns post-release correction; Note 5, introduced by Federal Law No. 560-ФЗ of 29 December 2025, concerns pre-release applications. In both cases, all conditions must be met together and assessed as at the date preceding registration of the application.

To assess the customs document, remaining time and pre-release options, provide the document itself, proof of receipt date, the goods declaration, valuation or security calculation and key transaction documents. State the DT number, disputed price component and nearest response deadline. Documents can be sent via Telegram after agreeing on the transfer channel and the safeguards needed for the documents.

Legal review date: 31 August 2026.