Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges)
25 March 2026 (*)
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Union Customs Code – Import and export procedures – Importation of goods from Canada – Method of determining the customs value – Declared export price of the goods communicated by the Canadian authorities under an international customs cooperation agreement – Concept of ‘data available in the customs territory of the Union’ – Reasonable means – Article 74(3) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Residual or ‘fall-back’ method – Article 144 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 )
In Case T‑296/25,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria), made by decision of 15 April 2025, received at the Court of Justice on 16 April 2025, in the proceedings
Direktor na TD Mitnitsa Burgas
v
Lidikar OOD,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges),
composed of M. Sampol Pucurull, President, T. Pynnä, J. Laitenberger (Rapporteur), M. Stancu and W. Valasidis, Judges,
Advocate General: J. Martín y Pérez de Nanclares,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the transmission of the request for a preliminary ruling to the General Court by the Court of Justice on 13 May 2025, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,
having regard to the fact that the case concerns the area referred to in point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the fact that there is no independent question relating to interpretation within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 50b of that statute,
having regard to the written part of the procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
–        Direktor na TD Mitnitsa Burgas, by L. Dimitrov, R. Dimitrova Todorova and P. Kalchev, acting as Agents,
–        Lidikar, by R. Vasileva, lawyer,
–        the Bulgarian Government, by T. Mitova and R. Stoyanov, acting as Agents,
–        the Czech Government, by M. Smolek, A. Edelmannová and
J. Vláčil,
acting as Agents,
–        the European Commission, by D. Drambozova and F. Moro, acting as Agents,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the 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) (‘the Union Customs Code’).
2        The request has been made in proceedings between Lidikar OOD, a company incorporated under Bulgarian law, and the Direktor na TD Mitnitsa Burgas
(Director of the Regional Customs Office,
Burgas, Bulgaria)
concerning the decision by which the Bulgarian customs administration determined the customs value of a vehicle imported from Canada by Lidikar on the basis of the declared export price, as communicated by the Canadian customs authorities to the Bulgarian customs administration under an international agreement on customs cooperation.
Legal framework
International law
GATT 1994
3        Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (‘GATT 1994’) is worded as follows:
‘1.      The contracting parties recognise the validity of the general principles of valuation set forth in the following paragraphs of this Article, and they undertake to give effect to such principles, in respect of all products subject to duties or other charges or restrictions on importation and exportation based upon or regulated in any manner by value. Moreover, they shall, upon a request by another contracting party, review the operation of any of their laws or regulations relating to value for customs purposes in the light of these principles. The CONTRACTING PARTIES may request from contracting parties reports on steps taken by them in pursuance of the provisions of this Article.
2.      (a)      The value for customs purposes of imported merchandise should be based on the actual value of the imported merchandise on which duty is assessed, or of like merchandise, and should not be based on the value of merchandise of national origin or on arbitrary or fictitious values.
(b)      “Actual value” should be the price at which, at a time and place determined by the legislation of the country of importation, such or like merchandise is sold or offered for sale in the ordinary course of trade under fully competitive conditions. To the extent to which the price of such or like merchandise is governed by the quantity in a particular transaction, the price to be considered should uniformly be related to either (i) comparable quantities or (ii) quantities not less favourable to importers than those in which the greater volume of the merchandise is sold in the trade between the countries of exportation and importation.
(c)      When the actual value is not ascertainable in accordance with subparagraph (b) of this paragraph, the value for customs purposes should be based on the nearest ascertainable equivalent of such value.
…’
Customs Valuation Agreement
4        Article 7 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the [GATT] 1994 (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 119) (‘Customs Valuation Agreement’) reads as follows:
‘1.      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.
2.      No customs value shall be determined under the provisions of this Article on the basis of:
…
(b)      a system which provides for the acceptance for customs purposes of the higher of two alternative values;
…
(e)      the price of the goods for export to a country other than the country of importation;
…
(g)      arbitrary or fictitious values.
…’
Canada-EU Customs Cooperation Agreement
5        Article 1 of the Agreement between the European Community and Canada on customs cooperation and mutual assistance in customs matters (OJ 1998 L 7, p. 38) (‘the Canada-EU Customs Cooperation Agreement’) is worded as follows:
‘For the purposes of this Agreement,
…
4.      “information” means any data, documents, reports, certified or authenticated copies thereof or other communications, including data which has been processed or analysed to provide an indication relevant to a breach of customs legislation;
…’
6        Article 7 of the Canada-EU Customs Cooperation Agreement reads as follows:
‘1.      The customs authorities shall assist each other, either on request or on their own initiative, by providing appropriate information which helps to ensure the proper application of customs legislation and the prevention, investigation and combating of any breach of customs legislation.
…’
7        Article 11(1) of the Canada-EU Customs Cooperation Agreement reads as follows:
‘The requested authority shall communicate appropriate information to the requesting authority in the form of documents, certified copies of documents, reports or electronic versions thereof. All relevant information for interpreting or utilising that information shall be supplied at the same time.’
8        Article 16(3) of the Canada-EU Customs Cooperation Agreement reads as follows:
‘Paragraph 2 shall not impede the use of information in any judicial or administrative proceedings subsequently instituted for failure to comply with customs legislation. …’
CETA Canada-EU
9        Article 6.1 of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part
(OJ 2017 L 11, p. 23) (‘the CETA Canada-EU’), entitled ‘Objectives and principles’, provides as follows:
‘…
2.      The Parties shall, to the extent possible, cooperate and exchange information, including information on best practices, to promote the application of and compliance with the trade facilitation measures in this Agreement.
…’
10      Article 6.13 of the CETA Canada-EU, entitled ‘Cooperation’, stipulates the following:
‘…
3.      The Parties shall cooperate in accordance with the [Canada-EU Customs Cooperation
Agreement], done at Ottawa on 4 December 1997 …
4.      The Parties shall provide each other with mutual assistance in customs matters in accordance with the Canada-EU Customs Cooperation Agreement, including matters relating to a suspected breach of a Party’s customs legislation, as defined in that agreement, and to the implementation of this Agreement.’
European Union law
Union Customs Code
11      Article 70 of the Union Customs Code reads as follows:
‘1.      The primary basis for the customs value of goods shall be the transaction value, that is the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the customs territory of the Union, adjusted, where necessary.
2.      The price actually paid or payable shall be the total payment made or to be made by the buyer to the seller or by the buyer to a third party for the benefit of the seller for the imported goods and include all payments made or to be made as a condition of sale of the imported goods.
…’
12      In accordance with Article 74 of the Union Customs Code, the following is provided for:
‘1.      Where the customs value of goods cannot be determined under Article 70, it shall be determined by proceeding sequentially from points (a) to (d) of paragraph 2, until the first point under which the customs value of goods can be determined.
The order of application of points (c) and (d) of paragraph 2 shall be reversed if the declarant so requests.
2.      The customs value, pursuant to paragraph 1, shall be:
(a)      the transaction value of identical goods sold for export to the customs territory of the Union and exported at or about the same time as the goods being valued;
(b)      the transaction value of similar goods sold for export to the customs territory of the Union and exported at or about the same time as the goods being valued;
(c)      the value based on the unit price at which the imported goods, or identical or similar imported goods, are sold within the customs territory of the Union in the greatest aggregate quantity to persons not related to the sellers; or
(d)      the computed value, consisting of the sum of:
(i)      the cost or value of materials and fabrication or other processing employed in producing the imported goods;
(ii)      an amount for profit and general expenses equal to that usually reflected in sales of goods of the same class or kind as the goods being valued which are made by producers in the country of export for export to the Union;
(iii)      the cost or value of the elements referred to in point (e) of Article 71(1).
3.      Where the customs value cannot be determined under paragraph 1, it shall be determined on the basis of data available in the customs territory of the Union, using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of all of the following:
(a)      the agreement on implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade;
(b)      Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade;
(c)      this Chapter.’
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447
13      Article 140 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of [the Union Customs Code] (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 558), entitled ‘Non-acceptance of declared transaction values’, provides:
‘1.      Where the customs authorities have reasonable doubts that the declared transaction value represents the total amount paid or payable as referred to in Article 70(1) of the [Union Customs Code], they may ask the declarant to supply additional information.
2.      If their doubts are not dispelled, the customs authorities may decide that the value of the goods cannot be determined in accordance with Article 70(1) of [that] Code.’
14      Article 144 of Implementing Regulation
2015/2447, entitled ‘Fall-back method’, reads as follows:
‘1.      When determining the customs value under Article 74(3) of the [Union Customs Code], reasonable flexibility may be used in the application of the methods provided for in Articles 70 and 74(2) of the Code. The value so determined shall, to the greatest extent possible, be based on previously determined customs values.
2.      Where no customs value can be determined under paragraph 1, other appropriate methods shall be used. In this case the customs value shall not be determined on the basis of any of the following:
…
(b)      a system whereby the higher of two alternative values is used for customs valuation;
…
(e)      prices for export to a third country;
…
(g)      arbitrary or fictitious values.’
The dispute in the main proceedings
15      On 18 January 2021, Lidikar, acting as the indirect representative of an importer, filed a customs declaration for the release for free circulation of a motor vehicle that had been involved in a road accident with the customs office at the port of Burgas (Bulgaria). In that declaration, the customs value of the imported vehicle was determined, in accordance with Article 70(1) of the Union Customs Code, on the basis of its transaction value, namely
at a price of 3 310 Canadian dollars (CAD) (approximately EUR 2 100).
16      A post-clearance audit of the customs declaration in question was carried out by the Bulgarian customs authorities on the basis of information provided by the Canadian customs administration under the Canada-EU Customs Cooperation Agreement regarding vehicles declared for export from Canada to the European Union. More specifically, in an email dated 16 December 2022, the Canadian customs administration provided the Bulgarian customs authorities with a file containing a detailed list of vehicles, including the one in question, indicating the value declared when they were exported from Canada. After analysing the data provided, the Bulgarian customs authorities found that the price of CAD 3 310 for the goods declared in Bulgaria did not correspond to the price of CAD 15 889 (approximately EUR 10 100) communicated by the Canadian customs administration for the vehicle in question and indicated in the corresponding export declaration.
17      In those circumstances, the Bulgarian customs authorities requested evidence from Lidikar to confirm the price declared at customs clearance. An invoice dated 18 November 2020, a packing list, a bill of lading and an invoice dated 13 January 2021 were presented. Notwithstanding those documents, the Bulgarian customs authorities considered that there were reasonable doubts as to the customs value of the goods in question, determined in accordance with Article 70(1) of the Union Customs Code. Lidikar provided written explanations stating that it had not kept the commercial file relating to the transaction in question, nor the offer, price lists, payment documents or other correspondence prior to that transaction.
18      After checking the documents attached to the customs declaration, the Bulgarian customs authorities considered that there was no evidence of the accuracy of the price declared in accordance with the invoice of 18 November 2020. They also found that it was not clear from the bank statement provided that payment of the price had been final. They therefore considered that, given the legitimate doubts and the lack of evidence regarding the declared price, the customs value declared under Article 70(1) of the Union Customs Code, determined on the basis of the invoice dated 18 November 2020, should be rejected.
19      Furthermore, the Bulgarian customs authorities found that the conditions for applying the secondary methods of valuation of the goods in question under Article 74(2)(a) to (d) of the Union Customs Code were not met, since the vehicle had been involved in an accident and its particular technical condition was difficult to compare with that of other vehicles of the same make and model imported into Bulgaria. However, the Bulgarian customs authorities determined the customs value, in accordance with Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code, on the basis of the electronic versions of the documents transmitted by the Canadian customs authorities on the basis of the Canada-EU Customs Cooperation
Agreement.
20      Consequently, the Bulgarian customs authorities set the customs value of the vehicle in question at 19 830.43 Bulgarian leva (BGN) (approximately EUR 9 500) and the total amount of import duties and value added tax (VAT) to be recovered at BGN 5 023 (approximately EUR 2 150).
21      The decision of the Bulgarian customs authorities was subject to judicial review at first instance by the Administrativen sad Burgas (Administrative Court, Burgas, Bulgaria), which annulled it on grounds of illegality. That court considered that, in the present case, the Bulgarian customs authorities had failed to comply with their obligation to justify the existence of ‘reasonable doubts’ within the meaning of Article 140 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 and that the response provided by the Canadian customs authorities did not constitute official documentary evidence binding on the court.
22      The Direktor na TD Mitnitsa Burgas
(Director of the Regional Customs Office, Burgas)
appealed to the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria), which is the referring court, against the judgment delivered by the Administrativen sad Burgas (Administrative Court, Burgas), arguing that the latter’s findings were incorrect and that the reasonable means method was applicable under Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code. It argued that the response provided by the Canadian customs authorities constituted an official document relating to the control carried out in the context of international cooperation between Canada and the European Union and that the customs value in question had been determined taking into account the price indicated in the electronic versions of the documents transmitted by the Canadian customs authorities.
23      In those circumstances, the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following two questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1)      Can Article 74(3) of [the Union Customs Code] 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 [the Union Customs Code] 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 [code]?’
Consideration of the questions referred
The first question
24      By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the price declared for the export of goods to the customs territory of the Union, as communicated by the customs authorities of the country of export to the customs authorities of a Member State in the context of an international agreement on customs cooperation, may be regarded as data available in the customs territory of the Union within the meaning of that provision, for the purposes of determining the customs value of those goods.
25      First of all, it should be noted that the residual method (or ‘fall-back’ method) provided for in Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code is a last resort to address the need to determine the customs value of the goods concerned in the event that the customs declarant does not provide sufficiently accurate or reliable information to enable that value to be determined on the basis of the main method provided for in Article 70(1) of that code or the secondary methods provided for in Article 74(2) of that code (see, to that effect, judgments of 9 June 2022, Baltic Master, C‑599/20, EU:C:2022:457, paragraph 54, and of 29 January 2026, Keladis I and Keladis II, C‑72/24 and C‑73/24, EU:C:2026:51, paragraph 75).
26      Having regard to the purpose of Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code and its wording, 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.
27      It follows, first, that the concept of ‘data available in the customs territory of the Union’ cannot be limited to data collected in the European Union. Thus, 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’.
28      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.
29      It follows, secondly, that the classification of ‘data available in the customs territory of the Union’ cannot depend, contrary to what Lidikar alleges in its observations on the request for a preliminary ruling, on the accessibility to customs declarants of the database of the third country from which the data transmitted to the customs authorities of the European Union originate, nor on the existence of a request from those authorities specifically for the transmission of those data, when they have been made available to them.
30      In those circumstances, the answer to the first question must be that Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the price declared for the export of goods to the customs territory of the Union,
as communicated by the customs authorities of the country of export
to the customs authorities of a Member State under an international agreement on customs cooperation, may be regarded as data available in the customs territory of the Union within the meaning of that provision, for the purposes of determining the customs value of those goods.
The second question
31      By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that 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 to the customs authorities of a Member State in the context of an international agreement on customs cooperation, may constitute reasonable means within the meaning of that provision, for the purposes of determining the customs value of those goods.
32      First of all, it should be noted that Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code must be read in conjunction with Article 144(1) of Implementing Regulation
2015/2447, which provides that, when determining the customs value under Article 74(3) of that code, ‘reasonable flexibility’ may be shown in the application of the methods provided for in Article 70 and Article 74(2) of the Union Customs Code (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 January 2026, Keladis I and Keladis II, C‑72/24 and C‑73/24, EU:C:2026:51, paragraph 104). It must therefore be recognised that the authorities have a margin of discretion in applying the residual method (or ‘fall-back’ method), which must be implemented in accordance with the principles and provisions set out in Article 74(3) of that code. Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code provides that the customs value is to be determined by reasonable means which must be consistent with, first, the Customs Valuation Agreement, secondly, Article VII of the GATT 1994 and, thirdly, Chapter 3 of Title II of that code on the customs value of goods.
33      In that regard, it should be noted that Article 7(2)(e) of the Customs Valuation Agreement prohibits the customs value from being determined on the basis of the price of goods sold for export to a country other than the country of importation. That provision has been incorporated into EU law in Article 144(2)(e) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, which provides that ‘the customs value shall not be determined on the basis of … prices for export to a third country’. Thus, contrary to what Lidikar claims in its observations on the request for a preliminary ruling, 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.
34      It follows that the use of the price declared in a third country for the export of goods to the European Union may constitute reasonable means for
determining the customs value of those goods pursuant to Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code.
35      In that regard, it should be noted, first, that, in the context of Article 31(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), which preceded Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code, the Court of Justice ruled that reference to a price indicated for the same goods in a sale which took place prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration was made may constitute reasonable means within the meaning of that provision (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 February 2008, Carboni e derivati, C‑263/06, EU:C:2008:128, paragraph 61). It follows that the Court of Justice’s case-law does not, in principle, preclude the use, for the purposes of determining the customs value on the basis of the residual method (or ‘fall-back’ method), of a price previously indicated for the same goods.
36      Furthermore, the use of the price declared in a third country for the export of the same goods as those subject to a customs valuation determination on the basis of Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code does not, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, contravene
the prohibition laid down in Article 7(2)(b) of the Customs Valuation Agreement. Although that provision, which is incorporated into EU law in Article 144(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, prohibits a customs value
determination on the basis of ‘a system which provides for the acceptance for customs purposes of the higher of two alternative values’, it does not in any way prohibit the use of the declared export price for the same goods if that is the only value available to the customs authorities, particularly in view of the existence of legitimate doubts as to the accuracy of the value initially declared under Article 70 of the Union Customs Code.
37      Finally, it should also be noted that, in so far as the declared export price, communicated under an international agreement on customs cooperation, corresponds in principle to the actual value of the goods, the use of that price does not contravene the prohibition on determining the customs value on the basis of arbitrary or fictitious values laid down in Article 7(2)(g) of the Customs Valuation Agreement and Article 144(2)(g) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, which it is for the referring court to verify.
38      In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that 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 to the customs authorities of a Member State under an international agreement on customs cooperation, may constitute reasonable means within the meaning of that provision for the purposes of determining the customs value of those goods.
Costs
39      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges)
hereby rules:
1.      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
must be interpreted as meaning that the price declared for the export of goods to the customs territory of the European Union, as communicated by the customs authorities of the country of export to the customs authorities of a Member State under an international agreement on customs cooperation, may be regarded as data available within the customs territory of the Union within the meaning of that provision, for the purposes of determining the customs value of those goods.
2.      Article 74(3) of Regulation No 952/2013
must be interpreted as meaning that 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 to the customs authorities of a Member State under an international agreement on customs cooperation, may constitute reasonable means within the meaning of that provision, for the purposes of determining the customs value of those goods.
Sampol Pucurull
Pynnä
Laitenberger
Stancu
Valasidis
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 25 March 2026.
[Signatures]
*      Language of the case: Bulgarian.