EU customs authorities are intensifying enforcement around customs classification, with scrutiny of goods assembled in the EU after importation. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) 2025 Annual Report explicitly identifies assembly operations performed after import as a common fraud pattern used to evade customs duties. The concern centres on components that, when classified individually, attract significantly lower duty rates than the finished products into which they are assembled. And yet, the importation of individual parts of a finished product can be perfectly legitimate, creating a complex legal and operational balancing act between the lawful import of parts and unlawful import of unassembled components. In this article, we explain the current legal framework for customs classification of parts and components in the EU and provide tools for navigating the practical challenges it presents.

Importing product parts versus importing finished products in an unassembled or disassembled state

Under General Rule of Interpretation 2(a), a tariff heading covering a finished article also covers that article when it is incomplete or unfinished, provided it has the essential character of the complete article. A tariff heading also covers a finished article when it is presented in an “unassembled or disassembled” state.

The Harmonised System Explanatory Notes define “unassembled or disassembled” to mean components that will be assembled using fixing devices such as screws, nuts, or bolts, or through riveting or welding. The complexity of the assembly method is irrelevant; what matters is that only assembly operations are involved, meaning the components do not require any further working operations to reach their finished state. In Humeau Beaupréau (C-2/13), the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that preparatory operations such as roughing components to improve adhesion for gluing are merely stages in the assembly process and do not constitute working operations for completion.

Importantly, in Michaelis (C-165/78), the Court of Justice specified that the above rules apply even where the tariff contains a specific subheading for parts of an article. The concept of parts is subordinate to the concept of a complete or finished article. When a product can be considered complete or finished, importers cannot legitimately rely on the customs classification for parts. The determining factor is therefore whether the constituent parts are capable of being fitted together to form a finished product at the time of importation.

Learnings from satellite receiver imports: stretching the requirement of “simultaneous” presentation to the benefit of anti-avoidance

Components must be presented “simultaneously” for customs clearance to be regarded as an unassembled or disassembled article. When an imported shipment contains all components necessary to assemble a finished product, the analysis will be fairly straightforward. But what if components are imported at different times, through different entry points, by different importers?

In X BV (C-107/22), the Court of Justice held that for the analysis of whether goods are presented in an unassembled or disassembled state, what matters is whether objective facts show that the goods belong together as a unit and are intended to be assembled into a single finished product. The fact that components are declared via separate customs declarations, for different customs procedures, and owned by different companies is not decisive for the customs classification analysis.

The court’s reasoning is aimed at preventing manipulation of tariff classification: a different interpretation would allow importers to manipulate tariff classification through the simple filing of separate customs declarations, enabling importers to choose classification as a finished product or as separate parts, whichever is most favourable for their business. According to the court, this would undermine the fundamental principle that tariff classification must be based on the objective characteristics and properties of goods. This principle has been consistently affirmed across EU case law, with the court emphasising that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for classification must be sought in the objective characteristics and properties of goods as defined in the wording of the relevant heading.

European Public Prosecutor enforcement action on electric bicycles demands greater clarity from European courts

The X BV judgment does not provide clarity for scenarios where imports occur in different shipments at different points in time. In the context of a coordinated action by the EPPO, the General Court of the European Union was recently asked in Denver (T-916/25) to clarify the limits to “simultaneous” presentation. A judgment is forthcoming, but we set out the facts of the case here as these are important to understand the current enforcement context.

In Denver, parts of electric bicycles were imported from China on different dates and through different import points in Italy. The Italian enforcement authorities contend that the importers did not import parts of e-bikes but rather disassembled e-bikes under General Rule of Interpretation 2(a). Importantly, while e-bikes originating in China are subject to substantial antidumping duties, their parts are not. The importers argue that the parts underwent further working operations to complete the manufacture of e-bikes and that therefore they are not components of unassembled e-bikes.

In addition to seeking clarity on whether the operations in this case go beyond assembly, the referring Italian court wants the General Court to examine whether General Rule of Interpretation 2(a) truly requires “simultaneous” presentation. If the answer is affirmative, the enforcement authorities could be found to improperly extend the presentation concept to encompass shipments arriving at different points in time. However, even in a scenario where General Rule of Interpretation 2(a) does not apply and the imports indeed technically constitute “parts”, questions may nonetheless arise regarding an abuse of rights if there is a factual finding of a deliberate importer strategy of artificially splitting consignments with the essential aim of avoiding the payment of customs duties.

Operational difficulties for managing customs classification

Regardless of the outcome in Denver, the customs classification of parts and components presents significant challenges for importers and customs brokers. Customs authorities may look beyond a specific declaration and determine that objective factors indicate that separately declared goods constitute components of a finished product, warranting classification as that finished product. This places customs brokers in a difficult position, as they lack the same visibility as the authorities into what importers are bringing in. Importers, for their part, face the risk that enforcement authorities will engage in overreaching interpretations, scrutinising imported volumes of parts to argue that disassembled items have in fact been imported.

These operational difficulties are compounded by the risk of retrospective adjustment. In X BV, the customs inspector issued a payment notice for nearly €400,000 in additional duties almost three years after the original declarations. This case illustrates the significant financial exposure facing importers and customs brokers who make declarations in good faith based on available information. While Binding Tariff Information decisions would normally allow legal certainty, they relate to specific goods presented by the applicant and would not resolve the information asymmetry that arises when a customs broker is unaware of related components that other importers or brokers may be bringing in.

Given the current state of the law, importers should consider the following measures to mitigate risk:

• Apply for Binding Tariff Information decisions where there is doubt about the correct classification of components, disclosing the full scope of imports and post-entry working operations.
• When importing parts, ensure that post-entry operations go beyond mere assembly and constitute satisfactory working operations, and document the processes.

Customs brokers can implement operational improvements to manage the risk, including:

• Perform enhanced client due diligence to determine whether goods are components intended for assembly into finished products, and whether the client or associated undertakings are importing complementary components.
• Include red flags for changes in import patterns when customs duties for items increase, particularly when that leads to parts being imported where previously full items were imported.
• Document the instructions and available information at the time of the declaration, as well as the basis for customs classification decisions.