On 3 March 2026, a fish canner in Boulogne-sur-Mer receives a notice of assessment (avis de mise en recouvrement, AMR) for 318,000 euros. For two years, it imported fish fillets accompanied by certificates of origin issued by the authorities of the exporting country, which entitled it to a zero rate of duty. A verification mission concluded that the fishing vessels did not meet the origin conditions, and the third-country authorities withdrew their certificates. On the merits, there is nothing to argue. The managing director, who had requested and obtained each certificate in due form, wonders whether he must pay for an error that is not his.
The answer is not obvious. It is not to be found in challenging the notice of assessment. It lies in a separate procedure, often overlooked: the application for remission of duties. This page explains the four grounds provided for by the Union Customs Code, the conditions for each, the time limits and how to present the application. It also explains, without beating about the bush, why most applications based on equity fail.
1. Repayment, remission: the common rules
Terminology first. Repayment concerns duties already paid; remission waives payment of duties notified but not yet paid. Article 116(1) of the Union Customs Code lists four grounds: overcharged amounts, defective goods or goods not complying with the terms of the contract, error by the competent authorities and equity. It adds a special case: repayment of duties paid where the customs declaration is invalidated.
Some rules apply to all grounds. The authorities do not repay or remit an amount below 10 euros, unless the person concerned expressly requests it (Art. 116(2)). They must repay or remit of their own motion where they themselves establish, within the periods of Article 121, that an amount may be repaid or remitted under Articles 117, 119 or 120 (Art. 116(4)). They rarely do so.
There are two limits, however. No repayment or remission is granted where the situation that led to notification of the debt results from deception by the debtor (Art. 116(5)). And repayment does not bear interest, unless the decision granting it is not implemented within three months (Art. 116(6)). A company that has paid wrongly therefore finances the administration for the entire duration of the procedure. It is better to act quickly.
Finally, a remission granted in error may be called into question: the original debt is reinstated, to the extent that it is not time-barred (Art. 116(7)), and the limitation period is then deemed to have been suspended between the filing of the application and the decision (Art. 103(4)).
2. Overcharged amounts: the most useful ground
Article 117 covers the case where the amount of the debt initially notified exceeds the amount due. This is the most common ground and by far the most useful in practice, because it covers all errors made to the importer’s detriment, whether they come from the importer itself, its customs broker or poorly configured clearance software, and it requires neither particular good faith, nor exceptional circumstances, nor any involvement of the Commission, but only proof that the amount notified exceeded the amount legally due: a tariff heading taxed more heavily than the correct one, a customs value inflated by costs that should not have been included, an anti-dumping duty applied to a manufacturer that was exempt, a tariff preference forgotten at the time of clearance.
This last case follows a special rule. Where the application is based on a reduced or zero rate applicable on the date of the declaration under a tariff quota, a ceiling or another preferential arrangement, repayment is granted only if, on the date the application is filed with the necessary documents, the quota has not been exhausted or the normal rate of duty has not been reintroduced (Art. 117(2)). For a quota, every week counts, sometimes every day.
The starting point of the time limit deserves attention. Where the amount of duty corresponds to the amount in the declaration, release of the goods constitutes notification of the debt (Art. 102(2)). The three-year period for claiming repayment of an overpayment therefore runs, for an ordinary importation, from release. A company that discovers in 2026 that it has been overpaying since 2021 will recover only the last three years.
Our advice, which is nothing original but which few companies follow, fits in one sentence. A tariff audit of one’s own imports, carried out every two or three years by someone who did not prepare the declarations, almost always yields more than it costs, because classification and valuation errors cut both ways and the administration looks only for those that work in its favour.
3. Defective or non-compliant goods
Article 118 allows repayment or remission where the goods have been rejected by the importer because, at the time of release, they were defective or did not comply with the terms of the contract. Goods damaged before release are treated as defective goods.
The conditions are strict. The goods must not have been used, except to the extent that initial use was necessary to establish the defect, and they must be taken out of the customs territory of the Union (Art. 118(2)). At the request of the person concerned, exit may be replaced by placing the goods under inward processing, including for destruction, external transit, customs warehousing or a free zone (Art. 118(4)). The text excludes repayment, however, where the defect was taken into account in the price, where the goods were sold after the defect was discovered, or where they had been placed under a testing arrangement that would normally have revealed it (Art. 118(3)). The time limit is short: one year from notification of the debt (Art. 121(1)(b)).
Everything turns on proof. A dated report of non-conformity, reservations made to the carrier, correspondence with the supplier, formal rejection of the goods, re-export documents: without these documents, gathered at the time and not reconstructed a year later, the application has little chance.
4. Error by the authorities: the certificate of origin route
Article 119 covers a situation different from the previous ones. The amount initially notified was lower than the amount due as a result of an error by the competent authorities, and the administration then claims the difference. Repayment or remission is granted if the debtor could not reasonably have detected that error and acted in good faith (Art. 119(1)). The two conditions are cumulative, and the administration never fails to dispute the second once the first is established.
Paragraph 3 contains the rule most useful to importers. Where preferential treatment is based on a system of administrative cooperation with the authorities of a third country, the issue by those authorities of a certificate that proves to be incorrect constitutes an error that could not reasonably have been detected. The text nevertheless lays down an exception: there is no error if the incorrect certificate results from an incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporter, unless it is evident that the issuing authorities were aware or should have been aware that the goods did not satisfy the conditions.
Good faith must be proved. The debtor is considered to be in good faith if it can demonstrate that, during the period of the trading operations concerned, it took due care to ensure that all the conditions for preferential treatment were fulfilled. It cannot rely on good faith if the Commission has published a notice in the Official Journal stating that there are grounds for doubt concerning the proper application of the preferential arrangements by the beneficiary country. Checking such notices is part of the diligence expected of a regular importer.
This is where the Boulogne-sur-Mer case will be decided. If the third-country authorities issued the certificates knowing, or when they should have known, the situation of the vessels, the error is attributable to them and remission is possible. If the certificates were based on false statements by the exporter that the authorities had no way of detecting, remission is excluded and the debt remains due. Everything depends on the mission report and the exchanges between administrations, which must be obtained and read closely.
5. Equity: a narrow route, to be taken only with a strong file
Article 120 provides for repayment or remission in the interest of equity where the debt was incurred in special circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the debtor. Special circumstances are deemed to exist where it is clear from the circumstances of the case that the debtor is in an exceptional situation as compared with other operators engaged in the same business, and that, in the absence of such circumstances, it would not have suffered disadvantage by the collection of the duty (Art. 120(2)).
The Cour de cassation points out that these provisions must be interpreted strictly (Cass. com., 24 May 2017, no. 15-14.696, published), in line with the case law of the Court of Justice that it cites (ECJ, British American Tobacco, C-222/01; Söhl & Söhlke, C-48/98). Ordinary commercial risk is not a special circumstance. Nor, in itself, is the fact that a supplier deceived its customer, since every importer runs that risk. An application that merely relies on good faith and the high amount of duties is bound to fail. It almost always does.
Our position is clear, and it often disappoints. Equity is not a fallback remedy for cases lost on the merits. It is useful where the company can show something that genuinely distinguishes it from its competitors: conduct by the administration itself, a failure by the Commission, a situation created by a public authority and not by the market. Without such a factor, it is better to devote the energy of the file to challenging the debt or to Article 119.
Where the national authorities consider that remission or repayment under Article 119 or Article 120 should be granted, the file is transmitted to the Commission, which decides, in several cases: failure by the Commission itself, an error committed by it, circumstances connected with a Union investigation, or an amount of 500,000 euros or more for one or more operations (Art. 116(3)). There is no transmission if the Commission has already ruled, or is already dealing with, a case involving comparable issues of fact and law. For large cases, the procedure therefore takes considerably longer. The initial application determines everything.
6. Time limits and procedure: the application, the decision, the court
Applications are filed with the customs authorities within three years of notification of the debt for overcharged amounts, error by the authorities and equity, and within one year for defective goods (Art. 121(1)). This period is extended if the applicant proves that it was prevented from acting by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure. It is suspended where an appeal against notification of the debt has been lodged under Article 44, for the duration of that appeal (Art. 121(3)).
A procedural rule protects an applicant that relied on the wrong ground. Where the authorities cannot grant repayment or remission on the basis of the ground relied on, they must examine the application in the light of the other grounds of Article 116 (Art. 121(2)). It remains prudent to rely from the outset, in the alternative, on all plausible grounds and to produce the corresponding documents, because the obligation to examine of their own motion does not guarantee that the administration will itself look for the necessary facts, the application will be handled by a department that has neither the time nor the inclination to reconstruct the file on the applicant’s behalf, and a ground rejected for lack of documents at the administrative stage is much harder to defend before the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire), where the applicant will be criticised for not having seriously pursued it in good time. Leave nothing out. The Cour de cassation, moreover, pays close attention to the formal requirements of applications (Cass. com., 15 December 2021, no. 19-16.350, published).
An adverse decision must state reasons and refer to the right of appeal (Art. 22(7)). Disputes concerning applications for repayment or remission under Article 116 are brought before the judicial court for the place where the notice of assessment was issued or the office where the claim was established (Art. L. 332-5 of the Customs Code). There is no guarantee that an application for remission suspends recovery; it is prudent, where appropriate, to challenge the notice of assessment in parallel and to request a stay of payment against security (Art. L. 331-1 and L. 331-2).
Different rules apply to national charges. For duties and taxes other than the Union’s own resources, a person who paid them unduly may obtain repayment, unless they were passed on to the purchaser (Art. L. 331-6). Claims for repayment are submitted within the time limits set by decree; where the charge was based on a rule held to be contrary to a higher-ranking norm, the action may cover only the period after 1 January of the second year preceding the decision establishing that incompatibility (Art. L. 321-10). The administration rules within four months, and proceedings before the judicial court must be brought within three months of its decision or its silence (Art. R. 321-2).
The firm prepares and pursues applications for repayment and remission, including before the Commission, and conducts litigation before the judicial court. Hervé Guyader is co-author of the Guide Lamy des procédures douanières, whose update following the recodification of 1 May 2026 is under way. For an overview of all our work, see our page customs lawyer in Paris; for a current matter, contact the firm, with a reply within 24 business hours.
On the same path: limitation of the customs debt; responding to the adversarial exchange within thirty days; Binding Tariff Information and challenging the classification; challenging an official customs report.
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
What is the difference between repayment and remission of customs duties?
Repayment returns duties already paid; remission waives payment of duties notified but not yet paid. Both follow the same grounds and the same time limits (Art. 116 to 121 of the Union Customs Code). No repayment or remission is granted where the debt results from deception by the debtor.
What is the time limit for claiming repayment of overpaid duties?
Three years from notification of the debt (Art. 121(1)(a) of the Union Customs Code). For an ordinary declaration, release constitutes notification where the amount corresponds to the amount declared (Art. 102(2)). The time limit is one year for goods that are defective or do not comply with the terms of the contract.
Does an invalidated certificate of origin give a right to remission?
Sometimes. An incorrect certificate issued by the authorities of a third country constitutes an error that could not be detected (Art. 119(3)), unless it results from an incorrect account of the facts by the exporter that those authorities could not detect. The importer must also prove its good faith and due care, and cannot rely on them if the Commission has published a notice of grounds for doubt.
Is remission on grounds of equity easy to obtain?
No. It requires an exceptional situation compared with other operators in the same sector and the absence of any deception or obvious negligence (Art. 120). The Cour de cassation interprets it strictly (Cass. com., 24 May 2017, no. 15-14.696). Ordinary commercial risk or deception by a supplier is not sufficient in itself.
Before which court is a refusal of repayment challenged?
Before the judicial court for the place where the notice of assessment was issued or the office where the claim was established (Art. L. 332-5 of the Customs Code). The decision refusing repayment must state reasons and refer to the right of appeal (Art. 22(7) of the Union Customs Code).
References: Union Customs Code (Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of 9 October 2013), Art. 22(7), Art. 44, Art. 102(2), Art. 103(4), Art. 116 to 121; Customs Code, Art. L. 321-10, L. 331-1, L. 331-2, L. 331-6, L. 332-5, R. 321-2, in force since 1 May 2026 (Ordinance No. 2026-265 and Decree No. 2026-266 of 8 April 2026); ECJ, British American Tobacco, C-222/01; ECJ, Söhl & Söhlke, C-48/98 (cited by Cass. com., 24 May 2017); Cass. com., 24 May 2017, no. 15-14.696, published in the Bulletin; Cass. com., 15 December 2021, no. 19-16.350, published in the Bulletin; Doctrine: Guide Lamy des procédures douanières, Wolters Kluwer, co-authored by Hervé Guyader (update in progress).