On 7 October 2026, the General Court of the European Union issued an important ruling on the tariff classification of goods imported in parts. The court held that electric bicycle (e-bikes) parts imported under separate customs declarations may be classified as complete e-bikes if objective factors demonstrate they form a single whole. The judgment could have significant implications for businesses that import components in phases and assemble finished products within the EU.
The General Court departed from the 10 June 2026 opinion of Advocate General Martín y Pérez de Nanclares. The Advocate General took the position that existing case law generally required components to be presented simultaneously to customs before they could be treated as a disassembled product.
The case concerns a Belgian company that stopped importing complete e-bikes after the EU imposed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on e-bikes originating in China. The company instead imported frames, forks, motors and other components separately, declaring them under tariff headings for parts and accessories rather than as complete bikes.
The Belgian customs authorities and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office took the position that the components, taken together, constituted complete e-bikes in unassembled form. On that basis, the imports could be subject to both ordinary customs duties and the anti-dumping and countervailing duties. Following several lower court rulings and appeals, the case came before the General Court.
The central question was whether Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature (GIR) can apply when components are imported in multiple consignments over several months rather than presented to customs at the same time. GIR 2(a) provides that an incomplete, unfinished, unassembled or disassembled article may be classified as the complete article if it has the essential character of that article.
The General Court held that product components may be classified as a complete product in unassembled or disassembled form even when they are imported at different times.
The decisive question is not whether the components are presented to customs simultaneously, but whether objective evidence shows that the components:
The General Court cited several objective factors that may indicate that separate imports relate to one complete product:
In reaching its decision, a central concern of the court was preventing businesses from determining tariff classification simply by restructuring their import flows. Referring to CJEU precedent, the court emphasised that importers should not be able to choose between classification as a single product and classification as separate components based solely on which treatment is more favourable from a customs perspective. The decision therefore prioritises the objective economic reality of the transaction over the formal structure of the import arrangements.
Although the case concerned e-bikes, the General Court decision may have broader implications for businesses using:
The judgment is an important development in EU customs law and is likely to influence future audits and disputes involving component imports and assembly projects. It reinforces an economic approach to tariff classification: splitting imports across multiple consignments will not, by itself, prevent classification as a complete product.
The potential financial exposure for importers and customs representatives may be significant, particularly where anti-dumping duties or other trade-defence measures apply.
Businesses that import components, particularly those using phased or split consignments, should review the links between their import flows and the ultimate use of the goods, including their supply-chain arrangements, contracts, invoicing practices and assembly processes. In particular, they should assess whether objective evidence could lead customs authorities to regard the imported components as a complete product under GIR 2(a).
Where classification is uncertain, businesses should consider obtaining a Binding Tariff Information (BTI) decision and should fully disclose their import model in the application. They should also document whether post-import activities extend beyond simple assembly, since GIR 2(a) generally applies only where the components require no more than assembly to become the finished article, and whether the imported goods are genuinely used as components.
Customs representatives should verify and document the tariff classifications provided by importers. Particular scrutiny may be warranted when a client switches from finished products to parts after an increase in customs duties.
Ultimately, the outcome in each case will depend on how national courts assess the specific facts, which makes clear and consistent documentation of the import model all the more important.
Katrien Kegels
BDO in Belgium
The General Court departed from the 10 June 2026 opinion of Advocate General Martín y Pérez de Nanclares. The Advocate General took the position that existing case law generally required components to be presented simultaneously to customs before they could be treated as a disassembled product.
Background
The case concerns a Belgian company that stopped importing complete e-bikes after the EU imposed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on e-bikes originating in China. The company instead imported frames, forks, motors and other components separately, declaring them under tariff headings for parts and accessories rather than as complete bikes.The Belgian customs authorities and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office took the position that the components, taken together, constituted complete e-bikes in unassembled form. On that basis, the imports could be subject to both ordinary customs duties and the anti-dumping and countervailing duties. Following several lower court rulings and appeals, the case came before the General Court.
The central question was whether Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature (GIR) can apply when components are imported in multiple consignments over several months rather than presented to customs at the same time. GIR 2(a) provides that an incomplete, unfinished, unassembled or disassembled article may be classified as the complete article if it has the essential character of that article.
General Court’s Decision
The General Court held that product components may be classified as a complete product in unassembled or disassembled form even when they are imported at different times.The decisive question is not whether the components are presented to customs simultaneously, but whether objective evidence shows that the components:
- Form a single whole;
- Contain all essential components of the final product; and
- Are intended to be assembled into one finished product.
The General Court cited several objective factors that may indicate that separate imports relate to one complete product:
- The same consignee;
- The same customs representative;
- The same customs office;
- Quantities of components corresponding to a specific number of finished products;
- Invoices bearing the same reference numbers;
- The cessation of imports of complete products; and
- The eventual sale of the goods as fully finished products.
In reaching its decision, a central concern of the court was preventing businesses from determining tariff classification simply by restructuring their import flows. Referring to CJEU precedent, the court emphasised that importers should not be able to choose between classification as a single product and classification as separate components based solely on which treatment is more favourable from a customs perspective. The decision therefore prioritises the objective economic reality of the transaction over the formal structure of the import arrangements.
Potential Business Impact
Although the case concerned e-bikes, the General Court decision may have broader implications for businesses using:
- CKD (completely knocked down) and SKD (semi-knocked down) shipments;
- Assembly activities within the EU;
- Imports of machinery components;
- Automotive supply chains;
- Industrial installations;
- Electronic equipment; and
- Other products supplied through multiple suppliers and shipments.
BDO Perspective
The judgment is an important development in EU customs law and is likely to influence future audits and disputes involving component imports and assembly projects. It reinforces an economic approach to tariff classification: splitting imports across multiple consignments will not, by itself, prevent classification as a complete product.The potential financial exposure for importers and customs representatives may be significant, particularly where anti-dumping duties or other trade-defence measures apply.
Businesses that import components, particularly those using phased or split consignments, should review the links between their import flows and the ultimate use of the goods, including their supply-chain arrangements, contracts, invoicing practices and assembly processes. In particular, they should assess whether objective evidence could lead customs authorities to regard the imported components as a complete product under GIR 2(a).
Where classification is uncertain, businesses should consider obtaining a Binding Tariff Information (BTI) decision and should fully disclose their import model in the application. They should also document whether post-import activities extend beyond simple assembly, since GIR 2(a) generally applies only where the components require no more than assembly to become the finished article, and whether the imported goods are genuinely used as components.
Customs representatives should verify and document the tariff classifications provided by importers. Particular scrutiny may be warranted when a client switches from finished products to parts after an increase in customs duties.
Ultimately, the outcome in each case will depend on how national courts assess the specific facts, which makes clear and consistent documentation of the import model all the more important.
Katrien Kegels
BDO in Belgium