A customs assessment is challenged in two stages, and the references have changed: Ordinance No 2026-265 of 8 April 2026 recodified the French Customs Code with effect from 1 May 2026, so that the former Articles 345 and following have become Articles L. 323-6 and following. The challenge to the debt is first addressed to the authority which issued the notice of recovery, within three years of its notification; the administration decides within six months (Article L. 331-1). The debtor may then bring the matter before the judicial court within two months of the reply or, failing a reply, of the expiry of the six-month period (Article L. 332-2). The challenge does not suspend enforcement of the notice (Article L. 323-7): to avoid paying immediately, deferral must be requested and guarantees provided (Article L. 331-2). Upstream, the administration must have communicated its reasons and allowed thirty days for observations.
A post-clearance control rarely produces a pleasant surprise. A tariff classification reopened across three years of imports, a preferential origin refused for want of proof, a customs value increased by adding back royalties: the bill adds duties, import VAT, late interest and sometimes a fine, and the notice of recovery arrives with its payment deadlines. What follows sets out the chronology of the procedure, the points on which an assessment can usefully be challenged, and how to avoid paying before the dispute is resolved.
New numbering: what changed on 1 May 2026
The Customs Code was recodified by Ordinance No 2026-265 of 8 April 2026, in force since 1 May 2026. Practitioners working from older precedents must update their references: the notice of recovery, formerly governed by Article 345, is now Article L. 323-6; the challenge, formerly Article 346, is Article L. 331-1; the application to the court, formerly Article 347, is Article L. 332-2; deferral of payment, formerly Article 348, is Article L. 331-2.
A challenge still citing the old articles is not void for that reason, but it signals a file that has not been prepared and forgoes the benefit of the clarifications the recodification brought, notably on time limits. Anyone holding a notice issued before May 2026 should also check which numbering the administration itself used, since the transition produced documents mixing both.
Before the notice: the adversarial procedure and the thirty days
An assessment does not begin with the notice of recovery but with the communication of reasons. Where the debtor asks for a written communication, the administration hands him against signature, or sends him by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt or electronically, a reasoned proposed assessment enabling him to submit observations or to indicate his acceptance within thirty days of receipt (Article L. 311-7). Following those observations, or in the absence of a reply at the expiry of that period, the administration takes its decision, and where it rejects the observations its reply must state reasons (Article L. 311-8). Where the communication was oral, it is recorded so as to establish, unless proved otherwise, that the debtor was able to make his observations and was informed of the possibility of asking for a written communication (Article L. 311-6).
Those thirty days are the most useful moment in the whole procedure, and the one companies most neglect. A reasoned reply, with the technical documents attached, binding tariff information, data sheets, supplier attestations, proofs of origin, contracts and invoices supporting the value, removes part of the heads of assessment before they are ever put into recovery. After that stage the burden of challenging becomes heavier and the balance of power reverses. Note that the administration’s recovery period is suspended during this phase, from the sending or communication of the reasons until the debtor’s observations and at the latest until the thirty days expire (Article L. 311-9): asking for the period therefore buys no limitation.
The recovery period: three years, with exceptions
Subject to the provisions of the Union Customs Code, the administration’s right of recovery is exercised for three years from the date of the chargeable event (Article L. 322-1). That period is suspended from receipt of a challenge lodged under Article L. 331-1 until the reply of the regional customs director or, where applicable, until a judicial decision has become final, and it is interrupted by the notification of an official report.
Checking limitation is the first thing to do on receiving a notice: an assessment covering declarations more than three years old must be examined closely, the administration frequently relying on an interruption by an official report whose date and regularity have to be verified. The Union Customs Code moreover extends the period where the customs debt results from an act liable to criminal prosecution, which is why the characterisation retained by the administration is never a secondary question.
The notice of recovery and how it is challenged
Where debts established and recovered by the customs administration have not been paid by the due date, a notice of recovery is notified to the debtor (Article L. 323-6). The notice must state the chargeable event, the nature and amount of the debt and the elements of its calculation (Article R. 323-2); it is issued and rendered enforceable by the public accountant or, under his authority, by an officer of category A or B (Article D. 323-3). A notice from which it is impossible to understand how the amount was calculated is challengeable on that ground alone, and the duty to state reasons is one of the most frequently useful arguments.
The challenge is addressed to the authority which issued the notice within three years of its notification, and the competent authority decides within six months of receiving it (Article L. 331-1). That three-year period, longer than in tax matters, should not encourage delay: evidence fades, interest runs and the commercial position deteriorates. In practice the challenge is lodged within weeks of the notice. It must be complete, because it fixes the framework of the later debate: procedural grounds, being reasons, the signatory’s authority, respect for the adversarial procedure and limitation; and substantive grounds, being tariff classification, origin, customs value, exemptions and special procedures. Within two months of receiving the administration’s reply or, failing a reply, of the expiry of the six months, the debtor may apply to the judicial court, and that application suspends limitation of the enforcement action until a decision has become final (Article L. 332-2). Those two months are short and are counted carefully: they are the most frequent cause of foreclosure in customs files.
To pay or not to pay: deferral against guarantees
Appeals do not suspend enforcement of the notice of recovery (Article L. 323-7). To avoid paying a contested debt immediately, the debtor must request deferral in his challenge: he is then authorised to defer payment until the dispute is resolved, provided the challenge is accompanied by guarantees securing recovery (Article L. 331-2). Failing guarantees, or where those offered are held insufficient, the public accountant requires them to be provided within one month, at the expiry of which he may take protective measures. The text contains a useful safety valve: guarantees may be dispensed with where, given the debtor’s situation, they would be liable to cause serious economic or social difficulties. That is an argument to be documented with figures, for companies whose cash position would not support a bank guarantee for the assessed amount.
Decisions of the accountant relating to guarantees are challenged before the president of the judicial court sitting in summary proceedings, within fifteen days of notification of his reply or of the expiry of the one-month period, the president himself deciding within one month, with an appeal available within fifteen days (Article L. 332-3). The same provision allows an application to limit or lift protective measures already taken. Those fifteen-day periods are mandatory and form, with the two months for applying to the court, the critical calendar of the file.
Where a customs dispute is won
Four grounds dominate. Tariff classification: the heading retained by the administration is argued against the general rules of interpretation, the section and chapter notes, the explanatory notes and, where relevant, binding tariff information obtained by the debtor or by a competitor; the stake is often several points of duty applied to three years of imports. Origin: non-preferential origin, which drives trade defence measures, and preferential origin, which requires formal proofs whose absence or irregularity justifies the assessment on its own, subject to good faith within the strict conditions of Union law. Customs value: the adding back of royalties, of buying commissions recharacterised, of free-of-charge supplies or of indirect payments, which produces technical arguments about the transaction value. And special procedures and exemptions, whose benefit is refused for failure to comply with a formal condition.
To these are added the procedural grounds, which are not secondary: absence or insufficiency of reasons in the proposed assessment or in the notice, failure to observe the thirty-day period, an unreasoned rejection of the observations, lack of authority of the signatory, and limitation of the right of recovery. An irregular procedure may defeat the assessment regardless of whether it was well founded on the merits.
Fines and the criminal dimension
A purely fiscal assessment is sometimes accompanied by a customs criminal prosecution, which follows different rules and different time limits: the action to punish customs offences is time-barred under the conditions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the period of Article 9 of that code being extended to three years (Article L. 612-1 of the Customs Code). The administration has a power to settle whose merits must be weighed case by case: a settlement ends the dispute but amounts to an acknowledgement and entails a waiver of the right to contest.
That trade-off is the real decision in most files. A settlement negotiated early may cost less than three years of litigation and preserve the relationship with the administration, but it closes the door on arguments that might have defeated the whole assessment, and it leaves a trace that weighs on the next control. It should therefore be evaluated only once the strength of the procedural and substantive grounds has been assessed, not on the first day out of a wish for peace.
What the firm does, and within what time
The firm acts from the proposed assessment, which is where most of the value is created: it prepares the observations within the thirty days, assembles the technical file, and identifies at that stage the heads of assessment that will not survive. It then drafts the challenge under Article L. 331-1, requests deferral of payment and negotiates the guarantees, including the dispensation where the company’s cash position justifies it.
If the administration rejects the challenge or does not reply, it brings the matter before the judicial court within the two-month period, and challenges the accountant’s decisions on guarantees in summary proceedings within fifteen days where necessary. Where a criminal dimension appears, it acts on that footing as well and assesses whether a settlement is in the company’s interest. A file received with the notice, the declarations and the control correspondence can normally be assessed within a few days, which is what the two-month deadline requires.
You have received a proposed assessment or a notice of recovery? The thirty days and then the two months are short, and the deferral of payment is requested in the challenge itself, not afterwards.
Frequently asked questions
Within what time must a customs notice of recovery be challenged?
Within three years of its notification, by a challenge addressed to the authority which issued it, under Article L. 331-1 of the Customs Code. The administration then has six months to decide. Within two months of its reply, or of the expiry of those six months if it does not reply, the debtor may apply to the judicial court under Article L. 332-2. In practice the challenge should be lodged within weeks, not years.
Does a challenge suspend the obligation to pay?
No. Article L. 323-7 provides that appeals do not suspend enforcement of the notice of recovery. Deferral of payment until the dispute is resolved must be requested in the challenge itself and requires guarantees securing recovery (Article L. 331-2). Guarantees may be dispensed with where, given the debtor’s situation, they would cause serious economic or social difficulties, which is an argument to be documented with figures.
How many years can the administration reassess?
Three years from the chargeable event under Article L. 322-1, subject to the Union Customs Code. The period is suspended from receipt of a challenge until the regional director’s reply or a final judicial decision, and is interrupted by the notification of an official report. The Union Customs Code extends it where the debt results from an act liable to criminal prosecution, so the characterisation retained is never a secondary question.
Is there a right to be heard before the assessment?
Yes. Article L. 311-7 requires a reasoned proposed assessment allowing observations or acceptance within thirty days of receipt, and Article L. 311-8 requires the administration to give reasons where it rejects those observations. An oral communication must be recorded under Article L. 311-6. Failure to observe these requirements is a procedural ground capable of defeating the assessment independently of its merits.
Do the old Articles 345 and following of the Customs Code still exist?
No. Ordinance No 2026-265 of 8 April 2026, in force since 1 May 2026, recodified the Customs Code. Article 345 became Article L. 323-6, Article 346 became Article L. 331-1, Article 347 became Article L. 332-2 and Article 348 became Article L. 331-2. A challenge citing the old numbering is not void, but it signals a file prepared from outdated precedents.
Further reading: origin of goods and customs duties, Incoterms 2020 and the transfer of risk, sanctions against Russia.
Written by Hervé Guyader, avocat at the Paris Bar, doctor of law. This content is general information and is no substitute for advice on your own matter.