Customs law lawyer in Paris: importers facing audit and reassessment.

The investigation results notice is the document by which the customs administration announces the decision it envisages, its grounds and the amount at stake. It implements the right to be heard provided for by Article 22(6) of the Union Customs Code, to which Article L. 311-1 of the Customs Code refers for duties arising from importation. The first step is to note the reply deadline indicated and the date of receipt: that period is in principle thirty days under Article 8 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, and runs from actual or deemed receipt of the communication of the grounds. The second is to request the documents and information on which the administration intends to base its decision, where the notice mentions them without enclosing them. The Court of Cassation holds that the administration meets its obligation when it informs the debtor that they may access those documents (Cass. com., 17 June 2026, No. 25-10.751). In that case, the court of appeal had annulled the recovery notice; its judgment was quashed in favour of the administration, for failing to check whether the notice contained that mention. An importer who remains passive therefore cannot always complain afterwards of a failure to communicate. The observations must answer the grounds point by point, with the relevant invoices, data sheets and certificates.

It requires the administration to set out its grounds before deciding and to leave the importer the opportunity to reply usefully. The Court of Cassation set aside a court of appeal judgment that had upheld the procedure although the documents requested had been communicated only after the report and the recovery notice. It holds that "for lack of having had knowledge of the documents on which the administration intended to base its decision, the company Care had not been able to make its observations usefully before the administration drew up the infringement report" (our translation) (Cass. com., 18 March 2020, No. 17-20.596). That judgment rests on the principle of the rights of the defence and on Article L. 80 M of the Tax Procedure Code (Livre des procédures fiscales), in a case concerning indirect taxes; it illustrates the logic of the rule without being transposable word for word to every customs duty. For the importer, the lesson is practical: the request for communication must be in writing, dated and precise, so as to establish what was requested and what was received before the adverse act.

Not necessarily. The Court of Cassation recalls, following the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, that a breach of the rights of the defence leads to annulment only if the procedure could have had a different outcome without that irregularity. In a case concerning imported honey, a court of appeal had annulled the recovery notice because the analysis reports communicated did not describe the expert procedures. The judgment was quashed in favour of the administration, the court having ruled "without checking whether, as the customs administration argued, the company FMA had not had knowledge, before notification of the investigation results notice or of the infringement notification report, of the methodology used by the company Eurofins" (our translation) (Cass. com., 18 September 2024, No. 23-13.985). This decision is unfavourable to the importer. It shows that a procedural ground must be tied to a concrete prejudice: one must explain what the importer could have argued had it had the missing elements. This is why the firm prepares the discussion of substance at the same time as the procedural grounds.

No. Where the recovery notice merely claims duties declared by the importer or its representative, without calling their amount into question, the Court of Cassation holds that no prior exchange is required. It states that "Where the unpaid duties were declared by the debtor or its representative, without the administration calling their amount into question, the principle of respect for the rights of the defence does not require an adversarial exchange to take place before the recovery notice is issued" (our translation) (Cass. com., 24 January 2024, No. 22-13.103). The appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed: the outcome is unfavourable to the debtor who hoped to have the notice set aside on that ground. Article L. 311-2 of the Customs Code follows the same logic by exempting from an adversarial exchange a notice issued to recover debts unpaid on their due date, except where they were established following an infringement. The distinction is therefore decisive: a reassessment that changes the declared tariff heading, value or origin calls for the right to be heard, whereas a mere non-payment of declared duties does not.

Under Article 103 of the Union Customs Code, no customs debt may be notified after three years from the date on which it arose. That period is extended to at least five years where the debt results from an act that was liable to criminal judicial proceedings at the time it was committed, and Article L. 322-2 of the Customs Code sets this period at five years, interrupted by a report until the tenth year. The three-year period is also suspended during the time allowed to the importer to reply to the notice setting out the grounds for the envisaged notification. The Court of Cassation upheld a recovery notice concerning imports from 2013 notified in 2018, having noted that the facts characterised as a false declaration of tariff heading were liable to prosecution and that "the judgment finds that this offence is liable to criminal judicial proceedings" (our translation) (Cass. com., 28 May 2026, No. 25-14.078). The importer's appeal was dismissed. The limitation period is therefore checked declaration by declaration, by verifying the characterisation adopted by the administration.

No. The Court of Cassation quashed, in favour of the administration, a judgment that had held the debt time-barred for lack of criminal prosecution or conviction of the importer. It criticises the court of appeal for ruling in that way, "when it was for it to determine whether such an act had been committed, regardless of whether criminal proceedings had been brought against that company" (our translation) (Cass. com., 20 September 2023, No. 21-10.763). The judgment relies on the case law of the Court of Justice under which the characterisation of an act as liable to prosecution falls first to the customs authorities, subject to review by the court. This decision is unfavourable to operators. It means that the absence of criminal proceedings is not enough to rule out the longer period. The defence then turns on the characterisation itself: did the act complained of amount, at the time, to a punishable offence, and does the administration provide the material evidence of it? On the criminal side proper, the action is subject to limitation under separate rules, set out in Article L. 612-1 of the Customs Code, which must not be confused with the period for notifying the debt.

Yes, but an error on this point can be cured. Under the Community Customs Code, the Court of Cassation held that the simultaneity of entry in the accounts and communication is an irregularity vitiating the recovery notice. It also states that "the date of communication of the amount of the duties is that on which the investigation results notice, constituting communication of the amount of the duties, was dispatched" (our translation) (Cass. com., 6 November 2024, No. 23-12.486). In the same decision, it adds that "if this debt was entered in the accounts after the investigation results notice but before an act communicating it again to the debtor, such as an infringement notification report, the latter cures the communication of the customs debt to the debtor" (our translation) (same judgment). The appeal judgment that had annulled the notice was quashed in favour of the administration. This outcome applies to operations governed by the former Community Customs Code. For debts arising under the Union Customs Code, Articles 102, 104 and 105 lay down their own rules on notification and on the time limits for entry in the accounts, with no automatic transposition of this judgment. In both cases, it is in the importer's interest to obtain the date of entry in the accounts and comparing it with that of each act received.

The challenge is first addressed to the authority that issued the notice, within three years of its notification; the administration has six months to rule (Article L. 331-1 of the Customs Code). The importer may then bring the matter before the judicial court within two months of the reply or of the expiry of the six-month period (Article L. 332-2). The competent court is that of the place where the notice was issued or of the office that established the debt (Article L. 332-5). The Court of Cassation allows several successive claims: it holds that "debtors of customs duties are entitled to lodge several claims against an AMR until the expiry of the three-year period following its notification" (our translation) (Cass. com., 18 March 2020, No. 17-22.518). That judgment, delivered under the former Articles 346 and 347, quashed a decision that had declared a second claim inadmissible. It does not remove the need to prepare the first one carefully: a precise, quantified claim supported by documents shapes the whole of the dispute that follows.

Challenges to the recovery notice do not on their own suspend its enforcement (Article L. 323-7 of the Customs Code). The importer may, however, ask in its challenge to defer payment until the end of the dispute by offering guarantees (Article L. 331-2). That provision reserves Article 45 of the Union Customs Code: for import duties, a stay requires well-founded reasons to doubt that the decision complies with customs legislation, or a fear of irreparable damage, and is subject to a guarantee, unless a documented assessment shows that it would cause serious economic or social difficulties. Failing sufficient guarantees, the public accountant may, after one month, take protective measures; its decisions on guarantees are challenged by urgent application before the president of the judicial court within fifteen days (Article L. 332-3). The stay suspends the due date and the limitation period of the recovery action (Article L. 331-3). The Court of Cassation has held that registration of the Treasury lien remains possible during the stay: "when the customs administration registers the Treasury lien, which, being provided for by law, confers on it only a right of preference, it does not require a guarantee to be provided within the meaning of Article 89 of the Union Customs Code" (our translation) (Cass. com., 28 May 2026, No. 25-10.042). The importer's appeal was dismissed.

The Union Customs Code provides for repayment or remission of duties in particular in the event of an error by the competent authorities and on grounds of equity (Articles 116, 119 and 120). An error gives a right to remission where the importer could not reasonably have detected it and acted in good faith; equity requires special circumstances, with no manoeuvre or obvious negligence on the part of the debtor. The application is in principle filed within three years of notification of the debt (Article 121). Proof of diligence is decisive. In a case of disputed origin, the Paris Court of Appeal rejected the argument of an undetectable error raised against the recovery notice, noting that the importer, which had relied on the documents supplied by its counterparties, "has not shown that it carried out sufficient diligence to verify the origin and provenance of the products and cannot be regarded as having acted in good faith" (our translation) (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 10, 9 December 2024, No. 22/01266). The dismissal of the application for annulment was upheld, a decision unfavourable to the importer. The court did not, however, rule on remission itself, as no such request was made in the operative part of the submissions. An application for remission is therefore prepared with the checks actually made with the supplier during the audited period, and must be formulated expressly.

Where customs duties were levied in breach of Union law, the importer may obtain their refund with interest running from the date of payment. The Court of Cassation so held, ruling that the administration "was required to refund to that company the sums paid together with the interest that had accrued since the date of their payment" (our translation) (Cass. com., 24 June 2020, No. 18-10.535). The same decision is, however, unfavourable on limitation: it approves the court of appeal for holding that "notification by the customs administration of the reports it had drawn up did not interrupt the limitation period for the action for refund of customs duties" (our translation) (same judgment). An importer who considers that it has overpaid therefore cannot count on the administration's acts to preserve its own claim. It must file its refund application within the period laid down by the Union Customs Code, by an act that clearly shows its wish to obtain restitution, and keep proof of filing.

For duties and taxes recovered under the national customs code, the code provides for a reduction of late-payment interest on regularisation. It concerns the correction of errors or omissions in declarations filed within the time limits. It is 50% where the debtor corrects those declarations before any audit and before the reassessment period expires, and 30% where it asks to regularise during an audit, before notification of the information or of the proposed assessment, or within thirty days after it (Article L. 321-4 of the Customs Code). These reductions require payment in full of the duties, taxes and interest due, immediately or under a payment plan, and do not apply to an offence that excludes good faith. The administration may also grant full or partial remission of late-payment interest and surcharges, taking into account the debtor's economic and social situation, its good faith and the circumstances of the delay (Article L. 321-5). A regularisation does, however, acknowledge the error on the operations concerned. It is therefore decided only after checking the classification, value or origin at issue, and after measuring its effects on neighbouring operations not yet audited.