- The cases concern Chinese imports into the EU handled between 2021 and 2026, including rail shipments via Małaszewicze.
- Some goods were allegedly declared under incorrect tariff codes, reducing the amount of duty and tax due.
- When importers proved insolvent or could not be located, claims were also directed at other supply-chain participants.
- The proceedings involve freight forwarders, rail operators, customs agents, and companies handling transit and storage.
- Industry bodies estimate that potential liabilities could total hundreds of millions of euros.
- CLECAT, FIATA, CER and UIRR want the European Commission to clarify liability under EU customs law.
Importer fraud, logistics companies left with the bill?
At the heart of the dispute are shipments imported from China into the European Union. Industry sources say that, in some cases, importers declared goods under incorrect customs tariff codes.
One example cited by the sector involves electric bicycles declared as fitness equipment or spin bikes, allegedly allowing importers to avoid anti-dumping duties.
EU authorities later uncovered irregularities during their investigations. The issue became more serious when some of the parties responsible for the imports proved insolvent or could not be traced.
Polish customs authorities then began seeking payment from other supply-chain participants that remained active and could be identified.
Freight forwarders, rail operators, customs agents and warehouses
The proceedings cover a broad range of businesses. According to CLECAT and FIATA, the claims involve freight forwarders, railway companies, customs agents, operators handling transit procedures and warehouse operators responsible for temporary storage.
In addition to unpaid customs duties and VAT, the claims could include anti-dumping duties and interest accumulated over several years.
Industry organisations say that, in some cases, the claims far exceed the assets of the companies targeted. Germany’s DSLV also reports that the dispute involves forwarding companies based outside Poland.
Industry: ‘We could not inspect sealed containers’
The sector’s main argument concerns the limits of responsibility for each participant in the supply chain. CLECAT stresses that a freight forwarder or carrier is not authorised to open a sealed container and check its contents independently. Physical inspections of such shipments are carried out by the relevant customs authorities.
The organisation also points out that some shipments had already been inspected when they entered the EU, with no irregularities identified at the time.
The central question for the industry is therefore whether a logistics operator should face financial liability for fraud in which it did not participate and which, the organisations argue, it had no realistic means of detecting.
Małaszewicze at the centre of the dispute
Many of the shipments covered by the case entered the European Union by rail through Małaszewicze, one of the main entry points for rail freight from China to the EU. Industry sources say, however, that the issue is not limited to rail transport. Irregularities were also allegedly identified in some sea-freight shipments, including cargo moving through the port of Piraeus.
The dispute therefore extends beyond a single transport corridor and raises broader questions about liability across the EU customs system.
Claims could threaten companies’ liquidity
CLECAT and FIATA warn that claims worth hundreds of millions of euros could place some operators under severe financial pressure. If a liability exceeds a company’s assets, even years of appeals may do little to address the immediate liquidity problem.
Industry organisations also highlight the possible operational consequences. If companies conclude that handling customs clearances and transit at the EU’s external borders exposes them to unpredictable financial risks that cannot be adequately insured or managed, some may scale back these activities.
That could reduce the number of companies willing to support customs operations and make cross-border freight flows more difficult. The industry is presenting this as a potential scenario, not a confirmed outcome of the current proceedings.
Industry seeks clear liability rules
CLECAT, FIATA, CER and UIRR have sent questions to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union concerning the application of the Union Customs Code and the Convention on a Common Transit Procedure. Above all, the organisations want clarification on when financial liability can be transferred to a logistics company that was neither the importer nor a direct beneficiary of the fraud.
The sector is also calling for dialogue with the European Commission and Polish customs authorities so that liability rules are applied consistently and predictably.
The dispute is about more than the current claims, which are estimated at hundreds of millions of euros. It is fundamentally about defining where the responsibility of a freight forwarder, carrier or customs agent ends, where the importer’s responsibility begins, and what obligations rest with customs authorities.
