Customs has asked for documents to substantiate the declared value. The goods have not yet been released, and the request specifies a response deadline, but there may be no decision to increase the amount payable.
The first question is what prompted the request: the price itself, the costs included in the valuation, or whether the transaction value method is available. A contract and a payment instruction address different parts of that enquiry.
This article concerns commercial imports and disputes with the Russian customs authorities. Valuation is governed by the law of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU); challenges to customs action and liability are considered under Russian law. The abbreviation KTS, commonly used in Russian correspondence for a customs value adjustment, does not identify a single procedure. A request for documents, a security calculation, a requirement to amend a goods declaration (DT) and a decision following customs control each call for a different response. It is also necessary to establish who acted as the declarant and what information the customs representative declared.
The legal basis of the request determines how to check the response deadline. Article 325 of the EAEU Customs Code distinguishes between documents referred to in the declaration but not submitted with it and additional material requested to verify information about which customs has doubts. For the former, paragraph 2 requires submission no later than four hours before the deadline under Article 119(3). Failure to provide those documents results in refusal to release the goods. An explanation prepared for a further enquiry into the price does not satisfy that separate requirement.
For additional documents, Article 325(7) provides three alternatives. The same four-hour cut-off applies where customs is checking information in the declaration and the documents submitted with it. Where the information appears in documents submitted subsequently under paragraph 2, the deadline is no later than two hours before the Article 119(3) deadline if the information does not affect the amount payable. If it does, submission is required no later than one working day before the extended release deadline. The hours are counted back from the release deadline, not forward from receipt of the request. Article 119(3) ties its deadline to the next working day after registration of the declaration or after another event specified in that Article. The customs office’s working hours and any extension of the release period must also be taken into account.
A request under Article 325(4) must identify the indications that the information has not been properly substantiated or may be inaccurate, the additional documents required and the deadline for providing them. Material requested under paragraphs 1 and 4 must be submitted together, as a single set. An explanation for an unavailable additional document belongs in that submission: for example, the seller did not produce a price list or refused to provide it. Include the available evidence of the reason for non-production and of the underlying fact in dispute. Retain the response as submitted, all its attachments and confirmation that it was received. If neither the additional material nor an explanation for its absence is submitted on time, and the conditions in Article 121 are not met, release will be refused.
While verification remains open, Article 121 provides a possible route to release before it is completed: the amounts calculated in the declaration are paid and any required security is provided for a potential additional liability. Where a request concerns information affecting the amount payable, customs informs the declarant of this possibility. Inability to complete verification within the release period is a separate basis for providing that information. A completed verification followed by a requirement to amend the declared information under Article 112 is a different procedural stage. Simply offering security instead of complying with that requirement fails to distinguish between the two procedures.
Before arranging a guarantee, establish whether security is required at all. In Russia, Article 55(3)(8) of Federal Law No. 289-FZ dispenses with security for customs duties and taxes where the amount of that security does not exceed the equivalent of EUR 500. Where a declaration is submitted, the Bank of Russia exchange rate on the date of its registration applies. The threshold concerns the security amount, not the price of the goods. Safeguard, anti-dumping and countervailing duties are subject to separate provisions; the threshold cannot be extended to them without a separate legal basis. Article 121 also provides an exception where the declarant is an authorised economic operator. The involvement of a customs representative is relevant only if the specific conditions are met; a contract with the representative is not enough. For release under Article 121, Article 55(20) permits a cash deposit, a bank guarantee or a surety undertaking. A pledge of property is not included in that list.
How security for release is calculated
When security is calculated for possible additional duties and taxes, Article 65 of the EAEU Customs Code permits specified calculation assumptions and information about goods of the same class or kind. The calculation is provisional: its inputs cannot be treated as establishing the final customs value without further verification. For the business, the relevant considerations are the amount, permitted form and duration of the security, and the cost of a guarantee or of tying up cash compared with storage and transport delay costs. Security does not, however, substitute for compliance with prohibitions and restrictions. Article 121(5) excludes this route to release where the indications specified there suggest that such controls may apply and compliance has not been demonstrated. The same applies to measures protecting the internal market that take a form other than the duties listed in that paragraph.
The response should address the particular concern that remains unresolved. Where one payment covers several invoices, provide a reconciliation showing how it was allocated. For an advance payment, establish its connection with the shipment. If the contractual payment date has not arrived, substantiate the obligation and the agreed deferred payment terms rather than a payment that has not yet been made. A later letter about a discount may evidence an earlier agreement. A document that first purports to create a retrospective discount in response to the customs request does not establish the terms of sale originally declared.
When a court examines the valuation, documents submitted by the declarant are presumed accurate, and customs bears the burden of rebutting that presumption. This is explained in paragraph 8 of Resolution No. 49 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, dated 26 November 2019. Paragraph 10 distinguishes grounds for verification from grounds for rejecting transaction value. A substantial difference from a comparable price may justify an enquiry, but does not by itself establish that the declared information is inaccurate. A response explaining the particular shipment and its terms of sale is therefore more useful than a general objection to customs asking questions at all.
When Method 1 remains available
The transaction value method, or Method 1, starts with the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, subject to Article 40. It applies to a sale for export to the Union where the requirements of Article 39 of the EAEU Customs Code are met. Restrictions on the buyer’s rights are permitted where they are imposed by acts of the Union’s institutions or the legislation of its Member States, limit the geographical area of resale, or do not substantially affect the value. Other restrictions on the use or disposal of the goods prevent the use of Method 1. A separate obstacle arises where the sale or price depends on a condition or obligation whose effect on the price cannot be quantified. Any share of subsequent proceeds accruing to the seller can be accounted for under Article 40 if the necessary data are available.
A relationship between the parties is assessed differently: it does not, by itself, exclude Method 1. If customs identifies indications that the relationship influenced the price, it informs the declarant and examines the circumstances of the sale. The explanation must then address how the price was set. Relevant approaches include normal industry pricing practice, comparable sales to unrelated buyers, or a price sufficient to recover all costs and earn a profit equivalent to the seller’s usual profit over a representative period on goods of the same class or kind. These approaches are set out in Rules No. 283. The test values in Article 39 are used at the declarant’s initiative to demonstrate that the price is acceptable, not as a substitute valuation for the imported consignment.
Related parties and pricing evidence
Pricing was the issue in the case discussed in paragraph 4 of the Supreme Court’s Thematic Review of Case Law No. 9/2026, approved by the Court’s Presidium on 17 June 2026. The parties’ relationship and the difference from comparable pricing information had been established, but the declarant had not explained how the price was set. Remittance of the invoiced amount confirmed performance of a transaction whose existence was not disputed. It did not answer the question whether the relationship had influenced the price. Banking evidence must therefore be assessed against the issue under examination, rather than treated as sufficient for every valuation dispute.
Documents are assessed together and in the context of commercial practice. The contract, invoice, transport documents and accounting records may establish different elements of the same transaction; there is no universally mandatory set for every shipment. Where a document is held by a foreign party, evidence of the request made to that party and of its refusal or failure to respond is relevant, as recognised in paragraph 10 of Regulation No. 42. An objective inability to produce a document should not be the sole ground for an adjustment. Nor does it establish the disputed amount: customs must assess the other material and whether the substantiated concerns have been resolved.
Where payment went to a third party, establish whether it discharged the debt owed to the seller. Under Article 39(3), a payment made for the seller’s benefit through another recipient may form part of the price. A fee for a separate service must be considered separately from payment for the goods. The intermediary’s actual functions matter: selling commissions and buying commissions receive different treatment. The exclusion for buying commissions concerns the buyer’s own agent representing its interests outside the Union. Under Regulation No. 112, the contracts, correspondence and work actually performed by the agent are examined. If the intermediary is in fact reselling the goods, describing part of its price as a buying commission is insufficient. A payment intermediary may perform neither a buying nor a selling function.
Additions to the transaction value
Even a substantiated price may require additions. Article 40 contains an exhaustive list: subject to its conditions, additions cover intermediary remuneration, containers and packing, goods and services supplied by the buyer, subsequent proceeds accruing to the seller, transport and related operations, insurance, and royalties and licence fees. Each addition must be checked for its legal basis, amount and whether it is already included in the price. If an omitted amount can be reliably determined, Method 1 remains available with that amount added. If a required addition cannot be quantified, Method 1 cannot be used. Paragraph 18 of Plenum Resolution No. 49 also draws this distinction.
The fact that a cost arose after importation is not enough to justify deducting it. Article 40(2) specifies particular categories: transport within the Union from the prescribed location; certain post-importation work and technical services relating to plant, machinery and equipment; and the duties, taxes and charges identified in that provision. The amounts must be separately identified in the price, declared and supported by documents. Royalties or proceeds accruing to the seller do not become deductible merely because they are paid later.
The difference between a missing document and an unsubstantiated amount is illustrated by paragraph 6 of Review No. 9/2026. In the first case, post-arrival transport costs were separately identified in the documents. The declarant supplied orders, invoices and bills of lading; the contract did not require the supplier to provide further transport documents. Customs did not disprove that the costs were genuine or that they related to the goods. The Supreme Court held that refusing the deduction was unlawful: a separate contract of carriage was not the only admissible evidence.
In the second case, the invoices also itemised the costs, but the rates had been stated by the related supplier itself. The evidence did not explain who had set them, on what terms, or whether those rates had actually been applied to the carriage. The Supreme Court remitted the case for reconsideration. That was not a final ruling upholding the additional assessment. The comparison shows why the basis of a disputed amount must be explained: commercial documents may provide sufficient evidence in one transaction yet leave a material question unanswered in another.
Royalties are included only where they relate to the imported goods and are paid, directly or indirectly, as a condition of their sale for export to the Union. Paragraph 7 of Review No. 9/2026 requires examination of the parties’ actual dealings, not just the wording of the contract. The recipient need not be the seller. The allocation of the payment to the relevant goods and the absence of double counting must also be checked. Article 40 excludes payments for the right to reproduce the goods within the Union. Payments for distribution or resale rights are not added where they are not a condition of that sale for export.
Where the exact value genuinely cannot be established until later, Decision No. 103 provides for deferred determination in specified circumstances. These concern contractual pricing arrangements involving a later commodity exchange quotation, the final determination of product characteristics, royalties or proceeds accruing to the seller; they are not a general extension of time to answer customs. The provisional value is calculated under the Procedure and declared at the declaration stage. The exact value must be declared by the specified deadline, which cannot extend beyond fifteen months from registration of the DT. That limit covers both determining and declaring the value. Paragraph 3 of the Procedure limits the circumstances and customs procedures in which the mechanism is available. A declaration cannot be converted to deferred valuation after a customs request merely by relabelling it: the permissibility of an amendment must be assessed under Article 112.
A repeat shipment may benefit from a different rule. For control begun before release, paragraph 6 of Regulation No. 42 restricts reliance on certain indicators of inaccuracy where all the conditions are met: identical goods were imported under the same contract on unchanged terms, including price and delivery terms, and the same circumstances were previously examined and the Method 1 valuation information confirmed. The new DT must identify the earlier declaration, followed by “/” and the item number from Box 32 of that declaration. The period between release of the earlier shipment and registration of the new DT is set by the risk management system and must not exceed 180 calendar days. Where the earlier goods were released under Article 120 or 121 before verification ended, the starting point is the dispatch of information confirming its completion. Release alone, without establishing these conditions, does not provide a general exemption from control. For goods released before a DT is submitted, the rule applies if control began before the electronic document was sent or the endorsements made under Article 120(17) of the EAEU Customs Code, as provided in paragraph 2 of the Regulation.
Testing Customs’ Comparison Goods
If customs nevertheless determines the value on a different basis, the objections must address the method it has chosen. For Methods 2 and 3, a matching EAEU tariff classification code (TN VED) is not enough. Article 37 defines identical goods by reference to their characteristics, quality and reputation. Similar goods must also be capable of performing the same functions and be commercially interchangeable. The country of production and the conditions for using goods made by a different producer must be checked. A higher price for a product with a similar name does not explain why it is a valid comparator.
Under Articles 41 and 42, the starting point is a transaction value determined under Method 1 and accepted by customs. The comparison goods must have been imported at or about the same time, but no earlier than 90 calendar days before the goods being valued. Commercial level, quantity and the prescribed adjustments, including transport adjustments, matter. Where an adjustment for commercial level or quantity is necessary but there is no documentary evidence establishing its justification and accuracy, the relevant method cannot be used. If several values meet the requirements, the lowest must be selected.
Limits of the Fall-Back Method
The fall-back method allows different limits. Article 45 permits, among other things, reference to goods produced in another country and reasonable flexibility in the timing requirements. Using a comparison shipment imported more than 90 days before the goods being valued does not, by itself, invalidate a fall-back valuation. Customs must nevertheless explain why the preceding methods could not be applied and why the particular departure is permissible. The declarant may choose the order in which the deductive and computed value methods are considered. The fall-back method is used last and does not dispense with the required sequence. Arbitrary or fictitious values, minimum values, a system selecting the higher of two valuations, and the other bases listed in Article 45(5) are prohibited.
Article 45(6) requires customs to disclose its information sources and calculations. Effective objections need enough information to examine the comparison goods, timing, commercial terms and adjustments. The right to that explanation is not an unrestricted entitlement to every third-party document or all the data held in the risk management system. The components of the price, units of measurement, currency, applicable exchange rate, applicable rates and arithmetic must then be checked. The goods declaration amendment form (KDT) records the amended particulars; the declaration of customs value (DTS) records the method and calculation. They must be read alongside the requirement or decision, not in place of its reasons.
Complying with an amendment requirement to obtain release does not waive the right to challenge the assessment. Paragraph 24 of Plenum Resolution No. 49 permits a post-release application to amend the value even where it was previously increased to comply with a customs requirement. The explanations already submitted nevertheless remain evidence. Retain the original documents, explain why the declared particulars changed, and avoid replacing the actual terms of the transaction with a more convenient account.
Verification After Release
Following release under Article 121, verification continues under Article 325. Outstanding material may be submitted within a period not exceeding 60 calendar days from registration of the DT. Verification must be completed no later than 30 calendar days from submission or, if the material is not submitted, from expiry of the period allowed for it. A further request under paragraph 15 must be issued before verification ends, and the response is due no later than ten calendar days from registration of that request. The thirty-day period is suspended from the date the request is registered and resumes on the date the further material is received or the time allowed for its submission expires.
Customs must give the declarant a genuine opportunity to resolve its doubts. Paragraph 11 of Plenum Resolution No. 49 rules out an arbitrary decision not to make a further request. It also requires customs to explain why the material supplied does not substantiate the declared information, including where customs relies on information from third parties. If the information is confirmed, the declarant is notified that verification has ended and that the security may be returned or credited. Otherwise, customs issues a decision to amend the declared particulars. The apparent expiry of a deadline should be checked against the procedural record; silence should not be treated as acceptance of the price.
A Separate Post-Release Check
A separate documentary check begun after release falls under Articles 326 and 340 of the EAEU Customs Code, together with the applicable Russian legislation. The general period under Article 225 of Law No. 289-FZ is no more than 60 calendar days, subject to the specified exceptions and suspension while requested material is awaited. Where a customs officer participates in the check, the request must state the date on which it began. Under Article 239, the response period is calculated in calendar days from receipt. The rules on legally effective service apply, not simply the date on which someone reads the letter. A reasoned application under Article 340 may seek an extension of up to two months beyond the original deadline and should be made before that deadline expires.
Referring customs to an earlier submission instead of resupplying the documents is permitted only under the conditions in Article 239(5)–(7): the same person submitted them during control begun after release, the information has not changed, and the timely response identifies the authority and the earlier covering letter. Exceptions remain for paper documents requested after electronic submission, originals requested in the circumstances specified by the provision, and documents which customs states have been lost. The outcome of the check is recorded under Article 226. Opening a desk-based or on-site customs audit ends the preceding form of control at the point specified in that Article; it does not extend the earlier check indefinitely.
A previous valuation check does not, by itself, prevent later control. However, paragraph 23 of Plenum Resolution No. 49 does not permit customs to circumvent a binding judgment by repeating rejected reasoning on the same facts. New evidence obtained later must be assessed separately, subject to the applicable procedure and time limits. In court proceedings concerning control begun before release, paragraph 14 of the Resolution restricts the introduction of new evidence: both parties must explain the objective obstacles to obtaining it in time. A failure by customs to allow the declarant an opportunity to resolve its doubts must also be taken into account. A business should not assume that explanations omitted during control will necessarily be admitted for the first time in court.
Appeal Deadlines and Enforcement
Any challenge must identify the particular decision, act or failure to act, the date of receipt and the declarations affected. Article 289 of Law No. 289-FZ sets a three-month period for an administrative appeal, running from when the person knew or should have known of the infringement. For a failure to act, it runs from expiry of the time allowed for the required decision or action. Article 198(4) of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code provides a general three-month period for a court challenge, running from the day the applicant became aware of the infringement of its rights. Under paragraph 31 of Plenum Resolution No. 49, the period spent pursuing an administrative appeal is excluded from the court filing period, even if the appeal ends in a refusal to consider it on the merits. The response does not start a fresh three-month period. An appeal to a higher customs authority is not a prerequisite to seeking relief in court.
Neither an administrative appeal nor a court application automatically stays enforcement. Article 292 provides for a stay of enforcement of a decision directed at the recovery of customs payments. A written application must be made to the authority whose decision is challenged, with security meeting the requirements of that Article. A bank guarantee must be in force when submitted and must not expire earlier than seven months from the date the application is submitted. The authority must decide the application within seven working days following the day it receives it. The stay lasts until the day the higher customs authority decides the appeal or the appeal is withdrawn. In court, a separate application under Article 199 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code is required, supported by reasons for the requested interim measure. Under Article 293, judicial consideration of the same subject matter or circumstances is a ground for refusing to consider the administrative appeal on its merits.
Recovering Money Already Paid
Once money has been paid, the appropriate route to repayment must be selected. Paragraphs 33 and 34 of Plenum Resolution No. 49 allow repayment to be sought as relief in proceedings challenging the decision, or through a separate monetary claim for recovery of the overpayment. The separate claim is subject to a three-year period from when the payer knew or should have known of the overpayment. Neither a prior administrative refund procedure nor a separate challenge to the decision is compulsory for that claim. It is a different form of claim, not an extension of the three-month period for challenging the decision. The amount overpaid must be proved.
The return of security and the repayment of sums collected by customs rest on different legal grounds. Under Articles 67 and 69 of Law No. 289-FZ, overpaid amounts and cash deposits are returned by crediting them as advance payments held by customs. Such a credit is distinct from money reaching the business’s bank account. For sums recovered in excess of what was due, entitlement to interest must be examined. Paragraph 35 of Plenum Resolution No. 49 includes additional assessments paid under the threat of compulsory recovery. That treatment cannot be extended to every overpayment or to the entire period for which cash was held as security: deposits are subject to their own statutory conditions.
Administrative Liability Is Separate
Liability for an administrative offence requires a separate analysis. Article 16.12(3) of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences concerns late submission of documents and information needed for customs control. Under Article 16.2(2), it is necessary to establish what inaccurate information the declarant or customs representative supplied in the course of customs declaration, whether it served or could have served as a basis for exemption from customs duties or taxes or for understating their amount, and whether the person concerned was at fault. For an understatement, the statute specifies an amount exceeding the equivalent of EUR 5 per declaration. This is neither an allowable margin of error in the price nor the EUR 500 threshold applicable to security.
Judgment No. 9-P of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, dated 5 March 2024, concerned a gross-weight error that reallocated value and payments between items in one consignment. The items were subject to the same assessment bases, rates and types of payment, and correcting the error did not increase the aggregate liability. The judgment does not authorise indiscriminate offsetting of errors across goods. A KDT or recalculation does not, by itself, establish that the elements of an administrative offence are present.
Notes 4 and 5 to Article 16.2 concern exemption specifically from liability under Article 16.2(2). After release, Note 4 requires all the relevant conditions to be met: no offence has been detected, no prescribed notification of control has been given or control not requiring notification has not begun, and there are no overdue liabilities of the kind specified in the statute. Before release, Note 5, effective from 9 January 2026 following Law No. 560-FZ, also takes account of a request for documents connected with verification already begun, notification of a customs examination, a decision to carry out a customs inspection, and the commissioning of an expert examination. Every condition in the applicable Note must be satisfied; a voluntary application alone is not enough.
For both Notes, the circumstances are assessed as at the day preceding registration of the application. Under Article 112 of the EAEU Customs Code, the availability of a voluntary pre-release amendment depends on the position when customs receives the application. These are different reference points. Article 112 permits a specific exception for changes to the location of the goods and for typographical or grammatical errors that do not affect release, on a reasoned application and with customs’ permission. Permission to amend the particulars does not amount to exemption from liability. Calling a disputed price a typographical error does not bring it within the exception.
For an initial assessment, the relevant material is the request or decision with evidence of receipt, the DT, the customs valuation and security calculations, the principal transaction documents, and any explanations already submitted with all their attachments. In an enquiry through Telegram, state the disputed amount and the next deadline. Arrangements for sending documents containing trade secrets or personal data should be agreed before they are transmitted.
Defending the declared value starts with answering the particular doubt raised. Payment is evidenced by the settlement records; a related-party price by the circumstances in which it was set; a deduction by how the expense arose and how it was allocated. If customs rejects the information supplied, the objections must address its reasons and its calculation under a permissible valuation method. Release makes the goods available. The outcome of the dispute over payments depends on that evidence and the route chosen to protect the business’s rights.
This article reflects the legal provisions and judicial guidance reviewed for the Russian source edition as at 10 September 2026. For an individual shipment, the versions in force on the legally relevant dates apply.