The buyer knows the price agreed with the supplier. They may have no idea how much the overseas manufacturer spent producing the goods. Customs, however, is asking for a breakdown of those production costs.
Obtaining that breakdown can be harder than getting the documents for the purchase itself. Not every manufacturer is willing to disclose its internal calculations. If the goods were sold by a trading company, it may not know the manufacturer's costs either. The information may be held by a business the buyer has no contract with.
If the response to customs says only that the supplier has refused to provide the breakdown, it explains why the document is missing. It does not explain how the parties agreed the price. The buyer may have documents recording that agreement, even without access to the manufacturer's calculations.
Suppose the seller offered a discount for a large order and the parties agreed its terms in their correspondence. The correspondence they have kept helps establish which consignment the discount relates to and how it affected the price. Here, the buyer is explaining an agreement they were directly involved in.
Why customs asks for a cost breakdown
Under the transaction value method (method 1), customs value is based on the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods. Costs that must be included under the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) are added to that price. The manufacturer's production costs and the price charged to the buyer need not be the same. Articles 39 and 40 of the Code do not impose a general requirement for every importer to hold the manufacturer's production cost breakdown.
Customs may, however, have a specific question about production costs. For example, the declared price of the finished goods may be lower than the price of their components, including raw materials. The Regulation approved by Decision No. 42 of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission of 27 March 2018 expressly identifies this as a possible indication that the declared value is inaccurate. Such a price comparison may provide grounds for a check. It does not, in itself, establish a minimum permissible price or prove that the buyer has supplied inaccurate information.
The content of the request therefore matters. Where additional documents and explanations are requested under Article 325(4) of the EAEU Customs Code, customs must identify the information that is not adequately substantiated or may be inaccurate. The documents requested must relate to the indications identified and the circumstances of the transaction. These requirements cannot automatically be applied to a request under Article 325(1), which seeks documents referred to in the customs declaration.
The Supreme Court requires account to be taken of whether documents are available in the ordinary course of business, and the declarant must have a real opportunity to resolve the doubts raised. When a court examines the dispute, the information submitted by the declarant is presumed to be accurate; customs bears the burden of rebutting that presumption. The company must nevertheless disclose the information available about the transaction and explain any objective obstacles to obtaining the requested documents. For checks begun before the goods are released, the Supreme Court's Plenum specifically states that failure to provide a document for an objective reason explained to customs does not, in itself, entail a change in the customs value.
Why the breakdown is unavailable
The reason why the breakdown is unavailable needs to be described accurately. A document in the form requested may never have been prepared, which is different from a refusal to disclose an existing calculation. If the supplier has not replied, silence alone does not establish which explanation applies. The response can state that a request was sent and no reply received, without presenting that silence as a refusal or as confirmation that the document does not exist.
A customs request addressed to the Russian declarant does not itself create a new obligation owed by the foreign seller to the buyer. Whether such an obligation exists, and its scope, depend on the contract and the applicable law. The practical purpose of contacting the supplier is to find out what information it holds and what it is willing to confirm. If the breakdown is not provided, the seller may separately explain how the price was agreed, why a discount was given or whether particular costs were included in the invoice amount. The enquiry should concern the specific goods and transaction known to the seller.
Correspondence with the supplier shows what steps the buyer took to obtain the document and what came of them. It should make clear which breakdown was requested and which consignment it concerns. If the deadline for replying to customs falls before the supplier responds, waiting for that reply does not itself extend the deadline. The company submits the material already available and explains which information it has not yet been able to obtain.
Citing commercial confidentiality explains the supplier's unwillingness to disclose the breakdown. That alone does not substantiate the declared value. The letter should nevertheless be considered as a whole: it may also contain information about the price, a discount or costs associated with the sale. That information is relevant in its own right and must be assessed alongside the other documents. A foreign supplier's refusal to provide a breakdown must also be distinguished from a situation in which the declarant already holds the document but does not submit it to customs.
A foreign supplier's refusal was considered, for example, in Sportmaster's case concerning the customs value of imported jackets. The ruling of the Ninth Arbitrazh Court of Appeal of 24 March 2026 in case No. А40-150726/2025 records a refusal to provide a production cost breakdown on grounds of commercial confidentiality. The courts assessed the other documents concerning the purchase, price, delivery terms and payment. The appeal court also found that customs had compared the imported jackets with goods of a different material composition. The decision to set aside the customs value adjustment was upheld; on 3 July 2026, the Arbitrazh Court of the Moscow Circuit confirmed that outcome. The evidence of the particular transaction and the shortcomings in customs' reasoning mattered, so the result cannot be attributed to the supplier's refusal alone.
Evidence of the agreed price
A letter received after the customs request may confirm terms of sale agreed earlier. For example, the supplier may later explain a discount that had already been agreed in correspondence and reflected in the invoice. The date of that explanation does not automatically deprive it of evidential value. A later change to the price must not, however, be presented as an explanation of previously agreed terms, nor a new letter as a document that existed at the time of the transaction. What matters is when the terms themselves were agreed and precisely what the later letter confirms.
The purchase documents help establish which goods were bought, at what price and on what terms. Matching amounts in the contract and payment order are not always enough. One contract may cover several consignments, and one transfer may settle several invoices. The explanation needs to show how much of the payment relates to the consignment in question. Explanations for material discrepancies need to be supported by evidence, but differences in individual amounts or details do not, by themselves, make the documents unusable.
It is particularly important not to equate the transaction price with the money already transferred. If the contract provides for an advance payment followed by payment of the balance, customs value also takes account of the amount the buyer remains obliged to pay. The fact that the final payment has not yet been made does not, in itself, prevent the use of method 1. What matters is the actual price, the agreed payment arrangements and the connection between payments already made and this purchase.
If a third party made the payment, the explanation needs to establish why it did so and which obligation to the seller was discharged. This is not necessarily an agency arrangement. Documents concerning the agency agreement and the agent's report are relevant where such an arrangement was actually used; it would be wrong to require an agent's report from every third party making a payment. The transaction price also takes account of payments to another person for the seller's benefit where they relate to the purchase of the goods concerned.
Where the company allocates a single payment across several consignments, or transport costs across different goods, its calculation can help explain the documents submitted. The underlying figures and the method of allocation should be clear. The document should be presented as the importer's own calculation. Trying to reconstruct the factory's costs from approximate figures does not turn the buyer's estimate into the manufacturer's cost breakdown.
Costs added to the price
Substantiating the contract price does not resolve every question about customs value. For example, costs paid separately for transport to the place of arrival in the Union or for packing may need to be added if the conditions in Article 40 are met and those amounts are not already included in the price. The first step is to establish the basis for the addition and check that the cost is not being counted twice. Its amount is then determined using reliable documentary information.
If a required addition does apply to the transaction but the information needed to calculate it properly is unavailable, Article 40(3) provides that method 1 cannot be used. An unavailable production cost breakdown and an unknown amount that must be added to the price therefore call for different explanations. A range of costs supplied by the seller may help explain how the price was formed, but it does not, on its own, determine the precise amount that must be added.
Costs under different valuation methods
There is a particular reason to examine costs where the seller and buyer are related. The question is whether that relationship influenced the price. The rules for applying method 1, approved by Decision No. 283 of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission of 20 December 2012, allow, among other approaches, evidence that the price covers all costs and provides a profit corresponding to the seller's usual profit over a sufficiently representative period on sales of goods of the same class or kind. This is one way of substantiating the price; it does not impose a mandatory level of profit for every consignment. The relationship itself does not rule out method 1 either.
Production information has a different role under the computed value method: the manufacturer's costs form part of the basis for calculating customs value. This is a separate valuation method with its own conditions of application. The absence of a cost breakdown when customs is examining the transaction price does not mean that this method automatically applies.
What to send customs and when
The response to customs therefore needs both to explain why the breakdown has not been provided and to substantiate the facts customs sought to verify by requesting it. The letter should make clear which information the supplier has refused to provide or has not yet supplied, and which documents allow the price and the costs that must be included to be checked. If a material inconsistency remains, it needs to be identified and explained. The number of attachments cannot make up for a response that does not address those points.
The response deadline depends on the procedure under which the request is made. If, after considering the response, customs issues a further request under Article 325(15) of the EAEU Customs Code, the documents and explanations must be submitted no later than ten calendar days from the date on which customs registers that request. For a request issued in Russia under Article 340 as part of a separate check after release, the time limit is set by customs and is calculated in calendar days from the date the request is received, as provided for in Part 1 of Article 239 of Law No. 289-FZ. The starting points differ even where both requests seek the same production cost breakdown.
An extension under Article 340 may be granted following an application explaining why more time is needed. The extension is limited to two months from the expiry of the original time limit; submitting the application does not in itself change the deadline. This mechanism cannot automatically be applied to a further request under Article 325(15). Alongside the explanations, it is worth retaining the correspondence and evidence of which documents were sent to customs and when.
After receiving the response, customs may return to earlier questions if the information provided has not resolved the concerns that prompted the check. A further request under Article 325(15) does not require customs to identify a new concern. The company must nevertheless be able to understand which points remain unsubstantiated and why the material already submitted is insufficient. A decision to change the customs value must assess the company's explanations and evidence; merely referring to the absence of the production cost breakdown is no substitute for that assessment.
The production cost breakdown may remain with the foreign manufacturer. The buyer can still substantiate its own transaction: how the price was agreed, which amounts have been paid or remain payable, and which costs were taken into account in determining the customs value. If these circumstances are substantiated, the absence of the factory's internal cost breakdown must be assessed alongside the other evidence. If, however, a material point about the price or a required addition remains unsubstantiated, a supplier's letter citing commercial confidentiality will not resolve it.