## Facts

- A German importer purchased honey through an intermediary seller, which invoiced (1) the honey price and (2) a flat-rate per-ton charge for analyses verifying compliance with German quality/composition rules.
- The importer declared the honey for import without adding the flat-rate analysis charges to the customs value.
- The customs authority initially cleared the goods without objection and previously had conducted an on-the-spot inspection of similar imports without challenging the exclusion of the flat-rate charges from customs value.
- After a later control, the customs authority concluded the analysis costs should have been included in the customs value and sought post-clearance recovery of additional duties.
- The importer sought non-recovery/remission, claiming good-faith reliance on the authority’s prior practice and arguing the shortfall resulted from an error by customs authorities under the applicable non-recovery rule.
- A German finance court referred questions for a preliminary ruling on (1) whether the analysis costs must be included in customs value and (2) when prior acceptance by customs authorities precludes post-clearance recovery.

## Issues

1. Whether analysis costs charged to the buyer to verify conformity with domestic regulations are part of the “transaction value” for customs valuation when they are necessary for delivery under the sales contract.
2. Whether customs authorities must refrain from post-clearance recovery when they previously accepted comparable declarations (including after an inspection), and the importer acted in good faith, could not reasonably detect the error, and complied with declaration rules.

## Decision

- The court held that analysis costs necessary to deliver the goods in accordance with the contract are an integral part of the transaction value and must be included in the customs value, even if invoiced separately.
- The court held that post-clearance recovery is barred when all three statutory conditions for non-recovery are met: (1) non-collection resulted from an authority error, (2) the error could not reasonably have been detected by a good-faith debtor, and (3) the debtor complied with customs declaration rules.
- The court indicated that a prior on-the-spot inspection and non-objection to the same valuation treatment in similar transactions can constitute an “error” by the customs authorities that satisfies the first condition.
- The referring national court was to apply these interpretations to determine whether the additional duties could be recovered.

## Legal Principles

- For customs valuation, the transaction value includes payments made by the buyer to the seller as a condition of sale to satisfy an obligation of the seller; formal invoice separation does not control if the payment is required for contractual delivery.
- Costs of analyses undertaken to establish regulatory conformity are included in customs value when they are necessary for delivery under the contract and discharge the seller’s delivery obligation.
- Non-recovery of uncollected duties requires three cumulative conditions: authority error, reasonable non-detectability by a good-faith debtor, and compliance with declaration rules.
- Prior acceptance by customs authorities—particularly following an inspection—may create an authority error that, together with good-faith reliance and compliance by the importer, precludes post-clearance recovery.

## Conclusion

The court required inclusion in customs value of contractually necessary conformity-analysis charges paid to the seller and limited post-clearance recovery where customs authorities’ earlier acceptance of the same practice (including after inspection) constituted an error that a good-faith, compliant importer could not reasonably detect.


Hans Sommer GmbH & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt Bremen, Case C-15/99, [2000] E.C.R. I-8989 (C.J.E.U. 2000)