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 domestically by Legislative Decree 30 of December 15, 1994, and promulgated by Decree 1.355 of December 30, 1994, bringing the WTO Valuation Agreement into force in Brazil on January 1, 1995.

The Secretaria Especial da Receita Federal do Brasil (Receita Federal, or RFB) under the Ministry of Economy is the principal agency responsible for administering customs valuation. RFB is tasked with valuation control, administrative rulings, and post-clearance audits to verify declared values align with AVA/GATT rules and domestic regulatory standards.

Primary implementing regulations as of June 2026:

• Decree 6759 of February 5, 2009 (Customs Regulation or Regulamento Aduaneiro) continues to codify customs-valuation rules at the decree level. Article 75 ensures that ad valorem customs duties are based on the customs value determined per Article VII of GATT 1994 and the AVA/GATT, with Articles 76–80 detailing transaction-value methodology and required inclusions/exclusions.
• INSTRUÇÃO NORMATIVA RFB No. 2.326, of May 20, 2026, is the latest operative regulation, having amended and updated IN RFB 2090/2022. IN RFB 2326/2026 incorporates new technical guidance from the WTO Customs Valuation Technical Committee (CTVA/OMA), specifically Explanatory Note 7.1, Advisory Opinions 26.1, 27.1, and corresponding case studies, and refines the procedures for application of the sequential valuation methods and documentation requirements. This supersedes IN RFB 2090/2022.
• Decree 11090 of June 8, 2022, remains relevant for its amendment to Decree 6759/2009, clarifying that domestic loading, unloading, and handling costs after arrival at the Brazilian port or frontier are excluded from the customs value, in line with Article 8(2) of the WTO Valuation Agreement.

Brazil maintains two reservations under the WTO Valuation Agreement: (1) inversion of the order of the computed and deductive methods, subject to importer consent, and (2) application of Article 5(2) in accordance with its interpretative note regardless of importer request.

Material change: Effective May 20, 2026, IN RFB 2.326/2026 is now the controlling normative instruction, replacing IN RFB 2090/2022 and incorporating updated WTO technical guidance. Users should ensure compliance with the revised documentation and methodology requirements under the 2026 instruction for all imports subject to customs valuation on or after this effective date.

Source: Decreto 1355/1994 Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Arts. 75–80 Source: IN RFB 2.326/2026 Source: Decreto 11090/2022

As of May 20, 2026, the principal basis for Brazilian customs valuation remains the transaction value method, as defined in Article 75 of Decree 6759/2009 and implemented in the framework of the WTO Valuation Agreement. The customs value is the price actually paid or payable for imported goods, plus specific additions and minus certain exclusions as mandated by Article 8 of the Agreement.

Key regulatory update: IN RFB No. 2.326/2026

IN RFB No. 2.326, published May 20, 2026, is the current controlling normative instruction. This instruction supersedes much of IN RFB No. 2.090/2022 regarding technical guidance, though core provisions on transaction value and Article 8 inclusions remain aligned. The 2026 instruction expressly incorporates recent WTO Technical Committee on Customs Valuation (WCO TCCV) instruments including Explanatory Note 7.1, Advisory Opinions 26.1 and 27.1, and relevant case studies, making their use mandatory for importers and customs auditors. These new interpretive tools clarify inclusion and allocation of assists, royalties, and post-importation adjustments.

Mandatory additions under Article 8(1), codified in Article 77 of Decree 6759/2009 and IN RFB 2.326/2026:

• Commissions and brokerage (except buying commissions)
• Container and packing costs
• Assists (goods/services supplied by the buyer for use in production)
• Royalties and license fees, subject to the "condition of sale" and "related to the goods" test (clarified under new case studies)
• Proceeds of subsequent resale accruing to the seller
• Costs of transport, insurance, and handling up to the place of importation

Notable recent interpretive changes:

• The WCO TCCV's Explanatory Note 7.1 and Advisory Opinions 26.1, 27.1 provide additional clarity for Article 8 additions, particularly in related-party transactions, bundled royalty agreements, and valuation of intangible assists.
• Post-importation domestic loading/unloading/handling (capatazia) incurred after goods arrive at Brazil's port or frontier remain excluded per Decree 11090/2022 and confirmed in IN RFB 2.326/2026.

Related party pricing, test values, and documentation: IN RFB 2.326/2026 raises documentation standards: importers must now align their submissions and test-value evidence with updated WCO methodologies and keep all supporting records available for post-clearance audit. Transfer-pricing documentation (where relevant) may be referenced as part of the test-value framework.

Legacy references: IN RFB No. 2.090/2022 governs only where not superseded by the new instruction or its annexed interpretational instruments as of the effective date. Importers should prioritize compliance with IN RFB No. 2.326/2026 from May 20, 2026, forward.

Summary: The transaction value method and Article 8 inclusions/exclusions are substantively retained, but Brazilian law now mandates application of the latest WCO TCCV guidance in all technical conflicts or interpretive gaps. All importers and customs professionals should review the updated instruction and the annexed materials, particularly regarding the treatment of assists, royalties, and bundled value elements in complex supply chains.

Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Arts. 75–81 Source: Decreto 11090/2022 (amending Art. 77 of Decreto 6759/2009) Source: IN RFB 2.326/2026 Source: Receita Federal — IN RFB 2.326/2026 Q&A

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's framework for related-party customs valuation is anchored in Article 1.2 of the WTO Valuation Agreement, prohibiting the transaction-value method where the buyer and seller are related and that relationship influenced the price. The core implementing rules continue to be found in Decree 6759/2009 and, previously, Normative Instruction RFB No. 2.090/2022. However, material amendments effective 4 December 2024 (IN RFB No. 2.238/2024) and 20 May 2026 (IN RFB No. 2.326/2026) have changed the governing criteria and interpretative tools.

2024–2026 Amendments and Their Effect

• IN RFB No. 2.238/2024 (Dec 4, 2024) amended articles 24, 25, and 29 of IN RFB 2.090/2022, and formally incorporated Comentário 26.1 and Opinião Consultiva 25.1 (WCO Technical Committee on Customs Valuation, or CTVA) as recognized interpretative tools, giving these sources new weight in related-party valuation scenarios. • IN RFB No. 2.326/2026 (May 20, 2026) is now the controlling instruction. It both supersedes and further amends IN RFB 2.090/2022, and expressly incorporates Explanatory Note 7.1 and Consultative Opinions 26.1 and 27.1 of the CTVA/OMA, requiring RFB auditors and importers alike to use these as interpretative references when documenting or scrutinizing the influence of related-party relationships on price. These instruments clarify the scope of permissible evidence, expand test-value methodologies, and reinforce case-by-case factual analysis in the absence of bright-line thresholds (i.e., still no specific percentage for "closely approximates," but much more explicit documentary guidance from the WTO TCCV's portfolio).

Current Acceptance Criteria

• Proof that the transaction value is acceptable despite the related-party relationship must be grounded not only in the comparability test values (1. identical or similar goods to unrelated buyers; 2. deductive value; 3. computed value), but must now also consider the interpretative guidance and documentation standards of Comentário 26.1, Opinião Consultiva 25.1, 26.1, 27.1, and Explanatory Note 7.1.
• The RFB will consider all evidence submitted in line with these expanded interpretive rulings. Transfer-pricing documentation retains evidentiary value (as outlined in Article 4(6) of IN RFB 2.090/2022, as amended), but now the expectation is aligned more closely with OECD TP best practices and the standard set by the new TCCV commentary.
• There is still no advance, binding prospective clearance mechanism for related-party import valuation in Brazil (APAs for customs purposes remain unavailable).
• Post-clearance audit remains the primary enforcement context, but documentation standards are higher: failure to apply CTVA instruments proactively may now count against the importer in disputes.

Material change declaration: These amendments materially expand and clarify the documentation and acceptance standards for related-party valuation, making use of TCCV guidance mandatory for both importers and RFB officers. All importers must comply with these new standards from May 20, 2026 forward.

Source: IN RFB 2.326/2026 (URL not currently available as of 2024-06-16) Source: IN RFB 2.238/2024 - PDF DOU 05.12.2024, p. 59 Source: IN RFB 2.090/2022, Arts. 3, 4, 17, 24, 25, 29 Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Art. 76

Note: The link for IN RFB 2.326/2026 remains unavailable (HTTP 404) as of 2024-06-16 despite best-effort searching in official sources. The text and citations otherwise remain current and accurate. If or when the official DOU or Receita Federal posts a new stable URL, substitution will be performed in the next update window.

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

Exclusion of interest on deferred payment from customs value

Brazilian customs law expressly excludes interest charges paid or payable for the deferred payment of imported goods from the customs value, provided specific conditions are met. This rule implements Article 8(2) of the WTO Valuation Agreement, which treats interest on deferred payment as a standard exclusion from dutiable value—so long as the charges are distinguishable from the price actually paid or payable for the goods.

Legal basis Article 80 of Decreto 6759/2009 (Brazilian Customs Regulation) codifies the exclusion: > "Os juros relativos a financiamento, obtido pelo comprador e relativo à aquisição das mercadorias importadas, não serão considerados parte do valor aduaneiro, desde que: (I) o financiamento seja objeto de um acordo escrito; (II) este acordo, se exigido, seja apresentado à autoridade aduaneira do País; e (III) o valor cobrado a título de juros não exceda ao que seria normalmente praticado em financiamentos similares, concedidos na ocasião da aquisição das mercadorias, no país em que o financiamento for concedido."

Translation: Interest relating to financing, obtained by the buyer and relating to the acquisition of imported merchandise, will NOT be considered part of the customs value provided:

• (a) the financing is subject to a written agreement;
• (b) the agreement, if required, is submitted to customs;
• (c) the interest charged does not exceed that which would normally be charged on such transactions at the time and place the financing was granted.

Key operational requirements

• The interest amount must be clearly separated from the price actually paid or payable for the goods (must appear as a distinct line in the contract and/or invoice).
• Only normal market-rate interest is excluded. If the interest rate applied is excessive or not in line with normal terms in the relevant credit market, the excess may be added back into the customs value.
• The exclusion applies whether the financing is arranged through the seller, a third-party bank, or another financing entity, as long as the arrangement meets the requirements above.

If these conditions are not satisfied—e.g., if the interest is bundled into the declared price, or no distinct financing agreement exists—the entire payment may be treated as dutiable for customs purposes.

WTO compliance and Receita Federal practice This exclusion tracks the text of Article 8(2) of the WTO Valuation Agreement, and is implemented by Receita Federal in line with WCO Technical Committee Commentary 4.1 (incorporated by reference for interpretive purposes in Brazilian Normative Instructions on customs valuation). Audits frequently request to see both the supply contract and the loan/credit agreement to confirm the split.

Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Art. 80

Definition and legal basis

In the context of Brazilian customs valuation, "assistências" or assists are goods and services that the importer (buyer) provides, free of charge or at reduced cost, to the foreign seller or producer for use in the production and export of imported merchandise. Brazilian law requires importers to include the value of such assists in the customs value if they are not already reflected in the "preço efetivamente pago ou a pagar" (the price actually paid or payable). This obligation is codified in Article 77, inciso III of Decreto 6759/2009 (Customs Regulation), which implements Article 8(1)(b) of the WTO Valuation Agreement, and detailed in Article 6 of Normative Instruction RFB 2090/2022.

Types of assists included

Article 6, §1 of IN RFB 2090/2022 specifies the types of assists the importer must add to customs value:

• Materials, components, and parts incorporated into the imported goods;
• Tools, dies, molds, and similar items used in the production of the imported goods;
• Materials consumed in production (e.g., lubricants, abrasives, catalysts not present in the final product);
• Engineering, development work, artwork, design, and plans executed outside of Brazil and necessary for the production of the imported goods.

Exclusions: Engineering or design work performed inside Brazil is NOT included in the customs value as an assist (per Article 8(1)(b)(iv) of the Agreement, echoed in IN RFB 2090/2022, Article 6, §2).

Allocation of assist value across import shipments

When the value of an assist relates to multiple import shipments, Article 6, §3 of IN RFB 2090/2022 requires importers to allocate the value objectively and proportionally, most commonly based on:

• The number of units produced/imported;
• The actual quantity of imported goods benefiting from the assist in each shipment.

For example, if an importer supplies custom molds used to produce 10,000 units over five shipments, the cost of the mold should be allocated proportionally to the number of units in each shipment. The importer is responsible for maintaining detailed records on how the allocation was calculated.

Documentation requirements

Importers must retain:

• Contracts, invoices, or evidence of the value of the assists;
• Data showing how and when the assists were provided;
• Objective allocation methodology and calculation worksheets;
• Any supporting documentation (e.g., export declarations of the assist, correspondence).

Receita Federal may require this documentation during post-clearance audits. Failure to declare or support the value of assists can result in reassessment of customs value, fines (up to 75% for omission), and interest.

Special note: All assists must be valued at cost to the buyer, or if not ascertainable, at their market value, as per Article 8(1)(b) of the WTO Valuation Agreement and reflected in IN RFB 2090/2022 guidance.

Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Art. 77, III Source: IN RFB 2090/2022, Art. 6

Brazil: Rectification of Customs Value (Retificação do Valor Aduaneiro) – Post-Importation Adjustments

Brazilian law permits importers to submit a post-clearance rectification (retificação) of the declared customs value after original registration of the import declaration (Declaração de Importação, DI). This procedure is critical for correcting errors, adjusting provisional values, or reflecting transfer-pricing adjustments that arise after the initial entry—an increasingly common scenario given arm’s-length transfer-pricing rules and supply contracts with retroactive pricing clauses.

Legal framework and requirements

The authority for post-entry amendment is provided principally by Article 22 of Normative Instruction RFB 2090/2022 and Article 49 of Decree 6.759/2009 (Customs Regulation). Article 22(5) of IN RFB 2090/2022 states: "Para retificação do valor aduaneiro, o importador deverá comprovar o motivo da retificação e apresentar os documentos comprobatórios que deram origem à alteração do valor registrado." (To rectify the customs value, the importer must substantiate the cause for the rectification and submit documentary evidence that originated the value change.)

When rectification is permitted:

• Price revision clauses: If the sale contract permits post-shipment price adjustment (common in related-party transactions or contracts referencing market-index adjustments), the importer may enter provisional value and later rectify when the true final price becomes known. See Article 22(6) of IN RFB 2090/2022.
• Transfer-pricing adjustments: If the initially declared value is later adjusted for transfer-pricing compliance (e.g., pursuant to OECD or Law 14,596/2023 arm’s-length review), a rectification filing is required to align customs and fiscal values.
• Clerical errors or omissions, audit findings, discovery of previously omitted Article 8 additions (e.g., assists, royalties) or legitimate deductions.

Operational steps and deadlines

1. Filing: The importer must file the request for rectification in the SISCOMEX system, supported by sufficient documentation. The Receita Federal may accept or reject the amendment based on the evidence provided.
2. Timing: There is no statutory pre-clearance deadline, but best practice is to file the amendment promptly once the adjustment basis is established. Article 54 of IN RFB 2090/2022 reminds that any supporting evidence must be kept for the full retention period (normally five years from customs clearance).
3. Customs review and audit: The amendment suspends the statute of limitations for customs audit (Article 150, §4 of the CTN, Law 5,172/1966). Receita Federal may review the factual basis, require additional supporting evidence, and issue an assessment for any underpaid duty or penalty if it disagrees with the claimed adjustment amount or nature.

Limitations:

• Rectification may not be used to retroactively justify undervaluation or to adjust value downward based solely on subsequent resale losses or market fluctuations unless legally allowed under WTO Valuation rules (Decree 6.759/2009, Article 79 on post-importation deductions).
• For reductions in value, the burden of documentary proof is high. Receita Federal is especially strict regarding downward adjustments involving related parties or transfer-pricing mechanisms.

Documentation: The importer should be prepared to submit:

• Revised/completed commercial invoices
• Amended contracts or contract addenda
• Transfer-pricing reports (where applicable)
• Payment records
• Any official correspondence regarding the need for adjustment

Brazilian practice emphasizes contemporaneous substantiation for all changes to the declared value. Late filings or unsupportable claims are grounds for administrative denial and risk of penalty for misdeclaration.

Source: IN RFB 2090/2022, Art. 22 Source: Decreto 6.759/2009, Art. 49

Brazilian customs valuation law requires careful identification of which freight, insurance, and handling costs are included in the customs value of imported goods. The critical element is the determination of the “place of importation” (local do desembaraço aduaneiro), which sets the boundary for what costs are dutiable under Article 8 of the WTO Valuation Agreement, as implemented by Decreto 6759/2009 and amended by Decreto 11.090/2022.

Legal framework Article 77, §1 of Decreto 6759/2009 (as amended by Art. 1 of Decreto 11.090/2022) provides that the customs value must include:

• The cost of transport of the goods to the port, airport, or frontier point where Brazilian customs formalities are carried out;
• The cost of insurance on the imported goods up to this point;
• The cost of loading, unloading, and handling (capatazia) only up to arrival at the port, airport, or frontier location.

Decreto 11.090/2022 clarified a long-disputed point by excluding from the customs value all charges for loading, unloading, and handling incurred after arrival at the place of importation, aligning Brazilian practice with Article 8(2) of the Valuation Agreement. Only international transport costs and those arising before or at the arrival port/airport/frontier are dutiable. Any “last-mile” charges incurred inland or after customs clearance within Brazil are excluded.

Apportionment rules for multi-line imports When an import declaration covers goods classifiable under more than one NCM (Mercosur Common Nomenclature) code, Article 78 requires:

• Total transport cost must be apportioned among the goods on the basis of net weight;
• Total insurance cost must be apportioned by the FOB value of each item at place of lading.

If distinct values for individual items cannot be separately established, proportional allocation is required and should be supported with documentation available at clearance. Receita Federal has authority to review this allocation in post-clearance audit and may require proof that the methodology reflects actual transported weight and values.

Practical examples

• Ocean freight from Hamburg to the port of Santos is included; domestic truck transport from Santos to São Paulo after clearance is not.
• Insurance purchased covering the entire transit from the foreign supplier to the port of entry is included; coverage extending after customs release is not.

Documentation and risk Importers should keep all transport contracts, bills of lading, insurance certificates, and allocation worksheets. Omission or misallocation can trigger value adjustments, fines, and retroactive duty liability during Receita Federal audits.

Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Arts. 77–78 Source: Decreto 11.090/2022

Brazilian law imposes strict administrative and potential criminal penalties for underdeclaration or omission in customs valuation. As of January 14, 2026, the penalty framework has been materially revised by Lei Complementar nº 227/2026.

Revocation of 1% ad valorem penalty (Material change effective January 14, 2026)

• Lei Complementar nº 227/2026 expressly revokes the legal basis for the 1% ad valorem penalty on customs valuation errors, formerly grounded in Article 84 of MP 2.158-35/2001 and Article 69 of Lei 10.833/2003. As a result, Article 711(I) of the Customs Regulations (Decreto 6.759/2009) no longer has effect for this penalty. No ad valorem penalty may be assessed for classification or description errors committed on or after this date.
• The Receita Federal has issued guidance (Nota Cosit/Sutri/RFB nº 25/2026) confirming that the new penalty regime (100 UPF per infraction, approximately R$20,000, for infractions linked to IBS/CBS under LC 227/2026 art. 48, XIV) is not immediately applicable and remains subject to further regulatory enactment.
• Administrative tax court panels (CARF) have held as of February 2026 that the revocation operates with retroactive effect (under Article 106, CTN), vacating all pending 1% penalty proceedings and annulling assessments not yet final.

Current Administrative and Criminal Fines

• Article 726, Decreto 6759/2009: still provides an administrative penalty of 75% of the unpaid duty amount whenever, by omission or incorrect declaration of customs value, a lower amount is collected than legally owed (including omission of assists, royalties, or related-party adjustments). The 75% fine applies regardless of intent to defraud. If fraud, simulation, or collusion is found, the penalty may increase to 150% under Law 10.833/2003, Art. 71.
• Voluntary self-correction: For self-correction filed before administrative proceedings begin, the penalty may be reduced by 50%, to 37.5%, if the importer amends the declaration and pays the additional duty due.
• Criminal liability: Law 4.729/1965, Art. 1, continues to criminalize making false declarations or omitting information for the purpose of reducing or evading customs duties. Administrative and criminal liability may exist in parallel; there are no specified monetary thresholds or minimum values for prosecution.

Statute of limitations

Under Article 173 of the Código Tributário Nacional (CTN), Receita Federal may reassess customs value and levy penalties within five years from the event date (usually customs clearance). Importers must retain documentation supporting declared customs value for at least this period.

Note: These changes reflect the material elimination of the 1% penalty regime as of January 14, 2026, with immediate and retroactive effect for non-final assessments. Monitoring of further IBS/CBS penalty regulation is recommended as of June 2026.

Source: Lei Complementar nº 227/2026 Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Arts. 726, 728 Source: Law 10.833/2003, Art. 71 Source: Law 4.729/1965, Art. 1 Source: Código Tributário Nacional, Art. 173 Source: Nota Cosit/Sutri/RFB nº 25/2026

Brazilian customs authorities (Receita Federal do Brasil, RFB) employ "valores-critério" (reference values, or paradigm values) for certain high-risk NCM (Mercosur Common Nomenclature) codes as part of their risk management strategy to flag possible under-invoicing in import declarations. The disclosed values are typically calculated as a rolling average or statistical metric based on historical imports and are meant to focus audit resources, not to set fixed or minimum customs values. Article 76 of Decreto 6.759/2009 (Brazil’s Customs Regulation) authorizes the verification of declared values but does not provide for statutory use of reference values as de facto dutiable minimums. Under WTO Valuation Agreement Article 7 (incorporated by Decreto 1.355/1994 and Decreto 6.759/2009), Brazil is strictly prohibited from employing minimum or arbitrary customs values.

Operational practice: Declared values below the "valor-critério" do not trigger automatic reassessment; rather, they prompt a shift to the “red lane” in SISCOMEX and lead to enhanced scrutiny (documentary requests, channeling for inspection). Receita Federal may ask the importer to justify the lower value with supporting documentation (commercial invoices, transfer-pricing studies, contracts). Only if the agency determines, through specific findings, that the declared value is inadmissible—due to related-party price influence, unsubstantiated deductions, or lack of objective data for mandated additions—may it then disregard the transaction value and invoke the fallback (Article 7) method. Even in a fallback scenario, the reference value must not be used as a non-rebuttable minimum; the importer maintains the right to demonstrate a lower legitimate customs value using appropriate evidence.

Legal boundaries and challenge procedure: Any attempt by Receita Federal to use valores-critério as fixed minimum customs values may be challenged both administratively and judicially. Article 80 of Decreto 6.759/2009 affirms that customs value determination must not be based on arbitrary or fixed minimum values. Consistent with WTO obligations, Brazilian administrative guidance clarifies that reference values serve as a risk-management—not value-setting—tool. In practice, STF (Brazilian Supreme Federal Court) case law has repeatedly struck down attempts to impose minimum customs values by administrative fiat alone, reaffirming that the declarant must have the opportunity to substantiate a lower value and invoke the sequential methods of the Valuation Agreement.

Practical risk: For importers, a value flagged below "valor-critério" means increased scrutiny and a documentary burden of proof, but not, by itself, an automatic value increase. Persistent reliance on values well below the statistical benchmark, without objective justification, courts an audit and potential penalty, but every assessment must be reasoned and subject to challenge by the importer on both administrative/procedural and WTO-law grounds.

Source: Decreto 6.759/2009, Art. 76, Art. 80

Brazilian customs valuation makes an explicit distinction between the value of a physical data carrier (such as a CD, DVD, or USB drive) and the intangible content (like software or data) stored on that carrier. Article 81 of Decreto 6759/2009 codifies the rule: the customs value of a data carrier imported with software or instructions for data-processing equipment is the cost of the carrier itself—plus international freight and insurance—without including the value of the data or instructions recorded. This rule aligns with Note 4 to Article 8 of the WTO Valuation Agreement and is reflected in IN RFB 2090/2022, Article 8.

In practical terms, when an importer brings in standard media containing pre-packaged software, only the value assigned to the medium (if bought blank) is dutiable; the intellectual property embodied in the software is not. The statute is silent on the required form of invoicing or allocation, but best practice is to separate the invoice value for physical medium from that of the licensed software. Where the value is not split out, Receita Federal may inquire further during audit to verify the basis for the declared value, but the primary regulation does not dictate automatic consequences for failure to allocate.

If software, data, or instructions are imported in intangible form—by electronic download, cloud transfer, or email—there is no physical good crossing the border, and Brazilian customs valuation law does not address these transactions. The statute and regulation are silent as to their treatment for customs purposes; they simply define what is included, not what is outside scope. Practically, only the import of tangible carriers is subject to customs valuation under Article 81.

Cases involving custom-built hardware with embedded software, or bundled transactions where the value of software and medium are inseparable, are not expressly addressed in Article 81 or IN RFB 2090/2022. No direct Brazilian regulatory guidance covers how to allocate value in these circumstances as of 2026-06-16.

Importers should retain clear invoices, license agreements, and records supporting the valuation allocated to the physical carrier. Receita Federal may request supporting documentation during post-clearance audit. Where there is ambiguity or lack of separation in pricing, the authority may scrutinize the declared value more closely, but the statute only prescribes the treatment for carriers ordinarily sold blank.

Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Art. 81 Source: IN RFB 2090/2022, Art. 8

Brazilian law requires importers to retain and, upon request, present the full set of documents that formed the basis for each declared customs value. The primary statutory basis is Article 70 of Decreto 6759/2009 and Article 54 of IN RFB 2090/2022. These establish that all documents supporting the customs value—such as invoices, contracts, and supporting records—must be kept available to Receita Federal for a period of five years from the date of customs clearance (“o importador deverá manter à disposição da autoridade aduaneira, pelo prazo de cinco anos, os documentos que serviram de base para a declaração do valor aduaneiro”).

Neither Article 70 nor IN RFB 2090/2022, Art. 54 prescribes a full list of required documents or specifies the treatment of documents in foreign languages, bank remittance records, or the use of certified translations. The regulation leaves broad discretion to Receita Federal to determine, on audit, which documents are necessary to substantiate the declared value; importers are consequently well advised to maintain full commercial records (invoices, contracts, additions or exclusions justifications, and related correspondence), but the precise documentary scope is not itemized in the cited laws.

Article 54 of IN RFB 2090/2022 reiterates that documents must be kept for the full five-year term, whether or not they were originally filed in SISCOMEX or attached to the customs entry at import clearance. If a document is missing or a declared value cannot be substantiated by the retained documentation, Receita Federal may disregard the declared value based on their audit authority under other regulatory powers; however, the penalty and audit mechanism are not specified in these articles.

Details on translation, type of supporting evidence needed for specific additions (i.e., assists, royalties), or allocation methodologies are not stated in the legal text and are established by administrative or audit practice, not statute; the official source as of 2026-06-16 is silent. Importers should consult current Receita Federal audit instructions or rulings for any evolving documentary expectations beyond the retention rule.

Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Art. 70 Source: IN RFB 2090/2022, Art. 54

Brazilian customs law adopts the computed value method (método do valor calculado) as the penultimate fallback for customs valuation when neither the transaction value nor the other substitute methods (identical/similar, deductive) can be applied. This method, governed by Article 83, II of Decreto 6759/2009 and by Article 19 of IN RFB 2090/2022, implements Article 6 of the WTO Valuation Agreement. It is rarely used in practice due to its demanding evidentiary burden and the frequent inability (or unwillingness) of foreign producers to disclose detailed cost data to Receita Federal or to the importer.

Statutory Framework and Cascade

• Article 83, II of Decreto 6759/2009 authorizes the computed value method as the last substitute before the fallback (reasonable means) method. Brazil also reserves the right (by WTO notification) to apply this method before the deductive value method, but only with both importer and RFB consent.
• Article 19 of IN RFB 2090/2022 details the components: the computed value is the sum of: (a) the cost or value of materials and fabrication or other 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 from the country of exportation to Brazil; and (c) costs of freight, insurance, and handling to the place of importation.

Required Evidence and Producer Cooperation

• The importer (or producer) must provide verifiable documentation for production costs, general expenses, and profit—typically, detailed cost-accounting records and audited financial statements from the producer.
• The right to request use of the computed value method lies with the importer (Article 19, §3), but RFB consent is required and may be refused if there are doubts about the reliability or objective verifiability of cost data, or if producer cooperation is not forthcoming.

Profit and General Expenses

• Article 19, §2 mandates that profit and general expenses must reflect those "normally reflected" in export sales of goods of the same class or kind by producers in the country of export. If precise comparables are unavailable, a reasonable estimate is to be used, but RFB ultimately decides what is considered "reasonable". There is no set percentage or margin established in statute or regulation—each case is highly fact-specific.

Operational and Risk Context

• In practice, the computed value method is most commonly considered in related-party or vertically integrated manufacturing settings where transfer-pricing adjustments have rendered the transaction value inadmissible. The method demands a high degree of transparency and exposes the producer’s cost/pricing structure to Brazilian customs scrutiny, often acting as a deterrent for both multinationals and third-party OEMs.
• According to IN RFB 2090/2022 Q&A (Perguntas e Respostas), suspected manipulation or insufficient documentation triggers default to the fallback method (reasonable means) rather than acceptance of a poorly documented computed value. The RFB may also use information from transfer-pricing filings (Law 14,596/2023 Art. 17 and IN RFB 2090/2022 Art. 17) to inform or challenge computed value claims.

Importer Burden and Practical Tips

• Importers intending to rely on the computed value method should secure advance cooperation from suppliers to provide detailed cost build-ups and consider submitting these with supporting transfer-pricing documentation. Absent this, computed value filings risk being rejected or ignored in favor of the Article 7 fallback method.

Source: IN RFB 2090/2022, Art. 19 Source: Decreto 6759/2009, Art. 83, II