Import duty exemption under OPR requires prior export at authorised customs office

In its 15 April 2026 judgment in case T-589/24 (A-GmbH), the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) found that companies cannot benefit from partial customs duty relief under the outward processing regime if they export goods through an unauthorised customs office.

Facts of the case

Outward Processing Relief (OPR) is a customs procedure whereby EU goods are temporarily exported outside the EU for repair, processing, or treatment. Upon return to the EU, import duties are only payable on the added value (processing costs) in the third country, rather than at full value.

A customs authorisation is required for this purpose. The applicant for authorisation must specify the customs offices where they will declare the goods for export.

In this case, the goods were declared for export at a customs office that was not included in the authorisation.

Question referred to the General Court

Germany’s Federal Fiscal Court referred the following question to the General Court for a preliminary ruling: Can full or partial exemption from import duties in the context of OPR be granted if the goods were exported via a customs office that was not included in the customs authorisation?

Judgment of the General Court

The General Court ruled that full or partial exemption from import duties in the context of OPR may not be granted where the goods were exported via a customs office that was not included in the customs authorisation.

The specification of the customs offices is essential to verify the conditions of the OPR authorisation and to take appropriate measures, if necessary, at the time of import and after the processing operations, to ensure the identification of the goods. The designation of a customs office thus has a control function that is important for the proper conduct of the OPR procedure. Goods may, in the context of OPR, only be declared for export at the customs offices that were included in the customs authorisation. If this does not happen, the exemption upon import cannot be granted.

The taxpayer had hoped for the application of the substance over form doctrine, based on which a tax advantage (such as full or partial exemption from import duties) cannot be refused due to non-compliance with a purely formal requirement.

Our observations

The judgment demonstrates that strict compliance with the customs authorisation is preferred. However, in our view, this does not mean that every discrepancy with the provisions of the authorisation should lead to the refusal of the import exemption. The substance over form doctrine, which was developed by the CJEU, can and must always be invoked and weighed against the importance of the formal requirement at stake. In this case, the General Court ruled that the specification of the exit customs offices is too important to simply disregard.

Implications for businesses

This judgment underscores a critical principle: that the use of customs procedures must always be executed in strict accordance with the law and the agreements established with customs authorities. Compliance is a fundamental requirement that directly affects a business’s ability to benefit from customs reliefs and exemptions.

Non-compliance with these formal requirements, even if unintentional, may result in the loss of the benefits, the imposition of duties, and criminal prosecution. Proper structuring of customs procedures at the outset, proactive compliance management, and internal reviews of the use of customs procedures will help businesses mitigate risks and protect customs benefits.