Within a group of companies, the price of goods may be calculated under common rules: from cost, with an agreed markup, or with an adjustment for purchase volume. When such goods are imported into Russia, customs is interested in how the price was formed and whether the relationship between the seller and buyer affected it.
A bank transfer confirms that the buyer paid the stated amount. It usually does not show why the parties chose that amount. For related companies, this can become the central issue in the verification even if the invoice was paid in full and the payment can easily be matched to the shipment.
| Bank transfer | What amount was paid |
|---|---|
| Price calculation | Why the parties agreed that amount |
Method 1, under which the transaction value of the imported goods is used as the basis, is also permitted between related persons. Article 39 of the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU Customs Code) allows it to be used if the relationship did not affect the price and the other conditions of the method are met. Membership of the same group therefore does not by itself mean that customs value must be determined by another method.
The criteria for related persons are listed in Article 37 of the EAEU Customs Code. They include control of one company by another and control of both companies by a third person. The list is not limited to these two cases. If customs identifies indications that the relationship affected the price, paragraph 5 of Article 39 requires it to communicate those indications in writing or electronically to the declarant - the person who declares the goods or on whose behalf they are declared.
Those indications should be clear from the request: for example, what price was compared with yours, what deviation was found and which terms of the transaction raised questions. Missing information about the comparison can be requested. The explanation of your own price calculation should be prepared from the group’s documents and the documents for the particular order.
Paragraph 20 of Resolution No. 49 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 26.11.2019 defines the burden of proof in such disputes. If the relationship was declared or established during customs control and customs identified indications that the declared value may be inaccurate, the declarant must confirm that the price was set without influence from that relationship. This may include disclosing pricing information.
If the group has a general pricing policy, what matters for verification is the rule in force during the shipment period and the calculation for the particular goods. The starting basis, adjustments and final price should match the order, specification and invoice. The specification records the assortment, quantity and price; the invoice is the seller’s commercial bill.
A price within a group is not always determined by a single formula: it may be agreed in negotiations. In that case, the parties’ offers and correspondence explain the quantity, delivery, the seller’s and buyer’s obligations, and when the amount was agreed. The order number and goods description make it possible to link those terms to the shipment under review.
Article 39 does not impose a universal obligation to have a costing - a calculation of the supplier’s costs - for every transaction between related companies. If such a calculation exists and genuinely explains the price, it can be used. If the importer does not have the document, request it from the group entity or supplier that holds it. In the response to customs, state which document was requested and how its holder responded. If it could not be obtained, the price must still be shown using the information available to the company.
Transfer pricing is the setting of prices in transactions between related persons. If the group has a report or other materials explaining that pricing, they may contain useful information about transaction terms, the functions of the parties and comparable sales. They need to be linked specifically to the imported goods and the relevant period.
At the same time, tax rules for price control and customs valuation are not the same. A general conclusion about the company’s profitability or compliance with a tax approach does not automatically answer how the customs value of a particular shipment was formed. Article 39 also does not establish a universal profit margin that would by itself confirm that the relationship had no influence.
Consider a hypothetical example. A foreign manufacturer sells industrial filters to a Russian company in its group and to independent wholesalers. The group company buys large batches and arranges delivery itself. Independent buyers order smaller batches, while the manufacturer pays for transport. The price for the Russian buyer is lower, and customs asks for an explanation of the difference.
The importer compares the filter model, quantity, sales period, unit price and delivery terms. If the manufacturer’s offers show that the price depends on volume, that part of the difference can be linked to quantity. Transport costs are compared using supporting documents. This analysis shows what part of the price gap is explained by different commercial terms.
If a material difference remains after the comparison, additional explanation of its causes is needed. A general corporate policy may not take the terms of a particular order into account. Supplier information can clarify them: which costs, obligations or product features affected the price of this shipment specifically.
Paragraph 5 of Article 39 provides two ways to confirm that the relationship did not influence the price. The first is based on analysing the circumstances surrounding the sale. If it is established that the related seller and buyer transact on the same terms, including a comparable price level, as they would if they were unrelated, this confirms that the relationship did not affect the price.
The second way is, at the declarant’s initiative, to compare the transaction value with one of the test values expressly listed in the Code. A test value here is a benchmark for comparison.
The first category is the transaction value of identical or similar goods sold for export to the EAEU to buyers that are not related to the seller. The other two categories are the customs value of identical or similar goods determined under Article 43 or Article 44.
Identical goods are the same in all respects, with minor differences in appearance permitted. Similar goods may differ, but they must have similar characteristics, consist of similar components made from the same materials, perform the same functions and be commercially interchangeable with the goods being valued. Other criteria in Article 37 are also taken into account when determining similarity.
Article 43 of the EAEU Customs Code governs the deductive value method, under which the amounts specified in the Code are deducted from the sales price in the Union. Article 44 governs the computed value method, based on costs, profit and the other specified components.
The test value must relate to the same or a corresponding period as the import of the goods being valued. When comparing, paragraph 7 of Article 39 requires account to be taken of information submitted by the declarant on differences in commercial level, quantity, additions under Article 40 and the seller’s expenses in sales to related and unrelated buyers.
Paragraph 8 prohibits using the test value as a ready-made basis for determining the value of your shipment: it is used only for comparison. If customs already has sufficient information showing that one of the permitted test values is close to the transaction value, paragraph 6 excludes an additional request for information intended to prove that same closeness again. Other customs control issues may still remain.
The limits of this verification can be seen clearly in paragraph 4 of Thematic Review No. 9/2026 of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, approved on 17 June 2026. The dispute concerned imports of fruit. The seller owned 100% of the buyer’s charter capital. Customs identified a price deviation and asked the company to confirm that the relationship had not affected the price.
The purchase and payment were confirmed by invoices, bank documents and the export declaration - the document used to clear the goods for export. Customs did not dispute the fact of the transaction or payment. Its doubts concerned the mechanism by which the price was formed, and the company did not disclose information about that mechanism.
The Supreme Court set aside the appellate and cassation judgments and left in force the first-instance judgment refusing to invalidate the adjustment. The company confirmed the purchase and payment but did not disclose the requested pricing mechanism after customs had identified indications that the relationship may have affected the price. The outcome of this case does not mean that method 1 is unavailable for all intra-group supplies.
Andrey Bernev, customs lawyer