Provisional text

THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

3 June 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Union Customs Code – Method for determining the customs value – Declared transaction value – Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Article 140 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 – Secondary methods – Article 74 of Regulation No 952/2013 – Residual or ‘fall-back’ method – Article 144 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 – Importation of bulk goods – Lack of proof of actual payment – Insufficient data on the essential characteristics of the goods – Use of data available in the national database – Simple arithmetic mean of unit prices )

In Case T‑224/25,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary), made by decision of 20 March 2025, received at the Court on 20 March 2025, in the proceedings

VÁM4ALL Kft. ‘felszámolás alatt’

v

Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges),

composed of M. Sampol Pucurull, President, T. Pynnä, J. Laitenberger, M. Stancu and W. Valasidis (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: J. Martín y Pérez de Nanclares,

Registrar: A. Juhász-Tóth, Administrator,

having regard to the transmission of the request for a preliminary ruling to the General Court by the Court of Justice on 8 April 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,

further to the hearing on 28 January 2026,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        VÁM4ALL ‘felszámolás alatt’, by L. Maruzs, ügyvéd,

–        the Hungarian Government, by M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents,

–        the Czech Government, by A. Edelmannová, M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents,

–        the Spanish Government, by S. Núñez Silva, abogado del Estado,

–        the European Commission, by O. Dani 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 15(1) 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’), read in conjunction with Article 140(1) and Article 144(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 558), as well as Article 74(1) and (2) of that code.

2        This request has been made in proceedings between VÁM4ALL Kft. ‘felszámolás alatt’, a company incorporated under Hungarian law, acting as the indirect customs representative of an importer of goods from China, and Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Appeals Directorate of the National Tax and Customs Administration, Hungary; ‘the second-tier customs authority’) concerning the decision by which that authority validated the method used by the first-tier Hungarian customs authority (‘the first-tier customs authority’) to determine the customs value of the goods released for free circulation and the imposition of European Union customs duties.

 Legal framework

 Union Customs Code

3        Article 15 of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Provision of information to the customs authorities’, provides:

‘1.      Any person directly or indirectly involved in the accomplishment of customs formalities or in customs controls shall, at the request of the customs authorities and within any time limit specified, provide those authorities with all the requisite documents and information, in an appropriate form, and all the assistance necessary for the completion of those formalities or controls.

2.      The lodging of a customs declaration, temporary storage declaration, entry summary declaration, exit summary declaration, re-export declaration or re-export notification by a person to the customs authorities, or the submission of an application for an authorisation or any other decision, shall render the person concerned responsible for all of the following:

(a)      the accuracy and completeness of the information given in the declaration, notification or application;

(b)      the authenticity, accuracy and validity of any document supporting the declaration, notification or application;

…

The first subparagraph shall also apply to the provision of any information in any other form required by, or given to, the customs authorities.

Where the declaration or notification is lodged, the application is submitted, or information is provided, by a customs representative of the person concerned, as referred to in Article 18, that customs representative shall also be bound by the obligations set out in the first subparagraph of this paragraph.’

4        Article 18 of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Customs representative’, is worded as follows:

‘1.      Any person may appoint a customs representative.

Such representation may be either direct, in which case the customs representative shall act in the name of and on behalf of another person, or indirect, in which case the customs representative shall act in his or her own name but on behalf of another person.

…’

5        Under Article 48 of the Union Customs Code, headed ‘Post-release control’:

‘For the purpose of customs controls, the customs authorities may verify the accuracy and completeness of the information given in a customs declaration, temporary storage declaration, entry summary declaration, exit summary declaration, re-export declaration or re-export notification, and the existence, authenticity, accuracy and validity of any supporting document and may examine the accounts of the declarant and other records relating to the operations in respect of the goods in question or to prior or subsequent commercial operations involving those goods after having released them. Those authorities may also examine such goods and/or take samples where it is still possible for them to do so.

Such controls may be carried out at the premises of the holder of the goods or of the holder’s representative, of any other person directly or indirectly involved in those operations in a business capacity or of any other person in possession of those documents and data for business purposes.’

6        Article 70 of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Method of customs valuation based on the transaction value’, 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.

…’

7        Article 74 of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Secondary methods of customs valuation’, provides:

‘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.’

8        Article 163 of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Supporting documents’, provides as follows:

‘1.      The supporting documents required for the application of the provisions governing the customs procedure for which the goods are declared shall be in the declarant’s possession and at the disposal of the customs authorities at the time when the customs declaration is lodged.

2.      Supporting documents shall be provided to the customs authorities where Union legislation so requires or where necessary for customs controls.

…’

9        Article 188 of the Union Customs Code, entitled ‘Verification of a customs declaration’, provides:

‘The customs authorities may, for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the particulars contained in a customs declaration which has been accepted:

(a)      examine the declaration and the supporting documents;

(b)      require the declarant to provide other documents;

(c)      examine the goods;

(d)      take samples for analysis or for detailed examination of the goods.’

 Implementing Regulation 2015/2447

10      Article 1(2)(4) and (14) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 states:

‘For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

…

(4)      “identical goods” means, in the context of customs valuation, goods produced in the same country which are the same in all respects, including physical characteristics, quality and reputation. Minor differences in appearance shall not preclude goods otherwise conforming to the definition from being regarded as identical;

…

(14)      “similar goods”, in the context of customs valuation, means goods produced in the same country, which, although not alike in all respects, have like characteristics and like component materials which enable them to perform the same functions and to be commercially interchangeable; the quality of the goods, their reputation and the existence of a trademark are among the factors to be considered in determining whether goods are similar.’

11      Article 140 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, 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 the [Union Customs Code].’

12      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;

…

(g)      arbitrary or fictitious values.’

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

13      Between 25 January and 8 July 2019, in its capacity as an indirect customs representative, VÁM4ALL ‘felszámolás alatt’ submitted customs declarations for various bulk goods imported from China (‘the goods at issue’) to the first-tier customs authority. The customs value of the goods at issue was determined using the transaction value method, laid down in Article 70(1) of the Union Customs Code. VÁM4ALL ‘felszámolás alatt’ submitted, in support of the declarations, invoices providing for a 120-day payment deadline starting from the delivery.

14      On 7 April 2020, the first-tier customs authority initiated a post-release control during which on several occasions it requested the importer and VÁM4ALL ‘felszámolás alatt’ to provide documents which substantiate the declared transaction value as the customs value for the import transactions in question. It is apparent from the order for reference that they had not been provided following those requests.

15      After once again being asked to submit those documents, VÁM4ALL ‘felszámolás alatt’ provided, in addition to the customs declarations previously lodged, commercial import invoices, packing lists, shipping documents, customs value declarations and digital spreadsheets containing, for each transaction concerned, a general description of the goods at issue and the quantities of material, with photographs from the importer.

16      At the request of the first-tier customs authority, the financial institution managing the importer’s account provided that authority with payment data which was not able to establish the payment of the consideration for the goods at issue. Those goods could not be subject to a post-release control because they had already been sold.

17      In the light of those circumstances, the first-tier customs authority, pursuant to Article 140 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, departed from the transaction value method for determining the customs value of the goods at issue. It also considered the secondary methods set out in Article 74(2)(a) to (d) of the Union Customs Code to be inapplicable. Accordingly, it determined the customs value of the goods at issue by using the method set out in Article 74(3) of that code, as supplemented by Article 144(2) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447.

18      For that purpose, the first-tier customs authority retrieved from the national customs database (‘the database’) information concerning goods coming from the same country as the goods at issue, with the same Integrated Tariff of the European Union (TARIC) code, the same procedure code and the same valuation method code as those goods, freely circulating in Hungary during the period covering 45 days before acceptance of the customs declarations mentioned in paragraph 13 above and the 45 days after that date, excluding certain data which did not appear to be relevant. On the basis of that information, it calculated the unit price per kilogram of each group of items containing comparable imported goods using, in each case, a price equal to or lower than the arithmetic mean of the unit prices of each of those items. The customs value of the goods at issue was then determined by multiplying the net weight of those goods by the unit price determined in that manner. On the basis of the new customs value determined in that manner, the first-tier customs authority adopted a decision which, inter alia, set the amount of the customs debt owed by VÁM4ALL ‘felszámolás alatt’ at 65 427 800 forint (HUF) (approximately EUR 163 570).

19      VÁM4ALL ‘felszámolás alatt’ challenged that decision before the second-tier customs authority, which upheld it.

20      VÁM4ALL ‘felszámolás alatt’ then brought an appeal on a point of law against the decision of the second-tier customs authority, which was dismissed at first instance. It subsequently brought an appeal before the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary), which is the referring court.

21      The referring court has doubts as to the interpretation of several provisions of the Union Customs Code and Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings.

22      In the first place, the referring court asks whether the Union Customs Code and Article 140 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 allow customs authorities to require an indirect customs representative to substantiate the transaction value of the imported goods by providing proof of payment of those goods and, in the absence of such proof, to refuse to accept that value. It notes, in that regard, that it is for the customs authorities to substantiate, on a case-by-case basis, the ‘reasonable doubts’ regarding the compliance of the declared transaction value, for the purposes of Article 140(1) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447.

23      In the second place, the referring court is uncertain whether the customs authorities may conclude that the secondary methods set out in Article 74(2) of the Union Customs Code are inapplicable on the ground that the customs representative did not provide detailed information on the essential characteristics of the imported goods, even though those authorities did not use their ability to examine those goods during their release for free circulation.

24      In the third place, the referring court harbours doubts as to whether, in the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, the method used by the customs authority to calculate the customs value, in so far as it was not based solely on the goods of the seller of the goods at issue but on all products with the same TARIC code as those goods, is consistent with Article 144(2) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447.

25      In those circumstances, the Kúria (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)      Must Article 15(1) of [the Union Customs Code] be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to the documents necessary for customs clearance, an indirect customs representative must also have all the other documents relating to the imported goods, [especially] documentation relating to the [conduct and] completion of the commercial transaction (contract between the importer and seller, bank statement proving payment of the price of the goods and documents describing the physical characteristics of the goods, their reputation or quality), and must make those documents available to the customs authority during a customs control?

(2)      Must Article 140(1) of [Implementing Regulation 2015/2447] be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the importation of bulk goods which do not have individual or special characteristics, the customs authorities may base their reasonable doubts for not accepting the transaction values on the fact that the indirect customs representative has not proven by way of [credible] documents that the sale price was actually paid, despite being requested to do so?

(3)      If the answer to the second question referred is in the affirmative, must Article 74(1) and (2) of the [Union] Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the customs authority may exclude the use of the secondary methods provided for in that article where the indirect customs representative has not provided information regarding the essential characteristics of the goods (physical characteristics, quality, reputation)?

(4)      If the answer to the third question referred is in the affirmative, can the fact that the customs authority has not – despite being able to do so – made use, at the time of customs clearance, of the power to take samples of the goods or the other powers conferred on it by Article 188 of the [Union] Customs Code, which would have allowed it to ascertain the characteristics of the goods, exclude the application of the secondary methods provided for in Article 74(2)(a) to (d) of the [Union] Customs Code?

(5)      If the answer to the third and fourth questions referred is in the affirmative, must Article 144(2) of [Implementing Regulation 2015/2447] be interpreted as permitting the customs authority to base the customs value on data taken exclusively from a national customs database, examining goods released for free circulation on the date of acceptance of the customs declaration and in the 45 days before and after that date, with the same TARIC code and from the same country as the bulk goods undergoing the control which do not have individual or specific characteristics, and taking into account the simple arithmetic mean of the unit price per kilogram of the goods selected by way of data filtering? If so, does that method ensure compliance with Article 144(2)(b) and (g) of [Implementing Regulation 2015/2447]?’

 Consideration of the questions referred

 The first question

26      By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 15(1) of the Union Customs Code, read in conjunction with Article 18(1) and Article 163(2) of that code, must be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to the documents required for customs clearance, an indirect customs representative is required to be able to produce and make available to the customs authorities, when it is requested to do so during a customs control, all documents relating to the imported goods, including those substantiating the price actually paid.

27      First, it must be recalled, on the one hand, that Article 15 of the Union Customs Code states, in paragraph 1 thereof, that any person directly or indirectly involved in customs controls is to provide the customs authorities with all the requisite documents and information. On the other hand, under Article 18(1) of that code, an indirect customs representative acts in his or her own name but on behalf of another person.

28      Thus, where an indirect customs representative makes a customs declaration, it does so under its own name, but on behalf of the person who has given it a power of representation and who it represents, such that the indirect customs representative is acting as a declarant (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 May 2022, U.I. (Indirect customs representative), C‑714/20, EU:C:2022:374, paragraph 40), thus imposing on that representative all the obligations to provide documents and information, laid down in Article 15(1) of the Union Customs Code.

29      Second, it is apparent from Article 163(2) of the Union Customs Code that supporting documents are provided to customs authorities when necessary for customs controls. Given that, as recalled in paragraph 28 above, an indirect customs representative acts as a declarant, that representative must be capable of providing those supporting documents.

30      Third, Article 70(1) of the Union Customs Code defines transaction value as the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the customs territory of the European Union, adjusted, where necessary. It specifies, in paragraph 2, that 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.

31      Where an indirect customs representative is required, as the declarant, to provide documents and information upon the request of customs authorities, it must be capable, where payment of the sale price of the imported goods took place after the customs declaration was lodged, of establishing that that payment has actually been made, if necessary by speaking to the person who granted them the power of representation.

32      In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that Article 15(1) of the Union Customs Code, read in conjunction with Article 18(1) and Article 163(2) of that code, must be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to the documents required for customs clearance, an indirect customs representative is required to be able to produce and make available to the customs authorities, when it is requested to do so during a customs control, all documents relating to the imported goods, including those substantiating the price actually paid.

 The second question

33      By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 140(1) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the importation of bulk goods which do not have individual or special characteristics, the customs authorities may have reasonable doubts as to whether the declared transaction value represents the total amount paid or payable for the purposes of Article 70(1) of the Union Customs Code where the indirect customs representative has not proven by way of credible documents that the price was actually paid, despite being requested to do so.

34      In accordance with Article 140 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, customs authorities may, in certain circumstances, have reasonable doubts as to whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods represents the total value paid or payable for those goods, for the purposes of Article 70 of the Union Customs Code. In such a case, those authorities may refuse to accept the declared transaction value if their doubts persist after they have asked for any additional information or documents and have provided the person concerned with the opportunity to express their views on the grounds on which those doubts are founded (see, to that effect, judgments of 16 June 2016, EURO 2004. Hungary, C‑291/15, EU:C:2016:455, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited, and of 29 January 2026, Keladis I and Keladis II, C‑72/24 and C‑73/24, EU:C:2026:51, paragraph 76).

35      Those rules apply irrespective of the nature and the characteristics of the imported goods, since the wording of Article 140 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 makes no distinction in that regard.

36      In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings where, following the expiry of the payment deadline for the goods imported in bulk which do not have individual or special characteristics, the customs authority requests that the indirect customs representative substantiates that the sale price for those goods was actually paid, it must be held that the absence of proof of that payment appears sufficient to justify doubts by that authority as to the very reality of the transaction concerned and, therefore, as to the declared transaction value.

37      In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that Article 140(1) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the importation of bulk goods which do not have individual or special characteristics, the customs authorities may have reasonable doubts as to whether the declared transaction value represents the total amount paid or payable for the purposes of Article 70(1) of the Union Customs Code where the indirect customs representative has not proven by way of credible documents that the price was actually paid, despite being requested to do so.

 The third and fourth questions

38      By its third and fourth questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 74(1) and (2) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities may exclude the use of the secondary methods of customs value determination, provided for in paragraph 2 of that article, of bulk goods which do not have individual or special characteristics, where, on the one hand, the indirect customs representative has not provided information regarding the essential characteristics of those goods, whether that be their physical characteristics or their qualitative aspects, and, on the other hand, those authorities have not – despite being able to do so – made use of the powers conferred on them by Article 188 of that code, but have instead made use of the post-release control pursuant to Article 48 of that code.

39      First, it should be noted that it is for the Member States, in accordance with the obligations imposed on them under Article 325(1) TFEU, to protect the financial interests of the European Union against fraud or any other illegal activities affecting those interests and to adopt the measures necessary to guarantee the effective and comprehensive collection of customs duties, which are traditional own resources of the European Union (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 73 and the case-law cited).

40      To ensure the protection of the European Union’s financial interests, national customs authorities have all of the powers conferred on them by the Union Customs Code and Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, as well as the methods of review and assessment which are contained in that code. In that regard, it should be noted that the procedure for verifying customs declarations, provided for in Article 188 of the Union Customs Code, and the procedure of post-release control, defined in Article 48 of that code, in no way exclude one another. In particular, nothing in the wording of those provisions restricts the use of one procedure where the other one has been employed, nor, conversely, does it oblige the customs authority to use one or the other of those procedures.

41      That broad discretion conferred on customs authorities is, moreover, apparent from the use, both in Article 48 of the Union Customs Code and Article 188 of that code, of the verb ‘may’, which therefore leaves to those authorities the choice of which method is best suited to enable them to fulfil the obligations referred to in paragraph 39 above.

42      Consequently, the fact that the customs authorities, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, namely in the case of the importation of bulk goods which do not have individual or special characteristics, did not rely on Article 188 of the Union Customs Code or, in particular, on the possibility provided for in Article 188(d) of that code to take samples for analysis or for detailed examination of the goods, cannot affect the application by those authorities, in the context of a post-release control, of Article 74 of that code and, in particular, the exclusion, by those authorities, of the secondary methods listed in paragraph 2 of that article.

43      Next, as regards the very possibility of excluding the secondary methods listed in Article 74(2) of the Union Customs Code, it should be recalled that the objective of EU law on customs valuation is to introduce a fair, uniform and neutral system excluding the use of arbitrary or fictitious customs values. The customs value of imported goods must therefore reflect the real economic value of those goods and, consequently, take into account all of the elements of those goods that have economic value (see judgment of 29 January 2026, Keladis I and Keladis II, C‑72/24 and C‑73/24, EU:C:2026:51, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited).

44      Articles 70 to 74 of the Union Customs Code expressly establish a hierarchy between the various methods for determining the customs value provided for in that code, so that an importer is not free to choose the method he or she will use (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 74 and the case-law cited).

45      Accordingly, the customs value of imported goods must be determined, as a matter of priority, using the transaction value method provided for in Article 70 of the Union Customs Code, that method being assumed to be the most appropriate, whereas the secondary methods listed in Article 74(2) of the Union Customs Code must be used only where the customs value of the goods cannot be determined under Article 70. That is all the more true of the residual method, entitled the ‘fall-back method’, referred to in Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code, which is applicable only if the customs value cannot be determined either by means of the transaction value method or by means of one of the secondary methods referred to in 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 75 and the case-law cited).

46      Finally, it should be noted that the customs valuation is carried out by applying sequentially the secondary methods laid down in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of Article 74(2) of the Union Customs Code (see, by analogy, judgment of 20 June 2019, Oribalt Rīga C‑1/18, EU:C:2019:519, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited), such that, before ruling out the application of those methods, customs authorities must examine, one by one, their potential relevance.

47      In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference, the essential elements of which are summarised, in particular, in paragraphs 14 to 16 above, that, first, VÁM4ALL ‘felszámolás alatt’ did not provide the documents and the information requested on several occasions by the first-tier customs authority and, second, that the examination by that authority of the payment data which had been provided to it, at its request, by the financial institution managing the importer’s account did not make it possible to establish the existence of the payment of the sale price of the goods at issue.

48      Thus, it follows from what has been held in paragraph 37 above that such a circumstance may be sufficient for the customs authorities to have reasonable doubts as to the very reality of the commercial transaction and, consequently, to disregard the declared transaction value.

49      In such a situation, as recalled in paragraph 46 above, the customs authorities must examine in turn the applicability of each of the secondary methods set out in Article 74(2) of the Union Customs Code.

50      Where the customs authorities cannot physically check the imported goods in order to determine whether they are identical or similar to those which they have to use in order to establish the customs value and in so far as the description of those goods in the invoices attached to the customs declarations is brief or incomplete, those authorities do not have the information necessary to apply the methods laid down in 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 82).

51      However, it will be for the referring court to ascertain whether the explanations provided in that regard by the customs authorities are reasonable.

52      In light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the third and fourth questions is that Article 74(1) and (2) of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that if an indirect customs representative has been unable to prove the actual payment of the sale price of goods imported in bulk which do not have individual or special characteristics, thus leading to the refusal by the customs authorities to accept the declared transaction value of those goods, those authorities may exclude the use of the secondary methods referred to in paragraph 2 of that article where they have examined each of those methods with due diligence and where that representative, duly given the opportunity to do so, has been unable to provide sufficient data on the essential characteristics of those goods, whether that be their physical characteristics or their qualitative aspects, without the fact that those authorities did not previously exercise the powers referred to in Article 188 of that code affecting the exclusion of those methods.

 The fifth question

53      By its fifth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 144(2) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 must be interpreted as meaning that:

–        it permits the customs authority to determine the customs value exclusively on the basis of data taken from the database relating to goods from the same country as the imported goods, classified under the same TARIC code as those goods and released for free circulation during the 45 days before and the 45 days after the date of acceptance of the customs declaration;

–        it also permits those authorities to take into account, on the basis of the filtering of the abovementioned data, the simple arithmetic mean of the unit price per kilogram of the goods corresponding to those data.

54      It should be borne in mind that, where the customs value cannot be determined by applying one of the secondary methods listed in Article 74(2) of the Union Customs Code, the valuation of the customs value is carried out in accordance with the provisions of Article 74(3) of that code, that is to say that it is 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 international agreements referred to in Chapter 3 of Title II of that code.

55      Article 144(1) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 states, to that end, that the customs authorities, when determining the customs value, may use reasonable flexibility in the application of the methods provided for in Article 70 and in Article 74(2) of the Union Customs Code, and that the value so determined shall, to the greatest extent possible, be based on previously determined customs values. It specifies in paragraph 2 that, where no customs value can be determined under paragraph 1, other appropriate methods shall be used, which exclude, inter alia, the choice of the higher value where two customs values are possible, in accordance with Article 144(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, and prohibit the use of arbitrary or fictitious values, pursuant to Article 144(2)(g) of that regulation.

56      It therefore follows from the very wording of Article 144 of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 that paragraph 2 of that article applies only where the customs authorities have been unable to apply paragraph 1 of that article, that is to say to apply with ‘reasonable flexibility’ either the transaction value method, within the meaning of Article 70 of the Union Customs Code, or the secondary methods, within the meaning of Article 74(2) of that Code. Consequently, the answer to the fifth question posed by the referring court, concerning Article 144(2) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, presupposes a finding that paragraph 1 of that article could not be applied in the present case, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

57      In light of the information provided by the referring court, supplemented by the explanations provided, in particular by the Hungarian government, during the hearing, it is not inconceivable that the case at issue in the main proceedings may concern a situation in which an indirect customs representative, in its capacity as declarant, has provided too little information as to the content and quality of the imported goods for Article 144(1) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 to be applicable. In such a case, the customs authorities must use ‘other appropriate methods’, within the meaning of Article 144(2) of that regulation.

58      In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the method used by the first-tier customs authority, upheld by the second-tier customs authority, consisted, in essence, in determining the customs value on the basis of data taken from the database relating to goods from the same country as the goods at issue, classed under the same TARIC code as those goods and released for free circulation during the 45 days before and the 45 days after the date of acceptance of the customs declaration. After filtering that data, the simple arithmetic mean of the unit price per kilogram of the goods corresponding to those data was obtained.

59      In the first place, it should be borne in mind that it follows from the case-law that the practice whereby the customs authorities assess the customs value on the basis of data taken from a database relating to goods with the same TARIC code as that of the imported goods and which originate in the same country is to be analysed as the use of ‘data available in the customs territory of the [European] Union’, within the meaning of Article 74(3) of the Union Customs Code, ‘using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions’ to which that provision refers (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 June 2022, Baltic Master, C‑599/20, EU:C:2022:457, paragraphs 54 to 56 and the case-law cited).

60      That finding alone is sufficient, in principle, to rule out the possibility that such a practice is based on arbitrary or fictitious values, within the meaning of Article 144(2)(g) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447.

61      In the second place, the use of the simple arithmetic mean of the unit price per kilogram of the goods corresponding to the data taken into account by the customs authority enables compliance with the prohibition laid down in Article 144(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, which prohibits the use of the higher of two alternative customs values, since, first, an arithmetic mean provides only one value and, second, by definition, that value is a mean value, which precludes the systematic selection of the higher value.

62      In the third place, it is apparent from the case-law that a period of 90 days, including 45 days before and 45 days after customs clearance of the goods whose value must be assessed, appears to avoid the risk of a substantial change in commercial practices and market conditions affecting the prices of the goods to be valued (judgment of 9 June 2022, FAWKES, C‑187/21, EU:C:2022:458, paragraph 71). Accordingly, the fact that the first-tier customs authority selected a period of 90 days, including 45 days before and 45 days after the date of acceptance of the customs declaration, cannot infringe Article 144(2) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447.

63      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the fifth question is that Article 144(2) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447 must be interpreted as meaning that where the customs authorities have been able to comprehensively establish that paragraph 1 of that article could not be applied, it is an appropriate alternative method, within the meaning of paragraph 2 of that article, for those authorities to determine the customs value of goods imported in bulk which do not have individual or special characteristics on the basis exclusively of data taken from the database concerning goods from the same country as the imported goods, classified under the same TARIC code as those goods and released for free circulation during the 45 days before and the 45 days after the date of acceptance of the customs declaration, making use, after filtering those data, of the simple arithmetic mean of the unit prices per kilogram of the goods corresponding to those data.

 Costs

64      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring 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 15(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, read in conjunction with Article 18(1) and Article 163(2) of that regulation,

must be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to the documents required for customs clearance, an indirect customs representative is required to be able to produce and make available to the customs authorities, when it is requested to do so during a customs control, all documents relating to the imported goods, including those substantiating the price actually paid.

2.      Article 140(1) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation No 952/2013,

must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the importation of bulk goods which do not have individual or special characteristics, the customs authorities may have reasonable doubts as to whether the declared transaction value represents the total amount paid or payable for the purposes of Article 70(1) of Regulation No 952/2013 where the indirect customs representative has not proven by way of credible documents that the price was actually paid, despite being requested to do so.

3.      Article 74(1) and (2) of Regulation No 952/2013

must be interpreted as meaning that if an indirect customs representative has been unable to prove the actual payment of the sale price of goods imported in bulk which do not have individual or special characteristics, thus leading to the refusal by the customs authorities to accept the declared transaction value of those goods, those authorities may exclude the use of the secondary methods referred to in paragraph 2 of that article where they have examined each of those methods with due diligence and where that representative, duly given the opportunity to do so, has been unable to provide sufficient data on the essential characteristics of those goods, whether that be their physical characteristics or their qualitative aspects, without the fact that those authorities did not previously exercise the powers referred to in Article 188 of that regulation affecting the exclusion of those methods.

4.      Article 144(2) of Implementing Regulation No 2015/2447

must be interpreted as meaning that where the customs authorities have been able to comprehensively establish that paragraph 1 of that article could not be applied, it is an appropriate alternative method, within the meaning of paragraph 2 of that article, for the authorities to determine the customs value of goods imported in bulk which do not have individual or special characteristics on the basis exclusively of data taken from the national customs database concerning goods from the same country as the imported goods, classified under the same TARIC code as those goods and released for free circulation during the 45 days before and the 45 days after the date of acceptance of the customs declaration, making use, after filtering those data, of the simple arithmetic mean of the unit prices per kilogram of the goods corresponding to those data.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 3 June 2026.

[Signatures]

*      Language of the case: Hungarian.