Broader application of CN Rule 2(a): split consignments can be classified as a complete product

On 7 October 2026, the General Court of the European Union delivered an important preliminary ruling on the tariff classification of goods imported in parts. The judgment may have far-reaching implications for businesses that rely on phased imports of components and assembly operations within the European Union.

Background

The case concerns a Belgian company which, following the introduction of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on electric bicycles originating in China, stopped importing complete bicycles and instead imported separate components such as frames, forks, motors and other parts.

According to the Belgian customs authorities and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, these components in reality constituted complete electric bicycles in unassembled form. As a result, not only ordinary customs duties but also anti-dumping and countervailing duties would be payable.

The central question was whether Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) can also apply where components are not imported simultaneously, but rather through multiple shipments spread over several months.

What did the Court decide?

The General Court confirmed that components of a product may be regarded as a complete product in unassembled or disassembled form even when they are not imported at the same time.

According to the Court, the relevant question is not whether the components are presented to customs simultaneously, but whether objective evidence demonstrates that they:

form a single whole;
contain all essential components of the final product; and
are intended to be assembled into one finished product.

The mere fact that import declarations are filed over different weeks or months does not, in itself, prevent the goods from being treated as a single whole.

Deviation from the Advocate General’s opinion

The judgment is noteworthy because the Court expressly deviated from the Opinion of Advocate General Martín y Pérez de Nanclares.

The Advocate General considered that existing case law suggested that, as a general rule, components had to be presented simultaneously in order to be regarded as a disassembled product. The Court did not follow this reasoning. According to the judgment, neither Rule 2(a) nor the wording of the Combined Nomenclature contains a requirement of simultaneous presentation.

Furthermore, the Court inferred from Supplementary Note 3 to Section XVI and Supplementary Note 2 to Section XVII that EU law itself recognises that certain goods may be imported in separate consignments without losing the benefit of Rule 2(a).

The Importance of Objective Factors

An important aspect of the judgment concerns the assessment of the facts. The Court refers to several objective factors that may indicate that multiple imports in reality 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.

The national court must assess, on the basis of these objective circumstances, whether the components concerned form a single whole.

Preventing artificial splitting of imports

A key consideration for the Court was to prevent businesses from determining tariff classification through a relatively simple restructuring of their import flows.

Referring to the judgment in X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, the Court emphasised that importers should not be able to choose whether goods are treated as a single product or as separate components solely based on whichever treatment is fiscally or customs-wise more advantageous.

The Court therefore adopted an economic approach that gives priority to the objective reality of the transaction over the formal structure of the import arrangements.

Potential impact for businesses

Although the proceedings concerned electric bicycles, the implications of the judgment may extend much further. In particular, it may be relevant for businesses operating with:

CKD and SKD structures;
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.

Going forward, customs authorities may increasingly rely on this judgment to assess separate import flows collectively where they economically constitute a single whole.

Our view

With this judgment, the General Court of the European Union clearly endorses an economic approach to tariff classification. The formal splitting of imports across multiple shipments can no longer, in itself, shield importers from classification as a complete product.

For businesses, this means that customs authorities are likely to focus increasingly on the relationship between different import flows and the ultimate use of the imported components. Companies relying on component imports should therefore carefully review their supply chains, contractual arrangements, invoicing practices and assembly processes.

Where tariff classification may be open to challenge, it is advisable to obtain a Binding Tariff Information (BTI) decision and provide full transparency regarding the import model. In addition, companies should document that post-import activities go beyond mere assembly and/or that the imported goods are genuinely used as components.

For customs representatives, it is important to verify the tariff classifications communicated by importers and to ensure that these classifications are properly documented. Particular attention should be paid to clients that switch from importing finished products to importing parts following an increase in customs duties.

For both parties, the potential financial exposure may be significant, especially where anti-dumping duties or other trade defence measures apply.

This judgment undoubtedly represents an important development in EU customs law and is likely to play a significant role in future audits and disputes concerning the classification of components and assembly projects.