{"id":3821,"date":"2026-11-10T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-11-10T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ra-moellenhoff.de\/?p=3821"},"modified":"2026-11-09T12:29:17","modified_gmt":"2026-11-09T11:29:17","slug":"design-costs-in-the-customs-value-opinion-of-the-advocate-general","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ra-moellenhoff.de\/en\/customs\/design-costs-in-the-customs-value-opinion-of-the-advocate-general","title":{"rendered":"Design Costs in the Customs Value \u2013 Opinion of the Advocate&nbsp;General"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 21 October 2026, the Advocate General at the General Court of the European Union (EGC) delivered his opinion on whether design costs are to be included in the customs value of goods (<strong><a href=\"https:\/\/infocuria.curia.europa.eu\/tabs\/document\/T\/2025\/T-0028-25-00000000RP-01-P-01\/CONCL\/328411-DE-1-html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\">Case T-28\/25<\/a><\/strong>). Whether and how the costs of design development are to be taken into account in the customs value of imported goods affects many companies. The question has occupied the German finance courts for several years and the General Court since last year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The situation itself is easy to explain and is an everyday occurrence in modern production processes. A German company has a designer in Germany develop a design. The design is used in producing the imported goods in China and is sent to the third country as a PDF file for that purpose. In the case at hand, the design was made into a decal in China and provided to the manufacturer of the imported goods, a porcelain mug, for production purposes. The design was applied to the mug when it was fired. So far, everything is clear! Things become unclear and disputed when it comes to determining the customs value. Article 71(1)(b)(iv) UCC provides that \u201cintellectual services\u201d developed in the Union are not to be included in the customs value of the imported goods. The legislator wanted to privilege development work for so-called intellectual, i.e. intangible, services in the Union. This, too, still seems clear: the development costs for intellectual services in the Union are not supposed to increase the customs value!<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From the perspective of the German customs administration, however, it is not that clear. In its view, the costs must be reflected in the customs value in a constellation like this one, where an assist within the meaning of Article 71(1)(b)(i) UCC (here the decal) is first produced for manufacturing purposes. The finance court upheld this view (D\u00fcsseldorf Finance Court, judgment of 11 August 2021, 4 K 818\/20 Z). In the subsequent appeal on points of law (case VII R 28\/21), the German Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) referred this question, among others, to the Court of Justice (CJEU), which assigned it to the General Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Advocate General acknowledged that it may seem difficult to understand why the addition of such costs should depend on whether they relate to the production of assists that are incorporated in the imported goods or are necessary for producing them (para. 48). He found this all the harder to accept where the imported goods are not a plain porcelain mug but a decorated porcelain mug with its own visual identity (para. 50). Nevertheless, the Advocate General did not conclude that the costs are to be excluded from the customs value under point (iv). Instead, referring to CJEU case law, he interpreted point (i) very broadly. Citing a commentary on point (ii), Commentary 18.1 on the Customs Valuation Agreement, he took the view that the provision on assists in the form of materials must cover the value of design work as acquisition or production costs (paras. 53 and 54).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It is regrettable that the Advocate General recognised the contradiction created by adding design costs where an assist is produced, yet did not distance himself from outdated case law and commentary. In our view, such a broad interpretation of the provision on assists in the form of materials is not supported by the intention of the legislator. It remains to be seen how the Court will ultimately decide. The judges are not bound to follow the Advocate General\u2019s opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>By: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ra-moellenhoff.de\/en\/lawyers\/almuth-barkam\" data-type=\"page\" data-id=\"935\">Almuth Barkam<\/a><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On 21 October 2026, the Advocate General at the General Court of the European Union (EGC) delivered his opinion on whether design costs&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":3157,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ghostkit_customizer_options":"","ghostkit_custom_css":"","ghostkit_custom_js_head":"","ghostkit_custom_js_foot":"","ghostkit_typography":"","_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["type-post","entry","has-post-thumbnail","last-post"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ra-moellenhoff.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3821","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ra-moellenhoff.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ra-moellenhoff.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ra-moellenhoff.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ra-moellenhoff.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3821"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.ra-moellenhoff.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3821\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3822,"href":"https:\/\/www.ra-moellenhoff.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3821\/revisions\/3822"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ra-moellenhoff.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3157"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ra-moellenhoff.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ra-moellenhoff.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ra-moellenhoff.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}