关税聚焦︱中国海关提交估价案例 首次成为WCO估价领域的“中国方案”
归类、估价和原产地是世界各国海关的征税基础，与之相对应，世界海关组织（WCO）设有归类、估价和原产地三大技术委员会，研究审议相关技术疑难问题。2017年10月24日，世界海关组织（WCO）估价技术委员会第45次会议审议通过中国海关提交的“转移定价案例”（英语、法语和西班牙语三种语言）文本，正式成为WCO指导性文件“案例研究14.2”。
这是中国海关估价案例首次被WCO采纳，是中国海关为国际海关估价规则贡献的第一份“中国方案”，这份具有里程碑意义的WCO中国案例，将为世界海关对跨国公司转移定价审查提供指导意见。
案例顺应国际海关估价发展时代要求
近年来跨国公司转移定价问题越来越成为世界海关共同面临的新挑战，成为当前WCO开展估价疑难技术研究的热点。中国海关代表在WCO估价技术委员会会议上，针对部分国家海关提交的关联交易及转移定价案例，多次做出精彩评论，展示在转移定价领域的深入研究和丰富实践，得到各国代表和WCO秘书处的好评，因此，WCO秘书处建议中国海关提交有关再销售价格法的转移定价估价案例。
中国海关估价技术委员会（国际组）为此组织案例的起草撰写，旨在说明海关根据《海关估价协定》条款1.2（a），如何参考企业转移定价报告及其他相关信息，对进口货物实付应付价格是否受到买卖双方特殊关系的影响进行审核。案例经多方面分析论证，援引海关估价法条得出进口价格受到特殊关系影响结论。
案例通过审议历经多轮质询论证
案例从2014年5月WCO估价技术委员会第38次会议上首次提交，到2017年10月第45次会议审议通过，历时3年半8次会议讨论。期间，中国海关估价技术委员会（国际组）全程跟进，充分利用历次审议会议休会期开展集中工作，汇聚集体智慧，根据前方参会代表传回的质疑积极准备回应对案，并结合会议讨论不断修订、完善。在WCO会议多轮审议中，参会代表积极解答与会代表质疑，多角度陈述估价技术意见，消除误解，澄清事实，赢得与会各方肯定，最终使得“中国方案”成为国际海关估价指导案例。
案例研究14.2
根据《协定》条款1.2（a）审查关联交易时
对转移定价报告的使用
概要
本案旨在说明海关根据《协定》条款1.2（a），如何参考企业转移定价报告及其他相关信息，对进口货物实付应付价格是否受到买卖双方特殊关系的影响进行审核。
该案例不表明、不喻示也不确立海关在解释或使用《WTO估价协定》时有义务使用《OECD转移定价指南》及据其形成的材料。
交易事实
位于X国的XCO，向位于I国的ICO销售奢侈品牌手袋。ACO是一家跨国公司总部，也是奢侈品牌手袋的品牌所有方。XCO与ICO均为ACO的全资子公司。XCO或ACO的关联企业均未向I国非关联方销售相同或类似奢侈品牌手袋。ICO是XCO向I国销售奢侈品牌手袋的唯一进口商。因此，ICO进口至I国的所有奢侈品牌手袋均采购自XCO。
2012年，ICO根据XCO出具的发票价格申报了进口奢侈品牌手袋的价格。ICO向I国海关提交的贸易单证显示，不存在《协定》第1条（a）至（c）款所规定的无法使用成交价格的特殊情况，也不存在第8条所规定的需要对进口价格进行调整的价外支付等情形。
2013年，因对ICO的申报价格存在怀疑，I国海关对ICO申报的进口价格进行审核。ICO转移定价政策显示，所有奢侈品牌手袋的进口价格是根据《OECD转移定价指南》使用再销售价格法制定的。每年年末，ICO根据XCO的建议预估下一年度进口手袋的转售价格及预期毛利率。2012年，ICO的预期毛利率确定为40%，随后ICO根据再销售价格法计算公式得出进口奢侈品牌手袋的进口价格：进口价格=预期转售价格x（1-预期毛利率）/（1+税率）。
ICO是一家简单分销商或称常规分销商。进口手袋在I国的市场营销策略由XCO制定，同时XCO也对ICO的库存水平提出建议，确定建议转售价格及相关折扣政策。XCO在与手袋相关的高价值无形资产方面投入巨大。因此，XCO承担了I国手袋销售相关的市场风险和价格风险。
作为进口货物转售所在国，I国的奢侈品牌手袋市场竞争激烈。然而，2012年，由于全价销售的手袋数量高于预期，折扣价销售数量少于预期，ICO的实际销售收入远超预计。因此，ICO2012年的毛利率达到64%，高于ICO转移定价政策的预期毛利率。在价格审核过程中，海关要求ICO提供更多信息以审核进口申报价格的合理性。
ICO并未根据《协定》条款1.2（b）和（c）举证测试价格，以证明关联关系未影响价格。然而，ICO提交了一份转移定价报告，使用再销售价格法将ICO的毛利率与可比公司在非关联交易（即可比非受控交易）中的毛利率进行比较。该转移定价报告是由一家独立事务所依照《OECD转移定价指南》做出的。
根据转移定价报告，ICO不拥有任何高价值的、独特的无形资产或承担任何重大风险。ICO提交的转移定价报告选取了位于I国的8家可比企业。功能分析显示这8家企业自X国进口可比产品、承担类似功能及类似风险，且与ICO一样，不拥有任何高价值的无形资产。
转移定价报告显示可比公司2012年的毛利率符合公平交易原则（四分位）的合理区间为35%-46%，中位值为43%。因此，ICO 64%的毛利率并未落在合理四分位区间内。海关开展价格审核时，ICO并未就此进行任何转移定价调整。
问题
本案例中转移定价报告所提供的信息，是否足以使海关根据《协定》第1条审查确定进口货物实付或应付价格是否受到双方特殊关系影响？
分析
依据《协定》第1条，如买卖双方无特殊关系，或存在特殊关系，但并未影响价格，则成交价格可接受为完税价格。在买卖双方存在特殊关系的情况下，《协定》条款1.2提供了海关在对申报价格存疑时审查确定成交价格可否接受的两种方法：（1）审查销售环境以确定特殊关系是否影响成交价格（条款1.2 (a)）;或（2）进口商证明申报价格接近三种测试价格中的任一价格（条款1.2 (b)）。
本案中，如第6段所述，进口商未提供测试价格，因此海关开展销售环境审查。
《协定》条款1.2注释提出，在审查销售环境时，“海关需要审查交易的有关方面，包括买卖双方组织其商业关系的方式和制定价格的方法，以便确定特殊关系是否影响价格。”
在使用再销售法审核相关企业的销售环境时，将该企业与可比企业的毛利率进行对比，可以说明申报价格的制定是否与所涉产业的正常定价惯例相一致。
根据功能分析，ICO与所有8家可比企业无明显差异，因为这些可比企业：
-均位于I国；
-与ICO类似，承担类似分销功能和类似风险，不拥有任何高价值的无形资产；
-进口的可比产品同样是在X国制造的；
此外，对产品的可比性也进行了审查，相关可比企业符合海关估价要求。
根据转移定价报告，可比公司年毛利率的合理四分位区间在35%-46%，中位值为43%。然而，2012年，ICO64%的毛利率远高于该行业可比企业的正常毛利率。还需要指出的是，I国奢侈品牌手袋市场竞争充分。因此，由于ICO与8家可比公司无显著区别，其营业利润与费用应与可比公司类似。所以，ICO2012年的高毛利率与其功能、资产和风险不相符。
由于ICO获取了更高的毛利率，且考虑到ICO未作出任何补偿性调整，海关从而得出结论，即相关进口价格的制定与行业正常定价惯例不一致。ICO 2012年的进口货物完税价格申报偏低，应依次使用其他估价方法进行估价。
结论
海关根据《协定》条款1.2（a）,通过审核转移定价报告对ICO与XCO的交易开展销售环境审查后得出以下结论：进口申报价格的制定与行业内正常定价惯例不一致，因此受到买卖双方特殊关系影响。由此，完税价格应依次使用其他估价方法予以确定。
需要指出的是，评论23.1中强调：利用转移定价报告审查销售环境应当具体个案具体分析。
CASE STUDY 14.2
USE OF TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION WHEN EXAMINING RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 1.2 (a) OF THE AGREEMENT
Introduction
1. This document describes an example of a case where Customs took into account information provided in a company’s transfer pricing report, as well as additional information, when determining whether or not the price actually paid or payable for imported goods had been influenced by the relationship between buyer and seller under Article 1.2 (a) of the Agreement.
This case study does not indicate, imply, or establish any obligation on Customs authorities to utilize the OECD Guidelines and the documentation resulting from the application of the OECD Guidelines in interpreting and applying the WTO Valuation Agreement.
Facts of Transaction
2. XCO of country X sells luxury bags to ICO, a distributor of country I. Both XCO and ICO are wholly-owned subsidiaries of ACO, the headquarters of a multinational enterprise and the brand-owner of the luxury bags. Neither XCO nor other companies related to ACO sell the identical or similar luxury bags to unrelated buyers in country I. ICO is the only importer of the luxury bags sold by XCO to country I. Thus, all luxury bags imported into country I by ICO are purchased from XCO.
3. In 2012, ICO declared the price of imported luxury bags based on the value on the invoice issued by XCO. The commercial documents submitted to Customs of country I indicated that there was no special circumstances or additional payments which would prevent the use of the transaction value as set out in subparagraphs (a) to (c) of Article 1 of the Agreement or require an additional adjustment prescribed by Article 8 to the import price.
4. In 2013, Customs in country I conducted a Post-Clearance Audit to verify ICO’s declared import price, because it had doubts about the acceptability of the price. ICO’s transfer pricing policy showed that the import price of all luxury bags was determined using the Resale Price Method (in accordance with the Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations of the Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development). At the end of each year, ICO estimated the resale price of the bags and the targeted gross margin for the next year as recommended by XCO. After the targeted gross margin for 2012 was determined at 40 %, ICO then calculated the import price of luxury bags to be imported in 2012 by using the Resale Price Method according to the formula: Import Price = Estimated Resale Price x (1 – Targeted Gross Margin) / (1 + Duty Rate).
5. ICO is a simple or routine distributor. The marketing strategy for the sales of bags in country I is in fact established by XCO. XCO also advises on the levels of inventory to be maintained, and establishes the recommended sales price of the bags sold by ICO, including the discounting policy to be used by ICO. XCO has also invested heavily in developing valuable intangible assets associated with the bags. As a result, XCO assumes the market risk and price risk in relation to the sales of the bags in country I.
6. The luxury bag market of country I where the imported goods were resold has been very competitive. However, in 2012, the actual sales income of ICO far exceeded the estimated income since more bags were sold at full price, and fewer at a discounted price, than anticipated. Consequently, ICO’s gross margin in 2012 was 64 % which was higher than the targeted gross margin stated in ICO’s transfer pricing policy. During the audit, Customs asked ICO to provide further information in order to review the acceptability of its declared import price.
7. ICO did not provide test values required for the application of Article 1.2 (b) and (c), as a means of demonstrating that the relationship did not influence the price. However, ICO submitted a transfer pricing report, which used the Resale Price Method that compared ICO’s gross margin with the gross margins earned by comparable companies in their transactions with unrelated parties (i.e. comparable uncontrolled transactions). The transfer pricing report was prepared by an independent firm following the process set out in accordance with the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines.
8. According to the transfer pricing report, ICO does not employ any valuable, unique intangible assets or assumed any significant risk. The transfer pricing report submitted by ICOeight comparable companies located in country I. The functional analysis indicated that the eight selected comparable companies imported comparable products from country X, performed similar functions, assumed similar risks and did not employ any valuable intangible assets, just as ICO.
9. The transfer pricing report indicated that the arm’s length (inter-quartile) range of gross margins earned by the selected comparable companies in 2012 was between 35 %-46 %, with a median of 43 %. Therefore, the 64 % gross margin earned by ICO did not fall within the arm’s length inter-quartile range. At the time Customs conducted its valuation audit, it was established that，in this particular case, ICO had not made any transfer pricing adjustments in this regard.
Issue for Determination
10. Does the transfer pricing report, supplied in this case, provide information which enables Customs to conclude whether or not the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods is influenced by the relationship of the parties under Article 1 of the Agreement?
Analysis
11. Under Article 1 of the Agreement, a transaction value is acceptable as the Customs value when the buyer and the seller are not related, or if related, the relationship does not influence the price. Where the buyer and seller are related, Article 1.2 of the Agreement provides two ways of establishing the acceptability of the transaction value when Customs have doubts concerning the price: (1) the circumstances surrounding the sale shall be examined to determine whether the relationship influenced the price (Article 1.2 (a)); or (2) the importer demonstrates that the value closely approximates one of three test values (Article 1.2 (b)).
12. In this case, as indicated in paragraph 6, the importer did not provide test values therefore Customs examined the circumstances surrounding the sale.
13. The Interpretative Note to Article 1.2 of the Agreement provides that in examining the circumstances surrounding the sale, “the customs administrations should be prepared to examine relevant aspects of the transaction, including the way in which the buyer and the seller organize their commercial relations and the way in which the price in question was arrived at, in order to determine whether the relationship influenced the price.”
14. When examining the circumstances surrounding the sale concerning companies using Resale Price Method, a comparison of the gross margin of the company in question with the gross margin of comparable companies could indicate whether or not the declared price had been settled in a manner consistent with the normal pricing practices of the industry.
15. Based on the functional analysis, there was no significant difference between ICO and all eight comparable companies because these comparables:
-are all locate in country I;
-perform similar distribution functions, assume similar risks and do not employ any valuable intangible assets, which are similar to ICO;
-import comparable products similarly manufactured in country X ;
In addition, an adequate level of product comparability was observed and these comparable companies are deemed to be suitable for Customs valuation purposes.
16. According to the transfer pricing report, the arm’s length inter-quartile range of the gross margin earned by the comparable companies was between 35 %-46 % with a median of 43 %.However, in 2012, ICO earned a gross margin of 64 % which was much higher than the normal gross margins of comparable companies in this industry.It should also be noted that the luxury bag market of importing country I was competitive, so that the operating profit and expenses of ICO should be similar to those of the comparable companies given that there was no substantial difference between ICO and the eight comparable companies. Therefore ICO’s high gross margin in 2012 was not commensurate with its functions, assets and risks.
17. Thus, by virtue of ICO earning a higher margin, and considering ICO has not made any compensating adjustments, Customs arrived at the conclusion that the import price was not settled in a manner consistent with the normal pricing practices of the industry in question.The Customs value of goods imported in 2012 had been declared at a lower price and should be re-determined accordingly by application of the alternative methods of valuation in a sequential order.
Conclusion
18. In examining the circumstances surrounding the sale between ICO and XCO under the provisions of Article 1.2 (a) of the Agreement through the review of the transfer pricing report, Customs concluded that the declared import price was not settled in a manner consistent with the normal pricing practices of the industry and thus had been influenced by the relationship between the buyer and seller. Therefore, the Customs value should be determined by application of the alternative methods of appraisement in a sequential order.
19. It should be noted that the use of a transfer pricing report as a possible basis for examining the circumstances surrounding the sale should be considered on a case by case basis as specified in Commentary 23.1.
供稿（图）：关税司、深圳海关
编辑、发布：高扬
原文作者：中国海关杂志
页:
[1]