ECJ Customs C-844/24 (Labroix) – ECJ Allows EU-Wide Statistical Prices for Customs Valuation Only as a Last Resort

Summary

In Case C-844/24, Labroix, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that customs authorities may use an average price calculated from aggregated EU-wide statistical values to establish customs value when the transaction-value method and the other secondary valuation methods cannot be used. [customsclear.net], [eur-lex.europa.eu]
Statistical valuation remains a method of last resort under Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code. Its use is conditional on the economic operator having had an opportunity to explain and substantiate the lower prices declared in the customs declarations. [customsclear.net], [eur-lex.europa.eu]
Importers declaring values materially below EU statistical averages should retain robust pricing evidence, including commercial invoices, contracts, payment records, product-quality information and explanations of discounts or commercial circumstances.

Extended article

The Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified that EU-wide statistical information may, under specific conditions, be used to determine the customs value of imported goods.

In its order of 15 July 2026 in Case C-844/24, Labroix, the Court ruled that Article 74(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, read together with Article 144 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447, does not preclude determining customs value using an average price calculated from aggregated statistical values established at EU level. [customsclear.net], [eur-lex.europa.eu]

However, this approach is available only as a method of last resort and where the importer has had the opportunity to justify why the prices stated in the customs declarations were lower than the relevant statistical values.

Background to the dispute

The proceedings arose in Belgium and concerned imports whose declared transaction values were regarded by the customs authorities as potentially understated.

The reference was made by the Cour d’appel de Liège in proceedings involving the Belgian public prosecutor, the Belgian State, the SPF Finances, ECDC Logistics SA, Soda Trading IM-&Export SPRL and several individuals. [eur-lex.europa.eu], [eur-lex.europa.eu]

The referring court asked whether customs authorities could use a statistical method based on the European Access2Markets/MADB database to determine the customs value of goods considered undervalued.

It also asked whether the relevant benchmark should be based on national statistical values or on aggregated figures established across the European Union, particularly where goods were released for free circulation in one Member State but released for consumption in another. [eur-lex.europa.eu], [eurlexsearch.com]

The hierarchy of customs valuation methods

The starting point under the Union Customs Code is the transaction value. This is generally the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the EU customs territory, subject to the required adjustments.

Where that value cannot be accepted or determined, customs authorities must proceed through the alternative methods set out in Article 74(2), including valuation based on:

identical goods;
similar goods;
the deductive method; and
the computed-value method.

Only where customs value cannot be determined using those methods may the authorities apply Article 74(3), commonly described as the fallback or last-resort method.

Under that provision, customs value may be established using reasonable means consistent with the principles of the applicable customs valuation rules and on the basis of data available in the EU.

Statistical data cannot therefore replace the transaction value merely because the declared amount is below an average price. Customs must first establish why the primary valuation method cannot be used and why the other sequential methods are unavailable or inappropriate.

The Court’s decision

The Court concluded that the relevant EU customs legislation does not prevent authorities from determining customs value, as a last resort, using an average price based on aggregated statistical values established at EU level.

The key conditions are that:

the transaction value cannot be determined under Article 70;
the secondary valuation methods in Article 74(2) cannot be applied;
the statistical method is used only under Article 74(3);
the methodology remains compatible with Article 144 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447; and
the importer has been given an opportunity to justify the lower declared prices. [customsclear.net], [eur-lex.europa.eu]

The decision therefore does not provide customs authorities with a general right to replace low declared values with EU averages. It confirms a residual valuation method for cases in which the ordinary valuation hierarchy has been exhausted.

Why the importer’s opportunity to explain matters

A statistical average may identify unusual pricing, but it does not necessarily represent the true value of an individual transaction.

A lower price may arise because of:

differences in product quality;
obsolete or end-of-line inventory;
damaged or imperfect goods;
unusually large order volumes;
contractual discounts;
liquidation sales;
differences in commercial level;
seasonal pricing;
long-term supplier relationships;
market-entry arrangements; or
differences in freight and contractual conditions.

The importer must therefore be able to provide evidence explaining why its transaction legitimately differs from the statistical norm.

The Court’s condition that the economic operator must have had an opportunity to justify the lower value provides an important procedural safeguard. Authorities should not mechanically substitute a statistical figure without considering relevant commercial evidence.

EU-wide data rather than only national statistics

The decision confirms that the fallback method may use aggregated statistical values established at EU level.

This is particularly relevant where the customs and commercial chain involves more than one Member State. Goods may enter and be released for free circulation in one country while their final destination or release for consumption occurs elsewhere.

Using EU-wide information can provide a broader dataset and avoid relying only on the import patterns of a single Member State. The European Commission’s Access2Markets statistics platform contains import and export information organised by reporting country, partner country, product code and year. [trade.ec.europa.eu]

However, a broader dataset does not eliminate the need for comparability. Customs authorities must still ensure that the statistical values used are appropriate for the goods and circumstances under examination.

Statistical values as indicators and valuation tools

The decision highlights the distinction between using statistical information as a risk indicator and using it to establish a legally binding customs value.

Customs authorities may use statistical data to identify declarations that appear unusually low and merit further examination. This does not automatically invalidate the declared transaction value.

Using the information to calculate a replacement customs value is a more significant step. It requires compliance with the valuation hierarchy and the safeguards associated with the fallback method.

The distinction can be summarised as follows:

Risk analysis: the statistical difference triggers additional questions or controls.
Rejection of transaction value: customs demonstrates why the declared value cannot be accepted.
Alternative methods: customs considers the Article 74(2) methods sequentially.
Last-resort valuation: EU-wide statistical information may be used where the preceding methods cannot determine the value.

Impact on customs duty and import VAT

A higher customs value can increase more than the customs duty payable.

Customs value may also affect:

the import VAT taxable amount;
anti-dumping or countervailing duties;
other import charges calculated by reference to value;
guarantees and customs-debt exposure;
customs penalties; and
possible criminal or administrative proceedings.

The financial consequences may therefore be considerable, particularly where customs authorities apply the revised value to a large number of historic transactions.

The original request for a preliminary ruling also referred to Belgian penalties calculated by reference to the duties allegedly evaded. This illustrates why transparency concerning the statistical methodology and the importer’s ability to challenge the result are particularly important. [eur-lex.europa.eu], [eurlexsearch.com]

Recommended actions for importers

Businesses importing goods at prices significantly below market or statistical averages should maintain a contemporaneous customs-valuation file containing:

supplier agreements;
commercial invoices;
purchase orders;
proof of payment;
price lists;
discount agreements;
correspondence explaining negotiated prices;
product specifications;
evidence of quality differences or defects;
information on quantities and commercial levels;
transfer-pricing documentation where relevant; and
explanations of abnormal market or liquidation conditions.

Importers should also check whether the descriptions and commodity codes used in customs declarations are sufficiently precise. An inappropriate tariff classification or generic product description may produce a misleading statistical comparison.

Where customs challenges a declared value, the importer should request details of:

the statistical database used;
the relevant period;
the tariff codes and countries included;
the calculation of the average price;
adjustments made for quantity or commercial level;
the reasons for rejecting the transaction value; and
the reasons why the other valuation methods could not be applied.

Broader significance

The order strengthens the ability of customs authorities to use EU-level data in undervaluation investigations, but it does not displace the transaction-value principle.

The central message is that EU-wide averages may be used to determine customs value only at the end of the statutory valuation sequence. The affected operator must also have a genuine opportunity to explain why its declared price is commercially justified.

For businesses, the case underlines the increasing importance of data-driven customs controls. Declared import prices can now be analysed across large EU datasets, making unusual valuation patterns easier to identify.

The best defence is therefore not simply a formally correct customs declaration. It is a complete and consistent evidence package demonstrating how the declared price was established and why it reflects the economic reality of the transaction.

Official and related links