On 25 March 2026, the General Court delivered an important judgment in Case T‑296/25 (Lidikar), confirming that export price information provided by the customs authorities of a third country may be used by EU customs authorities when determining the customs value of imported goods under the residual method.
The judgment provides practical guidance on the scope of Articles 74(3) UCC and 140 of the Implementing Regulation, particularly in post‑clearance audit cases involving alleged undervaluation.
Background
The case concerned the importation into the EU (Bulgaria) of a used motor vehicle from Canada. The importer declared the customs value based on the transaction value under Article 70 UCC.
Following a post‑clearance audit, the Bulgarian customs authorities:
- received information from Canadian customs authorities indicating a significantly higher export price for the same vehicle; and
- expressed reasonable doubt as to the declared transaction value.
When the importer failed to provide sufficient evidence to dispel those doubts, the customs authorities rejected the transaction value and determined the customs value under the residual (“fallback”) method pursuant to Article 74(3) UCC, relying on the Canadian export price information.
The importer challenged that approach before the EU Courts.
Key findings of the General Court
Foreign export prices may be used under Article 74(3) UCC
The General Court confirmed that export price information originating from a third country is not excluded per se from use in EU customs valuation.
Crucially, the Court held that information:
- lawfully transmitted to EU customs authorities pursuant to an international customs cooperation framework, and
- available to those authorities at the time of valuation,
may qualify as “data available in the customs territory of the Union” for the purposes of Article 74(3) UCC.
Importance of the EU–Canada customs cooperation framework
A key element in the Court’s reasoning was that the export price information had been obtained through formal customs cooperation between the EU and Canada.
The Court accepted that the information exchange took place under the EU–Canada Agreement on Customs Cooperation and Mutual Administrative Assistance, which provides a legal basis for:
- the exchange of customs‑related information;
- cooperation in preventing, investigating and combating customs fraud; and
- the use of exchanged data in customs control and enforcement activities.
Because the data was obtained lawfully and institutionally, it could not be dismissed on the grounds that it originated outside the EU. This aspect of the judgment is particularly relevant for audits triggered by information exchanged under customs cooperation agreements, mutual administrative assistance instruments or OLAF‑coordinated investigations.
Proper use of the residual valuation method
The Court further held that the Bulgarian customs authorities had correctly applied the residual method because:
- reasonable doubt had been established in accordance with Article 140 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447;
- the importer failed to rebut that doubt with objective evidence; and
- none of the valuation methods under Article 74(2) UCC could reasonably be applied in the circumstances.
The Court emphasised that Article 74(3) UCC allows a degree of flexibility, provided that the customs value determined reflects the real economic value of the goods and does not rely on arbitrary or fictitious figures.
Why this judgment matters
The Lidikar judgment confirms several points of practical importance:
- Customs authorities may rely on third‑country export data in valuation disputes, where obtained through recognised cooperation frameworks.
- Importers should expect cross‑checks between export‑side and import‑side data, particularly in high‑risk or post‑clearance audit cases.
- Once reasonable doubt is established, the burden effectively shifts to the importer to substantiate the declared value.
- The residual method under Article 74(3) UCC remains a powerful tool for customs authorities when other valuation methods cannot be applied.
With the General Court now playing a more prominent role in customs case‑law, Lidikar provides an early indication of a robust approach to valuation enforcement, especially where international information exchange is involved.
For further insights on EU customs valuation, post‑clearance audits and international customs cooperation, please contact your usual Baker McKenzie Global Trade and Customs team.
