Federal Supreme Court, 28.01.2026, 9C_22/2025
Facts
Between 2015 and 2020, A.________ AG imported peanut oil into Switzerland under the inward processing regime based on a service contract, subsequently re-exporting it after processing. The company held the necessary authorizations from the Federal Customs Administration (FCA, now the Federal Office for Customs and Border Security, FOCBS). For accounting purposes, and with the FCA's agreement, the company used its own Excel spreadsheets instead of the official form. In these spreadsheets, it carried over a "remaining quantity" to the following accounting period.
In 2020, a remaining quantity of 421,034 kg was declared. When questioned by the FOCBS regarding this significant amount, the company explained that it did not represent physical stock, but rather non-recoverable processing losses accumulated over several years. The FOCBS subsequently demanded a tax reassessment (customs duties and VAT) of CHF 311,544.45 on a quantity of 226,992.70 kg, on the grounds that these losses had not been declared within the deadlines for each authorization period. The decision was upheld by the Federal Administrative Court, against which the company appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
Goods imported into Switzerland are subject to customs duties (Customs Act, CA) and VAT (VATA). The inward processing regime (Art. 59 CA) allows for the temporary duty-free import of goods for processing, provided they are re-exported. This regime is subject to authorization by the FOCBS, which sets conditions, including deadlines for re-exportation and accounting.
To properly close the procedure and benefit from the final exemption, the authorization holder must, within 60 days of the expiration of the export deadline, submit an accounting statement proving re-exportation and justifying the quantities of processed products, as well as waste and by-products (Art. 168 para. 2 of the Customs Ordinance, CO).
If the procedure is not closed according to the rules, particularly if the conditions of the authorization are not met, the initially suspended customs duties become due (Art. 59 para. 4 CA). Customs law is governed by the principle of self-declaration, which imposes an obligation on the taxpayer to declare goods completely and accurately.
Application to the Case
The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the non-recoverable processing losses should have been declared for each authorization period. It noted that the appellant did not declare these losses periodically, but instead included them in the "remaining quantity" carried over from one authorization to the next.
The appellant invoked the protection of good faith (Art. 9 Cst.), arguing that the FOCBS had tolerated its accounting method via Excel spreadsheets and had never contested the balance carry-overs. The Federal Supreme Court rejected this argument. The authorization to use Excel files constituted a mere procedural simplification and did not exempt the company from its substantive obligations, namely to provide all information required by the official form, including the declaration of losses for each period.
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that there was no explicit assurance from the customs authorities authorizing the carry-over of undeclared losses. The authorities could legitimately assume that the "remaining quantity" corresponded to physical stock.
By failing to declare losses within the required timeframes for each authorization, the appellant did not properly conclude the inward processing procedure. Consequently, the condition for customs duty exemption was not met for the corresponding quantities. The subsequent collection of customs duties and VAT on these quantities is therefore in accordance with the law (Art. 59 para. 4 Customs Act). The Court notes that for the final period, during which losses were declared on time, they were correctly taken into account and exempted by the authorities.
Issue
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal filed by A.________ AG. The decision of the Federal Administrative Court is upheld, and the subsequent collection of customs duties and VAT is maintained.
Silex Tax Newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
