A professional furniture manufacturer in the Vendée has been exporting to Canada since the comprehensive economic and trade agreement began to apply. Its furniture is assembled in its own workshop, its designs are French and so is its workforce. For four years its Canadian customers have imported at the preferential rate on the strength of an origin declaration it makes out itself. In May 2026 the Canadian administration asked the French administration about a consignment worth 380,000 Canadian dollars. The melamine panels come from China, the hardware from Turkey, and the rule applicable to the tariff heading concerned is not met. The tariff advantage is claimed back from the importer, who turns against the seller.
Preferential origin is the field where the sincere conviction of the exporter diverges most often from the applicable law. Manufacturing in France does not confer European preferential origin, and knowing that before signing costs a few hours of work where not knowing it costs the duty on the whole unbarred period. This page explains how origin is determined, which proofs are accepted, who may issue them and who bears the audit risk.
1. Two origins, two functions, two regimes
Customs law knows two notions of origin that practitioners constantly confuse. Non-preferential origin serves for trade policy measures, marking and statistics; it is acquired in the country where the goods were wholly obtained or underwent their last substantial, economically justified processing in an undertaking equipped for that purpose (Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, articles 59 to 61). Preferential origin gives entitlement to favourable tariff treatment under a specific trade agreement and follows the rules of that agreement (same regulation, article 64).
The two characterisations do not overlap and may perfectly well diverge for the same product. Furniture assembled in France from Asian panels may be of French non-preferential origin, which allows the marking and governs the application of trade defence measures, and not be of European Union preferential origin under the agreement with Canada. The first characterisation is single, the second is plural: a product may be preferentially originating under one agreement and not under another.
It is that plurality that misleads. The exporter reasons in terms of the product; the law reasons in terms of the product and agreement pair. Changing market is not only changing customer, it is changing origin rule.
The most common origin mistakes, and what they cost in duties, are reviewed in our article on the origin of goods; if a reassessment follows, see our customs law page.
2. The rule is read agreement by agreement, product by product
Each trade agreement has its own origin protocol, and each protocol states, tariff heading by tariff heading, the processing or the threshold of non-originating materials that allows origin to be claimed. The most frequent forms are a change of tariff heading, a maximum percentage of non-originating materials measured against the ex-works price, a specific processing rule, or a combination of those criteria at the exporter option.
The sequence to run for each new market is always the same and it does not get shorter: product, then customs code, then the origin rule of the applicable agreement, then the calculation, then the proof of origin, then the tariff advantage. Each step conditions the next. The most widespread practice is to skip the three middle steps and go straight from manufacture to declaration, which amounts to claiming an advantage without having checked its condition.
The European Commission Access2Markets portal gives the applicable origin rule from the product code and the country of destination, and includes a dedicated self-assessment tool. It is a convenient starting point, but calculating the value of non-originating materials remains internal work, which presupposes a bill of materials, supplier invoices and a valuation method that is stable over time.
3. Proofs of origin, and the threshold that is not universal
The calculation itself calls for a discipline few companies install. The value of non-originating materials is measured against the ex-works price, which means fixing a valuation method and keeping to it: what value to take for a material bought in foreign currency, how to treat inbound transport costs, what to do with offcuts and rejects, how to value an internally produced component. Those choices are not neutral, since on either side of a threshold they determine entitlement to the tariff advantage. They must be written down once, applied uniformly, and kept with the calculation, failing which the demonstration produced three years later will rest on conventions nobody in the company can any longer explain.
Certification arrangements vary with the agreement, but three routes coexist in practice. Below a value threshold per consignment, any exporter may itself make out an origin declaration on a commercial document. Above it, the declaration must come from an approved exporter or a registered exporter, unless origin is certified by a movement certificate issued by the customs authorities. Some recent agreements add a route based on the importer knowledge, which shifts the burden of demonstration onto the buyer.
The default threshold is six thousand euros per consignment, but it applies only where the preferential arrangement concerned sets no threshold of its own (Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447, articles 67 and 68). Presenting that figure as a universal threshold is a frequent approximation, and a costly one where the applicable agreement sets another. The correct reflex is to read the origin protocol of the agreement, not a general explanatory sheet.
One point deserves to be named, because it recurs in litigation. The origin declaration is a statement by the exporter, engaging its liability, and not a document issued by the administration after verification. Signing it therefore confers no legal certainty: it merely formalises an assertion whose justification will have to be produced years later, possibly by a successor who took no part in the original calculation.
4. Approved exporter and registered exporter
A word on the movement certificate, which many exporters regard as the safe route because it bears an administrative endorsement. That endorsement is not validation of the origin calculation. It certifies that the application was made and that the formal particulars are in order, not that the goods actually originate, and it bars neither a post-clearance audit nor the withdrawal of the tariff advantage. The sense of security it gives is therefore largely illusory, and it in no way removes the need to build and keep the supporting file described below.
Approved exporter authorisation is granted to exporters and re-consignors established in the customs territory of the Union who meet the conditions laid down by the origin provisions of the preferential agreements, and takes the form of an authorisation number preceded by the country code (Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447, article 67). It allows origin to be certified on a commercial document with no value limit.
The registered exporter system, known as REX, rests on article 68 of the same regulation. It applies to the generalised scheme of preferences and to several agreements, among them those concluded with Canada, Japan, Vietnam, the United Kingdom, Singapore and New Zealand. Registration presupposes holding an EORI number, which creates a practical dependency to bear in mind this year, since French customs is moving from an EORI number based on the SIRET to a single number based on the SIREN, with deactivation of current numbers announced for the second half of 2026.
The choice between the two schemes is not free: it depends on the applicable agreement. What does fall to the company is when it starts the process. An application filed after the contract is concluded, while the customer waits for its declaration in order to clear the goods, leaves the exporter with an uncomfortable choice between a commercial delay and a declaration it is not entitled to make.
5. The post-clearance audit, and the question no contract settles
In practice the audit takes the form of a questionnaire sent to the exporter by French customs, with a short deadline, often a few weeks. The company has to produce the bill of materials, its supplier declarations and the calculation, for consignments that may go back several financial years. A company that built its file as it went answers in a few days. One that did not has to reconstruct information from suppliers who have sometimes disappeared, with invoices archived by financial year and not by product reference. The difference between the two situations lies neither in the law nor in the merits. It lies in an organisational decision taken, or not, before the first shipment.
Preferential origin control is retrospective by design. The administration of the country of import asks the French administration, which asks the exporter, who then has to reconstruct a sometimes old calculation. If the demonstration fails, the tariff advantage is claimed back from the importer, that is, from your customer, who turns against you under the contract. The amount at stake is not the difference on one shipment but the cumulative difference over the whole unbarred period, with interest and, depending on the State, penalties.
Almost no export contract settles this question. It ought to state who bears the origin risk, within what limits, under what notification procedure, and with what liability cap. Without a clause, the allocation will depend on the applicable law and on the characterisation adopted, which, in cross-border litigation covering several financial years, means leaving to chance an exposure that was perfectly identifiable at signature.
6. What to keep in order to be able to demonstrate
The exporter must keep what is needed to demonstrate the origin claimed, product by product. An assertion of origin on an invoice is not proof: proof consists of the bill of materials, supplier invoices and declarations, the calculation of the value of non-originating materials against the ex-works price, the tariff classification sheet, and a note of the version of the origin protocol applied.
Customs documents are kept for at least three years from the end of the calendar year of the declaration (Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, article 51), but tax law requires six and commercial law ten for supporting records. As always in this field, the longest period governs. Where the company changes a source of supply, it must also redo the calculation and date it, failing which it will apply for months an origin determined on the basis of a bill of materials that no longer exists.
The firm handles origin audits and customs litigation as part of its international trade law practice.
Who will answer for declared origin tomorrow: Regulation (EU) 2026/2108 makes a single importer liable for the whole declaration from 21 September 2027. See Le nouveau code des douanes de l’Union : ce qui change concrètement pour les entreprises (Village de la Justice, 22 September 2026, in French).
This analysis is part of a set on exporting from France: start with the legal checklist before you sign, and see also VAT on exports and proof of exit and international sanctions and what must be proved.
Further reading: EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR): what changes for importers.
Frequently asked questions
Does a made in France label have anything to do with preferential origin?
No direct connection. Marking belongs to non-preferential origin and to consumer information rules, while preferential origin is a customs characterisation specific to a given trade agreement. A product may legitimately carry a French origin statement and give no entitlement to the preferential tariff in Canada or Japan. The two analyses are distinct, rest on different rules and must be carried out separately, including where they reach the same conclusion.
My supplier assures me its components are European. Is that enough?
No, a verbal or commercial assurance is not evidence. What counts is the supplier declaration made out in the form prescribed by the rules, dated, covering an identified period and bearing on specific references. That alone allows the materials concerned to be treated as originating in your calculation. An exporter who bases its declaration on commercial emails will find, at the audit, that it cannot demonstrate what it asserted, even though the assertion may have been correct.
My importing customer faces a reassessment. Must I reimburse it?
That depends on what the contract says and, failing that, on the applicable law. The importer owes the duty to its own administration, but in principle it has a remedy against the seller that issued an incorrect origin declaration, on the basis of contractual non-performance or of the warranty owed. Good practice is to provide for this expressly, to attach to it a mutual duty of immediate notification in the event of an audit, and to cap the exposure, which is close to impossible to negotiate once the audit has begun.
What does cumulation of origin add?
Cumulation allows materials from another country party to the same arrangement, or processing carried out there, to be treated as originating where the applicable agreement so provides. It therefore widens the base of originating materials and can tip a product that narrowly failed the calculation. Its benefit depends entirely on the drafting of the agreement concerned, which sets its geographical scope and its evidence conditions, so reasoning by analogy from one agreement to another is not possible.
Is a registered exporter number needed for every agreement?
No, the system covers only the schemes and agreements that refer to it, among them the generalised scheme of preferences and the agreements concluded with Canada, Japan, Vietnam, the United Kingdom, Singapore and New Zealand. Other agreements work with the movement certificate or with approved exporter status. The question is settled by reading the origin protocol of the agreement concerned, before the first shipment, and not by transposing the solution adopted for a neighbouring market.