I. Introduction
The customs valuation of export goods presents challenges of considerable technical and legal complexity, especially when it comes to commodities traded in an international context marked by volatility and geopolitical conflicts. This issue takes on critical relevance in Argentina, a country that—unlike most nations in the region and the world—extensively applies export duties, making the determination of the tax base a matter of great fiscal and legal significance.
The structural tension between the unrestricted respect for the transaction price agreed upon by foreign trade operators and the powers of the Argentine customs service to disregard it in order to safeguard tax revenue requires a review of the regulatory guidelines and the fundamental criteria of our courts.
Without attempting to exhaustively cover the technical complexity of the subject in this brief space, this article aims to examine the regulatory framework for taxable value in exports, the issues surrounding the relationship between the parties, and the application of secondary valuation methods in the face of substantial price differences. It focuses particularly on the case of... commodities, it will be analyzed how the international price stands as an unavoidable objective standard, in the face of which exporters face a severe —and often insurmountable— evidentiary difficulty to justify transaction values far removed from said reference, inevitably leading to the dismissal of the agreed price.
II. The taxable value in exports and the transaction value method
El taxable value The value of the exported goods constitutes the basis for imposing export duties. ad valorem It also serves as the upper limit for calculating export refunds and reimbursements. This value must be calculated whenever an export declaration is requested, regardless of whether the goods have been sold abroad or not, and whether they are subject to or exempt from duties. [1].
The definition of the taxable value is structured on the FOB (free on board) value for water and air transport, or FCA (free carrier) for land transport, resulting from a cash sale between a buyer and a seller independent of each other, at a given time [2].
The tax regime may change between the time the decision to export for consumption is made and the time the goods finally leave the customs territory. The price of the goods, agreed upon by the buyer and seller, may also have fluctuated significantly in the markets; the exchange rate may have varied throughout that period; and customs duty rates may have changed, or even other taxes affecting the transaction may have been created or eliminated. [3].
To provide legal certainty to the operation in the face of such volatility, the Argentine Customs Code provides that, in most cases and outside of the exceptions mentioned in Articles 727 and 729, the critical moment to be taken into account to determine the taxable value of the goods is the date of registration with the customs service of the application for export for consumption [4].
When goods are exported as a result of a sale, the taxable value must be determined, as a general rule, by means of the transaction value methodThat is, starting from the price actually paid or payable for the goods sold for export to the country of import (or transaction price), subject to the corresponding positive or negative adjustments pursuant to Articles 735 to 743 of the Customs Code. Conversely, when there is no sale, or when the transaction price is inadmissible as a basis for valuation, the taxable value is determined by applying one of the secondary valuation methods contemplated in Article 748.
These methods allow the determination of the taxable value, with any necessary adjustments, based on: a) the transaction value of identical, or failing that, similar competitive merchandise; b) the price of the merchandise in international markets; c) prices predetermined by the authorities for certain and predetermined periods; d) the resale value in the domestic market of the importing country; e) the cost of production of the exported merchandise; f) the value of the merchandise in the domestic domestic market; and g) the presumed amount of the rental or leasing of the merchandise throughout the useful life of the merchandise.
Unlike what happens in matters of imports [5]Argentine law does not establish a strict sequential order for the application of secondary valuation methods in exports. Article 748 simply indicates that when the price paid or payable does not constitute a suitable valuation basis, the valuation basis should be that which “it would be better suited” to the case under consideration.
In short, regarding the taxable value, the value of the exported goods, expressed as the agreed-upon sales price between the buyer and seller, must be representative of the goods' value at the time of valuation and consistent with the value of identical, or similar, goods at that time. When significant, unjustified differences exist, customs may adjust the declared value, determining the resulting difference in duties.
III. Relationship between the parties and secondary valuation methods. Substantial differences and benchmark values
The existence of a corporate, commercial or financial link between the buyer and the seller represents one of the critical issues in customs valuation. [6].
Article 746 of the Customs Code establishes the general principle that mere affiliation does not, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds to consider the transaction price unacceptable. The price is only inadmissible if it is proven that the affiliation has influenced the price, deviating it from the principle of free competition or arm's lengthIn this case, the customs service may disregard the price paid or payable as a basis for valuation and determine the value in accordance with one of the secondary valuation methods provided for in Article 748.
In the case of transactions between related parties, customs has the power to request explanations from the exporter regarding their prices when it notices substantial differences with the prices of other exporters. In these cases, the exporter must provide the required explanations to justify that the lower declared price is based on acceptable reasons.
Article 747 of the Customs Code establishes, in this regard, that in the case of sales for export between related parties, the price paid or payable will be accepted, and in such case the goods will be valued in accordance with the provisions of Article 746, paragraph 1 —transaction value—, if the exporter —that is, the exporter related to the buyer— demonstrates that its export price does not differ substantially of any of the current values and resulting from taking into consideration article 748 subsections a), b) oc).
It is important to note that a substantial price difference exists when the margin between the declared price and the current prices of identical or similar merchandise—sold under the same circumstances of level, quantity, time, delivery conditions, and country of destination—is noticeable and significant. [7]If there is no substantial difference, the price declared by the exporter is a suitable basis for calculating the taxable value.
Consequently, when the export price declared by a related company is questioned, alleging the existence of a difference substantial with another comparable value, the exporter may demonstrate that this difference is not such by comparing its price with the value obtained through the application of one of the alternative valuation methods mentioned in the first three paragraphs of Article 748. That is to say, to justify the reasonableness of its price, the exporter may demonstrate that its transaction value does not differ substantially from certain criterion values provided for in the first three paragraphs of article 748. These objective admissibility parameters are: a) the transaction value of identical or similar competitive merchandise that was shipped, taking into consideration the modalities inherent to exporting [8]; b) the international price of the merchandise, taking into consideration the modalities inherent to exporting [9], and c) pre-established prices for certain and determined periods, resulting from averaging usual values of identical or similar competitive merchandise, taking into consideration the modalities inherent to exporting.
If the exporter is correct in this demonstration, customs must accept the declared transfer prices. However, if the customs service, based on the same methods provided for in Article 748, paragraphs a), b), and c), demonstrates that there is a significant difference between the declared price and the prices resulting from applying those same methods used by the exporter, it may justify the adjustment.
This is where the concept of commodity It acquires decisive relevance. In international markets, the commodities These are raw materials or products subject to basic transformation processes that do not substantially alter their value within the production chain, and which can be freely bought and sold. They are characterized by their homogeneity, ease of transport, the physical interconnection of their markets, and, fundamentally, the existence of a daily base of transactions between sellers and buyers that allows for the establishment of a reference price. This category includes basic groups of metals (gold, silver, copper, aluminum, etc.), energy (oil, liquefied gas), food (sugar, cocoa, coffee, etc.), grains (wheat, oats, corn, etc.), and livestock. [10].
Since these are markets that exhibit conditions of perfect competition and where the atomization of supply and demand determines an equilibrium price on a global scale, the international quotation is established as the most transparent reflection of the current market price.
Consequently, when the customs service has access to the international price quotation as a reliable reference (Article 748, paragraph b)), coupled with records of simultaneous transactions by third parties involving identical or similar goods at a significantly higher value than the contractually agreed price (Article 748, paragraph a)), a substantial difference with the price declared by the exporter will warrant questioning it. In these cases, it is highly likely that the exporter will fail to demonstrate the value required by Article 747, as they will be unable to justify their price against the aforementioned benchmark values. In this scenario, the burden of proof required by Article 747 becomes virtually insurmountable, legitimizing the tax authority's power to reject the documented value and proceed with the corresponding adjustment.
IV. Comparative jurisprudential analysis: the evidentiary dichotomy and market transparency
The legitimacy of value adjustments through the application of secondary valuation methods has given rise to extensive litigation, in which jurisprudence has defined the evidentiary standard required of both the Administration and the exporters.
The evolution of the pronouncements reveals a clear dichotomy based on the nature of the merchandise and the transparency of its reference market.
On leading case «YPF SA»[11], then replicated in many other cases such as «ENAP Sipetrol Argentina SA»[12]In cases related to the export of natural gas through pipelines, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation determined that the customs service cannot disregard the declared transaction price or apply secondary valuation methods — such as the international quotation of article 748 subsection b) — without duly justifying the act.
The Supreme Court emphasized, in this regard, that the inescapable burden of proving conclusively that the merchandise used as a parameter for comparison is truly "identical or similar", respecting the conditions of level, volume and temporality, falls on the Administration.
This precedent became especially relevant when considering that, for a product to be valued according to an international price quotation, it must meet the strict conditions of a commodityThe requirements were: homogeneity, ease of transport, physical interconnection between supply and demand markets, and a daily transaction volume. In the case of natural gas exported via pipelines, the physical limitations preventing its sale beyond neighboring markets made it unreasonable to apply prices from inaccessible markets such as those in the United States. Consequently, the adjustment was revoked upon discovering that pipeline natural gas lacked a transparent and uniform international price that would justify deviating from the agreed-upon price.
Conversely, when the merchandise does have an organized and verifiable international market, case law has upheld the tax authorities' power to reject the declared value. In the case «Ledesma SAAI» [13], the National Chamber of Appeals in Federal Administrative Litigation validated a value adjustment in the export of a genuine commodity (sugar).
The Court of Appeal expressly legitimized the methodology applied by the customs service under article 748 subsection b) of the Customs Code, based on technical and verifiable sources such as the quotations of the London Stock Exchange, as a reasonable basis for the determination of the taxable value, when the declared value was not representative.
The Court further emphasized that—within the factual context of these proceedings—a difference exceeding 10% between the agreed price and the stock market price constituted the "substantial difference" required by Article 747, validly authorizing the customs service to deviate from the documented value. The ruling of Chamber III became final after the extraordinary appeal filed by the plaintiff company was declared inadmissible.
The Chamber, in turn, referred to an analogous precedent, resolved in the same sense by Chamber V on 03/26/2019, which became final after not being appealed by the plaintiff firm [14].
V. The current impact on hydrocarbon exports: armed conflicts and Decree 59/2026
This duality in jurisprudence takes on paramount importance in the current context of hydrocarbon exports, specifically crude oil. Unlike the natural gas analyzed in the "YPF" precedent, crude oil (and its tradable derivatives) constitutes a commodity by excellence, endowed with interconnected markets and global quotations that operate as an unavoidable parameter of observance, such as the Brent index.
The heightened volatility of the markets, driven by contemporary armed conflicts and geopolitical issues, has generated extraordinary increases in energy prices. [15]In this regard, organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have formally warned that the effects of the current armed conflicts in the Middle East will cause global inflation, a contraction of international trade, and an asymmetric impact that will disproportionately harm the most vulnerable countries. If these disruptions continue, macroeconomic projections confirm a sustained rise in international commodity prices, directly and immediately impacting energy-related products such as gas and oil. [16].
In this scenario of global supply contraction, if a manufacturing company exports to a subsidiary or related firm at a pre-agreed transaction price that is significantly lower than the current international market price, which has skyrocketed due to external factors, the customs service will likely detect the substantial difference with current prices at the time of valuation. Should the exporter fail to meet the evidentiary standard required to overcome the test The admissibility of the price through the criterion values (paragraphs a) and b) of Article 748), the dismissal of the declared transaction price, and the consequent determination of its adjustment under the valuation mechanism explained in section III, will be legally appropriate measures.
This disregard for the documented price finds undeniable dogmatic support in current positive law. Decree 59/2026 and Resolution 42/2026 of the Secretariat of Energy regulate exports of conventional crude oil, establishing a sliding scale of export duties directly tied to the international price of Brent crude.
Consequently, the National State has established this exchange rate as the essential benchmark for measuring taxpaying capacity and the applicable tax rate. Attempting to maintain a transaction value that disregards or differs substantially from the exchange rate that the State itself imposes as the basis for calculation would not only contradict the regulatory framework but would also enable strict customs control, supported by the doctrine established in the ruling. Ledesma.
VI. Final reflections
The regulatory design of the Customs Code regarding taxable value seeks to balance the fluidity of international trade, based on the presumption of good faith of the operators and on respect for contracts (arm's length), with the imperative safeguarding of tax revenue.
The jurisprudence emanating from the Supreme Court guarantees taxpayers that the customs service cannot exercise its valuation prerogatives arbitrarily. Within this framework, the rejection of the transaction price requires rigorous and proven justification. However, the hermeneutical evolution of the Federal Court confirms that, in the face of commodities With standardized markets, international prices are the most reliable reflection of the real value of goods.
As has been discussed, the transparency inherent in perfectly competitive markets makes international prices almost absolute benchmarks. In contexts of extreme global volatility, an exporter attempting to assert a transfer price that deviates significantly from this international price will face a formidable evidentiary barrier.
Consequently, in times like these, when exogenous factors cause significant jumps in international hydrocarbon prices such as crude oil, the correct classification of the taxable value will require exporting companies to provide their intragroup transactions with rigorous documentary and commercial support in order to conclusively demonstrate that the relationship has not influenced the price setting. This burden will require demonstrating that the transaction value does not differ substantially from any of the benchmark values provided for, especially in the first two paragraphs of Article 748—a highly complex task to prove when international prices are at extraordinary levels.
Otherwise, and in strict compliance with the provisions of Article 748 of the Customs Code—especially subsections a) and b)—the customs service will find a solid legal justification for recalculating the tax base and preventing the erosion of the State's taxing power. In this context, the application of secondary valuation methods by the customs service will not only be foreseeable but also legally unassailable.
Notes and references
[1] Articles 750, 829 and related articles of the Customs Code.
[2] Article 735 of the Customs Code.
[3] LASCANO, Julio Carlos, Customs Duties, 1st edition, Editorial Osmar D. Buyatti, Buenos Aires, 2007, p. 529.
[4] Article 726 of the Customs Code.
[5] Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT, General Introduction, paragraph 1, and Annex I, Interpretative Notes, General Note, paragraph 1.
[6] In a very general sense, article 742 paragraph b) of the Customs Code refers to the “commercial, financial or other relationships, whether contractual or not, that may exist, apart from those created by the sale itself, between the seller or any person, whether living or legal, associated with him in business, on the one hand, and the buyer or any person, whether living or legal, associated with him in business, on the other hand”.
[7] LASCANO, Julio Carlos, Customs Rights, op. cit., p. 490.
[8] Both the reference prices presented by customs to question the transfer prices declared by an exporter, and the prices between unrelated parties reported by the exporter to justify its transfer price, must correspond to identical or similar goods.
[9] In this case, the exporter can use the prices that result from international markets or exchanges and that are generally published in newspapers and specialized magazines.
[10] LASCANO, Julio Carlos, Customs Rights, op. cit., p. 519.
[11] CSJN, “YPF SA (TF 27.508-A) v DGA”, judgment of 10/1/2013.
[12] CSJN, “ENAP Sipetrol Argentina SA (TF 26.204-A) v DGA”, judgment of 10/1/2013.
[13] CNACAF, Room III, “Ledesma SAAI (TF 34009-A) c/ DGA s/ Direct Appeal”, Case No. 4224/2024, judgment of 27/03/2025.
[14] CNACAF, Room V, “Ledesma SAAI c/ DGA s/ Direct Resource”, Case No. 62389/2018, judgment of 26/03/2019.
[15] As an example, during the first quarter of 2026, the escalation of geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East and the resulting blockade of strategic maritime routes caused crude oil prices to exceed USD 100 per barrel, registering intraday jumps of over 13% in the Brent index. (Conf. International Energy Agency) New IEA report highlights options to ease oil price pressures on consumers in response to Middle East supply disruptions, 20/03/2026, available at: https://www.iea.org/news/new-iea-report-highlights-options-to-ease-oil-price-pressures-on-consumers-in-response-to-middle-east-supply-disruptionsand the World Economic Forum, Middle East conflict hits shipping, oil prices and other international trade stories to know this month, 3/03/2026, available in https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/03/us-trade-deficit-international-trade-stories-march-2026.
[16] International Monetary Fund, How the War in the Middle East Is Affecting Energy, Trade, and Finance, 30/03/2026, available at: https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2026/03/30/how-the-war-in-the-middle-east-is-affecting-energy-trade-and-finance
A lawyer specializing in Business Law from the University of Buenos Aires (UBA), graduating with Honors. She is a Specialist in Customs and Integration Law, and in Pedagogical Training for the Teaching Career from the same university.
Founding member and current Secretary of the Association of Customs Law and Foreign Trade (ADACE). Coordinator of the Customs Law Commission of the Center for Studies in Financial and Tax Law at the University of Buenos Aires. Professor in the Specialization in Customs Management and Legal Framework at CAECE University. Active member of the Argentine Association of Fiscal Studies (AAEF).
Co-author of the reference work Customs ProceduresPublished in collaboration with Julio Carlos Lascano. Frequent author of doctrinal articles and regular speaker at specialized forums in the sector.
In his professional practice, he advises national and multinational companies, specializing in the strategic planning of foreign trade operations and in the technical defense in highly complex litigation.
Contact: [email protected]
