The origin of goods is neither the country the truck left from nor the one shown on the invoice. Customs law knows two distinct origins: non-preferential origin, which drives the tariff and anti-dumping duties, and preferential origin, which opens a reduced rate under an agreement. They follow different rules, the same goods may fall under each separately, and an assessment can reach back three years, extended to ten where a criminal characterisation is retained.
A French importer has been buying metal parts for six years from a supplier established in a South-East Asian country, with certificates of origin in support, and claims a preferential rate accordingly. A post-clearance control reveals that the parts are in fact machined elsewhere and merely assembled and packed at the supplier’s premises. Two consequences arrive together: the preference is refused, and the real non-preferential origin triggers an anti-dumping duty. The bill covers three years of flows and lands on the importer, not the supplier.
Two origins that never merge
Customs law knows two notions of origin, governed by different rules and serving different purposes. Non-preferential origin, governed by Articles 59 to 61 of the Union Customs Code, serves to apply the common customs tariff, commercial policy measures such as anti-dumping duties, quotas and embargoes, and the marking rules. Preferential origin, covered by Article 64, serves only to obtain a reduced or nil rate under a trade agreement or a unilateral scheme.
The practical consequence is that the same goods may have two different origins without the slightest contradiction. A product may be of Chinese non-preferential origin, and therefore subject to an anti-dumping duty, while enjoying no preference at all; conversely, a product may satisfy the preferential rules of an agreement without that saying anything whatever about its non-preferential origin. The most expensive files almost all arise from confusing these two planes.
How non-preferential origin is acquired
Article 60 lays down two rules. Goods wholly obtained in a single country or territory are originating in that country. Goods whose production involved more than one country are deemed to originate in the country where they underwent their last substantial, economically justified processing or working, in an undertaking equipped for that purpose, resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of manufacture.
Every term of that formula is a point of litigation. The processing must be substantial, which excludes simple assembly, packing, labelling or sorting. It must be economically justified, a condition aimed directly at arrangements consisting in routing goods through a third country to change their declared origin. The list rules annexed to the delegated regulation of 2015 specify product by product what is required, most often by a change of tariff heading or a value-added threshold. Relying on a general impression, without going to the list rule applicable to the tariff code concerned, protects against nothing.
Preferential origin: REX, EUR.1, cumulation and non-manipulation
Preferential origin is proved by documents whose form varies with the agreement: a movement certificate EUR.1 or EUR-MED endorsed by the authorities of the exporting country, or a statement on origin made out by the exporter himself. Recent schemes have generalised self-certification by an exporter registered in the REX system, registration becoming a condition of validity of the statement above low-value consignments. A EUR.1 certificate also has a limited period of validity, generally four months, which is enough to lose the preference where the documentary file follows the physical flow late.
Two further rules defeat otherwise sound files. The cumulation rules, which allow materials from a partner country to be treated as originating, operate only within the exact perimeter provided by the applicable agreement, and cumulation practised outside that perimeter has no effect. And the non-manipulation rule, successor to the direct transport rule, makes the preference conditional on the goods having undergone, in the countries of transit, no operation other than those designed to preserve them. Splitting a consignment in a warehouse outside the perimeter of the agreement is sometimes enough to put everything back in question.
Binding information, the only real legal certainty
Article 33 of the Union Customs Code allows binding information decisions to be obtained from the customs authorities, on tariff classification on the one hand and on origin on the other. Those decisions bind the administration towards the holder, and the holder towards the administration, for three years from the date of effect. It is the only instrument that turns a legal analysis into a position that can be relied on.
Its limits still have to be known. The decision covers only goods identical to those described in the application, which requires a technically impeccable description, and Article 34 organises the cases of annulment, revocation and invalidation, in particular where the rules change or where the decision rests on inaccurate information supplied by the applicant. A period of extended use may then be granted on strict conditions. For a company importing the same product in volume year after year, the cost of obtaining binding origin information is negligible against the exposure it removes.
Post-clearance control and the burden of proof
Preferential origin declared on import is verified, where a doubt arises, by a request for administrative cooperation addressed to the authorities of the exporting country. If those authorities do not reply, reply out of time, or invalidate the certificate, the preference is refused and the duties are claimed from the importer in the Union. Many importers discover this at the worst possible moment: the beneficiary of the reduced rate is the importer, and it is therefore the importer who carries the burden and the risk of proof, even where the failure comes entirely from the supplier.
Articles 117 and following of the Union Customs Code do provide for repayment or remission, in particular where the debt results from an error of the competent authorities which the debtor could not reasonably have detected and where he acted in good faith and complied with the rules. That route exists, but it is strictly construed, and good faith alone is never enough: an active error of the authority and the reasonable impossibility of detecting it must both be shown. Real protection is built upstream, in the contract with the supplier, by a documentary obligation backed by an indemnity.
Who pays, and for how long
A customs debt is incurred on release for free circulation under Article 77 of the Union Customs Code, or on failure to comply with an obligation under Article 79. The debtor is the declarant, and in the case of indirect representation the person on whose behalf the declaration is made is a debtor as well. A customs agent acting in indirect representation is therefore a co-debtor, which explains the profession’s growing contractual caution about origin statements.
Article 103 sets the notification period at three years from the incurrence of the debt, extended to a minimum of five and a maximum of ten years where the debt results from an act liable to criminal prosecution. An origin assessment therefore reaches back three years of flows, and further if the administration retains a criminal characterisation. In French law, a false declaration of origin made using inaccurate documents is punished as an importation without declaration, under Article 426 of the Customs Code, with the penalties of Article 414, which include a fine of up to several times the value of the goods and confiscation.
Circumvention, marking and the reform under way
Origin law has become an instrument of commercial policy and is used as one. Circumvention of anti-dumping duties by declaring a third-country origin, often achieved by an assembly operation with no industrial substance, is the raw material of current investigations, and the requirement of economically justified processing in Article 60 is the legal tool against it. That question must be distinguished from origin marking, which follows its own rules and where a flattering statement on the packaging may be challenged as a misleading commercial practice even though the customs origin is accurate.
A substantial reform of the European customs framework is moreover nearing completion, and it now has to be taken seriously. The Council and the European Parliament reached a political agreement on 26 March 2026, and the Council adopted its first reading position on 3 September 2026, the Parliament’s plenary vote remaining awaited before signature and publication in the Official Journal. The text establishes a Union customs authority and a centralised data environment whose use will become mandatory in stages. Nothing applies yet to current operations, but the direction is clear: control based more on data and on operator responsibility, which makes documentary traceability of origin more decisive still than it is today.
What the firm does
Upstream, the work consists in mapping the flows by tariff code and by supplier, checking the list rule applicable to each product, auditing the documentary chain behind the preferential statements, and where the exposure justifies it applying for binding origin information. It also consists in writing into the supply contracts an obligation to provide and preserve the origin evidence, backed by an indemnity, so that the importer is not left alone with a liability created by someone else.
Where a control has already begun, the firm handles the exchange with the administration, the observations on the proposed assessment and the challenge to the notice of recovery, and prepares applications for repayment or remission under Articles 117 and following where the conditions are met. Where a criminal characterisation is raised, it acts on that footing as well. A first assessment is normally possible within a few days on the strength of the declarations, the origin certificates and the supplier correspondence.
A post-clearance control is questioning the origin of your imports, or you want to secure a position before it happens? The firm audits the flows and handles the assessment.
Frequently asked questions
Can goods have two different origins?
Yes, and it is not a contradiction. Non-preferential origin under Articles 59 to 61 of the Union Customs Code determines the tariff, anti-dumping duties, quotas and marking; preferential origin under Article 64 determines only entitlement to a reduced rate under an agreement. Goods may therefore be of Chinese non-preferential origin and subject to anti-dumping duty while satisfying, or failing to satisfy, the preferential rules of some agreement.
How many years can an origin assessment reach back?
Three years from the incurrence of the customs debt under Article 103 of the Union Customs Code, extended to a minimum of five and a maximum of ten years where the debt results from an act liable to criminal prosecution. In French law a false declaration of origin made with inaccurate documents is punished as importation without declaration under Article 426 of the Customs Code, with the penalties of Article 414.
What happens if the foreign supplier issued an incorrect certificate?
The duties are claimed from the importer. Where a post-clearance verification leads the authorities of the exporting country to invalidate the certificate, to reply out of time or not to reply at all, the preference is refused and the debt falls on the beneficiary of the reduced rate, that is, the importer in the Union. Repayment or remission under Articles 117 and following requires an active error of the competent authorities that could not reasonably be detected, which good faith alone does not establish. The answer is a contractual indemnity from the supplier.
How can a position on origin be secured for the long term?
By applying for binding origin information under Article 33 of the Union Customs Code. The decision binds both the administration and the holder for three years, but only for goods identical to those described in the application, so the technical description must be impeccable. Article 34 organises annulment, revocation and invalidation, notably where the rules change or where the decision rests on inaccurate information supplied by the applicant.
Is a simple assembly operation enough to change the origin?
No. Article 60 requires the last substantial, economically justified processing or working, carried out in an undertaking equipped for that purpose and resulting in a new product or an important stage of manufacture. Simple assembly, packing, labelling and sorting are excluded, and the economically justified condition is aimed squarely at routing goods through a third country to change their declared origin. The applicable list rule, usually a change of tariff heading or a value-added threshold, is what decides.
Further reading: Incoterms 2020 and the transfer of risk, sanctions against Russia, the six points that decide an international sale.
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.