Customs requests payment documents and sees the following: under the contract, the buyer is a Russian company, but the money was transferred to the foreign seller by a payment agent. In another shipment, the buyer paid not the seller but a third-party company designated by the seller.
A separate intermediary fee also appears in the settlement documents.
For customs value purposes, these are different questions. First, it is necessary to establish the price actually paid or payable for the goods. Then it must be determined whether the payment agent’s remuneration forms part of that price or whether there is a separate legal basis for including it in the customs value.
Article 38 of the EAEU Customs Code provides the general framework. Customs value and the information relating to its determination must be based on reliable, quantifiable and documented information. At the same time, transaction value should be used to the greatest extent possible. The involvement of a third party in the settlement process is therefore not, in itself, a ground for rejecting Method 1, provided that the other conditions of Article 39 of the EAEU Customs Code are satisfied.
Paragraph 3 of Article 39 defines the price actually paid or payable as the total amount of all payments for the imported goods made or to be made by the buyer directly to the seller or to another person for the benefit of the seller. The buyer and the actual payer do not have to be the same person. The money does not have to be credited directly to the seller’s account. The documents must, however, explain why the particular payment relates to the obligation arising from the particular goods.
The words “paid or payable” have practical significance. The goods may still be unpaid when the customs declaration is lodged. Paragraph 5.3 of the Rules approved by Decision No. 283 of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission dated 20 December 2012 expressly provides that, where the price has not actually been paid as at the date of registration of the customs declaration, the basis for determining customs value is the price payable under the transaction. In such circumstances, the absence of a banking document evidencing a completed payment does not mean that Method 1 is unavailable.
Where settlement has already taken place, the evidence must connect the transfer of funds with the obligation owed to the seller. Depending on the settlement structure, this may be evidenced by an instruction to the payment agent, banking documents showing the onward transfer, the intermediary’s report, currency-control records, a reconciliation statement, or the seller’s confirmation that the amount has been applied to a particular invoice. There is no universal closed set of documents for all third-party payment arrangements. What matters is the evidence taken as a whole and the absence of unexplained inconsistencies between the documents.
The buyer’s payment order to the agent proves only that the buyer transferred funds to the agent. If, under the terms of the transaction, the debt to the seller is discharged only after the seller receives payment, the second leg of the settlement must also be explained to customs. A SWIFT message shows the parameters of a transfer but does not in every case prove final credit of the full amount. A seller’s confirmation connects the payment with the invoice but does not always replace banking records. No single document has to perform every evidential function.
If another person pays directly on behalf of the buyer, the documents must explain the basis for that performance and how it is reflected in the parties’ mutual accounts. If the seller itself designates a third-party recipient, the documents must establish that payment to that person relates to the price under the specific contract and is recognised by the seller as performance. For customs value purposes, the civil-law label attached to the arrangement is secondary to the principal questions: which sale is being valued and what amount constitutes the price of the goods.
Where an agent or commission agent, under the applicable law, acquires rights and obligations under the foreign trade contract in its own name, the sale for export of the goods to the customs territory of the EAEU must first be identified. The internal agreement between the Russian principal and the intermediary may explain the financing and subsequent settlements, but it does not replace the foreign sale contract on the basis of which the transaction value is declared.
The Rules approved by Decision No. 283 make it possible to test such an arrangement against specific criteria. Paragraph 3.1 requires consideration of the set of agreements forming the transaction for customs purposes. Paragraph 5.1 treats as part of the price all payments for the imported goods made or to be made by the buyer to the seller or to another person for the benefit of the seller. Paragraph 5.2 separates from the price expenses relating to actions undertaken by the buyer on its own account where they do not affect the seller’s price and are not mandatory additions. Paragraph 5.3 addresses the situation where the price has not yet been paid when the goods are declared.
The payment agent’s fee should therefore not be analysed by starting immediately with Article 40 of the EAEU Customs Code. The first question is whether the fee already forms part of the price under Article 39.
The Russian Ministry of Finance addressed this issue separately in Letter No. 27-01-21/106988 dated 1 November 2024. The Ministry proposes examining whether the agreement with the payment agent forms part of the set of agreements under which the goods were sold for importation. If the buyer could purchase the goods independently of the agent’s services, the seller did not require the use of that agent, and the intermediary is needed by the buyer solely to make payment, the Ministry does not treat the agent’s remuneration as part of the price actually paid or payable. If the intermediary’s involvement is required by the seller and constitutes a condition of sale, the conclusion may be different. The letter is non-binding administrative guidance and does not replace the Code or the acts of the Eurasian Economic Commission.
If the remuneration does not form part of the price under Article 39, Article 40 must then be considered. Its list of additions is exhaustive. Subparagraph (a) of subparagraph 1 of paragraph 1 covers commissions and brokerage fees, except buying commissions paid by the buyer to its agent for representing the buyer’s interests outside the customs territory of the Union in connection with the purchase of the goods. Paragraph 4 of Article 40 prohibits adding amounts to the price on grounds not provided for in paragraph 1.
This gives rise to a further question: is a technical payment agent a type of intermediary covered by that rule at all?
Paragraph 3 of the Regulation approved by Decision No. 112 of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission dated 15 July 2014 treats as an intermediary a person who, for remuneration and on another person’s instructions, carries out legal and other actions relating to the purchase or sale of goods. Paragraph 4 requires the substance of the relationship and the intermediary’s actual functions to be assessed regardless of the title of the agreement. If a company merely transfers money and does not participate in the purchase or sale of the goods, the word “agent” in the agreement does not make it an intermediary within the meaning of Decision No. 112.
The courts already apply this approach.
In case No. A41-42056/2025, the buyer engaged an agent because of difficulties in making a direct payment to the foreign seller. The agent transferred funds and did not participate in finding the seller, negotiating the purchase, or selling the goods. Its involvement was not a condition of the foreign trade contract. By Resolution No. F05-1289/2026 dated 11 March 2026, the Commercial Court of the Moscow District upheld the judicial acts declaring invalid the customs demand to include the agency remuneration in customs value.
A more recent position appears in Resolution No. 09AP-35642/2026 of the Ninth Commercial Court of Appeal dated 2 September 2026 in case No. A40-16161/2026. The court found that the payment agent performed the technical function of transferring funds and did not participate in the transaction involving the goods. On those facts, the court concluded that such an agent did not fall within the concept of an intermediary for the purposes of subparagraph (a) of subparagraph 1 of paragraph 1 of Article 40 of the EAEU Customs Code. As at the date on which this article was checked, this is an appellate decision; its subsequent procedural history should be checked separately before it is relied upon in a specific dispute.
A contrary example is case No. A40-19213/2023. In that case, the courts proceeded, in particular, on the basis that the agent was not the buyer’s buying agent, acted in the seller’s interests, and the payments under the agency agreement were connected with the supply of the goods in dispute. By Resolution No. F05-16438/2024 dated 17 September 2024, the Commercial Court of the Moscow District upheld the dismissal of the importer’s claim. The dispute shows why the title of the agreement alone resolves nothing: the agent’s role is established from the parties’ actual relationship.
The practical conclusion from these cases is limited to their facts. A technical funds-transfer service and intermediation in the purchase or sale of goods are not the same thing. It is not enough, however, merely to describe a service as technical. The documents must support the position that the agent was engaged by the buyer to make payment, was not a mandatory participant in the sale, and did not perform functions connected with the purchase or sale of the goods.
Where the currency of the contract, the invoice and the amount transferred to the payment agent differ, a further issue arises: the amount of the price actually paid or payable in roubles and the exchange rate to be applied. Letter No. 27-01-21/95373 of the Russian Ministry of Finance dated 2 October 2025 considers a situation in which the contract is denominated in one foreign currency, the invoice is issued in another, and the buyer pays the agent in roubles. The Ministry distinguishes between payments made before and after customs declaration and takes account of the contractual exchange-rate terms. This is a separate issue: the amount of the price actually paid or payable cannot be determined solely by reference to the amount debited from the buyer’s account without checking the currency terms of the transaction. This letter is also non-binding administrative guidance.
Banking documents help establish the actual settlement structure. Following the amendments introduced by Bank of Russia Directive No. 7333-U dated 31 March 2026 to Instruction No. 181-I, the currency-control statement provides for information on a third party by whom, or in whose favour, a payment or other performance under the contract has been made. Such a statement may confirm who participated in the settlement and to which contract the bank attributed the payment. It does not determine customs value and does not replace the analysis required by Articles 39 and 40 of the EAEU Customs Code.
Inconsistencies between the banking and customs files require an explanation. If the bank records a settlement involving a third party while customs is told that payment was made directly to the seller, if the agency agreement provides for a fee but the customs-value calculation gives that fee no legal characterisation, or if one payment is allocated to different invoices without a clear basis, customs has grounds to request additional information. Disguising payment for goods as consulting services is particularly risky: the description does not change the substance of the transaction, but it causes the documents to describe different transactions.
When responding to a customs request, the procedural stage must first be identified. Verification of customs and other documents and/or information commenced before release of the goods is governed by Article 325 of the EAEU Customs Code, verification commenced after release and in other cases by Article 326, while the general rules on requesting, requiring and obtaining documents and information for customs control are set out in Article 340. The deadline and consequences of failing to provide documents depend on the particular procedure and the request itself.
Resolution No. 49 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 26 November 2019 requires the reliability of customs value to be assessed on the basis of the circumstances taken as a whole, rather than by reference to the presence or absence of one formal document. Paragraph 14, in relation to disputes arising from customs value control commenced before release of the goods, separately states that judicial proceedings should not substitute for customs control in the relevant administrative procedure. Where an adopted non-regulatory act is challenged, Chapter 24 of the Russian Commercial Procedure Code applies: under Part 5 of Article 200, the customs authority must prove that the challenged act complies with the law, that it had the relevant powers, and that the circumstances relied upon as the basis for the decision existed. The importer, meanwhile, must substantiate the facts of its own transaction with the documents on which it relies.
Before a response is sent, one shipment should be checked in full. The documents should make clear which sale is being declared under Method 1, the price of the goods, whether the payment date has fallen due, who actually paid, who received the money, why the third party’s participation relates to the buyer’s obligation, and what the intermediary’s fee consists of. If one payment is allocated among several invoices, the allocation must be arithmetically reproducible. If an amount remains unpaid, it should be explained by reference to a future payment date, later payment, discount, set-off, or another substantiated basis.
Payment through a payment agent or another third party is not, in itself, a ground for rejecting the transaction value method. The documents must substantiate the price of the particular goods and explain why the relevant payment relates to the obligation owed to the seller. The intermediary’s remuneration is examined separately: first as a possible element of the price actually paid or payable under Article 39 of the EAEU Customs Code and, if it does not form part of that price, for a specific legal basis for an addition under Article 40. A technical funds-transfer service does not become intermediation in the purchase or sale of goods merely because the agreement uses the word “agent”.