EGC Customs T-296/25 (Lidikar) – Judgment – Use of Foreign Export Prices for EU Customs Valuation

On March 25, 2026, the General Court issued its judgment in the case T-296/25 (Lidikar).

Interpretation of Union Customs Code (UCC) Article 74(3) regarding the use of external export data, communicated via international cooperation agreements, for customs valuation under the residual (“fall-back”) method.

I. Executive Summary

This judgment by the General Court clarifies two crucial aspects of customs valuation under the Union Customs Code (UCC) residual method (Article 74(3)). It affirms that data on the export price of goods from a non-member country, transmitted to EU customs authorities via an international customs cooperation agreement, can be considered “data available in the customs territory of the Union” and can constitute “reasonable means” for determining customs value. This ruling provides a legal basis for EU customs authorities to utilize such information when the primary and secondary valuation methods are not applicable or when the declared transaction value is subject to reasonable doubt.

II. Case Background

The case originated from a preliminary ruling request by the Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria in proceedings between Lidikar OOD (an importer) and the Direktor na TD Mitnitsa Burgas (Bulgarian Customs).

Goods in question: A motor vehicle imported from Canada, declared by Lidikar at CAD 3,310 (approx. EUR 2,100) based on the transaction value (UCC Article 70).
Audit findings: A post-clearance audit, triggered by information from Canadian customs authorities (via the Canada-EU Customs Cooperation Agreement), revealed a significant discrepancy. Canadian authorities reported the export value of the same vehicle as CAD 15,889 (approx. EUR 10,100).
Customs actions: Bulgarian customs authorities had “reasonable doubts” about Lidikar’s declared value (Article 140 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447). Lidikar failed to provide sufficient evidence to dispel these doubts. Due to the vehicle’s damaged condition, secondary valuation methods (Article 74(2) UCC – identical/similar goods, etc.) were deemed inapplicable.
Valuation method applied: Bulgarian customs determined the customs value using the residual method under Article 74(3) UCC, relying on the export price communicated by Canadian customs. This resulted in a significantly higher customs value and import duties.
Judicial review: The first-instance Bulgarian court annulled the customs decision, questioning the justification of “reasonable doubts” and the validity of the Canadian data as “official documentary evidence.” The Director of the Regional Customs Office appealed, leading to the referral to the General Court.

III. Legal Framework under Examination

The judgment centers on the interpretation of Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code (Regulation (EU) No 952/2013), which outlines the residual (or “fall-back”) method for customs valuation. This method applies “Where the customs value cannot be determined under paragraph 1 [transaction value],” and requires determination “on the basis of data available in the customs territory of the Union, using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of” international and EU customs law (GATT 1994, Customs Valuation Agreement, and UCC Chapter 3).

Crucially, the Court also considered:

Article 7 of the Customs Valuation Agreement (CVA) and Article 144(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447, which list prohibited bases for customs valuation, such as “prices for export to a country other than the country of importation” and “a system which provides for the acceptance for customs purposes of the higher of two alternative values.”
International cooperation agreements: The Canada-EU Customs Cooperation Agreement and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the EU, which facilitate mutual assistance and information exchange in customs matters.

IV. Main Themes and Court’s Findings

The General Court addressed two specific questions referred by the Bulgarian court:

Question 1: What constitutes “data available in the customs territory of the Union” under Article 74(3) UCC?
- Broad Interpretation: The Court emphasizes that Article 74(3) is a “last resort” method, and therefore the concept of “data available in the customs territory of the Union” must be interpreted broadly.
  - Quote: “the concept of ‘data available in the customs territory of the Union’ must therefore be interpreted broadly as referring to the factual availability of data in the sense that the customs authorities of the European Union can use them for the purposes of assessing the customs value of goods.” (Para 26)
- Origin of Data: The origin of the data in a third country does not preclude its use.
  - Quote: “the fact that the data originate in a third country does not preclude them from constituting ‘data available in the customs territory of the Union’.” (Para 27)
- Data from Cooperation Agreements: Specifically, data related to the declared export price, transmitted by the customs authorities of the exporting country under an international cooperation agreement (like the Canada-EU Customs Cooperation Agreement), qualifies.
  - Quote: “That is particularly the case with regard to data relating to the declared export price of goods that have been transmitted by the customs authorities of the country of export on the basis of an international agreement governing customs cooperation between the European Union and that third country, such as the Canada-EU Customs Cooperation Agreement and the CETA Canada-EU, which provide for mutual assistance in customs matters.” (Para 28)
- Accessibility to Declarants Irrelevant: The concept does not depend on the accessibility of the third country’s database to customs declarants or on a specific request from EU authorities for that data.
- Conclusion on Question 1: The price declared for export from a non-member country, communicated under an international customs cooperation agreement, can be regarded as “data available in the customs territory of the Union.”
Question 2: Can using such export data constitute “reasonable means” under Article 74(3) UCC?
- “Reasonable Flexibility” and Consistency: The residual method allows “reasonable flexibility” (Article 144(1) IR) but must remain consistent with the principles of the CVA, GATT 1994, and the UCC.
- Interpretation of “prices for export to a third country”: The Court clarifies that the prohibition in CVA Article 7(2)(e) and IR Article 144(2)(e) against using “prices for export to a third country” refers to prices for export to a country other than the country of importation, not the price declared in the exporting country for export to the EU.
  - Quote: “neither the Customs Valuation Agreement nor EU law precludes the customs authorities of an EU Member State from determining the customs value of goods, in accordance with the residual method (or ‘fall-back’ method), on the basis of the price declared in a third country for the export of those goods to the customs territory of the Union.” (Para 33)
- Interpretation of “higher of two alternative values”: The prohibition in CVA Article 7(2)(b) and IR Article 144(2)(b) on using “the higher of two alternative values” does not prevent the use of the declared export price if it is the only reliable value available when the initial declaration is doubtful. It targets a systemic preference for the higher value, not a factual determination.
- Consistency with “Actual Value”: Using the declared export price, especially when communicated under a cooperation agreement, generally corresponds to the “actual value” of the goods. Therefore, it does not contravene the prohibition on using “arbitrary or fictitious values” (CVA Article 7(2)(g), IR Article 144(2)(g)). The national court must verify this correspondence.
- Precedent: Previous case law (e.g., Carboni e derivati) supports using a price indicated for the same goods in a prior sale.
- Conclusion on Question 2: The use of the declared export price of goods to the customs territory of the Union, as communicated by the customs authorities of the country of export under an international agreement, can constitute “reasonable means” for determining the customs value.

V. Implications

This judgment significantly strengthens the position of EU customs authorities in combating customs fraud, particularly under-valuation.

Enhanced Verification: It provides a clear legal basis for customs authorities to use data obtained through international cooperation agreements from exporting non-member countries to verify declared import values.
Flexibility in Valuation: It confirms the “reasonable flexibility” inherent in the residual valuation method (Article 74(3) UCC) and clarifies the scope of its limitations as defined by the CVA and Implementing Regulation 2015/2447.
Importance of Cooperation Agreements: It underscores the practical utility and legal significance of international customs cooperation agreements as tools for effective customs administration and revenue protection.
Burden on Importers: While not directly altering the burden, the judgment reinforces the need for importers to be able to substantiate their declared transaction values, especially when external data suggests a significant discrepancy. Failure to do so can lead to a reassessment based on external, credible information.

Source