Edited by Lorenzo Ontano, Edoardo Baini and Federica Stranieri

In its judgment in Case T-529/25, Prestige Rijwielen, dated October 7, 2026, the EU General Court ruled that the importation of e-bike parts intended, after release for free circulation, to be assembled into a finished product must be considered, for the purposes of customs classification, as an importation of the complete product presented unassembled or disassembled, even if the components are declared in staggered shipments over several months, provided that objective factors show that they form a whole and include all the essential elements of the finished product.

The case stems from the definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on electric bicycles originating in China (CN subheading 8711 60 10), which do not, however, apply to parts and accessories under heading 8714. Between January 2019 and April 2021, a Belgian importer, through its representative, filed 27 customs declarations at the same customs office for frames, forks, motors, and other components purchased from two Chinese suppliers, which were declared as parts.

The customs administration identified six sets of declarations, linked by the same reference number on the invoices, which were capable of making up complete e-bikes, and claimed evaded duties totalling over EUR 2.9 million; the European Public Prosecutor’s Office also initiated criminal proceedings, and, at first instance, the Antwerp District Court convicted the importer and one of its officers. On appeal, the Antwerp Court of Appeal asked whether General Rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature regarding “unassembled or disassembled” goods also applies to components declared separately over a period of several months.

The General Court, to which the Court of Justice transferred the request for a preliminary ruling, answered in the affirmative on the basis of several considerations, noting preliminarily that it is for the national court to carry out the specific classification of the goods.

First, the text of Rule 2(a) does not set any time limits for the presentation of components; simultaneous presentation is therefore not a conditio sine qua non, but merely an indicator to be assessed together with other relevant circumstances.

Second, Additional Note 3 to Section XVI and Additional Note 2 to Section XVII of the CN, which permit staggered shipments for certain goods “at the declarant’s request“, even though they do not apply to the components at issue, confirm according to the General Court that simultaneous presentation is not always essential.

Third, referring to the judgment in Case C-107/22, the General Court observes that a different interpretation would allow importers to choose the most favourable classification through a relatively simple manipulation, such as presenting the goods in separate declarations, to the detriment of legal certainty and the ease of customs checks.

The ruling departs from the Opinion of Advocate General Martín y Pérez de Nanclares, dated June 10, 2026, according to which the rule does not apply to components not presented simultaneously and it would be up to the EU legislature to intervene.

The General Court therefore ruled that Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that: “parts of an electric bicycle which, following their release for free circulation, are intended to be assembled into an electric bicycle, which are invoiced by two different suppliers and transported in separate containers, which are declared for the purposes of their release for free circulation at the same customs office by the same declarant, in the name and on behalf of the same consignee, by means of separate declarations for release for free circulation spread over a period of up to several months, and which, at the time of their release for free circulation, belong to the consignee, must be classified as electric bicycles presented in a disassembled or unassembled state, within the meaning of that rule, and therefore fall under a single tariff heading, provided that objective factors show that those parts form a whole and comprise all the essential components of those electric bicycles“.

Among the objective factors, the judgment cites—based on the order for reference—the purchase by the same consignee from the same intermediary, the filing of declarations by the same declarant at the same customs office, the correspondence of the components to a number of complete e-bikes, invoice references, the cessation of imports of finished products, and the consignee’s ownership of the components.

The ruling could give rise to potential interpretive uncertainties, particularly for the assembly industry and for purchases from multiple suppliers at different times, given that determining the “whole” would seem to be feasible primarily in retrospect; on this point, the General Court recalls that the declarant’s obligation to provide accurate information extends to determining the correct subheading and that the explanatory notes allow for the parts to be declared under the heading of the complete article as early as the first shipment.