Two pumps may have the same name and fall under the same customs code even though one is made of cast iron, the other of stainless steel, and their power ratings differ. Their prices may differ as well. If the value of the second pump is used to calculate customs payments for the first, the name in the documents explains very little.
Method 2 allows the transaction value of identical goods to be used as the basis. Here “identical” is a precise requirement for the goods that must be supported by their characteristics. In addition, another shipment can become the basis of the calculation only when the value cannot be determined from your own transaction under method 1. This sequence is established by Article 41 of the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU Customs Code).
A dispute over method 2 may therefore have two different causes. Customs may have rejected the documents for your transaction without sufficient grounds. Or there may be grounds for rejection, but the goods selected for comparison do not meet the requirements of method 2. The content of the objections depends on where the error occurred.
In a case involving imported wool, the importer supported its value with documents and referred to specific declarations from a comparable period that it considered to cover shipments of identical wool. The courts set aside the adjustments. Among other things, customs did not explain why that information did not allow methods 2 or 3 to be considered. This conclusion appears in the Judgment of the Commercial Court of the Moscow District dated 30.06.2026 No. F05-8289/2026 in case No. A40-284419/2025. At the same time, the court did not order the use of method 2 specifically and did not automatically recognise the goods in every cited declaration as identical.
If the company imported the same goods earlier, those declarations may also be useful. What matters is not only the number of the goods declaration (DT), but what exactly was imported, who produced it, when it arrived in the EAEU and what customs value was accepted.
What does “identical goods” mean? Under Article 37 of the EAEU Customs Code, goods must be the same in all respects, including physical characteristics, quality and reputation. A TN VED code is the commodity code in the Commodity Nomenclature for Foreign Economic Activity used to classify goods for customs purposes. A matching code is useful for finding a possible comparison, but one code can include different models and versions.
| The goods | The same in all respects |
|---|---|
| Production | Article 37 requirements |
| Appearance | Minor differences are allowed |
The difference in casing material or pump power from the opening example can be shown using two technical data sheets. The objection then concerns a specific element of identity. Merely saying “this is a different model” leaves open which properties differ and whether they matter for the comparison.
The same applies to composition, version, completeness and other characteristics that matter for the goods themselves. If they differ materially, the same commercial name does not solve the problem.
The Code permits minor differences in appearance. A different casing colour, for example, does not by itself rule out identity. But the reason for the difference matters. Ordinary paint and a special protective coating are different things. A photograph can show the visible feature, while a data sheet, specification or technical description can help establish whether the difference reflects a change in material, treatment or product properties.
Quality and reputation also cannot be assessed from a description of another series made by the manufacturer. The information must relate to the model selected for comparison. The required document depends on the disputed characteristic: sometimes a data sheet is enough, while in other cases technical specifications, a product specification or another document stating the characteristic may be needed.
Article 37 separately addresses the manufacturer. Identical goods made by the same manufacturer are considered first. Goods made by another manufacturer are used if identical goods from the same manufacturer have not been identified or the available information about them is unsuitable for use. The seller’s name on the invoice therefore says nothing by itself about the factory. One seller may supply goods from several manufacturers.
The country of production must also be the same. At the same time, the country of production, country of origin, country of dispatch and the seller’s country may all be different. Paragraph 6 of the Rules approved by Decision No. 202 of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) dated 30.10.2012 expressly distinguishes the country of production from the country of origin. A certificate of origin should therefore be assessed together with other information about the production of the goods.
The concept of “produced” in Article 37 is broader than ordinary manufacture at a factory: it also covers extraction, growing, installation, assembly and disassembly. For a particular shipment, the relevant method of production will be the one that applies to your goods.
There is one more exception. Goods are not treated as identical for method 2 if design, development, engineering, engineering design, industrial design or similar work in respect of them was carried out in the EAEU. For ordinary mass-produced goods, this issue may not arise at all. But if the goods were made to a special technical assignment, project or customer drawings, it is worth establishing where that work was actually performed.
After checking the characteristics, the source of the price must be checked. Under paragraph 1 of Article 41 of the EAEU Customs Code, the customs value used must be the customs value of identical goods that was previously determined under method 1 and accepted by the customs authority. A website price, a manufacturer’s price list or an average price for a product group is not such a basis. There must be a shipment of goods sold for export to the EAEU and actually imported into its territory.
The comparison shipment also has a time limit. It must relate to the same or a corresponding period, and the goods cannot have been imported more than 90 calendar days before your shipment was imported. Paragraph 9 of Rules No. 202 ties the calculation to the date when the goods arrived in the customs territory of the Union. The invoice date, the date of the Russian goods declaration and the release date may be different. If the cargo entered the EAEU through another Union country, the relevant date is the date it arrived in the EAEU territory.
Prices can change even within those 90 days. Rules No. 202 require the comparability of market conditions to be taken into account. For a stable industrial product, a time difference may have almost no effect. For seasonal goods, goods in short supply or goods that are rising rapidly in price, it may have a material effect. In that case, the argument is better supported with data for the relevant period.
The terms of sale also matter. Article 41 first directs the comparison to goods sold at the same commercial level and in substantially the same quantity. Put simply, it is necessary to consider who bought the goods and in what volume. The price for a large wholesale buyer may differ from the price for a small batch. If there is no comparable sale, another sale may be used, but differences in quantity or commercial level must be adjusted. The amount of the adjustment must be supported by documents. If such an adjustment is required but there are no reliable data for it, the selected value cannot be used under method 2.
Transport, related operations and insurance are handled in a similar way. The comparison concerns costs up to the place of arrival of the goods in the customs territory of the EAEU or another place if one is designated by the EEC. An adjustment is required where there is a significant difference in expenses caused by distance or mode of transport. It is important to see what amounts are already included in the starting value and exactly how the result after adjustment was calculated.
If there are several suitable values, paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the EAEU Customs Code requires the lowest of them to be used after the necessary adjustments. This means values that already satisfy the conditions of the method, not simply the lowest figure in any database.
Some information about another shipment may be protected as a trade secret. Rules No. 202 provide for consultations with customs subject to that limitation. The importer may not have full access to another company’s commercial file. That does not prevent the importer from stating precisely what information is missing for verification: the model characteristics, manufacturer, arrival date, method by which the value was accepted, quantity or amount of the adjustment.
Even identical models may be sold on different terms. Once identity is established, quantity, commercial level of sale, transport and import timing are compared. Differences in those conditions may explain why the accepted value of another shipment cannot be transferred to yours without adjustments.
Andrey Bernev, customs lawyer