Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2026:218
Date: 2026-03-25
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary T-296/25 – 1 
Case T-296/25 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
16 April 2025 
Referring court: 
Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
15 April 2025 
Appellant on a point of law: 
Director na Teritorialna Direktsia Mitnitsa Burgas 
Respondent on a point of law: 
Lidikar OOD 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal on a point of law before the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme 
Administrative Court) brought by the Direktor na Teritorialna Direktsia Mitnitsa 
Burgas (Director of the Burgas Regional Customs Directorate) against the 
judgment of the Administrativen sad Burgas (Burgas Administrative Court) 
annulling a decision made by the Director of the Burgas Regional Customs 
Directorate. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of Article 74(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs 
Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2013 L 287, p. 90, and OJ 2016 
L 267, p. 2) 
Article 267 TFEU 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE T-296/25 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Can Article 74(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 be interpreted as 
meaning that the value of goods that is declared on export of the goods from a 
non-member country may be regarded as ‘data available in the customs territory 
of the Union’? 
2. Can Article 74(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 be interpreted as 
meaning that determination of the customs value of goods on the basis of the 
value declared on export of those goods from a non-member country may 
constitute reasonable means for determining the customs value within the meaning 
of Article 74(3) of that regulation? 
Provisions of international law relied on 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (‘GATT 1994’), Article VII(2)(a) 
and (b) 
Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994 (‘Customs Valuation Agreement’), General Introductory 
Commentary, Article 1(1), Article 2(1)(a), Article 3(1)(a), Article 6(1)(b), 
Article 7(1) and Article 7(2)(e) and (g) 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Regulation No 952/2013, recitals 5 and 9, Articles 69, 70 and 74 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 
laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation 
(EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the 
Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 558), Article 140(2) and Article 141 
Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
6 May 2009 on Community statistics relating to external trade with non-member 
countries and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1172/95 (OJ 2009 L 152, 
p. 23), Article 3(1), Article 4(1), Article 5(1)(c), Article 6 
Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 15 July 2010, Gaston 
Schul (С-354/09, EU:C:2010:439), of 21 January 2016, Stretinskis (С-430/14, 
EU:C:2016:43), of 16 June 2016, EURO 2004. Hungary (С-291/15, 
EU:C:2016:455), of 9 March 2017, GE Healthcare (С-173/15, EU:C:2017:195), 
of 11 May 2017, The Shirtmakers (С-59/16, EU:C:2017:362), of 12 October 2017, 
X (С-661/15, EU:C:2017:753), of 10 September 2020, BMW (С-509/19, 
EU:C:2020:694) and of 9 June 2022, FAWKES (С-187/21, EU:C:2022:458) 
Opinion of Advocate General Bordona in Tauritus (C-782/23, EU:C:2025:30) and 
of Advocate General Emiliou in Baltic Master (C-599/20, EU:C:2022:46) 
LIDIKAR 
 
3 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Zakon za mitnitsite (Law on Customs, ‘ZM’), Article 1(2) point 1, Article 84(1) 
and (2), Article 84а(1) to (4), Article 220(1) and (2) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 18 January 2021, a customs declaration was submitted to the customs office at 
the Port of Burgas by Lidikar OOD, as declarant and indirect representative, 
declaring for the ‘release for free circulation’ customs procedure a passenger car 
that had been damaged in an accident, namely a five-seater, petrol Honda CR-
V. The method of customs valuation indicated in the customs declaration was the 
method based on the transaction value of the imported goods, in accordance with 
Article 70 of the Union Customs Code. The price of the goods was indicated as 
3 310 Canadian dollars (CAD). The Canadian customs authority – the Canada 
Border Services Agency – provided information on vehicles declared in Canada 
for export to the European Union. 
2 During post-release control of the goods declared under the customs declaration in 
question, the Canadian customs authority sent the Bulgarian customs authority a 
file containing data for the full individualisation of vehicles and indicating the 
value declared on export from Canada. Once the data provided by the Canadian 
customs authority had been examined and it had been established, on the basis of 
the Canadian export declaration number, that the goods declared for import 
corresponded to the goods exported from Canada, a discrepancy became apparent 
between the price indicated in the customs declaration in Bulgaria (CAD 3 310) 
and the price communicated by the Canadian customs authority (CAD 15 889) 
that was indicated in the Canadian export declaration. 
3 Lidikar OOD was asked to provide evidence of the price that had been declared 
for customs purposes. The declaring company presented an invoice dated 
18 November 2020, a packing list, a sea waybill and an invoice dated 13 January 
2021. The customs authority found there to be reasonable doubts as to the customs 
value of the goods, determined in accordance with Article 70(1) of Regulation 
No 952/2013. The company stated in writing that it did not have or keep any 
records relating to the transaction that had been concluded, nor any contract with 
the seller or the final recipient of the car, nor any quote, order, price lists, other 
correspondence, images or payment documents prior to the transaction. 
4 Once the documents attached to the customs declaration had been examined, the 
customs authority found that there was no evidence to support the accuracy of the 
price stated in the invoice that had been presented, such as contracts, orders, 
quotes or correspondence. The bank statement that had been presented regarding a 
transfer in foreign currency that had been arranged did not show that payment was 
payment in full. Given the reasonable doubts and the lack of evidence for the 
declared price, the customs value declared in accordance with Article 70 of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE T-296/25 
 
4  
Regulation No 952/2013, which had been determined on the basis of the invoice 
dated 18 November 2020, should not have been used. 
5 The customs authority did not consider the methods referred to in Article 74(2)(a) 
to (d) of Regulation No 952/2013 to be applicable. Moreover, the authority 
declined to apply the secondary methods under Article 74(2) of the Regulation 
because the car in question was one that had been involved in an accident, the 
specific technical condition of which was difficult to compare with the condition 
of other goods of the same make and model imported into Bulgaria. 
6 Since the conditions for applying the methods for determining the value of the 
goods at issue under Article 74(2)(a) to (d) of Regulation No 952/2013 were not 
satisfied, the reasonable means method under Article 74(3) of Regulation 
No 952/2013 was to be applied. The customs authority was of the view that the 
reply provided by the Canadian customs authority was an official document 
arising from the verification carried out through international cooperation. The 
customs value of the goods was determined on the basis of the price indicated in 
the electronic information sent by the Canadian customs authority. 
7 By means of its decision, the customs authority set the customs value of the goods 
at 19 830.43 leva (BGN) at the time of receipt of the customs declaration and 
levied import duties and value added tax totalling BGN 5 023.78. 
8 The court of first instance, the Burgas Administrative Court, which has 
jurisdiction to examine the legality of the customs authority’s decision, annulled 
that decision on the grounds that it was unlawful. The Administrative Court 
considered that the dispute between the parties centred on whether the customs 
authorities had established the existence of ‘reasonable doubts’ for the purposes of 
Article 140(2) of Implementing Regulation No 2015/2447, and whether the 
procedure laid down in Article 141 of the Implementing Regulation, read in 
conjunction with Article 70 of Regulation No 952/2013, had been followed in 
order to determine the customs value of the import at issue in the main 
proceedings. The court held that the existence of reasonable doubts within the 
meaning of Article 140 of Implementing Regulation No 2015/2447 had to be 
evidenced in each individual case and that, in the present case, the customs 
authority had not provided any compelling evidence to support its doubts that the 
[declared] customs value did not represent the actual value. The court took the 
view that Article 70 of Regulation No 952/2013 establishes the general principle 
of determining the customs value on the basis of the transaction value, that is to 
say, on the basis of the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for 
export to the customs territory of the European Union. Article 74 of Regulation 
No 952/2013 provides for secondary methods of determining the customs value 
which, on the one hand, are subsidiary to the method provided for in Article 70 
and, on the other hand, have their own hierarchy. The expression ‘reasonable 
doubts’ is defined in Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 and the existence 
thereof must be established in each case on the basis of facts and circumstances 
actually established. In the case at issue in the main proceedings, the customs 
LIDIKAR 
 
5 
authorities did not fulfil their obligation to demonstrate the existence of 
‘reasonable doubts’ within the meaning of Article 140 of Implementing 
Regulation 2015/2447. The reply provided by the Canadian customs authority did 
not constitute an official document that would be binding on the court. The 
customs authority did not substantiate its view that, in particular, the information 
declared by the exporter to the Canadian authority was correct, given that the 
authenticity of the presented invoice was undisputed. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
9 The Director of the Burgas Regional Customs Directorate argues that the 
judgment of the court of first instance is incorrect. He considers the position that 
the methods set out in Article 74(2)(a) to (d) of Regulation No 952/2013 are not 
applicable, to be correct. Rather, it is the reasonable means method under 
Article 74(3) of Regulation No 952/2013 that is applicable. Moreover, the reply 
provided by the Canadian customs authority constitutes an official document 
arising from the verification carried out through international cooperation, the 
customs value having been determined on the basis of the price communicated in 
the electronic information provided by the Canadian customs authority. 
In his written submission in the main proceedings, the legal representative of 
Lidikar OOD stated that he considers the ruling of the court of first instance to be 
lawful. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
10 The cause of the dispute in the main proceedings lies in the method used to 
determine the customs value. The amount of tax and customs duties owed also 
depends on this value. In most jurisdictions, duties are mainly imposed ‘ad 
valorem’, which means that imported and/or exported goods are taxed on the basis 
of their monetary value. In the present case, the customs authorities have doubts 
as to the veracity of the declaration in terms of the value of certain goods imported 
into the European Union, specifically from Canada. Box 14/6 of the customs 
declaration specifies the method of determining the customs value as the 
transaction value method under Article 70 of the Union Customs Code. 
11 In EU law, the purpose of customs valuation is to introduce a fair, uniform and 
neutral system excluding the use of arbitrary or fictitious customs values. The 
customs value must therefore reflect the real economic value of imported goods 
and take into account all of the elements of those goods that have economic value. 
12 In the present case, the customs authority found there to be reasonable doubts as 
to the customs value of the goods, calculated in accordance with Article 70(1) of 
Regulation No 952/2013. Taking the view that the secondary methods for 
determining the customs value of the goods at issue in the main proceedings were 
not applicable, the customs authority took the view that Article 74(3) of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE T-296/25 
 
6  
Regulation No 952/2013 was applicable; under the latter provision, where the 
customs value cannot be determined by applying the abovementioned secondary 
methods, the determination is to be made on the basis of data available in the 
customs territory of the European Union, using reasonable means. In the present 
case, the customs authority determined the customs value of the goods at issue on 
the basis of the reply provided by the Canadian customs authority, which was 
prepared by officials in the course of their official duties in accordance with the 
prescribed procedure and in the prescribed form. By applying the fall-back 
method, the customs value was determined on the basis of data consisting of 
electronic export information from the Canadian customs authority system 
concerning vehicles declared in Canada for export. On the basis of the electronic 
information provided by the Canadian customs authority by way of mutual 
assistance, the goods were individualised by chassis, description and weight, 
which corresponded to the relevant information in the documents accompanying 
the customs declaration for release for free circulation. 
13 Article 74(3) of Regulation No 952/2013 states that, where the customs value 
cannot be determined under paragraph 1, it is to be determined on the basis of data 
available in the customs territory of the European Union, using reasonable means 
consistent with the principles and general provisions of the Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and 
Chapter 3 of Regulation No 952/2013. Analysis of the wording cited from the 
Regulation [shows that] data available in the customs territory of the Union is 
undoubtedly required, while at the same time reasonable means consistent with 
the provisions cited are to be used. The Regulation does not answer the question 
of what constitutes reasonable means, nor has the Court of Justice of the European 
Union provided an answer to this. 
14 In this context, and taking into account the fact that the Canadian customs 
authority provided information on vehicles declared in Canada for export to the 
European Union, the referring court asks whether the value of goods declared on 
export of the goods from a non-member country may be regarded as ‘data 
available in the customs territory of the Union’. The court also asks whether 
determination of the customs value in accordance with Article 74(3) of the 
Regulation on the basis of the value declared on export of those goods from a non-
member country may constitute reasonable means. 
15 The questions arise because, in accordance with Article 31 of the repealed 
[Regulation No 2913/92], the methods used must be reasonable, based on 
available data and consistent with the general EU and international legal 
framework. For methods used to be reasonable they must be capable of producing 
a fair and sound valuation. They must be based on actual data and must not be at 
odds with relevant international instruments. As the Advocate General observes in 
his Opinion in Case C-599/20, given its rather open-ended wording and its nature 
of extrema ratio, Article 31 of Regulation No 2913/92 leaves it to the authorities 
to identify, in each set of circumstances, the methods that can be used in order to 
determine the value of the goods in question. As already mentioned, the methods 
LIDIKAR 
 
7 
chosen must therefore be adequate under the circumstances, i.e. they must be 
capable of producing a fair and sound valuation, they must be practical for the 
authorities, i.e. not overly complicated, and they must be based on actual, 
verifiable data, where possible based on previously determined customs values. 
Furthermore, they must not be at odds with relevant international instruments.  
16 Against this background, it appears possible that determination of the customs 
value on the basis of the data from the Canadian customs authority constitutes 
reasonable means within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, as the 
reply provided by the Canadian customs authority is an official document arising 
from verification carried out through international cooperation. The customs value 
was determined on the basis of the price indicated in the electronic information 
provided by the Canadian customs authority. 
17 The referring court also takes account of the fact that Regulation (EC) 
No 471/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on 
Community statistics relating to external trade with non-member countries and 
repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1172/95 provides in Article 3(1): ‘External 
trade statistics shall record imports and exports of goods. … An import shall be 
recorded by Member States in the event that goods enter the statistical territory of 
the Community in accordance with one of the following customs procedures laid 
down in the Customs Code: (a) release for free circulation; (b) inward 
processing;’. Article 4(1) of that regulation reads: ‘The data source for records on 
the imports and exports of goods referred to in Article 3(1) shall be the customs 
declaration, including possible amendments or changes to statistical data resulting 
from decisions by customs pertaining to it.’ Article 5(1)(c) of said regulation 
specifies: ‘Member States shall obtain the following set of data from records on 
imports and exports referred to in Article 3(1): … (c) the statistical value of the 
goods at the national border of the importing or exporting Member States;’ 
Article 6 of Regulation No 471/2009 provides: ‘Member States shall compile for 
each monthly reference period statistics on imports and exports of goods 
expressed in value and quantity by: (a) goods code; (b) importing/exporting 
Member States; (c) partner countries; (d) statistical procedure; (e) nature of the 
transaction; (f) preferential treatment on import; (g) mode of transport.’ 
18 In addition, it must be borne in mind that Article 7(1) and (2)(e) and (g) of the 
Customs Valuation Agreement reads: ‘If the customs value of the imported goods 
cannot be determined under the provisions of Articles 1 through 6, inclusive, the 
customs value shall be determined using reasonable means consistent with the 
principles and general provisions of this Agreement and of Article VII of GATT 
1994 and on the basis of data available in the country of importation. […] No 
customs value shall be determined under the provisions of this Article on the basis 
of: … (e) the price of the goods for export to a country other than the country of 
importation; … (g) arbitrary or fictitious values.’  
19 The answer to the question must also take into account the prohibition under 
Article 144(2)(b) [of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447], which prevents 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE T-296/25 
 
8  
customs values being determined on the basis of a system whereby the higher of 
two alternative values is used for customs valuation. 
20 Against this background, it is important to the referring court, acting as the court 
of last instance, to understand how Article 74(3) of Regulation No 952/2013 is to 
be interpreted in terms of whether the value of the goods concerned declared on 
export from a non-member country may constitute ‘data available in the customs 
territory of the Union’ and whether determination of the customs value under 
Article 74(3) of that regulation on the basis of the value declared on export of 
those goods from a non-member country may be regarded as reasonable means.