Navigating Dividend Inclusions in Customs Valuation: 2026 Analysis of Court Practice & Litigation Trends

July 16, 2026

BRACE Law Firm

This review analyzes the enforcement landscape concerning the application of customs legislation provisions on the inclusion (or non-inclusion) in the customs value of imported goods of dividends and other payments transferred by the buyer to the seller. This issue has gained particular relevance due to increased customs control over customs value following the release of goods and the development of legal positions by the highest courts.

As a general rule, the customs value of imported goods is determined by their transaction value (Method 1) in accordance with Article 39 of the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union (the "EAEU Customs Code"). The transaction value constitutes the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the customs territory of the Union, supplemented by the additional charges outlined in Article 40 of the EAEU Customs Code.

Under the general rule of paragraph 9 of Article 39 of the EAEU Customs Code, dividends or other payments transferred by the buyer to the seller are not included in the customs value of the imported goods if they are not related to these goods. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, a dividend is recognized as any income received by a participant (shareholder) from an entity upon the distribution of profits remaining after taxation. Accordingly, the payment of dividends as a form of distributing net profit is, by its legal nature, not linked to a specific foreign trade delivery and, as a general rule, does not form part of the customs value.

However, subparagraph 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 40 of the EAEU Customs Code stipulates that the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods shall be increased by any part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal, or use of the imported goods that accrues directly or indirectly to the seller. Relying precisely on this provision, customs authorities recharacterize dividends paid to a foreign supplier-founder as part of the income accruing to the seller and include them in the customs value.

The approach to distinguishing between these situations has been established in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The potential to include dividends in customs value under certain conditions was outlined in 2021.[1] Systematic criteria for assessment were developed in a series of rulings by the Judicial Board for Economic Disputes in December 2022[2] and subsequently summarized in the Review of Court Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.[3]

In accordance with the established approach, the inclusion of dividends in customs value is permissible primarily when a combination of circumstances exists: the seller of the imported goods and the recipient of the dividends are the same entity (the supplier is simultaneously a participant or shareholder of the buyer), and the amounts paid essentially represent a part of the income from the subsequent sale of the imported goods that accrues to the seller. Moreover, the customs authority must substantiate the presence of indicators showing that the relationship influenced the price or that the dividend payment mechanism was used to artificially lower the customs value, whereas the declarant has the right to present evidence that the declared transaction value is accurate and that the distributed profit was generated from general business operations, rather than from the sale of the specific imported goods.[4]

A similar position is maintained by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, which clarified the conditions for including dividends in the customs value, including situations where the payment of dividends is used as a method to evade customs payments.[5] When assessing the good faith of the declarant, approaches developed in relation to unjustified tax benefits (Article 54.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation; Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation) are applied by analogy.[6] Subsequently, the agency's position was refined.[7] In this regard, practice distinguishes two independent grounds for adjusting customs value:

Recharacterizing payments designated as dividends into a part of the seller's income (proceeds) under subparagraph 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 40 of the EAEU Customs Code;
Assessing the impact of the relationship between the parties to the transaction on the price of the imported goods under paragraph 5 of Article 39 of the EAEU Customs Code.

These grounds are applied in conjunction, yet the distribution of the burden of proof for them differs, which largely predetermines the outcome of the dispute.

The methodology for calculating the portion of dividends to be included is based on proportionally allocating the paid amounts to the value of the specific imported goods. At the same time, as follows from practice, the calculation should be based not on sales revenue, but on the net profit attributable to the respective goods declarations, taking into account documented expenses and paid taxes; the procedure for calculating additional charges to the price is determined by the acts of the Eurasian Economic Commission.[8]

Below is a Review of Court Practice regarding the inclusion of dividends in customs value.

Case No. A51-11076/2024: Nordic Titan vs. Nakhodka Customs, Smolensk Customs

Subject Matter of the Dispute

Invalidating the act of inspecting documents and information post-release.
Overturning the decisions of Nakhodka Customs on amending (supplementing) the information declared in the goods declaration regarding unpaid customs payments, special antidumping, countervailing duties, interest, and penalties within the established timeframe.

The Declarant's Position

In the present case, dividends do not constitute a hidden payment for the supplied goods, meaning these payments are not subject to inclusion in the customs value of the imported goods.
The customs authority's calculation when determining the company's profit is incorrect.
The customs decisions unlawfully resulted in an increase in the amount of customs payments calculated in accordance with the customs value of the goods, which violated the rights and legitimate interests of the company and imposed an additional financial burden.

The Customs Authority's Position

Dividends from the distribution of the company's net profit for 2021 were received by the supplier, LL-resources GmbH, which was a participant in the company with a 75% stake until January 31, 2023.
The dividends are related to the imported goods and must be added to the price actually paid or payable for these goods as part of the income generated from the subsequent sale of the imported goods, which directly or indirectly accrues to the seller.

Disposition and Judicial Reasoning

The claim was satisfied, as the inclusion of dividends in the customs value of the goods, absent the influence of the relationship between the seller and the buyer on the price of the goods and absent signs of manipulation in the formation of the transaction value, is unlawful. This conclusion was upheld by the court of cassation: the decision of the court of first instance and the resolution of the court of appeal were left unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the customs authority was dismissed.[9]
Dividends received by a participant (shareholder) of a business entity as a result of the distribution of net profit, by their economic nature, represent income from investments made by the participant (shareholder) in the creation or acquisition of an enterprise (so-called "direct investments") and, as such (per se), are not related to the import of goods. Accordingly, as a general rule, dividends transferred by the buyer to the seller are not included in the customs value of the imported goods.
Payments designated as dividends, which are such only in form (prima facie), are recognized as related to the imported goods and are included in their customs value under subparagraph 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 40 of the EAEU Customs Code if, in essence, these payments ensure the seller receives part of the income (proceeds) due to it from the sale of the imported goods and perform this function in the relationship between the parties to the foreign trade contract.
The customs authority failed to indicate, either in the act of inspecting documents and information post-release or in its decision, any circumstances evidencing the presence of such conditions as the payment of dividends being an agreed condition for the sale of specific imported goods (i.e., voluntary inclusion by the parties), or that there is proven influence of the relationship between the buyer and the seller on the transaction value (intentional understating of the customs value by the parties, deviating from the actual agreements, as a result of which the funds paid to the seller as dividends actually represent its income).
Including the dividends paid by the company in the customs value of the goods, absent the influence of the relationship between the seller and the buyer on the price of the goods, as well as the absence of signs of manipulation when structuring the transaction value, does not comply with the norms of applicable legislation.

Legal Rationale for the Inclusion or Exclusion of Dividends

Dividends were not included in the customs value on the following grounds:

Legal nature of dividends:

Essentially, they represent income from investments, not from imports;
Are not directly related to the import of goods;
Serve as payment for participation in the company's capital, rather than for the supply of goods.

Lack of evidentiary support:

Customs failed to prove a connection between the sale of specific goods and the payment of dividends;
The influence of the parties' interdependence on the price of the goods was not proven;
There was no evidence of manipulating the customs value.
Economic factors:
Proceeds from the sale of the imported goods constituted only a small portion of the company's total profit;
Selling goods was not the company's primary business activity;
Customs could not reliably determine the amount of net profit generated from the sale of the goods.

The court confirmed that the customs authority bears the burden of proving the understatement of the customs value, which it failed to do.

The court's conclusion: The inclusion of dividends in the customs value is unlawful because:

There is no direct link between the dividends and the value of specific goods;
There is no evidence regarding the influence of the parties' interdependence on the price;
The fact of manipulating the customs value was not proven;
Customs failed to meet its evidentiary burden.

Based on the foregoing, the court declared the actions of the customs authority unlawful and ordered the refund of excessively paid customs payments.

Case No. A51-2069/2025: A&D RUS LLC vs. Nakhodka Customs

Subject Matter of the Dispute

Invalidating the decisions of the Nakhodka Customs on amending (supplementing) the information declared in the goods declarations post-release.

The Declarant's Position

The contract contains no conditions, making the sale of goods contingent upon a requirement that part of the income (proceeds) generated from the subsequent resale, disposal, or use of the imported goods accrues directly or indirectly to the seller.

The Customs Authority's Position

The applicant paid income in the amount of 312,163,000 rubles to A&D COMPANY, LIMITED, which represents part of the profit generated in 2021.
The goods declared in the audited goods declarations were purchased for resale on the domestic market of the Russian Federation, were actually sold, and generated income, a portion of which was paid to the founder as dividends.

Disposition and Judicial Reasoning

The claim was satisfied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld by the court of appeal.[10] As of the date of this review, the possibility of a cassation appeal has not been exhausted; the current procedural status must be verified using the "Casebook" (Kartoteka Arbitrazhnykh Del).
Including the dividends paid by the applicant in the customs value of the goods, absent the influence of the relationship between the seller and the buyer on the price of the goods, as well as the absence of signs of manipulation when structuring the transaction value, does not comply with the norms of applicable legislation.

Legal Rationale for the Inclusion or Exclusion of Dividends

Dividends were not included in the customs value of the goods for the following reasons:

Absence of influence of the relationship between the seller and the buyer on the price of the goods. The court determined that the customs authority failed to prove that the dividend payment was a condition of the sale of the goods.
Errors in the customs authority's calculation:

Arbitrary calculation of cost without accounting for all expenses;
Inclusion of tax payments (dividend tax);
Unjustified calculation of the dividend share without analyzing the declarant's documentation.

The amount of dividends in this case totaled 312,163,000 rubles; however, the court established that:

Part of these funds (dividend taxes) was not intended for the seller;
The total amount was distributed across all goods of the company, not exclusively the disputed shipments;
There is no direct causal link between the sale of the specific goods and the payment of dividends.

Case No. A40-16564/2024: ZNAK LLC vs. Moscow Customs

Subject Matter of the Dispute

Invalidating the decision of the Moscow Customs (the customs authority, the Customs) on adjusting the customs value of the goods imported by the applicant.

The Declarant's Position

Failure by the customs authority to prove the presence of inaccurate information submitted by the company during the declaration of the imported goods, which led to an incorrect determination of the customs value of the specified goods, since the interested party was not given the opportunity to substantiate the lawfulness of the information declared in the customs declaration.

The Customs Authority's Position

Signs of inaccuracy were identified in the documents submitted by the declarant to substantiate the customs value of the imported goods, leading to the adjustment of the customs value.
The failure of the company to submit any objections, despite being properly notified of the need to provide supporting and substantiating documents.
A desk audit was conducted regarding the accuracy of the information declared in the customs declarations and contained in the documents substantiating the declared customs value post-release.
The customs authority independently allocated the amounts paid as dividends by the applicant in 2021 for 2020 and in 2022 for 2021, adjusting the value of the imported goods and determining the amount of additional customs value charges using the residual Method 6.

Disposition and Judicial Reasoning

The claim was satisfied, because the customs authority failed to prove the influence of the relationship between the company and the seller of the imported materials on the value of such goods and the subsequent distribution of the company's profit, which does not preclude the application of the first method for determining customs value.
The declarant is obligated to prove that the price actually paid or payable for the goods was established without the influence of the parties' relationship on the transaction, including by disclosing pricing information (paragraph 5 of Article 39 of the EAEU Customs Code).
The fact of the relationship between the seller and the applicant is not disputed by the parties; therefore, the application of the first method for determining the customs value of the goods is possible provided the declarant proves the absence of this relationship's influence on the price of the goods.
The customs authority failed to prove the influence of the relationship between the applicant and the seller and the subsequent distribution of profit on the value of the goods. These conclusions were upheld by the court of cassation: the judicial acts of the lower courts were left unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the customs authority was dismissed.[11]

Legal Rationale for the Inclusion or Exclusion of Dividends

Dividends were not included in the customs value of the goods for the following reasons:

The foreign trade contract between ZNAK LLC and the foreign supplier did not contain provisions for transferring part of the payment for the supplied goods in the form of dividends.
The customs authority failed to prove that the payment of dividends was a condition of the sale of the imported goods.
According to paragraph 9 of Article 39 of the EAEU Customs Code, the transfer of dividends or other similar payments by the buyer to the seller, if they are not related to the imported goods, does not constitute part of the customs value.
The court established that the relationship between the seller and the buyer did not affect the price of the goods, meaning there were no grounds for adjusting the customs value.
Customs failed to present evidence regarding the influence of the relationship between the seller and the buyer on the price of the goods.
Dividends were paid to the supplier company, but they were not conditioned upon the sale of specific goods and were part of a general profit distribution.
Method 6 for determining customs value (based on subtraction) could only be applied if the dividend payment was a hidden form of payment for the goods, which was not established in this case.

Thus, the court confirmed that dividends should not be included in the customs value since they are not directly related to the imported goods and are not part of the payment for them. The primary criterion was the absence of a proven connection between the dividend payment and the specific supply of goods.

Case No. A09-1177/2024: SCHOTT PHARMACEUTICAL PACKAGING vs. Bryansk Customs

Subject Matter of the Dispute Invalidating the decisions on amending (supplementing) the information declared in the goods declarations, as well as an order to eliminate the admitted violations of the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant.

The Declarant's Position

The paid dividends have no connection to the imported goods and the income (proceeds) generated by the applicant from the sale of finished products, do not ensure that SCHOTT AG receives part of the income (proceeds) due to it from the sale of the imported goods, and do not perform this function under the executed foreign trade contracts.
The relationship between the applicant and SCHOTT AG had no impact on the value of the imported goods.
The pricing mechanism for the imported goods is market-based, the transaction value of the imported goods corresponds to their actual value, there are no signs of price manipulation, and the subject matter of commercial relations and the procedure for setting prices for the goods have been disclosed.
The paid dividends are not only in form but also in substance; the corresponding payments did not pursue and could not pursue any other economic rationale.
The income (proceeds) of the applicant is primarily generated from the sale of glass ampoules and vials, rather than the imported glass tubing, as the glass tubing is used exclusively for the production of glass ampoules and vials and is not sold to third parties.

The Customs Authority's Position

The company failed to include in the customs value of the goods the portion of the income (proceeds) related to them in the total amount of 14,284,808.91 rubles for 2020, generated from the subsequent sale, disposal, or use of the goods, which indirectly accrues to the seller, paid to the company's participants designated as dividends, and subject to addition to the price actually paid or payable for the goods.

Disposition and Judicial Reasoning

The claim was partially satisfied, because the defendant failed to establish the influence of the relationship between the plaintiff and its participant on the value of the goods imported under the disputed declarations, yet the relationship did affect the customs value of the goods, the structure of which consists of the transaction value and the additional charges added to it.
The mere formal designation as dividends of a portion of the income (proceeds) determined for payment (directly or indirectly) to the participants does not constitute absolute and unequivocal grounds for concluding that this portion of income, simply due to its designation during distribution as dividends, can under no circumstances be classified as part of the income (proceeds) falling under Article 40 of the EAEU Customs Code.
Considering the corporate connection between the importer-buyer and its participants, discovering the essence of such payments termed dividends, establishing their actual purpose, as well as the direct and indirect connection of the payments to the participants of all entities forming a specific group of companies, and not just the company designated as the seller, must be established by the courts in each specific case based on its specific circumstances and the totality of the submitted evidence. During the cassation review, the circuit court partially overturned the judicial acts of the lower courts and denied the company's claims regarding a number of goods declarations, finding the inclusion of the paid amounts in the customs value justified in that respective part; in the remaining part, the judicial acts were left unchanged, and the cassation appeal of the customs authority was partially satisfied.[12]

Legal Rationale for the Inclusion or Exclusion of Dividends

Primary criteria for including dividends in customs value:

Presence of a relationship between the seller and the buyer;
Generation of income from the use of the imported goods;
Direct or indirect accrual of a portion of the income to the seller.

Dividends may be included in the customs value if they:

Are related to the imported goods;
Ensure the seller receives part of the income from the sale of the imported goods;
Serve as part of the pricing mechanism within a group of companies.

For the vials imported under 2 goods declarations, dividends were not included, as their sale resulted in a net loss.
Dividends are not included if they are not directly related to the imported goods.
The calculation must be performed proportionally to the share of the imported goods in the total volume.
The actual use of the goods in the reporting period is taken into account.
The real profit from the sale of products is taken into consideration.

Case No. A62-2350/2024: KRONES vs. Smolensk Customs

Subject Matter of the Dispute

Invalidating the decision on amending (supplementing) the information declared in the goods declaration and securing a refund of unlawfully assessed and collected penalties.

The Declarant's Position

Dividends paid based on the results of business operations do not constitute a component of the price of the goods actually paid or payable for the imported goods.
Customs unjustifiably assessed customs payments and penalties for payment, since the goods were imported under a contract executed with an organization that is not a founder of the Company.
Imposing penalties is unlawful, since both at the time of declaration and at the time the disputed decisions were issued, the Company had sufficient funds in its personal account to cover the additionally assessed customs payments.

The Customs Authority's Position

If the founder of a limited liability company makes a decision to distribute income (net profit), and this net profit is generated in connection with the sale (or other use) in the customs territory of the EAEU of imported goods brought in under foreign trade contracts executed with a supplier who is also the founder of the company, as well as with entities forming part of a group of companies, such income (net profit) may be included in the customs value of the goods.

Disposition and Judicial Reasoning

The claim was partially satisfied, because the customs authority had no grounds to additionally assess the customs value for specific declarations considering that the counterparty company is not a founder of the company. For the remaining declarations, the customs authority lawfully calculated the dividend amount.
Dividends directed to an entity acting simultaneously as the founder and the seller of the goods, as well as the founder of the goods' selling companies, must be considered as a component of the customs value, meaning these payments act as an additional charge to the price of the goods, from which the imported goods are not exempt and will not be exempt via reimbursement. These conclusions were upheld by the court of cassation: the judicial acts were left unchanged, and the cassation appeals of the company, the customs, and the superior customs authority were dismissed.[13]

Legal Rationale for the Inclusion or Exclusion of Dividends

Conditions for including dividends in the customs value:

The founder is simultaneously the supplier of the goods;
Dividends are paid from the profit generated from the sale of the imported goods;
The founder company exercises 100% control over the company.

The court placed special emphasis on the fact that the dividends were transferred precisely to the founder, who was simultaneously the supplier of the goods, which serves as the key factor for including them in the customs value. In this regard, it does not matter how exactly the payments are designated (dividends or otherwise); what matters is their economic substance and connection to the imported goods.

Case No. A40-130974/2024: CORBEV vs. Central Excise Customs

Subject Matter of the Dispute

Invalidating the decisions on amending (supplementing) the information declared in the goods declaration post-release.

The Declarant's Position

The condition for including dividends in the customs value of goods is the alignment of the supplier of such goods and the participant of the LLC in one entity – if such dividends constitute the income of the LLC founders generated in connection with the sale of imported goods brought in under foreign trade contracts executed with suppliers who are also founders of the LLC.
The sole participant of the applicant during the audited period was MARMON FOODSERVICE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., USA, yet the goods under the audited declarations were supplied by two companies: MARMON FOODSERVICE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., USA and Cornelius Deutschland GmbH, Germany.
Cornelius Deutschland GmbH was not a participant of the applicant and never received dividends from it. Dividends paid to the participant MARMON FOODSERVICE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. did not accrue to Cornelius Deutschland GmbH, as the latter is a subsidiary of MARMON FOODSERVICE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. with a 5% participation share.

The Customs Authority's Position

The presence of a relationship between the seller and the buyer of the goods, the existence of which the Company failed to indicate during the customs declaration.

Disposition and Judicial Reasoning

By the decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow, left unchanged by the resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal, the asserted claims were satisfied.
By the resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District, the decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow and the resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal were overturned, and the case was remanded for a new trial to the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow.
Upon retrial, the asserted claims were partially satisfied. The current judicial act following the retrial is the decision of the court of first instance dated May 13, 2026.[14]
The disputed payments ensured the indirect receipt by the seller of a portion of the income (proceeds) due to it from the sale of the imported goods and performed this function in the relationship between the parties to the foreign trade contracts.
The Company's net profit was generated, among other things, from the sale of goods imported under the audited declarations pursuant to contracts executed with organizations belonging to the same group of companies.
Dividends paid (payable) to MARMON FOODSERVICE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. constitute part of the income (proceeds) generated from the subsequent sale of the goods imported under the audited declarations, which indirectly accrues to the seller and is subject to inclusion in the customs value of the imported goods.
In addition to understating the amount of customs duties payable, the applicant paid dividends to countries deemed unfriendly to Russia.
The applicant's claims to invalidate the decisions of the customs authority were satisfied because the audit was conducted by the customs authority beyond the three-year timeframe stipulated by Article 310 of the EAEU Customs Code.

Legal Rationale for the Inclusion or Exclusion of Dividends

The presence of interdependence between the seller and the buyer.
Generation of profit from the sale of the imported goods.
Distribution of profit among participants of the group of companies.
Determining the magnitude of the additional charges is performed proportionally to the value determined by the ratio of the value of each specific good to the total value of the goods to which such additional charges apply. The amount of the additional payment applicable to the adjusted goods and subject to inclusion in the structure of their customs value was determined.

Case No. A06-3555/2023: Maschio-Gaspardo Russia vs. Astrakhan Customs

Subject Matter of the Dispute

Amending (supplementing) the information declared in the goods declarations and mandating the refund of excessively collected customs duties, fees, taxes, and penalties.

The Declarant's Position

The foreign trade contracts do not provide for the transfer of the generated proceeds to the seller.
The profit paid for 2020 cannot be correlated with the goods imported in 2020.
Not the entire volume of goods delivered to the territory of Russia in 2020 was sold in 2020.
Aside from sales profit, the Company has significant amounts of other income and expenses, consisting primarily of exchange rate differences, which affect the Company's financial result; apart from other income and expenses in 2020, the Company incurred profit tax, which was entirely overlooked by the customs authority.
Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A. (Italy) made a decision in 2021 to distribute part of the retained earnings not for 2020, but from the retained earnings of previous years, i.e., for the period from the Company's creation until December 31, 2020.

The Customs Authority's Position

Dividends from the distribution of the company's net profit for 2020 received by the supplier, who is the founder of the company, are linked to the imported goods and must be added to the price actually paid or payable for these goods as part of the income generated from the subsequent sale of the imported goods, which directly or indirectly accrues to the seller.

Disposition and Judicial Reasoning

The claim was satisfied regarding amending specific declarations, since it was established that the seller and the buyer are independent legal entities. The remainder of the claim was denied, as it was established that the dividends (net profit) must be considered a component of the customs value.
The dividend payment was executed via a bank transfer in EUR to the founder's account based on the company's applications for transfer from its foreign currency account; the "Payment Details" field of the payment orders indicated "Payment dividends from the retained earnings of previous years according to decision 73 of 01.09.2021".
The calculated share of net profit constitutes income generated in 2020 from the subsequent sale of the goods declared in 2020.

Rationale for the Inclusion / Non-Inclusion of Dividends and Their Amount

The inclusion occurred precisely because the dividends were linked to the income from the sale of the imported goods, and direct relations existed between the seller and the buyer. Key arguments of the court:

The dividends functionally serve as part of the income from the subsequent sale of the imported goods.
Payments designated as dividends ensure the seller receives a portion of the due income;
A connection exists between the parties to the foreign trade contract, warranting the inclusion of the dividends.
The founder and the seller are the same entity (Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A.);
Documentary proof of the dividend payment (payment orders) exists;
An established link exists between the 2020 profit and the sale of the imported goods.
Dividends were not included in the customs value for some declarations because the contract was executed with a different company (Maschio Gaspardo Romania S.R.L.). Maschio Gaspardo Romania S.R.L. is an independent legal entity, is not a founder of the applicant, and the customs authority provided no evidence to the case file indicating that the dividends paid by the company to the founder were distributed, including to Maschio Gaspardo Romania S.R.L.
The dividend tax was not included in the customs value.
Assessing penalties starting from the day following the submission of the goods declaration until the customs authority issued the disputed decisions is unlawful, because on the date the goods were imported, the company did not possess information regarding the financial result and the amount of net profit for 2020, as the financial result is formed only based on the outcomes of the entire financial year, making the assessment of penalties from the day the goods declaration is filed impermissible.

Case No. A50-10712/2024: Solikamsk Desulfurizer Plant vs. Perm Customs, Tyumen Customs

Subject Matter of the Dispute

Invalidating and canceling the customs decisions on amending (supplementing) the information declared in the goods declaration, and the notices regarding the payment of customs payments, special antidumping, countervailing duties, interest, and penalties.

The Declarant's Position

Grounds for including the disputed dividend amounts in the customs value were absent.
The customs authorities failed to prove, and the case materials do not confirm, that manipulation of the contract prices occurred or that dependence existed between the applicant and ALMAMET GmbH, Germany.

The Customs Authority's Position

A violation by the company of subparagraph 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 40 of the EAEU Customs Code was established, manifested in the submission of inaccurate information regarding the customs value of the goods due to the failure to include in the structure of the customs value the portion of the income (proceeds) generated from the subsequent sale of the imported goods, which indirectly accrues to the seller.

Disposition and Judicial Reasoning

The claim was denied, because the goods were purchased by the company from its founder – a foreign entity; documents reliably determining the magnitude of that portion of the income were not submitted, and the customs authority's calculation of the dividend amount subject to inclusion in the customs value of the goods is correct.
The founders of the company are OJSC Solikamsk Magnesium Works and ALMAMET GmbH, Germany, holding 50% shares each.
The applicant and ALMAMET GmbH, Germany are interdependent entities.
ALMAMET GmbH supplied goods to the applicant for use in manufacturing products in line with the company's primary business activity. The goods imported under the executed foreign trade contracts were purchased by the company from its founder, ALMAMET GmbH.
The company failed to submit documents and information reliably determining the magnitude (amount) of the portion of the income (proceeds) generated from the subsequent sale, disposal, or use of the imported goods, which directly or indirectly accrues to the seller, broken down by customs declarations filed during the audited period.
The customs authority's calculation of the dividend amount subject to additional assessment in the customs value of the disputed goods was performed based on the specific share of the imported goods' cost in the overall cost of sales for the reporting period. The judicial acts denying the claims were left unchanged by the court of cassation.[15]

Legal Rationale for the Inclusion or Exclusion of Dividends

SDP LLC and ALMAMET GmbH are interdependent entities. ALMAMET GmbH, as both founder and supplier, received dividends;
The imported goods were used in manufacturing products;
Dividends were paid in connection with the sale of products manufactured using the imported goods;
The company failed to submit documents allowing for the exact determination of the share of income from the sale of the final product;
The company did not provide a counter-calculation regarding the dividend assessment.
The company failed to prove the absence of a connection between the paid dividends and the sale of the imported goods.

Case No. A14-17886/2023: Novaya Moda vs. Voronezh Customs

Subject Matter of the Dispute

Invalidating the decision concerning the goods declaration regarding the inclusion of dividends in the customs value of the goods, and mandating amendments (additions) to the goods declaration to exclude the dividend amount from the customs value of the goods declared therein.

The Declarant's Position

Absence of grounds to include the dividends paid to INDITEX S.A. and Zara Holding B.V. in the customs value of the goods.

The Customs Authority's Position

A relationship exists between the sellers (INDUSTRIA DE DISENO TEXTIL, S.A. (INDITEX S.A., Spain) and TEMPE, S.A. (Spain)) and the buyer (Novaya Moda JSC) of the imported goods (as the companies belong to the INDITEX group of companies).
It has not been documented that the relationship did not influence the transaction price of the imported goods.
The payment of dividends is directly linked to the value of the imported goods, and, consequently, the dividend amount must be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods.

Disposition and Judicial Reasoning

The claim was denied, because the companies are interdependent entities belonging to the same group, and the paid dividends represent a portion of the income (proceeds) from the subsequent sale of the imported goods, which directly or indirectly accrues to the seller.
The structure of the customs value of the goods must include the amounts of dividends paid to both INDITEX S.A. (10%) and Zara Holding B.V. (90%) as part of the income (proceeds) of Novaya Moda JSC (formerly ZARA CIS JSC) generated from the subsequent sale, disposal, or use of the goods, which directly or indirectly accrues to the seller.
The seller, INDITEX S.A., controls all stages of producing the goods imported into the EAEU territory and simultaneously controls the intellectual property rights, meaning that third-party organizations involved in the production process only ship goods bearing the "ZARA" mark to INDITEX S.A., and no other companies can purchase such goods.
No entity other than the company imported the declared goods bearing the "ZARA" trademark into the EAEU customs territory. The disputed goods were not supplied to the company by any entities other than those belonging to the INDITEX holding group. However, the court of appeal deemed unlawful the inclusion in the customs value under one of the declarations of the portion of dividends paid to Zara Holding B.V. that was allocated to cover losses (1,146,810.64 rubles), satisfying the company's claims in that regard; the inclusion of dividends was denied for the remainder. The judicial acts were upheld by the court of cassation.[16]

Legal Rationale for the Inclusion or Exclusion of Dividends

Interdependence of the companies: INDITEX S.A. is the sole owner of Zara Holding B.V.
Control over the process: INDITEX S.A. controls the production and supply of the goods.
Exclusivity of supplies: Only companies within the INDITEX group can supply goods under the ZARA brand.
Dividends are paid from activities related to the sale of the imported goods.

Although Zara Holding B.V. was not the direct supplier, it is controlled by INDITEX S.A. The income paid to Zara Holding B.V. indirectly accrues to the seller (INDITEX S.A.).

The inclusion of dividends in the customs value was deemed lawful, as they constituted part of the income from the sale of the imported goods and directly or indirectly accrued to the seller, despite the formal absence of a direct link between the payments and the specific supply.

Case No. A65-20071/2024: ANDRITZ vs. Tatarstan Customs

Subject Matter of the Dispute Invalidating the customs decisions regarding the goods declarations, and mandating the Tatarstan Customs to refund excessively collected customs duties, fees, taxes, and penalties totaling 4,563,179.93 rubles.

The Declarant's Position

The Company's net profit for 2021, generated from goods imported from the founder company ANDRITZ AG, stands at 1.54%, which negates the need to include dividends in the customs value of such goods.
The Company's net profit for 2021 was not generated predominantly from the sale of goods imported under the foreign trade contract with the founder company ANDRITZ AG.

The Customs Authority's Position A portion of the dividends paid to ANDRITZ AG under foreign trade contracts with affiliated entities was not included by the company in the customs value of the goods.

Disposition and Judicial Reasoning

The claim was denied because the company, in violation of customs legislation provisions, failed to observe the structure of the declared customs value of the goods.
The import of goods was carried out based on transactions executed between participants of the same group of companies, and the income (proceeds) of the Russian buyer is formed, among other things, from the sale of the imported goods, and, consequently, resolving the issue of dividend payment remains solely at the discretion of the foreign supplier and (or) interconnected participants of the group of companies, which creates a substantial risk of manipulating the value elements forming its customs value.
By their nature, dividends ensure the indirect receipt by the seller of a portion of the income (proceeds) due to it from the sale of the imported goods and perform this function in the relationship between the parties to the foreign trade contract.

Legal Rationale for the Inclusion or Exclusion of Dividends

Interdependence of the parties, since the transactions were executed between participants of the same group of companies.
Dividends were paid from profit, a portion of which was generated from the sale of the imported goods.
A proportional calculation was performed based on the profit share. Only the portion of dividends related to goods supplied in 2021 was factored in. Additional charges were not applied to goods for 2022–2023.

Case No. A14-4855/2025: Lamberti Rus vs. Voronezh Customs

Subject Matter of the Dispute

Invalidating the decisions on amending (supplementing) the information declared in the goods declarations, mandating the elimination of the admitted violations of rights and legitimate interests by obligating the refund of customs payments and penalties to the company, excessively collected based on the disputed decisions, totaling 4,062,184.99 rubles.

The Declarant's Position

Dividends must not be included in the customs value pursuant to paragraph 9 of Article 39 of the EAEU Customs Code.

The Customs Authority's Position

The structure of the customs value of the goods failed to include the portion of the related income (proceeds) totaling 12,026,726.13 rubles for 2021 and paid to participants with its designation as dividends.

Disposition and Judicial Reasoning

The claim was denied, because it was established that the relationship between the seller and the buyer does not affect the transaction value; additional charges may be applied to the price actually paid or payable for these goods. The judicial acts denying the claims were left unchanged by the court of cassation.[17]

Legal Rationale for the Inclusion or Exclusion of Dividends

Presence of a corporate connection between the participants of the group of companies (the seller owned 1% of the buyer, and the parent company owned 99%). The parent company controlled both the seller and the buyer.
More than 88% of the buyer's income was generated from imported goods.
The payments actually ensured the receipt by the seller of part of the income from the sale of the imported goods.
Profit distribution occurred among participants of the group of companies, creating a risk of manipulating the customs value.

More than 63% of the net profit for 2021 related to goods imported under the disputed declarations. Out of the total distributed profit (100 million rubles), 12.03% (12,026,726.13 rubles) was allocated to the customs value. Based on this, customs payments totaling 3,182,161.42 rubles were additionally assessed.

Case No. A46-18610/2024: ARIS OILFIELD TOOLS vs. Omsk Customs

Subject Matter of the Dispute

Invalidating decisions regarding corrective goods declarations.

The Declarant's Position

The customs authority's position that the dividends paid to CATT GmbH (Germany) in 2022 included the net profit generated by the company for 2021 and are related to the sale of goods imported under foreign trade contracts executed with CATT GmbH is erroneous.
In 2022, dividends were paid to participants not from the net profit generated in the audited periods (2021 and 2022), but from previously retained earnings generated prior to 2021.

The Customs Authority's Position

Inaccurate declaration of information regarding the customs value of goods regarding the failure to include in the structure of the customs value the portion of income (proceeds) generated from the subsequent sale, disposal, or use of the imported goods, which directly or indirectly accrues to the seller.

Disposition and Judicial Reasoning

The claim was partially satisfied, because the income paid to the company's founder is subject to inclusion in the customs value of the goods, the calculation of customs payments and penalties was adjusted, including taking the moratorium into account.
Dividends from the distribution of the company's net profit for 2021 received by the supplier, who is the company's founder, are linked to the imported goods and must be added to the price actually paid or payable for these goods.
The customs authority's calculation regarding the additional assessment of customs payments and the corresponding penalty amounts on the adjustment of the goods' customs value for an amount exceeding 23,011,640.64 rubles is incorrect.
Assessing penalties for the period from April 1, 2022, to October 1, 2022, in connection with the introduction of the moratorium in accordance with Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 497 On the Introduction of a Moratorium on Initiating Bankruptcy Proceedings Based on Applications Filed by Creditors is unlawful. These conclusions were upheld by the courts of appeal and cassation.[18]

Legal Rationale for the Inclusion or Exclusion of Dividends

Interdependence of the parties to the transaction. CATT GmbH acted simultaneously as the supplier of the goods and the founder of the company with a 90% share.
Dividends were paid specifically from the profit generated as a result of the sale of the imported goods.
The court capped the inclusion of dividends at 23.01 million rubles, meaning strictly the portion that could be paid from the 2021 profit. The remaining amounts (exceeding this value) were not included in the customs value.
Dividends from the 2021 profit, rather than from the retained earnings of previous years.
The company failed to present evidence demonstrating that the profit was generated from sources other than the sale of the disputed goods.
It was not proven that the price of the goods was established without the influence of the relationship between the parties.

Case No. A62-4221/2024: RHI VOSTOK SERVICE vs. Smolensk Customs

Subject Matter of the Dispute

Invalidating the customs decisions on amending (supplementing) the information declared in the goods declaration, mandating the Smolensk Customs to eliminate the admitted violations of the rights and legitimate interests of RHI VOSTOK SERVICE LLC within 30 days from the date the judicial act enters into legal force in the manner prescribed by law, and recovering the amount of excessively paid penalties totaling 19,966,613.42 rubles.

The Declarant's Position

Unjustified and unsubstantiated calculation performed by the customs authority to support the additional charges.
Violation of customs legislation norms, expressed in the inclusion in the calculation of the imported goods' customs value of the dividend amount paid to a founder who is not the supplier of the goods.

The Customs Authority's Position

During the customs declaration of the goods, their customs value failed to include the income (net profit) transferred to its founders, participants of the RHI Magnesita group.

Disposition and Judicial Reasoning

The claim was denied, since dividends from the distribution of the company's net profit related to the imported goods must be added to the price actually paid or payable for these goods; the claim was partially satisfied, as the period of the moratorium on initiating bankruptcy proceedings was excluded from the period for assessing penalties on the customs payments.
If participants of a group of companies, who are the founders of a company also belonging to this same group of companies, execute dividend payments to the founders, yet only one founder acts as the supplier of the goods, the income of the other founder received in the form of dividends in connection with the sale of the imported goods indirectly accrues to the supplier of such goods.
The source of dividend payments is the company's profit after taxation – net profit. Based on this, dividends are an integral component of net profit, which is formed from the company's final performance indicators.
If the founder of a limited liability company makes a decision to distribute income (net profit) generated in connection with the sale of imported goods in the EAEU customs territory, then the specified income (net profit) is subject to inclusion in the customs value of the goods.
During the effective period of the moratorium, interest for the use of another's funds (Article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), forfeiture (Article 330 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), penalties for delayed payment of tax or fee (Article 75 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation), as well as other financial sanctions are not accrued on claims that arose prior to its introduction. Assessing penalties on belatedly paid (unpaid) customs payments falls in this case under other financial sanctions. The judicial acts were left unchanged by the court of cassation.[19]

Legal Rationale for the Inclusion or Exclusion of Dividends

The founders of the company belong to the same RHI Magnesita group. All participants are interdependent entities under Article 37 of the EAEU Customs Code;
Dividends constitute part of the company's net profit. Net profit is formed from the final performance indicators, including income from the sale of imported goods. When profit is distributed among the founders of the group of companies, dividends indirectly accrue to the supplier of the goods.
The court dismissed the company's arguments regarding an incorrect calculation, as the company failed to provide detailed information linking the dividends to specific shipments of goods.

Case No. A56-108954/2024: PRIVOD EXPERT vs. St. Petersburg Customs

Subject Matter of the Dispute

Petition to mandate the obligation to refund customs payments.

The Declarant's Position

The payment of dividends for 2021 in the amount of 23,529,412.00 rubles was executed using profit from the sale of goods imported into the EAEU territory not only in 2021 but also imported previously, starting from 2019, as well as using proceeds from sources unrelated to the imported goods.

The Customs Authority's Position

When declaring the goods, the declarant unjustifiably excluded from the customs value the dividends paid to the participant (founder) from the net profit generated by the sale of the imported goods.

Disposition and Judicial Reasoning

The claims were satisfied. The initial judicial acts in favor of the declarant were overturned by the court of cassation with the case remanded for a new trial; upon retrial, the company's claims were satisfied, and the customs authority was mandated to refund the excessively paid customs payments.[20] When resolving the issue of whether to include any additions to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods in their customs value, it is necessary to proceed from the essence of such expenses conditioned by the relations of the entities participating in the transaction, and to consider in their totality all factors characterizing the activities of these entities.
Payments designated as dividends are recognized as related to the imported goods and are included in their customs value if, by their nature, these payments ensure the seller receives a portion of the income (proceeds) due to it from the sale of the imported goods and perform this function in the relationship between the parties to the foreign trade contract.

Legal Rationale for the Inclusion or Exclusion of Dividends

Dividends may be recharacterized as the seller's income and included in the structure of the customs value of the goods provided two conditions are met:

The payment of dividends serves as an agreed condition for the sale of specific imported goods (i.e., voluntary inclusion by the parties);
There is proven influence of the relationship between the buyer and the seller on the transaction value (intentional understating of the customs value by the parties, deviating from the actual agreements, as a result of which the funds paid to the seller in the form of dividends actually represent its income);
When entities are interdependent, there is a risk of manipulating value;
Dividends paid to an interdependent entity may be linked to the imported goods;
The company failed to prove that the profit was generated from sources other than the sale of the imported goods.

Conclusions

Analyzing the cited jurisprudence enables identifying factors affecting the resolution of disputes over the inclusion of dividends in customs value, as well as formulating practical recommendations for Foreign Trade Participants.

Factors Favoring the Inclusion of Dividends in Customs Value

The supplier of the imported goods and the recipient of the dividends align in one entity (the seller is simultaneously a participant or shareholder of the buyer).
The import of goods is executed predominantly or exclusively from an interdependent supplier-founder.
The presence of indicators that the relationship influenced the transaction price or signs of manipulating the customs value.
A substantial share of dividends is attributable to the sale of the imported goods, absent other significant business operations.
Failure of the declarant to submit documents substantiating the generation of profit from other sources.

Factors Favoring the Non-Inclusion of Dividends in Customs Value

Absence of influence of the relationship between the seller and the buyer on the price of the imported goods, substantiated by documentation.
The accuracy of the declared transaction value and the absence of signs of manipulation during its formulation.
Generation of profit (and, accordingly, dividends) from business operations as a whole, rather than from the sale of specific imported goods.
An insignificant share of profit attributable to goods imported from an interdependent supplier.
Failure of the customs authority to prove circumstances indicating an understatement of the customs value, as well as the inaccuracy of the performed calculation.

The jurisprudence in this category of disputes is not uniform: the outcome of a case is largely determined by the comprehensiveness of the evidentiary base and the accuracy of the customs authority's calculation. In a portion of the cases, the declarants' claims are satisfied due to unproven influence of the relationship on the price and errors in the customs authority's calculation; in other cases, conclusions to include dividends in the customs value are supported by the courts, including at the level of courts of cassation,[21] and review upon declarants' appeals did not result in the reversal of the judicial acts.[22]

A more detailed analysis reveals that the divergence in judicial acts relates less to differing factual circumstances and more to the allocation of the burden of proof. In one group of cases, courts operate on the premise that the customs authority itself is obligated to prove the influence of the relationship on the price or the fact of manipulation, and absent proof of these circumstances, deny the inclusion of dividends; such an approach prevails in cases where imports from an interdependent supplier constituted an insignificant portion of operations or where profit was generated from other sources. In another group of cases, courts deem the mere risk of manipulation – arising from the fact that the dividend payment decision is made by interconnected group participants – to be sufficient, whereas the declarant failed to verify the generation of profit from other sources – under this approach, the burden effectively shifts to the declarant. Thus, the deciding factor becomes not the designation of the payment, but the declarant's ability to documentarily prove the market-based nature of the price and separately verify the sources of the distributed profit.

When structuring a legal position, procedural aspects should be factored in: customs value control may be conducted by the customs authority post-release within a three-year timeframe (Article 310 of the EAEU Customs Code); when grounds exist, the mechanism for deferred determination of the customs value is applied;[23] the issue of assessing penalties must be evaluated taking into account the moment the declarant gained the ability to calculate the payable amounts, as well as the applicable moratorium.[24]

It is advisable for Foreign Trade Participants to: proactively verify that the transaction price meets the market level (including through methods utilized for transfer pricing purposes and the arm's length principle); maintain separate accounting records that allow separating profit from the sale of imported goods and profit from other operations; documentarily substantiate the sources generating the distributed profit; preserve evidence confirming the absence of the relationship's influence on the price of the imported goods. The most effective preventive measure is the proactive preparation of transfer pricing documentation verifying that the prices of intercompany deliveries comply with the arm's length principle: such documentation can serve as evidence of the absence of the relationship's influence on the price and the accuracy of the declared transaction value.

The jurisprudence should be viewed as evolving; the avenues for appeal have not been exhausted for a number of the cases included in the review, making the final procedural outcomes and the references of the judicial acts subject to verification via the "Casebook" (Kartoteka Arbitrazhnykh Del) as of the date this review is utilized.

The information and details contained in this review represent an aggregate of statutory provisions and enforcement practice, subjective evaluative judgments, opinions on facts, interpretations of applicable legislation, judicial and other enforcement practice, and reflect the personal opinion of the author/authors. Consequently, it should not be construed as legal advice and/or a legal opinion, nor as any other individually targeted document and/or an expression of the official position of government authorities. The authors, as well as the publishers, disclaim liability for any discrepancy between their position and that of government authorities, organizations, and other third parties.

__________________________

References

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 307-ES21-2873 dated April 7, 2021, on case No. A56-137218/2019.
Rulings of the Judicial Board for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 305-ES22-11464 dated December 1, 2022, on case No. A40-20125/2021; No. 310-ES22-9639 dated December 2, 2022, on case No. A09-1751/2021; No. 310-ES22-8937 dated December 2, 2022.
Review of Court Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 1 (2023), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on April 26, 2023 (paragraph 24).
Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 49 dated November 26, 2019, On Certain Issues Arising in Court Practice in Connection with the Entry into Force of the Customs Code of the Eurasian Economic Union (paragraphs 16, 20).
Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 27-01-21/5737 dated January 25, 2024.
Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 53 dated October 12, 2006, On the Assessment by Arbitration Courts of the Validity of the Taxpayer Receiving a Tax Benefit.
Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 27-01-21/11349 dated February 10, 2025 (as amended by the Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 27-01-21/17947 dated February 25, 2025).
Decision of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 83 dated May 22, 2018, On the Calculation of Additional Charges When Determining the Customs Value of Goods.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District No. F03-3891/2025 dated December 1, 2025, on case No. A51-11076/2024.
Resolution of the Fifth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated May 6, 2026, on case No. A51-2069/2025.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated January 26, 2026, on case No. A40-16564/2024.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District dated February 17, 2026, on case No. A09-1177/2024.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District dated December 19, 2025, on case No. A62-2350/2024.
Decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow dated May 13, 2026, on case No. A40-130974/2024.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District No. F09-2085/25 dated May 29, 2025, on case No. A50-10712/2024.
Resolution of the Nineteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated June 26, 2025, and Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District dated December 2, 2025, on case No. A14-17886/2023.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District dated December 23, 2025, on case No. A14-4855/2025.
Resolution of the Eighth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated May 7, 2025, and Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District dated August 15, 2025, on case No. A46-18610/2024.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District dated December 25, 2025, on case No. A62-4221/2024.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North Western District dated October 29, 2025, and Decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region dated January 29, 2026, on case No. A56-108954/2024.
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District No. F06-4705/2025 dated July 21, 2025, on case No. A65-20071/2024.
Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 306-ES24-21169 dated November 11, 2024, on case No. A06-3555/2023; Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga District No. F06-6245/2024 dated August 16, 2024, on case No. A06-3555/2023.
Decision of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 103 dated June 19, 2018, On Approval of the Procedure for Deferred Determination of the Customs Value of Goods.
Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 497 dated March 28, 2022, On the Introduction of a Moratorium on Initiating Bankruptcy Proceedings Based on Applications Filed by Creditors.