On 4 March 2026, a trading company dealing in motor vehicle parts based in Gennevilliers receives a summons for the “notification of an official report of findings”. The investigation unit alleges an incorrect tariff classification of pressure sensors imported from Korea, declared under a heading at 2.7% instead of a heading at 4.5%, across two hundred and thirty declarations; the official report puts the evaded duties at 186,000 euros and refers to a contravention of false declaration as to tariff description. The manager signs, adding “disputed” by hand. He thinks he has done what matters.
He was wrong twice. A handwritten note does not amount to a challenge within the meaning of the texts, and this official report, notified before the time limit expired, has just interrupted the limitation period for the debt. This page explains what an official customs report (procès-verbal) is in law, what it proves, where its weaknesses lie and before which court it is fought, using the numbering of the Customs Code in force since 1 May 2026.
1. What an official customs report is, and what it is not
The Code distinguishes two documents. The seizure report is drawn up when officers record an offence and seize goods or documents; it must be drawn up on the spot, or at the latest immediately after the seized items have been transported and deposited (Art. L. 443-3, formerly Art. 324 to 327). The report of findings records the results of inspections, investigations and interviews (Art. L. 443-7, formerly Art. 334). It is this second document that closes most investigations into value, origin or tariff classification.
Neither is an administrative decision. The official report records; it neither assesses anything nor convicts anyone. The duties are then claimed by a notice of assessment (avis de mise en recouvrement, AMR) (Art. L. 323-6, formerly Art. 345), and penalties are imposed by the criminal court or settled by the administration. There is therefore no direct remedy against the official report itself, and an application against it before the administrative court would be bound to fail.
This does not mean the document has no effect. Its notification interrupts the administration’s recovery period (Art. L. 322-1 and L. 322-2), including for customs duties up to the tenth year where an act could give rise to criminal proceedings. Official reports that are conclusive until challenged by a claim of forgery (inscription de faux) also constitute a title for obtaining protective measures against persons criminally or civilly liable (Art. L. 444-3). A provisional judicial mortgage on the warehouse, a protective attachment of bank accounts: all of this can follow very soon after notification.
The official report is therefore an instrument of evidence, and it must be treated as such. The defence consists in reducing its probative force, identifying its defects and bringing the dispute before the court that will rule on it, at the right time.
2. Probative force: what the document proves, and to what extent
Everything depends on the number of officers. An official report drawn up by two officers of customs or of any other administration is conclusive, until challenged by a claim of forgery, as to the material findings it records, and only until proven otherwise as to the accuracy and sincerity of the statements it reports (Art. L. 444-1, formerly Art. 336). Drawn up by a single officer, it is conclusive until proven otherwise (Art. L. 444-2, formerly Art. 337).
The distinction between material findings and reported statements is the heart of the matter, and it is more favourable to the person liable than is often thought. What is material is what the officers saw, counted or weighed: the number of packages, the presence of a marking, the contents of a container. What they inferred is not material. The assertion that a sensor “falls under heading 9026” is not a finding but a legal classification; the valuation of a royalty, a calculation of value or the interpretation of a contract enjoy no particular probative force and may be freely disputed.
Statements taken in interview, for their part, are deemed accurate until proven otherwise. It is therefore possible to show that an employee expressed himself badly, that he had no authority to bind the company, or that his words were summarised inaccurately. The proof is difficult but possible; it is prepared with documents (emails, organisation charts, delegations of authority) far more than with belated witness statements.
The practical rule: before discussing the merits, reread the official report line by line and place each assertion in one of three categories. What is found, what is reported, what is concluded. A report of findings of a dozen pages generally contains fewer than twenty lines of genuine material findings.
3. Nullities: particulars required on pain of nullity
Article L. 444-6 (formerly Art. 338) is one of the most useful provisions of the new Code for the defence: official reports must comply, on pain of nullity, with Articles L. 443-1 and L. 443-3 to L. 443-7. Nullity is expressly attached by the text to failure to observe these formalities, which places the debate on more favourable ground than that of implied nullities under ordinary law.
For the report of findings, Article L. 443-7 requires in particular the identity and capacity of the reporting officers, the date and place of the inspection, the nature of the findings and of the information gathered, notice to the persons at whose premises the investigation is conducted of the date and place where the report is drawn up, with a formal summons to attend, and a statement of their presence or absence, while Article L. 443-3 requires, for the seizure report, the date and cause of the seizure, the nature and quantity of the items seized, the statement made to the person concerned, a record of that person’s presence or of the summons served to attend, the place where the report was drawn up and the time it was closed, and an indication that it was read to that person and that a copy was given, so that a document drafted at the office three weeks after the seizure, without summoning the person concerned, or which fails to state who kept the goods, carries within itself the ground for its own annulment, which the defence need only raise. It still has to be read.
The new Code adds a requirement that the former Code did not set out in these terms: where an official report records an offence, the right to remain silent must have been notified to the person concerned, and this must be stated in the report (last paragraph of Articles L. 443-3 and L. 443-7). Combined with Article L. 444-6, this rule makes the absence of that statement a ground of express statutory nullity. The provision matters all the more because the mixed chamber had accepted, under former Article 334, that officers may take statements outside the formal framework of the voluntary interview, subject only to respect for the rights of the defence (Cass. ch. mixte, 29 March 2024, no. 21-13.403, published in the Bulletin and the Report).
Does the failure to notify necessarily cause prejudice? As regards the right to remain silent, the lower courts answer yes, under former Article 67 F. The Paris Court of Appeal holds that failure to inform the person interviewed of the right to remain silent and, where applicable, of the right to be assisted by a lawyer “necessarily causes prejudice to that person”, and annuls the interview (Paris Court of Appeal, Division 5, Chamber 10, 22 September 2025, RG no. 22/14630); the Lyon Court of Appeal likewise annuls interviews “without any need to show prejudice” (Lyon Court of Appeal, 1st Civil Chamber A, 7 May 2026, RG no. 22/01739). The position is different for the secondary information required by Article 61-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: omission of the statement relating to legal advice available from a legal access centre does not entail nullity if the person liable was in any event assisted by specialist lawyers (Cass. com., 21 June 2023, no. 21-18.453, published in the Bulletin).
It remains to distinguish the nullity of the interview from the fate of the decision that follows it. The Cour de cassation sets aside the conviction or penalty only if it rests decisively on statements taken without notification: the Criminal Chamber refuses to quash where the irregular interview was neither the exclusive nor even the essential basis for the finding of guilt (Cass. crim., 28 May 2025, no. 24-81.295, in a customs matter; Cass. crim., 25 November 2025, no. 25-80.319, published in the Bulletin), and the Commercial Chamber has adopted the same approach in disciplinary matters (Cass. com., 10 June 2026, no. 25-11.754, published in the Bulletin). The Paris Court of Appeal, moreover, upheld the part of the official report recording findings separate from the annulled interview. Our reading, in one sentence: the interview falls without any need to prove prejudice; the reassessment or conviction falls only if it depends on it. No decision has yet applied Articles L. 443-3 and L. 443-7, but the transposition of this case law to the new text, which in addition provides for nullity in Article L. 444-6, appears very likely.
As to the scope of nullity, it removes the evidence contained in the annulled document; the annulment of subsequent acts depends on the link connecting them to the defective act. It does not, however, extinguish the customs debt itself if the administration can establish its existence through other documents, declarations or commercial records. The most common mistake is to stake everything on a formal nullity in a case where the debt is proven by the importer’s own declarations.
4. The claim of forgery: a narrow procedure, to be used sparingly
Where the official report is conclusive until challenged by a claim of forgery, only this procedure allows the material findings to be disputed. It is subject to strict formalities. The claimant makes a written declaration, in person or through an agent holding a special power of attorney executed before a notary, no later than the date stated in the summons to appear before the court hearing the offence; he must then, on pain of forfeiture, file with the court registry within three days the grounds of forgery and the names and capacities of the witnesses he intends to call (Art. L. 444-8). Failure to comply with these formalities renders the claim of forgery void.
Three days. A notarised power of attorney. A declaration made before the hearing. The procedure was not designed to be used without preparation, and it is understandable that it is rare.
Nor is it always necessary. Since the enhanced probative force covers only material findings, most useful challenges (tariff classification, value, origin, interpretation of a document) fall within ordinary argument and require no claim of forgery. We recommend it only where a decisive material fact is inaccurate and can be shown to be so: a container described as sealed that was not, a quantity miscounted, a presence wrongly recorded.
For official reports that are conclusive until proven otherwise, the person prosecuted may ask to adduce that proof; if the court agrees, it adjourns the case for at least fifteen days, and the list of witnesses must be filed with the registry within three clear days of the adjourned hearing (Art. L. 444-9).
5. Where to defend: the criminal court, or the court ruling on the debt
The official report in fact opens two sets of proceedings, which may coexist and must not be confused.
The first concerns penalties. The action for the application of criminal penalties belongs to the public prosecutor; the action for the application of tax penalties, that is to say customs fines and confiscations, belongs to the administration, the prosecutor being able to bring it alongside the public prosecution (Art. L. 611-1, formerly Art. 343). Customs contraventions, treated as fifth-class contraventions (Art. L. 515-1), fall within the jurisdiction of the police court (tribunal de police); délits fall within that of the criminal court (tribunal correctionnel). It is before that court that the nullities of the official report and its probative force are argued. The action is time-barred in accordance with Articles 8 to 9-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the period under Article 9, applicable to contraventions, being extended to three years (Art. L. 612-1, formerly Art. 351).
The second concerns the debt. Duties are recovered by a notice of assessment, which the person liable challenges before the authority that issued it within three years of its notification (Art. L. 331-1, formerly Art. 346). The regional director of customs, designated by Article R. 331-1, rules within six months; the person liable may then bring proceedings before the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) within two months of the reply or of the expiry of that period (Art. L. 332-2, formerly Art. 347). The competent court is that of the place where the notice was issued or of the office where the claim was established (Art. L. 332-5).
The notice of assessment is enforceable, and the challenge does not suspend its enforcement (Art. L. 323-7). The person liable may ask to defer payment until the outcome of the dispute, provided this is stated in the challenge and security is offered (guarantee, deposit, mortgage, pledge), which may be waived where it would cause serious economic or social difficulties (Art. L. 331-2 and R. 331-2). Where the public accountant refuses the security offered, that decision may be referred, within fifteen days, to the president of the judicial court sitting in summary proceedings (Art. L. 332-3).
6. The substantive arguments that bring official reports down
The court does not stop at form. Three substantive grounds recur in most of the cases we handle.
First, the right to be heard. Before any adverse decision, the person must have been able to make known his or her point of view on the grounds the administration intends to rely on (Art. 22(6) of the Union Customs Code; Art. L. 311-1, formerly Art. 67 A). The Court of Justice leaves it to national law to determine the consequences of a breach of that right, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, and accepts that the national court may take into account the fact that such a breach leads to annulment of the decision only if, had it not been for that irregularity, the procedure could have resulted in a different outcome (CJEU, 3 July 2014, Kamino International Logistics and Datema Hellmann, C-129/13 and C-130/13). The Cour de cassation, for its part, requires that the person liable have been informed of the right to access the documents on which the administration relies, and checks that this information was in fact given before upholding or rejecting the complaint (Cass. com., 17 June 2026, no. 25-10.751, published in the Bulletin). The argument remains alive; it requires showing concretely what one would have said and how that would have changed the outcome.
Second, legal classification. A tariff classification is argued with the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System, classification regulations and Binding Tariff Information (BTI) issued for comparable products; a value, with Articles 70 to 74 of the Union Customs Code; an origin, with the list rules of the applicable protocol. These are questions of law, on which the official report enjoys no presumption.
Finally, limitation. It is checked declaration by declaration, distinguishing customs duties, subject to the period in Article 103 of the Union Customs Code, from other charges, subject to Article L. 322-1. It is not unusual for the oldest operations covered by an official report spanning three years to be time-barred, for want of an interruptive act notified in time.
Our conviction, to conclude, fits in two sentences. An official report is read with a red pen and the Code open, before any reply. Someone who signs “disputed” at the bottom of a document he has not read has disputed nothing at all.
The firm analyses reports of findings and seizure reports, prepares challenges to notices of assessment and conducts the defence before the police court, the criminal court and the judicial court. Hervé Guyader is co-author of the Guide Lamy des procédures douanières, currently being updated following the recodification. See the page customs lawyer in Paris, our analysis on challenging a notice of assessment, or contact the firm, with a reply within 24 business hours.
If the matter turns into a reassessment, see our page on challenging a French customs reassessment.
This analysis is part of the firm’s work in international trade law.
Frequently asked questions
Can I refuse to sign an official customs report?
Yes. Refusing to sign is not an offence; it is simply noted in the document, which retains its probative force. Signing does not amount to admitting the offence, but it makes it harder to argue later that your words were misreported. The safest course is to reread the whole document, have your specific observations recorded before signing, and ask for a copy. The statements reported in an official report are deemed accurate until proven otherwise (Art. L. 444-1 of the Customs Code).
What is the time limit for a challenge after an official customs report?
The official report itself is not challenged within a specific time limit. The debt it supports is claimed by a notice of assessment, which may be challenged within three years of its notification before the authority that issued it, then before the judicial court within two months of the regional director’s reply or of the expiry of the six-month period available to the director (Art. L. 331-1, L. 332-2 and R. 331-1 of the Customs Code). Penalties are argued before the criminal court seised of the case.
Is an official report that does not mention the right to remain silent void?
Since 1 May 2026, the Code provides that where an official report records an offence, the right to remain silent must have been notified to the person and stated in the document (Art. L. 443-3 and L. 443-7), and that these provisions are prescribed on pain of nullity (Art. L. 444-6). The absence of that statement is therefore a ground of express statutory nullity. Under former Article 67 F, the courts of appeal hold that this failure necessarily causes prejudice and annul the interview (Paris Court of Appeal, 22 September 2025, RG no. 22/14630; Lyon Court of Appeal, 7 May 2026, RG no. 22/01739). The Cour de cassation, however, sets aside the conviction only if it rests decisively on the irregular interview (Cass. crim., 28 May 2025, no. 24-81.295). Nullity affects the evidence, not necessarily the debt if it is established by other means.
Must the notice of assessment be paid while it is being challenged?
In principle yes: the challenge does not suspend enforcement (Art. L. 323-7 of the Customs Code). You may, however, ask in your challenge to defer payment until the outcome of the dispute by offering security, in particular a guarantee or a deposit (Art. L. 331-2 and R. 331-2). The public accountant may require it within one month; that decision may be challenged within fifteen days before the president of the judicial court sitting in summary proceedings (Art. L. 332-3).
For more on the substance, our analyses also cover challenging a notice of assessment and six litigation situations faced by exporters.
See also, on the neighbouring stages: limitation of the customs debt; responding to the adversarial exchange within thirty days; repayment and remission of customs duties.
On the same litigation path, regarding the inspection and the interview: Customs inspection at your company: what to do as soon as the officers arrive; regarding penalties and settlement: Customs fines: challenge them in court or settle with the administration; regarding detained goods: Goods seized by customs: how to obtain release.
References: Customs Code, Art. L. 311-1, L. 322-1, L. 322-2, L. 323-6, L. 323-7, L. 331-1, L. 331-2, L. 332-2, L. 332-3, L. 332-5, L. 443-3, L. 443-7, L. 444-1, L. 444-2, L. 444-3, L. 444-6, L. 444-8, L. 444-9, L. 515-1, L. 611-1, L. 612-1, R. 331-1, R. 331-2, in force since 1 May 2026; Union Customs Code (Regulation (EU) No 952/2013), Art. 22(6), Art. 70 to 74, Art. 103; Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 8 to 9-3; CJEU, 3 July 2014, Kamino International Logistics and Datema Hellmann, joined cases C-129/13 and C-130/13; Cass. com., 17 June 2026, no. 25-10.751, published in the Bulletin; Cass. ch. mixte, 29 March 2024, no. 21-13.403, published in the Bulletin and the Report; Cass. crim., 28 May 2025, no. 24-81.295; Cass. crim., 25 November 2025, no. 25-80.319, published in the Bulletin; Lyon Court of Appeal, 1st Civil Chamber A, 7 May 2026, RG no. 22/01739; Paris Court of Appeal, Division 5, Chamber 10, 22 September 2025, RG no. 22/14630; Cass. com., 21 June 2023, no. 21-18.453, published in the Bulletin; Cass. com., 10 June 2026, no. 25-11.754, published in the Bulletin; Doctrine: Guide Lamy des procédures douanières, co-authored by Hervé Guyader.