On 29 January 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU“) delivered an important preliminary ruling in two joined cases, Keladis I (Case C‑72/24) and Keladis II (Case C‑73/24), in response to referrals from the Greek Administrative Court. The judgment (available here) addresses the circumstances in which national Customs authorities may rely on statistical methods to determine the customs value of imported goods, where the declared transaction value is considered unreliable.
In summary:
- The judgment confirms that statistical “threshold values” (such as so-called “lowest acceptable prices” (“LAPs“)) may only be used to determine the customs value in exceptional circumstances, even in cases of alleged smuggling.
- The case reiterates that Customs authorities must exhaust the primary valuation methods and provide clear reasons for setting them aside before relying on fallback approaches.
- The decision strengthens traders’ procedural rights, including the right to be heard and to challenge constructed customs values.
This post summarises the background to the cases and highlights the key legal questions addressed by the CJEU, together with the court’s conclusions.
Case background
The cases concerned the import of textile products into Greece from Turkey and arose out of investigations conducted by the local Customs authority into alleged organised smuggling activities. The authorities found that, by using a complex system of fraud, (i) the declared customs values of the imported goods were significantly lower than (ii) prices at which comparable goods could realistically be traded on the open market [paragraph 38].
The Customs authority was unable to physically inspect the goods as they were no longer in seizure, and the goods were described in only general terms in corresponding invoices [paragraph 39]. In these circumstances, the Customs authority relied on statistical data, a LAP, to determine the customs value of the goods [paragraph 40], and the amount of import VAT that had been fraudulently evaded [paragraph 47]. The LAP is calculated by applying a 50% reduction to the EU‑wide average import price for goods of the same tariff classification.
In relation to the approach taken by the Customs authority in determining the customs value of the imported goods, the Greek Administrative Court raised several questions to the CJEU. The questions centred on whether, and on what basis, “threshold values” (such as statistical data) can be used to determine the customs value. The issues raised in connection with the referred questions are considered below.
Before turning to our analysis, please note that references to the Community Customs Code (“CCC“) are made because the imports and customs declarations at issue were made before 1 May 2016, when the CCC was still in force. The CCC has since been replaced by the Union Customs Code (“UCC“).
Impact of the judgments
We set out below an analysis of the questions considered and position taken by the CJEU.
- Can threshold values be used to determine the customs value of goods already cleared by customs?
In Keladis, the CJEU found that threshold values such as LAPs can be used to determine the customs value of imported goods in limited circumstances , i.e. where:
- They are used as a last resort where (i) there is an incomplete description of the goods and (ii) where it is not possible to physically check the goods after they have been cleared by customs [paragraphs 80 and 102];
- They are applied using the “fallback method”, which involves determining the customs value of imported goods using “data available in the EU” and by using “reasonable means” (Article 31(1) of the CCC) [paragraph 102]; and
- The economic operator has been given an opportunity to justify the declared value to the Customs authorities [paragraph 103].
The CJEU also held that the Customs authorities must state their reasons for setting aside the primary methods of valuation and set out the data on the basis of which the customs value was calculated. This is to enable the trader to defend its rights under the best possible conditions and decide whether it is worthwhile to bring an action against the decision of the customs authorities [paragraphs 115-116].
- Why can threshold values not be used under primary valuation methods?
The CJEU made clear that threshold values such as LAPs cannot be used within the primary methods for customs valuation contained in Articles 29(1) and 30(2) of the CCC [paragraph 87], which includes the transaction value of the imported goods, and the value of identical or similar goods.
This is because threshold values are derived from statistical averages rather than from a fixed transaction price, and do not contain the detailed, goods‑specific data that are needed to carry out such assessments [paragraphs 77 – 85].
- Why, and under what conditions, can LAPs be used under the fallback method?
The CJEU explained that, where the primary valuation methods in Articles 29(1) and 30(2) CCC cannot be applied, Article 31(1) CCC allows those methods to be reapplied with a degree of “reasonable flexibility” [paragraphs 92 – 95].
The court further noted that Member States are under a legal obligation to protect the financial interests of the EU, meaning that Customs authorities cannot simply refrain from determining a customs value where the declarant has failed to provide sufficiently reliable information [paragraph 96].
Taken together, those considerations led the court to conclude that, in such circumstances, reliance on EU‑level statistical benchmarks such as LAPs falls within the scope of “reasonable means” and therefore constitutes “data available in the Community” for the purposes of Article 31(1) [paragraph 97].
However, the court stressed that such reliance on the fallback method may only be applied insofar as the resulting customs value is not based on minimum, arbitrary or fictitious values (Article 31(2)(f) and (g) of the CCC).
- Can the use of LAPs by customs be disclosed in customs decisions?
Customs authorities must give clear and unequivocal reasons which led them to set aside one or more methods for determining customs value [paragraph 115],
In relation to this obligation, the court held that confidential information from a database which seeks to detect cases of fraud cannot form part of the statement of reasons, as disclosure could reveal underlying fraud-detection methodologies [paragraphs 117 and 118].
However, the court stated that, where LAPs are used under the fallback method, their ad hoc and limited disclosure may be acceptable, for instance, to protect the EU’s financial interests against fraud and other illegal activities [paragraph 120]
- How recent must the statistical data be?
The customs value of the goods sold should be determined at or about the same time as the goods were valued (Articles 30(2)(a) and (b) of the CCC), in order to reflect the real economic value of the goods [paragraph 127].
In practice, however, the court interpreted “at or about the same time” flexibly. The court accepted that, while a 90-day period represents the starting point, significantly older data may be relied upon in exceptional circumstances, including the 48-month period used in Keladis, where this is necessary to protect the EU’s financial interests, in particular the effective collection of customs duties and VAT [paragraph 138].
- Does using simplified customs declarations limit post-clearance assessment?
In Keladis, the claimants opted to use the “simplification procedure” provided for in Article 81 of the CCC. This procedure allows Customs authorities, at the request of the declarant, to charge import duties on the whole consignment of goods, which fall under different tariff classifications, on the basis of the tariff classification attracting the highest rate of import duty.
The CJEU held that the use of the simplification procedure does not preclude customs authorities from reassessing the customs value of the goods following a post-clearance examination [paragraph 153].
The court reasoned that, because the simplification procedure is invoked at the declarant’s request, it must be understood as applying to the entire valuation process, including any subsequent post-clearance reassessment where doubts have arisen as to the declared value [paragraph 147].
- Who can be held liable for import VAT?
Article 201 of Directive 2006/112 provides that, on importation, VAT is payable by the person or persons designated or accepted as liable by the Member State of importation.
The CJEU affirmed the decision in the case of U.I. Srl C-714/20: that the deliberately open wording of Article 201 reflects the choice afforded to Member States to decide which persons are liable for import VAT [paragraph 159].
Provided that national legislation complies with principles of legal certainty, which is to be determined by national courts, the CJEU stated that Member States may designated one or more persons as liable for import VAT, including by providing for joint and several liability [paragraphs 160 and 163].
***
Please reach out to our team if you have any questions on any of the matters raised in this post.
