Customs applied method 6 immediately: how to check why the earlier methods were skipped

A foreign factory may refuse to disclose its production costs. Without them, method 5 may be inapplicable. But if the importer has suitable information about sales of the goods in Russia, the question remains: why can it not be used for method 4?

The fall-back method 6 is used after it has not been possible to determine the customs value by the earlier methods. A factory's refusal to disclose costs concerns only one of those methods. It does not explain why the price of your transaction, information about other imported shipments or sales in the territory of the Union were unsuitable.

Method 1 is based on the transaction value of the imported goods themselves. Its conditions are set out in Article 39 of the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU Customs Code). If customs rejected it, the reason should be clear from the decision. This makes it possible to see whether a defect in the evidence supporting the price can be corrected before disputing the calculation under method 6.

For example, a payment may be poorly linked to the supplier's invoice, while a discount is shown in the invoice - the commercial invoice - without its basis being explained in other documents. Such a comment is answered with documents from the particular purchase: the contract term, correspondence, order, invoice and proof of payment. If the dispute concerns transport, it matters whether it was already included in the price and whether it was added a second time.

If customs relies only on a low price, it is still important to identify which condition of method 1 it considers unmet. A high-volume contract does not always explain the disputed amount: there must be a link between the purchase terms and the calculation for that particular shipment.

After method 1, the sequence is set by paragraph 15 of Article 38 of the EAEU Customs Code. Methods 2 and 3 are considered first, followed by methods 4 and 5. The declarant - the person who declares the goods or on whose behalf they are declared - may reverse the order of methods 4 and 5. Methods 2 and 3 do not disappear from the sequence because of that reversal.

Method 2 uses transactions involving identical goods. Under Article 37 of the EAEU Customs Code, identical goods are the same in all respects, including physical characteristics, quality and reputation. Minor differences in appearance are permitted.

Method 3 uses similar goods. They have similar characteristics and components, are made of the same materials, perform the same functions and can substitute for one another commercially. Suitable information about particular shipments and terms of sale is required for both methods.

So when methods 2 and 3 are rejected, the point is to look not for a general statement that information is unavailable, but for the specific missing element. The configuration of the comparable goods may be unknown. A quantity adjustment may be required but there may be no data to calculate it. The manufacturer or the commercial level of the transaction may differ. That specific gap is what should explain why the particular information cannot be used.

The fact that the importer does not have another party's declarations does not show what information customs itself has. Conversely, a line in a customs database with a similar product name does not by itself show that the goods are suitable for comparison.

After methods 2 and 3, the possibility of using method 4 is checked separately. It is based on sales of goods in the territory of the EAEU and deductions from the domestic sale price. Under certain conditions, Article 43 of the EAEU Customs Code allows sales not only of the shipment being valued, but also of previously imported identical or similar goods to be used.

So if the current shipment has not yet been sold, it is necessary to check whether there were suitable sales of such goods and whether the available documents allow the prescribed deductions to be calculated. This is a separate method 4 analysis.

Method 5 requires different data: the manufacturer's production costs, profit, general expenses and other components of the computed value. This is where a factory's refusal to provide information can genuinely become a serious problem. Its significance must be assessed specifically in relation to method 5.

The reasons for choosing a method may appear in different documents: the customs decision, the customs value declaration and electronic attachments. A customs value declaration, abbreviated as DTS, records the valuation method and the source figures. In the DTS-2 form under Decision No. 160 of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) dated 16.10.2018, the selected method and the reasons why the preceding methods are inapplicable are stated. Reading these documents together makes it possible to see what information customs considered and why it rejected it.

The fall-back method allows earlier methods to be applied with reasonable flexibility, but that flexibility also has an order. Paragraph 3 of Article 45 of the EAEU Customs Code requires the sequence to be followed if several methods can be applied flexibly.

For example, under method 6 the Code allows, in the cases provided for, a comparable product from another country of production to be used or a reasonable departure from the usual time interval to be made. The calculation must still show which earlier method was used as the basis, which of its conditions was relaxed and why the chosen source remains suitable.

Another example appears in an official publication of the Ministry of Finance of Kazakhstan dated 22.07.2026. In valuing leased tank wagons, lease payments were used, even though an additional review identified information about other shipments suitable for flexible application of the methods. The additional assessments were found unlawful. This was a Kazakhstan administrative review, and its procedure does not carry over to a Russian dispute. For checking a Russian decision, the narrower point is which available price information customs considered before moving to the selected fall-back basis.

For customs value control started before release of the goods, paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of Resolution No. 49 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 26.11.2019 should be taken into account.

If the production calculation is held by the factory and the factory refused to provide it, keep the request and the response. Paragraph 13 requires objective obstacles to producing documents and the declarant's explanations to be taken into account. It is therefore useful for the file to show exactly what was requested, when, and why the document could not be obtained.

Paragraph 15 takes into account whether the declarant was given an opportunity to provide additional information. If that opportunity was given but was not used, customs may apply a method for which it has the necessary data. If the importer has documents supporting a calculation under an earlier method, it is reasonable to submit the calculation itself while the customs control is still underway and keep proof of submission.

Paragraph 14 concerns new evidence in court. For such evidence to be accepted or requested, objective obstacles to obtaining the documents before the contested customs decision was issued are relevant. Correspondence with the foreign manufacturer helps show that chronology.

If the sources of the fall-back customs value or the calculation of adjustments are not disclosed in the documents received, paragraph 6 of Article 45 of the EAEU Customs Code provides for the declarant to be informed of the sources of information and the calculations made. Such a request may be sent immediately.

Sending a request for the sources does not prevent objections from being prepared on the basis of information already available: the decision, the DTS, shipment documents, sales and the importer's own calculation. A copy of the request and proof of dispatch show what information the importer tried to obtain. Customs' response or refusal adds to those materials. Until it is received, the date of the request and the specific parts of the calculation that cannot be checked without a response can be identified. Time limits for legal protection depend on the procedure and the stage of the case; waiting for a response does not replace checking those deadlines.

Andrey Bernev, customs lawyer