On 7 October 2026, the EU General Court (the “Court”) delivered a judgment in Case T‑529/25, Prestige Rijwielen (available here), addressing the tariff classification of parts imported in staggered consignments and presented to EU customs authorities in separate declarations in an unassembled or disassembled state.
The case concerns the tariff classification of electric bicycle parts imported into the EU over a period of several months under separate import declarations. The Court ruled that these parts must be classified as complete electric bicycles under a single tariff heading rather than as parts, on the basis that objective factors showed that those parts formed a whole and comprised all the essential components of those electric bicycles.
While the underlying dispute concerns imports of electric bicycle parts, the principles set out in the judgment are not necessarily confined to that sector and may apply more broadly where parts are imported in separate consignments for subsequent assembly in the EU. The judgment is therefore relevant for businesses operating similar import and assembly models, particularly where the complete article is subject to higher duties or trade defence measures compared to its parts.
Background
Between January 2019 and April 2021, a customs representative acting on behalf of a Belgian importer submitted 27 import declarations at the same Belgian customs office for electric bicycle parts originating in China, declaring them as parts and accessories under Combined Nomenclature (“CN”) heading 8714. Anti-dumping and countervailing duties apply to electric bicycles originating in China and imported into the EU which are classified under CN subheading 8711 60 10, but not to their parts and accessories under CN heading 8714. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Belgian customs authorities brought criminal and civil proceedings, claiming that the practice of declaring parts separately under a different commodity code allowed the importer to avoid paying anti-dumping and countervailing duties, as well as part of the import duties due, amounting to more than EUR 2.9 million.
The dispute turned on the application of Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the CN (“GRI 2(a)”), which requires goods to be classified as the finished product even where they are imported incomplete, unfinished, unassembled or disassembled, provided they have the essential character of the finished article.
Key findings of the Court
- Simultaneous presentation is not required
The Court held that GRI 2(a) does not specify any time limits for presenting the components of a complete article to customs. Simultaneous presentation to customs is therefore not an essential condition for classifying components of an article as the complete assembled article.
- Objective factors are decisive
The Court held that the decisive question is whether, at the time of customs clearance, objective factors show that the parts form a whole and are intended to be assembled at a later date into a single article. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether this is the case. In accordance with GRI 2(a), consideration must also be given to whether the parts have the essential character of the complete article.
The facts of this case show that customs authorities may rely on evidence of the following factors present over time to build a case: the same consignee, intermediary, declarant and customs office; parts corresponding to a certain number of complete articles; invoices bearing reference numbers identifying sets of parts capable of constituting a certain number of complete articles; and the consignee having ceased to import complete articles.
- Preventing manipulation
The Court’s reasoning is expressly intended to address risks of circumvention and manipulation. The Court called out the Commission’s statement at the hearing that the import practice of staggered shipments has become widespread, and the Court stressed that any other interpretation would allow importers to choose the most favourable tariff classification simply by presenting goods in separate declarations.
Implications for businesses
While the judgment was issued in the context of a specific factual scenario, its implications may extend beyond the electric bicycle sector to imports of parts and components more generally. However, this does not mean that every series of parts imported into the EU will be treated as a complete article. The judgment may prompt customs authorities to look more closely at import patterns involving parts and components.
Importers and customs representatives should therefore consider:
- reviewing their import patterns and tariff classifications, particularly where parts are imported separately and the complete article is subject to higher duties or trade defence measures;
- clearly recording the basis for classification decisions and how the parts will be used after their release for free circulation; and
- applying for Binding Tariff Information (BTI) where the classification is unclear and therefore potentially open to challenge.
