ECJ Customs C-782/23 (Tauritus) – Judgment – Customs Value Determination for Provisional Prices in Imports

On May 15, 2025, the ECJ issued its judgment in the case C-782/23 (Tauritus).

Context: Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs Union – Union Customs Code – Method of determining customs value – Article 70 – Transaction value – Goods imported on the basis of a provisional purchase price – Final price depending on various factors unknown at the date of acceptance of the customs declaration

Summary

Facts

Imports: Tauritus UAB imported diesel and jet fuel into Lithuania between October 1, 2015, and April 30, 2017, using contracts that specified provisional prices.
Provisional Pricing: The contracts allowed for adjustments to the provisional price based on market factors and exchange rates, leading to final invoices that could differ from the initial price.
Customs Declarations: Tauritus declared the provisional price as the customs value and used the residual method for valuation.
Audit Findings: During a customs audit in May 2017, it was discovered that Tauritus had not adjusted the customs value despite receiving final invoices indicating higher prices, resulting in unpaid additional VAT.
Customs Authority’s Action: The customs authorities applied the transaction value method, claiming additional VAT and late payment interest based on the final prices.
Legal Challenge: Tauritus contested the decision, arguing that the final price was unknown at the time of declaration, leading to questions referred to the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court regarding the interpretation of EU customs regulations.

Key Points of the Judgment:

Transaction Value Method: Article 70 of the UCC establishes that the primary method for determining customs value is based on the transaction value, which is the price actually paid or payable for goods at export. The court concluded that if a final price is determinable based on objective factors (e.g., market prices, exchange rates) specified in the sales contract, the transaction value method can still be applied even if that final price is not known at the time of declaration.
Provisional Pricing: The court emphasized that while only a provisional price might be known at the time of declaration, if the contract stipulates that this price will be adjusted according to predetermined factors, the transaction value should reflect the final price once it is determined.
Simplified Customs Declaration: The judgment recognized the use of a simplified customs declaration procedure, allowing for the initial declaration based on the provisional price followed by a supplementary declaration once the final price is known. This procedure helps ensure compliance with the obligation for accuracy in customs declarations.
Rectification of Customs Declarations: The second question regarding the obligation to request an adjustment to the customs declaration once the final price is known was deemed unnecessary to answer since the court concluded that the customs value should have been declared based on the transaction value method from the outset.

Implications:

Compliance with Customs Regulations: Importers must ensure that they provide accurate customs declarations, reflecting the true economic value of the goods, even when dealing with provisional pricing.
Flexibility in Customs Procedures: The ruling affirms that customs procedures can accommodate changes in pricing structures, thereby preventing arbitrary customs values.
Legal Precedent: This decision may serve as a precedent for similar cases involving provisional pricing and customs declarations across the EU, reinforcing the importance of transparency in the determination of customs values.

Conclusion:

The Court’s ruling clarifies that under the UCC, customs value can be determined using the transaction value method even when only a provisional price is known at the time of importation, as long as the final price can be established based on objective criteria. This judgment underscores the need for accurate reporting and compliance with EU customs regulations.

Questions

(1) Should Article 70 of the [Union Customs Code] be interpreted as meaning that paragraph 1 thereof does not apply where […], at the time of acceptance of the customs declaration, on the basis of the sale which took place immediately before the goods were brought into the customs territory [of the Union], only a provisional price is known which (after the customs declaration has been lodged and the goods have been released for free circulation) is adjusted upwards or downwards in accordance with circumstances beyond the control of the parties [to the sale] and still unknown at the time of lodging of the customs declaration?

2) Should Article 173(3) of the [Union Customs Code] be interpreted as meaning that the declarant is not obliged to submit to the customs administration a request for an adjustment of the declared customs value, which had been determined pursuant to Article 74 of that code, once the price actually payable for the goods, referred to in Article 70(1) of that code, is known […] after the goods have been released for free circulation, a price which was not and could not have been known at the time the declaration was lodged

Decision

Article 70 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 establishing the Union Customs Code,

should be interpreted as meaning that:

where, at the time when goods are imported into the customs territory of the European Union, only their provisional price is known, as shown on a pro forma invoice, the sales contract stipulating that their final price will be fixed subsequently, by a final invoice, on the basis of certain predetermined objective factors whose value is independent of the will of the parties and unknown to them at the time of acceptance of the customs declaration, such as an average of the exchange rate of certain currencies or the price of certain products over a given period, the customs value of those goods must be determined by applying the transaction value method provided for in that Article, using, in principle, the simplified customs declaration procedure provided for in Articles 166 and 167 of that Regulation.

Source

Curia

Other ECJ Cases referred to in the Decision

Baltic Master (C‑599/20): This case is cited to emphasize the need for customs values to reflect the real economic value of imported goods and the importance of using the transaction value method as a primary basis for determining customs value.
5th AVENUE Products Trading (C‑775/19): This case is referenced regarding the inclusion of amounts due in addition to the price initially invoiced, even if those amounts are determined after the fact, supporting the notion that customs value can be established based on future adjustments if predetermined.
Hamamatsu Photonics Deutschland (C‑529/16): This case is discussed in the context of the specific legal framework surrounding transfer pricing and the determination of customs values. The CJEU’s findings in this case were noted to be inapplicable to the present case’s circumstances, focusing on the different legal contexts involved.
JP Mali (C‑653/22): This case is referenced to underline that the obligation to provide accurate information in customs declarations applies regardless of the intent behind any inaccuracies, which is relevant to the discussions of compliance in the current case.

Newsletters