The Background
In a recent decision by the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH), a fascinating discussion arises regarding the intricacies of customs valuation law. A company that imported porcelain mugs, cork coasters, and gift boxes from China was faced with an unexpected customs demand. The case, now before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), carries significant implications for all companies dealing with goods compilations. This also applies to medical technology and mechanical engineering.
The Core Question: What is Included in Customs Value?
The company had commissioned design templates for the packaging (gift boxes) and accessories (stickers) within the EU, which were then provided free of charge to suppliers in third countries. The question of whether the costs for these design templates need to be added to the customs value is now with the CJEU. Article 32 (1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Code (ZK) and Article 71 (1)(a)(ii) of the Union Customs Code (UZK), as well as Article 32 (1)(b)(iv) ZK and Article 71 (1)(b)(iv) UZK, are at the forefront.
The Significance of Accessories and Goods Compilations
Another central point of the case concerns the procurement commissions for the accessories. Article 71 (1)(b)(i) UZK regulates the addition of the value of accessories, but it remains unclear whether procurement commissions should also be considered. Furthermore, there is the question of whether the cork coasters qualify as accessories under this provision, as they are part of a goods compilation that is classified under the General Regulation for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature (AV) 3 (b).
The Impact on the Industry
The decision of the CJEU will have far-reaching effects on the practice of customs valuation for goods compilations. Companies that deal with such compilations should review their processes regarding the handling of accessories and the consideration of procurement commissions. A thorough analysis of the customs law implications of their supply chains can help avoid unexpected customs claims.
Source: BFH, referral decision of September 17, 2024, VII R 28/21, ECLI:DE:BFH:2024:VE.170924.VIIR28.21.0