Brazil — Customs Valuation

Brazil implements the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (WTO Valuation Agreement or AVA/GATT) as the foundation of its customs valuation regime. The Marrakesh Agreement was approved by Legislative Decree 30 of December 15, 1994, and promulgated by Decree 1355 of December 30, 1994, which brought the WTO Valuation Agreement into force in Brazil on January 1, 1995.

The Secretaria Especial da Receita Federal do Brasil (Receita Federal, or RFB) administers customs valuation under the Ministry of Economy. The RFB conducts valuation control, issues administrative rulings, and carries out post-clearance audits to verify conformity of declared values with AVA/GATT rules.

Primary implementing regulations:

Decree 6759 of February 5, 2009 (Customs Regulation or Regulamento Aduaneiro) codifies customs-valuation rules at the decree level. Article 75 provides that when the duty is ad valorem, the calculation base is the customs value determined under Article VII of GATT 1994 and the AVA/GATT. Article 76 subjects all imported goods to control of their declared customs value—defined as verification of conformity with the AVA/GATT rules. Articles 77–80 detail the elements that must be included in (or excluded from) the customs value under the transaction-value method, tracking the Article 8 additions and Article 8(2) exclusions of the WTO Valuation Agreement.

Normative Instruction RFB 2090 of June 22, 2022 is the current operative regulation. IN RFB 2090/2022 replaced the earlier Normative Instruction SRF 327 of May 9, 2003. The 2022 instruction reorganized and simplified the valuation rules, clarified the application of the transaction-value method (Article 1 of AVA/GATT), detailed the sequential application of the five substitute methods (Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of AVA/GATT), and incorporated WTO Technical Committee Commentaries and Opinions as interpretive guidance. Importantly, Article 22 of IN RFB 2090/2022 requires goods admitted under special customs regimes with suspended duties to be valued using a substitute method unless the import is based on a sale for export to Brazil.

Decree 11090 of June 8, 2022 amended Decree 6759/2009 to exclude from the customs value the costs of loading, unloading, and handling incurred within Brazilian territory after arrival at the Brazilian bonded port or customs frontier, resolving a long-standing dispute on the treatment of wharfage services. This exclusion aligns Brazil's practice with the WTO Valuation Agreement's Article 8(2) rule that only transport and handling costs up to the place of importation are included.

Brazil has notified the WTO that it applies two reservations under the Valuation Agreement: (1) inversion of the order of application of the computed method (Article 5) and the deductive method (Article 6), applied only with the importer's consent, and (2) application of Article 5(2) in accordance with its interpretative note without requiring an importer's request.

Source: Decreto 1355/1994 Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Arts. 75–80 Source: IN RFB 2090/2022

Brazil employs the transaction value method (Article 1 of the WTO Valuation Agreement) as the primary basis for customs valuation. The customs value is defined under Article 75 of Decree 6759/2009 as the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods when sold for export to Brazil, adjusted by specific additions and exclusions mandated by Article 8 of the Valuation Agreement. Normative Instruction RFB 2090 of June 22, 2022, governs declaration and control of customs value; it replaced the earlier IN SRF 327/2003 and reorganized the structure to provide detailed guidance on the transaction-value method, which is applied in the vast majority of import declarations.

Price actually paid or payable

Article 5 of IN RFB 2090/2022 defines the price actually paid or payable (preço efetivamente pago ou a pagar) as all payments made or to be made, directly or indirectly, as a condition of sale of the imported goods by the buyer to the seller. This base figure is the foundation on which the customs value is built.

Mandatory additions under Article 8(1)

Article 77 of Decree 6759/2009 (as amended) codifies the Article 8 additions, which must be included in the customs value, to the extent they are incurred by the buyer but not already included in the price actually paid or payable. These additions are applied regardless of which valuation method is used if substitute methods are invoked. The mandatory additions are:

1. Commissions and brokerage — except buying commissions (comissões de compra).
2. Cost of containers and packing — costs of containers treated as one with the goods for tariff classification purposes, and the cost of packing (labor and materials).
3. Assists (bens e serviços fornecidos pelo comprador) — the value of goods and services supplied by the buyer free of charge or at reduced cost for use in the production and sale of the imported goods. This includes materials, components, parts, and similar items incorporated in the imported goods; tools, dies, molds, and similar items used in the production of the imported goods; materials consumed in the production process; and engineering, development work, artwork, design, and plans performed outside Brazil and necessary for production.
4. Royalties and licence fees — payments related to the imported goods that the buyer must make as a condition of the sale, to the extent such payments are not already included in the price paid or payable. Brazil has historically subjected royalty payments from Brazilian importers to related foreign parties to withholding income tax at 15% (or 25% for payments to low-tax jurisdictions) and the 10% CIDE-Royalties contribution; the 2024 transfer-pricing reform (Law 14,596/2023) replaced fixed deductibility caps with an arm's-length principle, but this change affects income-tax treatment, not the customs-value addition requirement under Article 8.
5. Proceeds of subsequent resale — the value of any part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal, or use of the imported goods that accrues directly or indirectly to the seller.

Transport, insurance, and loading costs

Article 77 of Decree 6759/2009 also requires inclusion of:

• The cost of transport of the imported goods to the bonded port or airport of discharge, or to the bonded frontier point where formalities of entry into Brazilian customs territory are completed.
• The costs of loading, unloading, and handling associated with transport of the imported goods up to the place of importation.
• The cost of insurance during these operations.

A significant 2022 change: Decree 11090 of June 8, 2022 amended Article 77 of Decree 6759/2009 to exclude from customs value the costs of loading, unloading, and handling (capatazia) incurred within Brazilian territory after arrival at the bonded port, airport, or frontier point. This amendment, effective June 8, 2022, resolved a long-standing dispute by aligning Brazilian practice with the Article 8(2) rule that only transport and handling costs up to the place of importation are included. IN RFB 2090/2022 Article 22(4) and the Receita Federal's Q&A guidance confirm that domestic wharfage services (capatazia no território nacional) incurred after June 8, 2022, are excluded from the customs-value base.

Exclusions under Article 8(2)

Article 79 of Decree 6759/2009 codifies the Article 8(2) exclusions. The following costs do not form part of the customs value under the transaction-value method, provided they are separately identified in the supporting documentation:

1. Charges for construction, installation, assembly, maintenance, or technical assistance related to the imported goods, executed after importation.
2. The cost of transport within Brazilian territory after arrival at the place of importation.
3. Customs duties and other taxes payable in Brazil by reason of the importation or sale of the goods.

Allocation of transport and insurance — multiple tariff codes

When a single import declaration covers goods classified in more than one code of the Mercosur Common Nomenclature (NCM), Article 78 of Decreto 6759/2009 mandates:

• Transport cost for each item is calculated by apportioning the total transport cost proportionally to the net weights of the goods.
• Insurance cost for each item is calculated by apportioning the total insurance cost proportionally to the FOB values of the goods at the place of loading.

Related-party transactions

Article 4 of IN RFB 2090/2022 provides that the transaction value may not be used if the buyer and seller are related parties (pessoas vinculadas) and that relationship influenced the price, unless the importer demonstrates that the declared value nevertheless approximates certain test values (identical or similar goods sold to unrelated buyers, deductive value, or computed value). The burden of proof that the related-party relationship did not influence the price rests on the importer. IN RFB 2090/2022 § 6 of Article 4 notes that Receita Federal may rely on transfer-pricing documentation submitted for corporate-income-tax purposes when assessing whether a related-party relationship influenced the import price.

Interest on financing

Article 80 of Decreto 6759/2009 excludes financing interest from the customs value if the financing arrangement is separately documented, the interest is distinguished from the price of the goods, and the interest rate does not exceed the level normally practiced for such transactions at the time and in the country where the financing was granted. This exclusion applies regardless of whether the financing was provided by the seller, a bank, or another entity, and regardless of which valuation method is used.

Software and intangible carriers

Article 81 of Decreto 6759/2009 provides that the customs value of a physical medium containing data or instructions for data-processing equipment is determined by reference to the cost or value of the medium itself, excluding the value of the data or instructions.

Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Arts. 75–81 Source: Decreto 11090/2022 (amending Art. 77 of Decreto 6759/2009) Source: IN RFB 2090/2022, Arts. 4–5, 22 Source: Receita Federal — IN RFB 2090/2022 announcement

When the transaction value method (Article 1 of the WTO Valuation Agreement) cannot be used—because the importer and seller are related parties whose relationship influenced the price, because there is no sale for export to Brazil, because objective data for Article 8 additions are unavailable, or because the importer failed to provide documentation to verify the declared value—Brazil applies a hierarchical cascade of five substitute methods codified in Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of the WTO Valuation Agreement. Article 14 of Normative Instruction RFB 2090 of June 22, 2022, mandates that the Receita Federal and the importer apply the substitute methods in strict sequential order, advancing to the next method only when the preceding method cannot determine a customs value, and preserving fiscal secrecy (confidentiality of third-party transaction data) throughout the process.

Sequential order and mandatory cascade

Article 14 of IN RFB 2090/2022 provides that the substitute methods must be applied in the order established by the WTO Valuation Agreement until the first method capable of determining the customs value is reached. The statutory sequence is:

1. Transaction value of identical goods (Article 2 of the AVA/GATT) — the customs value of identical goods sold for export to Brazil at or about the same time, adjusted for differences in commercial level, quantity, and the elements listed in Article 8.
2. Transaction value of similar goods (Article 3 of the AVA/GATT) — the customs value of similar goods sold for export to Brazil at or about the same time, adjusted in the same manner.
3. Deductive value (Article 5 of the AVA/GATT) — the price at which the imported goods (or identical or similar imported goods) are sold in Brazil in the condition as imported, minus post-importation costs (customs duties, transport and handling costs after importation, and profit and general expenses associated with the sale in Brazil). The deductive method typically uses the unit price at which the greatest aggregate quantity of the goods is sold to unrelated buyers in Brazil.
4. Computed value (Article 6 of the AVA/GATT) — the sum of (a) the cost or value of materials and fabrication or processing employed in producing the imported goods; (b) an amount for profit and general expenses equal to that usually reflected in sales of goods of the same class or kind made by producers in the country of exportation for export to Brazil; and (c) the cost of transport, loading, unloading, handling, and insurance to the place of importation in Brazil. This method requires access to the producer's cost accounting; it is rarely used in practice because foreign producers are generally unwilling to disclose their production-cost data to Brazilian customs or the importer.
5. Fallback method (Article 7 of the AVA/GATT) — a reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of the WTO Valuation Agreement and Article VII of GATT 1994, based on available data in Brazil. Article 7 prohibits basing the customs value on the selling price of goods produced in Brazil, on a system providing for acceptance of the higher of two alternative values, on the price of goods on the domestic market of the country of exportation, on the cost of production other than computed values determined under Article 6, on arbitrary or fictitious values, or on minimum customs values.

Article 12(II) of IN RFB 2090/2022 expressly references the sequential application of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, or 7, cross-referenced to the Interpretative Notes in Annex 1 of the AVA/GATT.

Flexibility: inversion of Article 5 and Article 6 order

Brazil has notified the WTO that it applies the reservation permitting inversion of the order of application of the deductive method (Article 5) and the computed method (Article 6) at the importer's request and with the consent of the customs authority. This reservation is codified in Article 83, paragraph I, of Decree 6759/2009: the inversion of the order of Articles 5 and 6 will be applied only with the consent of the Receita Federal. In practice, an importer who can obtain the producer's cost data (typically when the importer and foreign producer are related parties or have a long-standing supply relationship) may ask to apply the computed method (Article 6) before attempting the deductive method (Article 5), but this inversion requires affirmative approval by the RFB officer handling the import declaration.

Brazil also notified that the provisions of Article 5(2) of the Valuation Agreement—which allow use of a sale occurring up to 90 days after importation for deductive-value purposes—will be applied in accordance with the interpretative note regardless of whether the importer requests it, as codified in Article 83, paragraph II, of Decree 6759/2009.

Prohibition on transaction value when Article 8 data are unavailable

Article 13 of IN RFB 2090/2022 expressly prohibits application of the transaction-value method when there are no objective and quantifiable data for the additions required by Articles 6, 7, and 9 of the instruction (which implement Article 8 of the AVA/GATT—assists, royalties and license fees, and proceeds of subsequent resale). In these cases, the importer must proceed directly to the substitute methods.

Special regimes: mandatory use of substitute methods

Article 22 of IN RFB 2090/2022 mandates that the customs value of goods admitted under a special customs regime or applied area with total or partial suspension of duties must be declared using a substitute method, unless the import is based on a sale for export to Brazil. This rule applies, for example, to goods entering under temporary admission, customs warehousing, or transit regimes. Paragraph 1 of Article 22 carves out an exception: when the import under a special regime is based on a sale for export to Brazil (such as goods entering under the drawback-suspension regime that are sold to the Brazilian importer by a foreign supplier), the transaction-value method may be used if its conditions are met.

Importer's right to request information on identical or similar goods

Article 15 of IN RFB 2090/2022 provides that for declaration of customs value under the methods in Articles 2 and 3 (identical or similar goods), the importer may provide information to the Receita Federal about the customs value of identical or similar imported goods of which the importer is aware, or may request such information from the RFB. The Receita Federal must balance this disclosure against the requirement to preserve fiscal secrecy (confidentiality of third-party import data). In practice, the RFB often publishes anonymized reference values (paradigm values or valores-critério) for certain goods to guide importers and reduce arbitrary undervaluation, though these reference values are not minimum customs values prohibited by Article 7.

Fallback (Article 7) as the final method

When none of Articles 2, 3, 5, or 6 can determine the customs value, the importer must declare the value under the Article 7 fallback method. The Receita Federal's Q&A guidance on IN RFB 2090/2022 confirms: "When it is not possible to apply the methods in Articles 2, 3, 5, and 6, the importer must declare the customs value according to the method in Article 7 of the Customs Valuation Agreement." Article 7 requires that the method chosen be consistent with the principles and general provisions of the WTO Valuation Agreement; it often relies on previously accepted values for identical or similar goods, adjusted for known differences, or on data derived from publicly available export statistics.

Post-clearance audit and valuation control

The Receita Federal conducts post-clearance audits to verify conformity of declared customs values with AVA/GATT rules, and may issue an assessment based on a substitute method if it determines that the transaction-value declaration was invalid or unsupported. Article 84 of Decree 6759/2009 (as amended by Law 10.833/2003, Article 70(I)(a)) authorizes the RFB to determine the customs value using a substitute method when the importer fails to provide documents evidencing the commercial relationship or the corresponding accounting records and there is doubt about the declared value.

Source: IN RFB 2090/2022, Arts. 12(II), 13, 14, 15, 22 Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Arts. 83, 84 Source: Receita Federal — IN RFB 2090/2022 Q&A (PDF)

Brazil follows Article 1.2 of the WTO Valuation Agreement in prohibiting use of the transaction-value method when the buyer and seller are related parties and that relationship influenced the price. Article 4 of Normative Instruction RFB 2090 of June 22, 2022, provides that the transaction value may be used only if the buyer demonstrates that the related-party relationship did not influence the price. This demonstration is the importer's burden; failure to satisfy it requires immediate use of a substitute method under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, or 7 of the WTO Valuation Agreement.

Definition of related parties

Article 3(IV) of IN RFB 2090/2022 defines related parties (pessoas vinculadas) as natural or legal persons who satisfy any of the following criteria:

a) One of them holds a position of responsibility or direction in the enterprise of the other (uma delas ocupar cargo de responsabilidade ou direção em empresa da outra);

b) They are legally recognized as associated in business (forem legalmente reconhecidas como associadas em negócios). A 2018 Receita Federal ruling clarified that this refers to the legal definition of partnership or association under the WTO Valuation Agreement framework; a mere agency, distributor, or exclusive-dealership contract does not by itself create a related-party relationship for valuation purposes, although such arrangements may trigger scrutiny under other prongs;

c) One is the employer of the other (forem empregador e empregado);

d) Any person directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds 5 percent or more of the voting shares or securities of both (qualquer pessoa, direta ou indiretamente, possuir, controlar ou detiver 5% (cinco por cento) ou mais das ações ou títulos emitidos com direito a voto de ambas);

e) One of them directly or indirectly controls the other (uma delas, direta ou indiretamente, controlar a outra);

f) Both are directly or indirectly controlled by a third person (forem ambas, direta ou indiretamente, controladas por uma terceira pessoa);

g) Together they directly or indirectly control a third person (juntas, controlarem direta ou indiretamente uma terceira pessoa); or

h) They are members of the same family (forem membros da mesma família). The earlier Normative Instruction SRF 327/2003 Article 17 (now replaced by IN RFB 2090/2022 but still interpretively relevant) listed the following family relationships: spouses, lineal ascendants or descendants, siblings, and in-laws (cunhado e cunhada).

Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of IN RFB 2090/2022 clarifies that for purposes of prongs (e), (f), and (g), control means the legal or factual ability to impose restrictions or dictate orders in essential areas of the controlled person's business activity, including appointment of directors, ownership rights, voting rights, or location of commercial establishments.

Paragraph 2 further provides that a distributor, exclusive agent, or concessionaire of another person is deemed to be associated in business (associadas em negócios) for the purpose of prong (b), regardless of the contractual label used. This deeming rule subjects exclusive distributorships to the related-party valuation framework unless the importer can prove non-influence.

Burden of proof and non-influence test

Article 4(IV) of IN RFB 2090/2022 prohibits use of the transaction-value method when the buyer and seller are related parties, unless the buyer can demonstrate that the relationship did not influence the price. Paragraph 1 of Article 4 provides that in the case of a sale between related parties, the transaction value may be used in the import declaration only if the buyer can demonstrate (possa demonstrar) that the relationship did not influence the price.

The importer bears the burden of making this demonstration before declaring the import on the transaction-value method. If the importer cannot or does not make the showing, the import declaration must use a substitute method from the outset. The Receita Federal's official announcement of IN RFB 2090/2022 emphasized that "the normative makes explicit the burden of the importer to prove that any relationship with the seller did not influence the price of the imported products."

Three test-value methods to prove non-influence

Paragraph 3 of Article 4 of IN RFB 2090/2022 codifies the Article 1.2(b) "test values" that an importer may use to demonstrate that the related-party relationship did not influence the price. The importer may show that the declared transaction value closely approximates one of the following test values at or about the same time:

1. Transaction value of identical goods sold for export to Brazil to unrelated buyers (mercadorias idênticas vendidas a compradores não vinculados);
2. Transaction value of similar goods sold for export to Brazil to unrelated buyers (mercadorias similares vendidas a compradores não vinculados); or
3. The customs value of identical or similar goods determined under the deductive method (Article 5 of the WTO Valuation Agreement) or the computed method (Article 6).

The phrase "closely approximates" is not defined by a bright-line percentage in the regulation. The WTO Technical Committee Commentary 23.1 on Article 1.2(b) notes that customs authorities and importers should examine whether differences between the test values and the declared value can be explained by commercial factors (differences in quantities, commercial levels, transport costs, or timing). The Receita Federal applies the "closely approximates" standard on a case-by-case basis in post-clearance audits and during import-declaration challenges.

Transfer-pricing documentation as evidence of influence

Paragraph 6 of Article 4 of IN RFB 2090/2022 introduces a significant evidentiary rule: the Receita Federal may rely on the cost-calculation statements (demonstrativos de cálculo do custo dos bens importados) submitted for transfer-pricing purposes under Brazilian corporate-income-tax law (Articles 18–24 of Law 9.430/1996) as evidence that the related-party relationship influenced the import price. This provision creates a dual-compliance risk: if an importer's transfer-pricing documentation shows the import price differs from the arm's-length range calculated for income-tax purposes, the RFB may cite that divergence as evidence that the transaction value is not acceptable for customs-valuation purposes and demand use of a substitute method.

The 2024 transfer-pricing reform (Law 14.596/2023, effective January 1, 2024) replaced Brazil's historical fixed-margin methods with an OECD-aligned arm's-length principle, but it did not amend the customs-valuation rules in Decree 6759/2009 or IN RFB 2090/2022. The evidentiary bridge in paragraph 6 of Article 4 remains in force: transfer-pricing cost data may be used by customs authorities to determine whether a related-party relationship influenced the price, and conversely (per Article 17 of IN RFB 2090/2022) that same data may be used by the importer to support application of the computed-value method (Article 6 of the WTO Valuation Agreement) as a substitute when the transaction value is rejected.

Import by order and predetermined purchasers

Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of IN RFB 2090/2022 extends the burden of demonstrating non-influence to a third party acting as importer by order (importador por conta e ordem) under Normative Instruction RFB 1.861 of December 27, 2018. Paragraph 5 further provides that the prohibition on using the transaction-value method applies when there is a related-party relationship between the foreign seller and the predetermined purchaser (encomendante predeterminado) in an import-by-order arrangement, unless the importer or the purchaser demonstrates that the relationship did not influence the price. In practice, Brazilian customs frequently encounters situations in which a parent company abroad sells goods to a Brazilian subsidiary but engages a third-party customs broker as the nominal importer; the existence of the parent–subsidiary relationship triggers the related-party analysis and places the burden of demonstrating non-influence on the subsidiary (the real purchaser).

Administrative practice and post-clearance audit

The Receita Federal conducts the bulk of related-party valuation control in post-clearance audits. Article 76 of Decree 6759/2009 subjects all imported goods to control of their declared customs value. When the RFB identifies a related-party transaction and questions whether the declared price was influenced by the relationship, it may issue a request for additional documentation (commercial correspondence, price lists, supply contracts, transfer-pricing cost statements, and evidence of comparable arm's-length sales). If the importer cannot provide satisfactory evidence of non-influence, the RFB will determine the customs value using the substitute methods in sequential order (Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, or 7 of the WTO Valuation Agreement) and issue an assessment for the duty differential, plus interest and potential penalties for undervaluation.

Brazil's current regulations do not provide a prospective clearance mechanism (such as an advance pricing agreement binding for customs purposes) for related-party transactions. Importers who frequently import from affiliates are advised to prepare the non-influence demonstration contemporaneously with each shipment and retain the supporting documentation for the five-year records-retention period mandated by Article 29 of the earlier IN SRF 327/2003, a requirement carried forward in practice under IN RFB 2090/2022.

Source: IN RFB 2090/2022, Arts. 3(IV), 4, 17 Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Art. 76 Source: Receita Federal — IN RFB 2090/2022 announcement

Brazil permits taxpayers to submit formal consultations (consultas) to the Receita Federal do Brasil regarding the interpretation and application of federal tax and customs legislation, including questions about customs valuation methodology, under Decreto 7574 of September 29, 2011. A taxpayer who files an efficacious consultation (consulta eficaz) before the payment deadline receives protection from fiscal penalties and from the commencement of audit proceedings during the consultation period, and the published ruling binds the RFB nationwide. However, Brazil does not provide a separate binding advance ruling mechanism specifically for customs valuation questions comparable to the dedicated tariff-classification consultation regime established by Normative Instruction RFB 1464/2014. Importers seeking prospective certainty on valuation methodology—for example, whether a related-party transfer price will be accepted, how to allocate a lump-sum royalty payment among multiple NCM codes, or whether a particular assist must be added under Article 8—must file a general consultation on the "application of customs legislation" (aplicação da legislação aduaneira) under Decreto 7574/2011 rather than requesting a dedicated valuation ruling.

Legal basis and scope

Article 88 of Decreto 7574/2011 (as amended by Decreto 11,142 of July 12, 2022) authorizes any taxpayer (sujeito passivo) to formulate a consultation on the interpretation of tax and customs legislation (interpretação da legislação tributária e aduaneira) applicable to a specific fact, and on the tariff classification of goods (classificação fiscal de mercadorias). Article 88 further extends the right to file a consultation to government agencies and representative entities of economic or professional categories. Importantly, Article 88 does not enumerate customs valuation as a separate category of consultation subject to a specialized procedure; valuation questions fall within the general rubric of "interpretation of customs legislation" and are governed by the same procedural rules as other tax consultations.

The Receita Federal has issued detailed implementing regulations for tariff-classification consultations (IN RFB 1464/2014, as amended by IN RFB 1829/2018), which establish a streamlined electronic-filing process, a centralized decision-making authority (the Coordenação-Geral de Tributação, or Cosit), binding publication of classification rulings (Soluções de Consulta sobre Classificação Fiscal), and a mechanism for resolving divergent rulings. No equivalent implementing regulation exists for customs-valuation consultations. As a result, valuation questions submitted under Article 88 of Decreto 7574/2011 are processed under the general administrative-consultation framework codified in Articles 88–90 of that decree and in the earlier Decreto 70.235 of March 6, 1972 (Articles 46–58, which govern consultations on federal-tax legislation). The absence of a dedicated valuation-consultation regulation means that processing times, decision-making authority, and publication practices for valuation consultations are less predictable and less transparent than for classification consultations.

Effect of filing: suspension of audit and penalty protection

Article 89 of Decreto 7574/2011 provides that no fiscal audit (procedimento fiscal) will be commenced with respect to the subject matter of the consultation against the taxpayer who filed the consultation, from the date of filing until thirty days after the taxpayer is notified of the final decision. This suspension protects the taxpayer from the risk that the RFB will issue an assessment or penalty while the consultation is pending. Paragraph 1 of Article 89 clarifies, however, that the suspension does not prevent the RFB from auditing the regularity of payment of taxes or the submission of required declarations; it suspends only enforcement action on the substantive legal question posed in the consultation.

Article 90 of Decreto 7574/2011 provides that if an efficacious consultation is filed before the payment deadline for the tax at issue, no interest or late-payment penalties (encargos moratórios) will accrue from the date of filing until thirty days after notification of the decision. This rule permits an importer who is uncertain whether a particular valuation method is correct to file a consultation before registering the import declaration, pay the duty calculated under the method the importer believes is correct, and avoid late-payment interest if the RFB's decision ultimately requires a higher duty payment. The importer must pay the duty differential and any applicable civil penalty for undervaluation, but the consultation filing suspends the running of interest during the pendency of the consultation.

Who may file and standing requirements

Article 88 of Decreto 7574/2011 permits any taxpayer (sujeito passivo) directly subject to the legal question to file a consultation. For customs-valuation purposes, the taxpayer is typically the importer of record or, in the case of an import-by-order (importação por conta e ordem) arrangement, the predetermined purchaser (encomendante predeterminado) who is the beneficial owner of the goods. Customs brokers and freight forwarders acting solely as agents may not file consultations on behalf of unidentified future principals; the consultation must relate to a specific transaction or contemplated transaction of the named taxpayer.

Paragraph único of Article 88 further permits government agencies and representative entities of economic or professional categories—such as trade associations, chambers of commerce, and professional unions—to file consultations on behalf of their members. A ruling issued in response to a consultation by a representative entity binds the RFB and protects the entity's members only after the entity has been notified of the decision and has notified its members (Article 89, § 2, of Decreto 7574/2011).

Scope: specific facts and prospective application

Article 88 requires that the consultation relate to the interpretation of legislation "applicable to a specific fact" (aplicável a fato determinado). The consultation must describe a contemplated or actual import transaction with sufficient specificity that the RFB can apply the law to the fact pattern. For a customs-valuation consultation, the importer would typically describe the goods to be imported, the commercial relationship between the buyer and seller (including any related-party relationship under the Article 1.2(a)–(h) prongs of the WTO Valuation Agreement), the contractual terms (FOB / CIF / DDU, payment terms, currency-adjustment clauses), and the specific valuation question—for example, whether the declared transaction value approximates the test value for related-party acceptance, whether a royalty payment for a trademark license is "related to the imported goods" under Article 8, or whether the cost of an assist supplied by the buyer must be included and, if so, how to allocate that cost across multiple shipments.

The Receita Federal's published valuation-consultation decisions (Soluções de Consulta) confirm that the RFB will address prospective questions. For example, Solução de Consulta Cosit 57 (analyzed in 2020) addressed whether the transaction-value method could be used for imports between related parties when the final price would be adjusted under a contract price-revision clause; the RFB ruled that the transaction value at the time of import registration is the value used, subject to later rectification if the price is adjusted within a reasonable time. The taxpayer in that case submitted the consultation before beginning a series of imports, demonstrating that the RFB will issue prospective rulings on valuation methodology provided the fact pattern is sufficiently concrete.

Inadmissibility and inefficacious consultations

Decreto 70.235/1972 Article 52 (incorporated by reference into Decreto 7574/2011) lists the grounds on which a consultation will be declared inefficacious (ineficaz), meaning it will not produce the protective effects of Articles 89 and 90. A consultation is inefficacious if:

1. The question is purely hypothetical (meramente protelatória) or lacks sufficient specificity;
2. The question has already been addressed in a binding regulation or published RFB ruling applicable to the taxpayer's fact pattern;
3. The taxpayer is already under audit for the same subject matter (a consultation filed after the commencement of a fiscal audit on the same legal question is barred);
4. The question relates to a fact that constitutes a criminal offense under Brazilian law (for example, a consultation asking how to value goods that the taxpayer knows were misdescribed to evade duty would be inadmissible);
5. The taxpayer has already filed judicial proceedings on the same question (filing a consultation waives administrative appeal rights if the taxpayer subsequently challenges the same transaction in court, per Article 87 of Decreto 7574/2011).

If the RFB declares a consultation inefficacious, it will issue a Despacho Decisório stating the grounds for inefficacy, and the taxpayer will not receive penalty protection or interest suspension.

Processing time and binding effect

Neither Decreto 7574/2011 nor Decreto 70.235/1972 imposes a statutory deadline by which the Receita Federal must respond to a consultation. In practice, processing times for tax consultations (including customs-valuation consultations) vary from four months to over two years, depending on the complexity of the question and the administrative workload of Cosit. Classification consultations under IN RFB 1464/2014 typically receive decisions within six to twelve months because the dedicated classification unit (formerly Coana, now also handled by Cosit) prioritizes those cases; valuation consultations processed under the general-consultation framework do not benefit from the same prioritization.

When the RFB issues a favorable ruling in the form of a Solução de Consulta, that ruling is published in the Diário Oficial da União and on the RFB's normas database (normas.receita.fazenda.gov.br). Published consultation decisions have binding effect nationwide (efeito vinculante no âmbito da RFB) and protect any taxpayer who applies the ruling to a fact pattern substantially identical to the one described in the consultation, not only the original consulente (this nationwide-binding rule is codified for classification consultations in Article 15 of IN RFB 1464/2014 and applies by analogy to valuation consultations). The RFB may, however, revoke or modify a published Solução de Consulta by issuing a new ruling; the consulente is entitled to notice of the revocation (Article 89, parágrafo único, of Decreto 7574/2011 by analogy).

No appeal; limited reconsideration

Article 13, parágrafo único, of IN RFB 1464/2014 (which by analogy describes the general rule) provides that a consultation "will be resolved in a single instance, with no right of appeal or petition for reconsideration" (será solucionada em instância única, não cabendo recurso nem pedido de reconsideração), except for the special divergence-resolution procedure described in Articles 24–25 of that instruction. The taxpayer may not administratively challenge an adverse Solução de Consulta. If the importer disagrees with the RFB's valuation ruling, the importer's remedies are (a) to register the import declaration using the method prescribed by the ruling (to preserve the penalty protection of Article 89), pay the resulting duty, and then challenge the duty assessment in the federal courts under Law 9.784/1999 or the administrative-contest procedure of Decreto 70.235/1972; or (b) to register the import using the method the importer believes is correct and defend the chosen method in a post-clearance audit or assessment proceeding.

Practical use: limited compared to classification consultations

In practice, Brazilian importers rarely file advance consultations on customs-valuation methodology, in contrast to the widespread use of tariff-classification consultations. A survey of published Soluções de Consulta on the RFB normas portal for the five-year period 2019–2024 reveals fewer than ten published decisions on customs-valuation questions, compared to several hundred on tariff classification. The principal reasons are (1) the absence of a streamlined procedure and centralized authority for valuation rulings, which makes processing times unpredictable; (2) the fact-intensive nature of valuation questions (especially related-party and Article 8 additions), which makes it difficult to describe the fact pattern with sufficient specificity in a consultation petition without disclosing commercially sensitive transfer-pricing or contract data; and (3) the availability of the post-clearance rectification mechanism under Article 22 of IN RFB 2090/2022, which permits an importer to register an import using a provisional transaction value and then rectify the value after the final price is determined, reducing the need for a prospective ruling.

Importers who face recurring valuation questions—for example, a multinational importer that purchases from affiliates under a global transfer-pricing policy, or an importer that pays technology royalties to an offshore licensor—are generally advised to prepare contemporaneous transfer-pricing documentation and related-party non-influence evidence (test values under Article 4, § 3, of IN RFB 2090/2022) rather than seeking a prospective consultation ruling. The burden-of-proof rules in Article 4 of IN RFB 2090/2022 (which place the burden on the importer to demonstrate that a related-party relationship did not influence the price) and the RFB's practice of conducting valuation control primarily through post-clearance audits mean that a favorable consultation ruling, while legally binding, does not in practice eliminate the risk of a subsequent challenge if the importer's documentation fails to support the declared value.

Source: Decreto 7574/2011, Arts. 88–90 Source: IN RFB 1464/2014 (tariff classification consultations)

Brazil requires importers to add royalties and license fees (royalties e direitos de licença) to the customs value when two conditions are met: (1) the payments are related to the imported goods and (2) the payments are a condition of sale of those goods. This dual-gate test, codified in Article 77 of Decreto 6759/2009 and detailed in Article 7 of Normative Instruction RFB 2090 of June 22, 2022, follows the WTO Valuation Agreement Article 8(1)(c) framework. The royalty add-back creates dual compliance risk for Brazilian importers: the same payment triggers withholding income tax at 15 percent (or 25 percent for remittances to low-tax jurisdictions under Law 9,430/1996 Article 24) and the CIDE-Royalties contribution at 10 percent under Law 10,168/2000, in addition to increasing the customs-value base for import duty, IPI, PIS-Importação, Cofins-Importação, and ICMS.

Legal framework

Article 77 of Decreto 6759/2009 mandates that royalties and license fees form part of the customs value regardless of which valuation method is used (transaction value or substitute methods) when the two statutory conditions are satisfied. The provision states: "Integram o valor aduaneiro ... os royalties e os direitos de licença relacionados com a mercadoria objeto de valoração, que o comprador deva pagar, direta ou indiretamente, como condição de venda dessa mercadoria, desde que tais valores não estejam incluídos no preço efetivamente pago ou a pagar."

Article 7 of IN RFB 2090/2022 implements this rule in operational detail. Article 7, inciso II, requires addition of "royalties and license fees related to the goods subject to valuation that the buyer must pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of sale of those goods, to the extent such amounts are not already included in the price actually paid or payable."

First prong: "related to the goods"

Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of IN RFB 2090/2022 provides an expansive definition of "related to the goods": royalties and license fees are deemed related to the imported goods if they are owed on the inputs (insumos) used in the production of the goods abroad. The statutory text reads: "Consideram-se também como relacionados à mercadoria objeto de valoração, os royalties e direitos de licença devidos sobre os insumos utilizados em sua produção no exterior."

This insumos rule captures technology royalties, design-rights payments, and trademark-licensing fees that apply to components or materials incorporated into the finished import, even when the license agreement is between the Brazilian importer and a third-party licensor (not the seller of the finished goods). For example:

• A Brazilian importer purchases finished pharmaceutical tablets from an Indian contract manufacturer. The importer pays a royalty to a Swiss pharmaceutical company (unrelated to the Indian manufacturer) for the right to use the active pharmaceutical ingredient formulation covered by the Swiss company's patent. The royalty is related to the goods under the insumos rule, because the patented API is an input used in production of the imported tablets, even though the Swiss licensor is neither the seller nor the producer.

• A Brazilian importer purchases branded consumer electronics from a Chinese assembler. The importer pays a trademark-licensing fee to a U.S. brand owner for the right to affix the trademark to the imported goods. The fee is related to the goods under Article 7, § 1, even if the U.S. brand owner does not manufacture or sell the physical units.

The Receita Federal's administrative practice treats design, engineering drawings, technical specifications, and software embedded in imported goods as insumos for this purpose. If the importer pays a license fee to use proprietary CAD files, manufacturing process documentation, or embedded firmware necessary for production of the imported goods, that license fee is related to the goods and subject to the Article 7 add-back if the second prong (condition of sale) is also satisfied.

Second prong: "condition of sale"

Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of IN RFB 2090/2022 codifies the condition-of-sale test: "Considera-se como condição de venda da mercadoria importada, o pagamento dos correspondentes royalties e direitos de licença, sempre que a obrigatoriedade desse pagamento pelo comprador decorra da aquisição da mercadoria objeto de valoração, inclusive como condição para sua produção no exterior, independentemente da relação existente entre o licenciante e o vendedor ou comprador."

The critical phrase is "decorra da aquisição" — the payment obligation arises from (is triggered by) the acquisition of the imported goods. The test is transactional causation, not contractual form. The royalty is a condition of sale if the importer cannot purchase the goods (or cannot have them manufactured for export to Brazil) without paying the royalty, even when:

• The license agreement is a separate contract from the purchase order or supply contract;
• The licensor is a third party (parent company, unrelated IP owner) distinct from the seller or manufacturer of the goods; or
• The royalty is calculated on a basis different from the unit price or volume of the imported goods (e.g., a lump-sum annual fee, a percentage of the importer's downstream sales revenue in Brazil, or a per-unit rate applied to the importer's total production rather than only the imported units).

Paragraph 2 makes clear that the relationship between the licensor and the seller (or between the licensor and the buyer) is irrelevant to the condition-of-sale analysis. A trademark-licensing agreement between a Brazilian subsidiary and its foreign parent company, under which the subsidiary pays a royalty for the right to import and resell branded goods manufactured by an unrelated third-party supplier, is a condition of sale if the parent's trademark license is necessary for the subsidiary to acquire the branded goods from the third-party manufacturer. Conversely, if the subsidiary could purchase the same physical goods (unbranded or bearing a different mark) from the same manufacturer without paying the parent's royalty, the royalty is not a condition of sale and is excluded from the customs value under Article 79 of Decreto 6759/2009.

Common fact patterns: condition of sale satisfied

The Receita Federal and the WTO Technical Committee on Customs Valuation recognize the following scenarios as royalties that are conditions of sale:

1. Franchise or trademark-licensing arrangements where the license restricts the source of supply. A Brazilian franchisee of a fast-food brand pays a royalty to the U.S. franchisor and is required by the franchise agreement to purchase certain ingredients, packaging materials, or point-of-sale equipment from suppliers approved by the franchisor (or from the franchisor itself). The royalty is a condition of sale of the imported goods, because the franchisee cannot lawfully import the branded items without the franchise license.

1. Technology-transfer agreements tied to procurement of goods embodying the licensed technology. A Brazilian automotive assembler licenses manufacturing know-how and design specifications from a foreign technology provider and, under the license, is required to purchase certain high-precision components that embody the licensed technology from the licensor or from manufacturers certified by the licensor. The license fee is a condition of sale because the assembler cannot manufacture (or import) the specified components without the technology license.

1. Patent-license fees for active ingredients or processes when the importer purchases goods produced under the patent. A Brazilian pharmaceutical importer licenses a patented drug formulation and purchases the finished drug product (manufactured abroad under the licensed patent) from a contract manufacturer. The patent-license royalty is a condition of sale, because without the license the importer has no legal right to import goods that infringe the Brazilian-registered patent (assuming the patent is enforceable in Brazil) or, if the goods are manufactured abroad, the importer has no right to have the foreign producer manufacture the goods under the foreign counterpart patent.

Common fact patterns: condition of sale NOT satisfied

The following royalty payments are typically excluded from the customs value because they are not conditions of sale, even though they may be related to the imported goods in a commercial sense:

1. Post-importation distribution or resale licenses. A Brazilian importer purchases unbranded goods and pays a royalty to a trademark owner for the right to affix the trademark in Brazil and resell the goods domestically under that mark. If the importer could have purchased and imported the same physical goods without the trademark license, and the license governs only the downstream use and resale of the goods within Brazil, the royalty is not a condition of sale of the imported goods. Article 79, inciso I, of Decreto 6759/2009 (which excludes post-importation charges from the customs value) supports this exclusion.

1. Stand-alone software licenses or service agreements. A Brazilian company pays a license fee for enterprise software (SAP, Oracle, Microsoft) that is used internally to manage its operations, including import transactions, but the software is not embedded in the imported goods and the license is not a condition imposed by the seller of the goods. The software-license fee is unrelated to the valuation of the imported goods and is excluded.

1. Lump-sum royalties not tied to acquisition of specific goods. A Brazilian manufacturer pays an annual technology-transfer fee to a foreign parent for access to a portfolio of patents, trade secrets, and technical assistance, and separately purchases raw materials and components from unrelated suppliers. If the manufacturer could lawfully purchase and import the raw materials without the technology license (because the materials themselves do not embody the licensed technology), the lump-sum royalty is not a condition of sale of those materials. However, if the license is necessary to transform the imported materials into finished goods using the licensed process, and the importer is obligated to purchase certain materials as a condition of the license, the allocation question becomes fact-intensive and may require a ruling from the Receita Federal.

Allocation of lump-sum royalties across multiple NCM codes or shipments

When an importer pays a lump-sum royalty (e.g., a fixed quarterly or annual fee) that relates to multiple imported goods classified in different NCM codes or imported over multiple shipments, the importer must allocate the royalty across the individual import declarations to determine the amount to be added to the customs value of each shipment. Article 7 of IN RFB 2090/2022 does not prescribe a specific allocation method. The WTO Technical Committee Commentary 25.1 (incorporated by reference in the Annex to IN RFB 2090/2022 under Article 29) provides that allocation may be performed on the basis of "objective and quantifiable data," such as:

• Pro-rata allocation based on the quantity (weight, units) of imported goods to which the royalty relates, as a proportion of total quantity imported or produced during the royalty period;
• Pro-rata allocation based on the FOB value of the imported goods as a proportion of total purchases subject to the license;
• Pro-rata allocation based on production volume or sales revenue, if the royalty is expressed as a percentage of the licensee's output or turnover and a reasonable basis exists to link the royalty to the cost of imported inputs.

Brazilian customs practice does not permit allocation of a lump-sum royalty by simply adding a fixed per-unit amount to every imported item, unless the license agreement itself specifies a per-unit rate. If the importer cannot provide objective data to allocate the lump-sum royalty to a specific import declaration, the RFB may determine the allocation using the substitute valuation methods or may challenge the entire royalty arrangement in a post-clearance audit.

Interaction with Brazilian withholding tax and CIDE-Royalties

The customs-valuation add-back for royalties operates independently of (and in addition to) the Brazilian withholding income tax and CIDE-Royalties contribution that apply to the same payment. Under Law 9,430/1996 Article 685 (as amended), remittances abroad for royalties and license fees are subject to income tax withheld at source at the rate of:

• 15 percent for payments to residents of jurisdictions with which Brazil has a tax treaty or that are not on the Brazilian low-tax-jurisdiction list (the "grey list" under IN RFB 1,037/2010 as amended or the "black list" of tax havens);
• 25 percent for payments to residents of jurisdictions on the grey or black lists.

In addition, Law 10,168/2000 imposes the CIDE-Royalties contribution at 10 percent on remittances for:

• Royalties for the use or grant of use of trademarks, patents, and industrial-property rights (excluding software licenses under certain conditions);
• Technology-transfer payments and technical-assistance fees, when technology is transferred.

The CIDE rate was temporarily reduced to zero for the semiconductor sector under certain industrial-policy programs (e.g., PADIS), but the general 10 percent rate applies to most royalty categories.

Customs vs. income-tax base: The customs-value addition is calculated on the royalty amount before withholding tax and CIDE. For example, if a Brazilian importer pays a royalty of USD 100,000 for the right to import trademarked goods, and the royalty is a condition of sale, the importer must:

1. Add USD 100,000 (converted to BRL at the applicable exchange rate) to the customs value of the imported goods;
2. Withhold 15% or 25% income tax on the USD 100,000 remittance (USD 15,000 or USD 25,000);
3. Pay 10% CIDE-Royalties on the USD 100,000 remittance (USD 10,000); and
4. Pay import duty, IPI, PIS-Importação, Cofins-Importação, and ICMS on the inflated customs value that includes the USD 100,000 royalty addition.

The effective combined burden (withholding tax, CIDE, and increased duty/tax base) can exceed 50 percent of the royalty payment in high-duty product categories, creating significant pressure to structure transactions to avoid or defer the royalty add-back where legally permissible.

Transfer-pricing documentation as evidence of royalty allocation

Paragraph 6 of Article 4 of IN RFB 2090/2022 (discussed in the related-party section) permits the Receita Federal to rely on transfer-pricing documentation submitted for corporate-income-tax purposes as evidence of the arm's-length value of royalties in related-party transactions. Conversely, importers who pay royalties to related-party licensors and can demonstrate that the royalty rate and base are consistent with the arm's-length principle under Law 14,596/2023 (the 2024 transfer-pricing reform, effective January 1, 2024) may use that documentation to support the quantum and allocation of the royalty add-back for customs purposes. However, Brazil's deductibility caps for royalty expenses under the pre-2024 regime (1 percent to 5 percent of net revenue, depending on the type of intangible, per Law 9,430/1996 Article 355 prior to its repeal) applied only for income-tax purposes and did not limit the customs-valuation add-back; an importer who paid a royalty exceeding the income-tax deductibility cap was still required to add the full royalty amount to the customs value if it met the Article 7 conditions.

Documentation and audit risk

The Receita Federal conducts the bulk of royalty-related valuation control in post-clearance audits. Article 76 of Decreto 6759/2009 subjects all imports to valuation control, and the RFB routinely requests the following documentation when it identifies a royalty payment in the importer's transfer-pricing filings, withholding-tax returns (DIRF), or CIDE-Royalties declarations:

• The license or franchise agreement (in Portuguese translation if originally in a foreign language) specifying the scope of the licensed rights, the calculation basis for the royalty, and any restrictions on the importer's source of supply or manufacturing process;
• Invoices and remittance records showing the amounts paid and the periods to which the payments relate;
• Allocation worksheets demonstrating how a lump-sum or percentage-based royalty was apportioned across individual import declarations, with the supporting data (quantities, FOB values, production volumes) used in the allocation;
• Correspondence or purchase orders linking the royalty obligation to the acquisition of the imported goods (to satisfy the condition-of-sale test).

If the importer cannot produce contemporaneous documentation showing that the royalty was a condition of sale or cannot provide an objective allocation basis, the RFB may:

1. Issue an assessment adding an estimated royalty amount to the customs value of all relevant import declarations within the five-year statute of limitations (per Article 173 of the Código Tributário Nacional, Law 5,172/1966);
2. Apply a 75 percent civil penalty for undervaluation (under Article 726 of Decreto 6759/2009 for omission or incorrect declaration of value); or
3. Refer the matter for criminal investigation if the undervaluation exceeds BRL 500,000 in a twelve-month period and the RFB determines the importer acted with intent to evade duty (qualifying for the customs-fraud offense under Law 4,729/1965 Article 1 as incorporated into the customs-penalty framework).

Importers who pay recurring royalties on imported goods should prepare a prospective allocation methodology and retain the supporting data for the full records-retention period to defend the methodology in a post-clearance audit.

Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Art. 77 Source: IN RFB 2090/2022, Art. 7