This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62025TC0529
Opinion of Advocate General Martín y Pérez de Nanclares delivered on 10 June 2026.###
Opinion of Advocate General Martín y Pérez de Nanclares delivered on 10 June 2026.
Opinion of Advocate General Martín y Pérez de Nanclares delivered on 10 June 2026.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2026:388
Provisional text
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
MARTÍN y PÉREZ DE NANCLARES
delivered on 10 June 2026 (1)
Case T‑529/25
European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO),
Belgische Staat, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Algemene Administratie van de Douane en Accijnzen (AAD&A)
v
Prestige Rijwielen NV,
Logwin Air + Ocean Belgium NV,
ZG,
interveners
Belgische Staat, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën, Algemene Administratie van de Bijzondere Belastinginspectie (AABBI)
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp, Belgium))
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common Customs Tariff – Classification of goods – Combined Nomenclature – Interpretation – General rules – General Rule 2(a) – Scope – Concept of article presented unassembled or disassembled – Parts intended to constitute, after their assembly, electric bicycles – Importation in split consignments – Successive customs declarations – Classification as a complete article – Abuse of rights )
I. Introduction
1. In Latin, the term ‘portorium’ designates customs duties or tolls, which are similar to ‘a tax on the transport, on the passage of goods at certain points’, (2) levied in particular at the external borders of the Roman Empire. This is demonstrated by the Monumentum Ephesenum – an inscription setting out the customs rules of Asia, enacted in 62 AD – from which it is clear that the collection of customs duties was based, already in antiquity, on a complex system which laid down declaration obligations as well as consequences in the event of the circumvention of customs rules, such as the fictitious movement of goods. (3)
2. The present case arises in the context of a similar issue, namely the splitting of imports of goods with the aim of obtaining a more favourable customs tariff. This case has its origin in criminal proceedings brought by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office against two legal persons and one natural person, on the ground that they brought bicycle parts into the customs territory of the European Union in successive consignments in order to conceal the true purpose of those operations, namely the importation of complete electric bicycles. It is alleged that, in doing so, they evaded customs duties since, unlike parts, electric bicycles were subject to a higher conventional rate and were subject to anti-dumping duties.
3. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office based its decision on the alleged infringement of General Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature. (4) In essence, that rule allows, for the purposes of tariff classification, a complete article, such as a bicycle, to be treated as having been imported even though, physically, only the parts necessary for the assembly of that article were brought into the customs territory. That rule is subject to a condition, established by the Court, (5) requiring that the parts concerned be put forward for customs clearance simultaneously. That condition lies at the heart of the questions raised by the referring court, since, in the present case, the parts enabling the assembly of the electric bicycles were not presented to customs together, but were imported in split consignments.
II. Legal framework
A. International law
4. The Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System (‘the HS’) was established by the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, concluded in Brussels on 14 June 1983, (6) within the framework of the World Customs Organisation (WCO).
5. The second sentence of General Rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the HS provides, in essence, that any reference in a heading to an article is also to be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished, presented unassembled or disassembled.
6. The explanatory note relating to that rule states in point V that ‘When goods are … presented [unassembled or disassembled], it is usually for reasons such as requirements or convenience of packing, handling or transport’. Moreover, it is apparent from point VII of that note that ‘unassembled components of an article which are in excess of the number required for that article when complete are to be classified separately’. Finally, under point VIII of that note, cases covered by that rule are set out in the General Explanatory Notes to Sections or Chapters (for example, Section XVI, and Chapters 44, 86, 87 and 89).
7. The explanatory notes relating to Chapter 44 of Section IX and to Sections XVI and XVII of the HS cover, respectively, wooden articles presented unassembled or disassembled, unassembled machinery and mechanical appliances and unfinished or incomplete vessels.
B. European Union law
1. Regulation No 2658/87, Combined Nomenclature and explanatory notes
8. In the present case, Regulation No 2658/87 applies in the version established by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1602. (7) Annex I thereto contains the Combined Nomenclature (‘the CN’), which includes the general rules of interpretation.
9. General Rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the CN (‘General Rule 2(a)’), which reproduces the same rule from the HS, is worded as follows:
‘Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or disassembled.’
10. Additional note 2 to Section XVI of the CN contains details concerning the presentation of unassembled or disassembled machinery. Additional note 3 to that section provides that the provisions of General Rule 2(a) are also applicable, at the request of the declarant and subject to conditions stipulated by the competent authorities, to machines imported in split consignments.
11. Heading 8711 of the CN covers, inter alia, cycles fitted with an auxiliary motor. Parts and accessories of vehicles of headings 8711 to 8713 fall within heading 8714.
12. Additional note 2 to Section XVII of the CN states that the provisions of General Rule 2(a) are also applicable, at the request of the declarant and subject to conditions stipulated by the competent authorities, to goods of headings 8608, 8805, 8905 and 8907 imported in split consignments.
13. On 29 March 2019, the European Commission published the Explanatory Notes to the CN. (8) They contain guidance on the application of additional note 3 to Section XVI of the CN.
2. Customs Code
14. The Union Customs Code (‘the Customs Code’), established by Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, (9) defines, in Article 5(12) and (33), respectively, the concept of ‘customs declaration’ and the concept of ‘presentation of goods to customs’.
15. Article 56(1) of that code provides that ‘import and export duty due shall be based on the Common Customs Tariff’. It is apparent from paragraph 2 of that article that the Common Customs Tariff comprises, inter alia, the CN of goods as laid down in Regulation No 2658/87.
3. Implementing Regulation 2015/2447
16. Article 96(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447, (10) which is, in essence, identical to Article 115 of that regulation, provides:
‘Where, at the request of the importer and on the conditions laid down by the customs authorities of the importing Member State, unassembled or disassembled products within the meaning of general interpretative rule 2(a) of the Harmonised System and falling within Section XVI or XVII or heading 7308 or 9406 of the Harmonised System are imported by instalments, a single proof of origin for such products may be submitted to the customs authorities on importation of the first instalment.’
III. Facts giving rise to the dispute and request for a preliminary ruling
17. Prestige Rijwielen NV (‘Prestige’), a company incorporated under Belgian law, imported, until the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty in July 2018, (11) complete electric bicycles of Chinese origin, falling within CN heading 8711 60 10. Definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties were imposed in January 2019. (12) From that time until April 2021, Prestige imported and declared parts of electric bicycles falling under subheadings of CN heading 8714.
18. During checks, the customs authorities identified 27 customs declarations, divided into six groups, each of which related to parts invoiced under the same reference number, allowing, in total, 5 800 complete bicycles to be assembled. The declarations were submitted with intervals of a few days or a few months. Those facts form the basis of the criminal proceedings brought by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office against Prestige, ZG (its managing director) and Logwin Air + Ocean Belgium NV (its customs representative). They are alleged to have avoided import duties, anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties by submitting customs declarations which wrongly stated that bicycle parts were being imported, in order to conceal the importation of electric bicycles.
19. The court of first instance found that Prestige had ordered complete unassembled electric bicycles from China and had sold them as such to consumers. It concluded from this that, in the light of General Rule 2(a), Prestige should have declared to customs the importation not of parts, but of complete electric bicycles. Accordingly, Prestige and ZG were ordered to pay fines and, having failed to hand over the confiscated goods, to pay the estimated customs value of those goods. Logwin Air + Ocean Belgium was acquitted. Finally, all the ancillary claims of the customs and tax authorities, which had joined the proceedings as civil parties, were upheld.
20. In the appeal brought before it, the hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp, Belgium) notes that, in accordance with General Rule 2(a), goods imported disassembled should be classified under the tariff heading applicable to complete goods. However, it is not certain that that rule can apply, on the ground that the customs declarations in question were submitted in succession, sometimes several months apart. It is true that, in its judgment in X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane, (13) the Court held that General Rule 2(a) should not be interpreted in such a way as to permit importers themselves to choose, in particular by submitting separate customs declarations, whether to classify the goods as a whole or separately. However, according to that judgment, the application of that rule is subject to the presentation of the goods to customs at the same time.
21. It is in those circumstances that the hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer, under Article 267 TFEU, the following question for a preliminary ruling:
‘Should General Rule 2(a) … be interpreted as meaning that parts of an electric bicycle intended, after being released for free circulation, to be assembled into an electric bicycle, which are invoiced by two different suppliers and transported in different containers and […] are declared by the same declarant, in the name and on behalf of the same consignee, spread over a period of up to several months, at the same customs office for free circulation by means of separate [customs] declarations …, and which, when released for free circulation, are the property of the consignee, must be classified as electric bicycles presented in a disassembled or unassembled state within the meaning of [that] rule, … in so far as objective factors show that those parts form a whole and comprise all the essential components of those electric bicycles?’
IV. The procedure before the Court of Justice and the General Court
22. This request for a preliminary ruling was lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 18 July 2025. Pursuant to Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the request was transferred to the General Court.
23. The parties to the main proceedings, the Belgian Government and the Commission submitted written observations and participated at the hearing held on 23 April 2026.
V. Legal assessment
24. In the present case, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office maintains that the importation of bicycle parts in successive consignments falls within the scope of the second situation set out in General Rule 2(a). Therefore, for the purposes of tariff classification, the defendants should be regarded as having imported not parts, but complete electric bicycles. That interpretation is, however, inconsistent with the Court’s case-law, established in 1974 in the judgment in Osram. (14) It follows from paragraph 7 of that judgment that the application of General Rule 2(a) to the importation of an unassembled or disassembled article is subject to the requirement that the constituent parts are presented simultaneously for customs clearance.
25. By the judgment in X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane, delivered in 2023, the Court stated that the requirement of simultaneous presentation is met provided that the goods are presented to customs at the same time, even if they are the subject matter of several customs declarations. That interpretation of General Rule 2(a) was, in particular, justified by its binding nature, which precludes it from being circumvented by means of manipulation by importers aiming to choose ‘the tariff classification of the goods at issue – whether together as a unit, or separately – that is the most favourable for them’. (15)
26. The referring court is seeking, in essence, to ascertain whether that reasoning can be applied to the practice of splitting imports. By implication, it therefore invites the Court to examine the possibility of further relaxing, or even eliminating, the requirement for the simultaneous presentation of goods. Of course, such a solution would be tantamount to qualifying, or even overruling, the Court’s long-established case-law. (16)
27. In order to answer the question raised, it seems to me necessary, first of all, to outline the general context of the present case (A). Next, I propose to interpret General Rule 2(a) in order to define its scope (B). Finally, in the event that the Court should conclude that that rule applies to goods imported in split consignments, it seems to me necessary to address its practical application (C).
A. Applicability of the customs procedure to imports in split consignments
28. It is important, in my view, to recall that the procedure for the customs clearance of goods, laid down by the Customs Code, constitutes the broader legal framework for tariff classification as one of the major stages in the customs procedure, namely that of establishing the customs tariff. (17) General Rule 2(a) clearly demonstrates this by its reference to the presentation of goods to customs. That concept of customs law was interpreted in the judgment in Osram (18) as requiring the simultaneous presentation of the goods. The line of case-law stemming from that judgment confirms that presentation cannot be deferred in time, (19) so that General Rule 2(a) is not applicable to imports in split consignments. (20)
29. In order to determine whether the contrary interpretation of that rule may nevertheless be accepted, it seems to me essential to clarify the extent to which the Customs Code provides for, or at least does not exclude, the customs clearance of unassembled or disassembled goods imported in succession in split consignments. To that end, I shall first provide an overview of the customs procedure (1), which will enable me next to set out the principle underpinning it, namely that of the declaration of the goods presented (2). Finally, I shall examine the possibility of derogating from that principle for the purpose of the importation of unassembled or disassembled goods, in split consignments (3).
1. Historical origins and current state of the customs procedure
30. In 1974, when the Court delivered the judgment in Osram, (21) customs controls on imports were subject to the harmonisation rules laid down in Directive 68/312/EEC. (22) That directive used the concept of ‘presentation of goods to customs’ only in the Spanish-, Italian- and Dutch-language versions. The Dutch-language version contained the term ‘aanbrengen’, which corresponds to the term that now appears in Article 5(33) of the Dutch-language version of the Customs Code, defining ‘presentation of goods to customs’. In any event, the 1968 Directive provided for the obligation to take goods to a customs office and ‘immediately’ to lodge a declaration enabling those goods to be identified. Regulation (EEC) No 4151/88 (23) generalised, in Article 5 thereof, the use of the concept of ‘presentation of goods to customs’ into Community law. That concept was defined therein as informing the customs authority that the goods have arrived at the customs office. (24) That act was to be immediately followed by the lodging of the customs declaration. According to the case-law of the Court, for goods to be regarded as having been lawfully introduced into the customs territory of the Community, they must, on their arrival, have been taken to a customs office and been presented to customs. (25)
31. The procedure established by the Customs Code, currently in force, is based on those same principles. In essence, the passage of goods through customs is characterised by several operations which, in principle, take place in succession, that is to say, in particular, the arrival of goods (Article 135(1)), the presentation of those goods to customs immediately after arrival (Article 5(33) and Article 139(1)), the lodging of a customs declaration in order to declare the application of a customs procedure (Article 5(12) and Article 158(1)), the acceptance of the declaration (Article 172), the optional verification thereof (Article 188) and release (Articles 194 and 195).
2. Principle of declaring the goods presented
32. According to my understanding of the customs procedure, the operations of declaration, verification (under Article 188 of the Customs Code) and release (under Articles 194 and 195 of that code) always relate to the goods presented to customs. In principle, they concern neither goods which have not yet arrived at customs (26) nor goods which have already passed through customs following release. (27)
33. That analysis is supported by Articles 170 to 172 of the Customs Code, which state that customs declarations must be lodged by a person able to present the goods concerned. Consequently, whilst a customs declaration may be lodged up to 30 days prior to the expected presentation of the goods, such advance lodging is only valid if the goods are actually presented within that period. Moreover, the acceptance of customs declarations by the customs authorities is expressly subject to the actual presentation of the goods to which those declarations relate.
34. Moreover, under Articles 144, 149 and 158 of the Customs Code, goods in temporary storage from the moment they are presented must be declared within 90 days. (28) In theory, those provisions could allow goods arriving at customs at different times, but within that period, to be declared jointly. However, in my view, such an interpretation conflicts with the procedural requirements governing the submission of a ‘standard’ customs declaration, within the meaning of Article 162 of that code. Pursuant to Article 222 of the Implementing Regulation, each item of goods is subject to a separate customs declaration. By way of derogation from that principle, only items ‘contained in a consignment’ may be grouped together, provided they fall within a single tariff subheading. Since items from the same consignment arrive simultaneously at the customs office and must be presented immediately, (29) a joint customs declaration necessarily concerns items presented at the same time.
35. The same requirement is also set out in Article 177(1) of the Customs Code. For the sake of simplification, this allows goods falling under different tariff subheadings to be declared as if they fell under a single subheading, provided, in particular, that they belong to a ‘consignment’.
36. The principle of declaration of the goods presented to customs (at the same time) is such as to ensure the effectiveness of the customs authorities’ power to verify, prior to release, the accuracy of customs declarations, in particular by examining the goods and by taking samples. (30)
37. That principle is also justified by the fact that Article 77(1) and (2) of the Customs Code links the lawful incurrence of a customs debt to the acceptance of the customs declaration and the placing of the goods under one of the customs procedures. As is apparent from Article 56 of the Customs Code, the amount of that debt depends on the duties determined, in particular, on the basis of the tariff classification of the goods. That classification is therefore carried out at the time of importation, on the basis of the information contained in the customs declaration, it being noted that the obligation on the declarant to provide accurate information also extends to the determination of the correct CN subheading. (31) Moreover, in order to facilitate customs controls and for reasons of legal certainty, the tariff classification is based on the objective characteristics and properties of the goods at the time of the presentation of those goods to customs. (32)
38. Finally, in my view it follows from Article 194(1) and (2) of the Customs Code that the release of goods, on the basis of the customs declaration, concerns only the goods presented to customs and covered by that declaration.
39. All those considerations lead me to conclude that the customs procedure was designed for the customs clearance of the goods actually presented to customs at the same time. Accordingly, the tariff classification, including the application of General Rule 2(a), is carried out, in principle, only in respect of those goods. In my view, such a view of the customs procedure already prevailed in 1974 when the judgment in Osram (33) was delivered.
3. Derogation from the principle of declaration of the goods presented
40. The principle set out in point 39 of the present Opinion is therefore difficult to reconcile with the possibility of classifying and declaring a complete product when only some of its constituent parts have arrived and been presented to the customs authorities, even if the arrival of the other parts is scheduled for a later date. I consider, however, that the Customs Code does not preclude this in all circumstances, as evidenced by its implementing regulation.
41. The introduction of goods into the territory of the European Union in split consignments is not contrary to customs procedures. Several provisions of the Implementing Regulation, namely Articles 96, 99, 105, 115 and 121, are expressly based on the premiss that such a method of importation is permitted. They provide for simplification of proof of origin for goods which are imported unassembled or disassembled, within the meaning of General Rule 2(a), and which fall within Sections XVI or XVII or headings 7308 or 9406 of the HS.
42. I conclude from this that it should be possible to state in a customs declaration, on the one hand, that the goods to which it refers and which are presented to customs form part of a series of related consignments, with a view to their importation into the territory of the European Union. On the other hand, for the purposes of determining the applicable customs tariff, the declarant must be able to take into account all the goods thus imported and, where appropriate, classify them as a single complete article, pursuant to General Rule 2(a).
43. However, that possibility constitutes a derogation from the principle of declaration of the goods presented to customs, which, as we have seen, underlies customs procedures. It must therefore be interpreted strictly. (34) In my view, this applies a fortiori since it is not expressly provided for by the Customs Code.
B. Applicability of General Rule 2(a) to imports in split consignments
44. It is in the light of the outcome of the analysis of the customs procedure that the tariff classification rules of the CN and, accordingly, General Rule 2(a) must be interpreted.
45. In the context of the present case, it is therefore for the Court to determine the scope of that rule, in particular in the light of its reference to the ‘presentation’ of the goods. To that end, I propose, first of all, to carry out a literal interpretation of General Rule 2(a) (1), followed by systematic and teleological interpretations of that rule (2). That exercise will be supplemented by an assessment of whether there are any limitations under the convention concerning the transposition of the HS by the CN which might preclude the EU legislature from clarifying, or even amending, the scope of that rule (3).
1. Literal interpretation of General Rule 2(a)
46. In accordance with the second sentence of General Rule 2(a), any reference to an article is also to be taken to include it ‘presented unassembled or disassembled’. In paragraph 7 of its judgment in Osram, (35) the Court noted that it is apparent from the wording of that provision that it can apply only provided that that the unassembled or disassembled parts are put forward simultaneously for customs clearance. (36)
47. When the Court gave its ruling in 1974, in accordance with Regulation No 1, (37) regulations were to be drafted in the then six official languages. A comparison of the language versions of the second sentence of General Rule 2(a) then in force (38) shows that the Danish-, English- and Dutch-language versions did not include the requirement of presentation. In Danish and Dutch, however, the idea that the article must be available was present and in English reference was made to its importation. It appears that the other language versions expressly referred to the presentation of the article. (39)
48. In the CN applicable ratione temporis to the present case, it seems to me that most of the language versions of the second sentence of General Rule 2(a) contain a more or less express requirement for presentation. For example, the English-language version now uses the wording presented article. The German- and Finnish-language versions even expressly refer to presentation to customs. Moreover, unless I am mistaken, the Danish-, Polish- and Swedish-language versions refer rather to articles available unassembled or disassembled, which, in my view, implies the presentation of those articles. The Estonian-language version of that rule departs from this and refers, for its part, to disassembled articles, without reference to their availability or presentation. In any event, as regards the linguistic differences in the CN, particular weight should be given to its French- and English-language versions, in so far as the CN incorporates the HS, of which only the versions in those languages are authoritative. (40)
49. In the light of that linguistic comparison, I consider that the wording of the second sentence of General Rule 2(a) limits its application to the articles presented to customs. However, considered in isolation, it does not allow me to conclude whether the constituent parts of a complete article must be presented simultaneously.
50. It is true that the requirement of simultaneity could be inferred from the principle of declaration of the goods presented, identified in point 39 of the present Opinion. However, I tend to the view that such a restrictive interpretation of the wording of General Rule 2(a) is not necessary. In particular, it fails to take account of the economic and legal realities taken into consideration by the EU legislature. As is apparent from the Implementing Regulation, (41) the latter is based on the premiss that the Customs Code permits the importation of unassembled or disassembled goods in split consignments.
51. Consequently, systematic and teleological interpretations of General Rule 2(a) must be used in order to determine whether the requirement of presentation can be satisfied in the case of the passage of goods through customs in several consignments.
2. Systematic and teleological interpretations of General Rule 2(a)
(a) Systematic interpretation
52. It is apparent from paragraph 8 of the judgment in Osram (42) that, in 1971, (43) General Rule 2(a) was inserted into the introductory section of the CN set out in the Annex to Regulation No 950/68 in order to generalise existing interpretation practices. Those practices were based on several specific notes in that nomenclature which contained variations of that rule, covering the importation, unassembled or disassembled, of wooden articles, machinery, vehicles, boats and furniture. (44)
53. Those specific notes included the note relating to machinery, which stated that the rules for the classification of machinery presented unassembled or disassembled were also applicable where such machinery was the subject matter of split consignments.
54. The development of the CN, from its first Community implementation by Regulation No 950/68 to the present day, shows that there has been no generalisation of the applicability of General Rule 2(a) to the importation, in split consignments, of all unassembled or disassembled goods. On the contrary, such a possibility is provided for only in respect of certain goods, namely machinery falling within Section XVI of the CN and articles falling within headings 8608, 8805, 8905 and 8907 of Section XVII thereof, which follows from additional note 3 to Section XVI and additional note 2 to Section XVII of the CN, respectively. (45) In accordance with those notes, General Rule 2(a) applies ‘also’ to the goods to which they refer, where they are imported in split consignments.
55. Accordingly, Articles 96, 99 and 115 of the Implementing Regulation provide for that method of importation of unassembled or disassembled goods only where they fall within Sections XVI or XVII or headings 7308 or 9406 of the HS.
56. In my view, the interpretation according to which additional note 3 to Section XVI and additional note 2 to Section XVII of the CN are not intended to be of general application is supported, in particular, by the use of the word ‘also’. Moreover, those notes make the application of General Rule 2(a) subject to the ‘request’ of the declarant. It does not seem to me to be excluded that that condition might offer the declarant a choice, which would further highlight the exceptional nature of those notes.
57. I therefore consider that, in principle, General Rule 2(a) applies only to goods presented at the same time, that is to say, simultaneously, subject to the limited derogation laid down for the importation of certain goods in split consignments. (46)
58. That limitation of the scope of General Rule 2(a) seems to be supported by the conduct of the EU institutions. The issue of splitting imports to circumvent that rule has been known of for a long time. In 1993, the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on bicycles from China (47) caused imports of complete bicycles to plummet, whereas, at the same time, imports of constituent parts increased substantially. The Commission’s investigation noted that certain undertakings ‘ensured that parts destined for the same assembler were spread across different containers, sent on different dates and sometimes unloaded at different ports’, enabling them to avoid the application of General Rule 2(a). (48) In response to that practice, the EU legislature extended the anti-dumping duty to imports of certain bicycle parts. However, it did not amend the CN.
59. That approach appears to be in line with the position adopted by the European Union on the international stage. According to a document of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), drawn up in 2008 by a ‘panel’, the European Communities argued that the presentation of goods ‘en l’état’ (as presented), the expression used in the French version of General Rule 2(a), reflected the ‘basic principle of tariff classification that goods are classified on the basis of the objective characteristics of the product at the time of importation, as imported and presented to Customs’. ‘The concept does not and cannot cover “several moments” and “several places”’. (49)
(b) Teleological interpretation
60. The systematic interpretation of General Rule 2(a) contrasts with the arguments of a teleological nature which, in my view, could support extending its scope to the importation of any goods in split consignments.
61. First of all, it is possible to have doubts as to the coherence of limiting the scope of General Rule 2(a) to goods covered by additional note 3 to Section XVI and by additional note 2 to Section XVII of the CN. Those notes apply to a wide range of goods of very varied natures and sizes. (50)
62. Next, it does not seem to me to be excluded that the application of General Rule 2(a) to the importation of any goods in successive consignments might contribute to the proper functioning of tariff classification. This is based on the assessment of goods on the basis of their objective characteristics and properties, which includes taking into account the intended use of a product if it is inherent to it. (51) Therefore, in particular where the items imported in successive consignments are the constituent parts of a complete article, where they have been ordered as components of such an article and where they are intended, from the outset, not for individual sale but to be assembled, prior to their marketing, into a complete article, it seems more appropriate to apply to those items the tariff rate provided for that complete article. I consider that information to that effect may be derived, for example, from the documents accompanying the customs declaration, such as sales contracts and invoices, as well as from factual circumstances, such as the fact that the imported parts correspond to a number of complete articles (52) or the fact that the importer has ceased to import complete articles.
63. I also consider it important to emphasise that the importation of unassembled or disassembled goods in split consignments may arise from various constraints of either a commercial or other nature. These may be linked to the transport arrangements available to the importer, depending on the size or quantity of the parts, or to the production of the imported parts, in particular where production takes place in several factories, which may or may not be located near port, airport or road facilities. Moreover, the deferred arrival of parts for an article may be the result of unforeseeable circumstances, such as wars, blockades of trade routes, strikes or weather conditions.
64. I consider that those various factors do not affect the objective characteristics of the imported goods. However, as the judgment in X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane (53) makes it possible to understand, they should be taken into account as objective factors in determining whether, in spite of the entry of individual parts into the customs territory of the European Union in successive consignments, the declarant should be regarded as importing a complete article, presented unassembled or disassembled.
65. Finally, in my view, it follows from paragraph 26 of that judgment that the objective nature of tariff classification means that importers must be prevented from themselves choosing, by means of a relatively simple manipulation, the tariff classification of the goods. It seems to me that that ground, which enabled the Court to conclude that General Rule 2(a) applies in the case of the lodging of several separate customs declarations for unassembled or disassembled articles presented simultaneously, is also relevant in the case of the importation in successive consignments of parts intended to be assembled into a complete article. (54)
66. However, notwithstanding the attractiveness of those teleological arguments, I consider that they are not capable of rebutting the finding set out in point 57 of the present Opinion. The outcome of the systematic interpretation of that rule is not equivocal but demonstrates, as I understand, the legislature’s clear intention to limit its applicability to the importation of goods in split consignments solely in the cases expressly referred to in additional note 3 to Section XVI and additional note 2 to Section XVII of the CN. (55)
67. In those circumstances, I propose that the Court rule that General Rule 2(a) cannot apply to bicycle parts where they are not presented simultaneously to customs but are imported in split consignments. Electric bicycles and their parts fall within CN headings 8711 and 8714 and are therefore not covered by the derogations set out in additional note 3 to Section XVI and additional note 2 to Section XVII of the CN.
3. Limitations under the convention to the modification of the scope of General Rule 2(a)
68. In the light of the teleological arguments which might be put forward in favour of extending the scope of General Rule 2(a), the interpretation of that rule, as set out in points 57 and 67 of the present Opinion, does not seem to me to be entirely satisfactory. In particular, there is a degree of tension between that interpretation and those arguments, stemming notably from the apparent incoherence in the choice of goods covered by additional note 3 to Section XVI and additional note 2 to Section XVII of the CN.
69. However, since the resolution of that issue does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, it is for the EU legislature to decide whether and, if so, how, it should be remedied. It is from that perspective that I propose to examine whether there are any legal reasons which might preclude the EU legislature from re-examining the issue of the applicability of General Rule 2(a) to the importation of goods in split consignments. I have in mind, in particular, the limitations under the convention arising from the transposition of the HS by the CN.
70. In that regard, it seems to me that the limitation on the applicability of General Rule 2(a) to the importation in instalments of goods covered by additional note 3 to Section XVI and additional note 2 to Section XVII of the CN does not stem from the obligations laid down by the HS. Unless I am mistaken, that system does not contain any rules or notes governing importation in split consignments.
71. Moreover, as is apparent from point VIII of the explanatory note relating to General Rule 2(a) of the HS, some sections and chapters of the HS contain examples of the application of that rule. Those examples, which are not legally binding, (56) contain no indication to suggest that, as a matter of principle, the importation of goods in split consignments cannot be covered by that rule. It is true that, as regards wooden articles, its application is expressly subject to the condition that ‘the parts are presented together’. However, the other examples are worded in a neutral manner or contain no information concerning the presentation of the goods. With specific regard to machinery, reference is made to its presentation unassembled or disassembled, without any further details. (57)
72. In the light of those considerations, I tend to think that although the application of General Rule 2(a) to imports in split consignments was simply not contemplated by the authors of the HS, they did not expressly exclude it either, except perhaps as regards the importation of wooden articles.
73. That assessment is supported by a decision of the HS Committee of November 1995 establishing that it is open to each signatory State (58) to determine the applicability of General Rule 2(a) of the HS to imports in split consignments. (59) I infer from this that the EU legislature may determine autonomously whether it is appropriate to apply that rule in a situation where the constituent parts of a complete article are imported in successive consignments.
74. In my view, when additional note 3 to Section XVI was introduced into the CN set out in the Annex to Regulation No 950/68, by the adoption of Regulation No 1/72, the legislature of the European Economic Community also started from the premiss that it had the option of including the importation of goods in split consignments within the scope of General Rule 2(a). That amendment to the nomenclature in force at the time was justified not by a change to the Brussels Convention of 15 December 1950, (60) which preceded the HS, but by economic and practical reasons relied on by that legislature. Moreover, today, the EU legislature still retains, in the CN, additional note 3 to Section XVI and additional note 2 to Section XVII, whereas the HS contains no equivalent notes.
75. In the light of the foregoing, I consider that the EU legislature does indeed have the power to amend the scope of General Rule 2(a) as regards the importation of goods in split consignments.
C. Analysis, in the alternative, of the application of General Rule 2(a) to imports in split consignments
76. In the event that the General Court wishes to conclude that General Rule 2(a) applies to all imports in split consignments, it will be necessary to determine the conditions under which that rule may be applied, since the Customs Code does not contain provisions establishing such conditions.
77. In my view, guidance may be derived, by analogy, from Article 99(3) and Article 115 of the Implementing Regulation and, in particular, from additional note 3 to Section XVI and additional note 2 to Section XVII of the CN. Those provisions provide, on the one hand, that it is the declarant’s responsibility to request authorisation from the customs authorities to import unassembled or disassembled goods in split consignments. On the other hand, it follows that those authorities determine the conditions for the operation of importation in successive consignments.
78. In the light of those requirements, I propose to put forward some considerations concerning, on the one hand, the procedural framework established by the customs authorities for General Rule 2(a) in the case of the importation of goods in split consignments (1) and, on the other hand, the obligations on the declarant (2). Moreover, in response to the discussions at the hearing, it seems to me appropriate to address the impact of any potential abuse of rights on the application of that rule (3).
1. Procedural framework for the application of General Rule 2(a)
79. As already stated in point 77 of the present Opinion, it seems reasonable to me to consider, by analogy with Article 99(3) and Article 115 of the Implementing Regulation and with additional note 3 to Section XVI and additional note 2 to Section XVII of the CN, that it is for the customs authorities to determine the procedural conditions for the application of General Rule 2(a) to imports of goods in split consignments.
80. By contrast, it is not permissible for the national authorities to determine at their discretion the substantive conditions for the application of General Rule 2(a), since this would risk failing to ensure equal treatment for importers in the tariff classification of goods. It follows, in the light of the case-law set out in points 62 and 64 of the present Opinion, that only the objective characteristics of goods and the objective factors which determined the import arrangements may be taken into account when examining the applicability of that rule.
81. As regards, first, the period of importation in split consignments over time, this should not, in my view, be decisive in itself. It could, however, be one of the objective factors relevant in assessing the applicability of General Rule 2(a), which is supported by the fact, noted in point 63 of the present Opinion, that the interval between consignments may depend on many circumstances. In those circumstances, I do not think that it is possible to set a time limit beyond which General Rule 2(a) would no longer apply.
82. For the sake of completeness, I would point out that it seems to me questionable to apply, by analogy, the time limits relating to the validity of proofs of origin, provided for by Article 99(2), Article 105(1) and Article 121(1) and (4) of the Implementing Regulation. The nature of such proofs and verification that they are justified require that they have a limited period of validity. (61) It is only by way of derogation that Article 121(5) of that regulation provides for the possibility of extending the period of validity of the proof of origin in the case of imports of unassembled or disassembled goods in split consignments. That derogation shows that such imports may take place over a period exceeding the normal period of validity of a proof of origin.
83. As regards, secondly, the procedural rules governing the importation in instalments of unassembled or disassembled goods, it seems to me that it is sufficient for the customs authorities to inform a declarant, who has indicated to them that he wishes to carry out such an import operation, of the scope of the information obligations incumbent on him or her in addition to the customs declaration. (62)
84. Thirdly and finally, the obligation to carry out enhanced checks provided for in Article 105(2) of the Implementing Regulation seems to me to be directly relevant here. By analogy, when an importer declares the importation of goods in split consignments, it is incumbent on the customs authorities to verify that each consignment actually corresponds to the parts required for its assembly.
2. Obligations of the declarant
85. The obligation to carry out checks referred to in point 84 of the present Opinion goes hand in hand with the declarant’s obligation to provide information. The Customs Code is based on a principle of transparency. It emphasises not the checks carried out by the customs authorities, but the declarant’s obligations. Accordingly, the application of the provisions governing the customs procedure under which the goods are placed is carried out, in principle, on the basis of the particulars contained in customs declarations. These are not subject to systematic verification, which assumes that the declarant will provide the customs authorities with complete and accurate information. It is in that context that the Court has emphasised that it is for the declarant him or herself to determine the CN subheading applicable to the goods which he or she declares. (63)
86. It is true that, in so far as additional note 3 to Section XVI and additional note 2 to Section XVII of the CN provide for the application of General Rule 2(a) at the request of the declarant, they appear to offer him or her a choice. However, in the event that the importation of any unassembled or disassembled goods in split consignments were to fall within that rule, its application would have to be based on objective factors and cannot depend on a choice. (64) Where necessary, pursuant to the declarant’s obligation to provide information, he or she would therefore have to state in his or her customs declarations, from the first consignment and at the time of each subsequent consignment, that he or she is importing the goods in split consignments. (65) The declarant would, moreover, have to select a tariff classification for those goods in accordance with General Rule 2(a).
87. Subject to that reservation, additional note 2 to Section XVI of the CN nevertheless serves to illustrate the scope of the obligation to provide information in addition to the customs declaration. Accordingly, the declarant may be required to produce, for articles presented unassembled or disassembled, ‘an assembly plan and a list of the contents of the various packages’. That requirement seems to me particularly relevant for the importation of goods in split consignments. On the one hand, such a plan would make it possible to identify the parts needed to assemble the complete article and, on the other hand, the list of consignments would ensure that the customs authorities have a complete overview of the import operation. Moreover, that information seems to me to be useful in the light of the obligation to carry out enhanced checks, referred to in point 84 of the present Opinion.
3. Consideration of the abuse of rights
88. At the hearing, the parties to the main proceedings and the other interested parties raised the issue of taking account of the existence of an abuse of rights. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office argued, in that context, that the prohibition of such abuses should guide the interpretation of General Rule 2(a).
89. In that regard, it should be recalled that it is settled case-law that an abuse of rights is a legal concept, derived from the principle of the prohibition of abusive practices, the purpose of which is to prevent the person concerned from relying on a benefit provided for by EU law where the objective conditions for entitlement to that benefit are not, in reality, satisfied. To establish this, an objective element and a subjective element must be present. The former requires that it be demonstrated that, despite formal observance of the conditions laid down by EU rules, the purpose of those rules has not been achieved. (66)
90. As Advocate General Mengozzi noted, that case-law clearly shows that a right can only be subject to an abusive use if it has first been acknowledged. Accordingly, the prohibition on the abuse of rights cannot be considered to be a principle defining the scope of EU law provisions. (67) In my view, it follows from this that that prohibition allows neither for the addition of legal conditions to a rule of law, nor for the extension of its scope contra legem. However, subject to those limitations, the possibility of circumventing a rule through an abusive practice could be taken into account in order to find an interpretation capable of preserving its effectiveness, as the Court did in its judgment in X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane. (68)
91. With specific regard to General Rule 2(a), assuming that it applies to the importation of goods in split consignments, the existence of fraudulent or abusive practices aimed at circumventing it seems to me to be a relevant factor for the purposes of its application in concreto. Such a practice appears to be one of the objective factors which may be taken into account in order to determine whether it should be considered that, by the successive entry of parts into the customs territory of the European Union, the declarant is importing a complete article, presented unassembled or disassembled. (69)
VI. Conclusion
92. In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the following answer be given to the hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp, Belgium):
General Rule 2(a) of the General rules for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1602 of 11 October 2018,
must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to the importation of parts of an electric bicycle, falling within the subheadings of heading 8714 of the Combined Nomenclature, intended, after being released for free circulation, to be assembled into an electric bicycle, falling within the subheadings of heading 8711 of the Combined Nomenclature, where those parts are not presented simultaneously to customs but are imported in successive split consignments.
José Martín y Pérez de Nanclares
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 10 June 2026.
[Signatures]
1 Original language: French.
2 Nicolet, C., ‘Le Monumentum Ephesenum et la délimitation du portorium d’Asie’, in Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité, vol. 105, No 2, 1993, pp. 929 to 959 (p. 946). See also the work by Zamora Manzano, J. L., Algunos aspectos sobre el régimen fiscal aduanero en Derecho romano: reglamentación jurídica del “portorium”, control de mercancías y comiso por fraude fiscal, Dykinson, Madrid, 2009.
3 See Nicolet, C., ‘Le monumentum Ephesenum et les dîmes d’Asie’, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 1991, No 115-1, pp. 465 to 480 (pp. 465, 478 to 480) and Marek, C., ‘Stadt, Bund und Reich in der Zollorganisation des kaiserzeitlichen Lykien. Eine neue Interpretation der Zollinschrift von Kaunos’, in Hans-Ulrich Wiemer (ed.), Staatlichkeit und politisches Handeln in der römischen Kaiserzeit, De Gruyter, 2006, pp. 107 to 121 (pp. 108 and 110).
4 See Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).
5 Judgment of 8 May 1974, Osram (183/73, EU:C:1974:50, paragraph 7).
6 United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1503, p. 4, No 25910 (1988). That Convention was approved on behalf of the European Economic Community by Council Decision 87/369/EEC of 7 April 1987 (OJ 1987 L 198, p. 1).
7 Commission Implementing Regulation of 11 October 2018 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2018 L 273, p. 1).
8 OJ 2019 C 119, p. 1.
9 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).
10 Commission Implementing Regulation of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2015 L 343, p. 558), as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/604 of 18 April 2018 (OJ 2018 L 101, p. 22) (‘the Implementing Regulation’).
11 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1012 of 17 July 2018 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/671 (OJ 2018 L 181, p. 7).
12 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2019 L 16, p. 108) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/72 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2019 L 16, p. 5).
13 Judgment of 27 April 2023 (C‑107/22, EU:C:2023:346).
14 Judgment of 8 May 1974 (183/73, EU:C:1974:50).
15 See, to that effect, judgment of 27 April 2023, X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane (C‑107/22, EU:C:2023:346, paragraphs 24 to 26).
16 The exceptional nature of the over-ruling of case-law, in particular of settled case-law, was emphasised by Advocate General Hogan in point 57 of his Opinion in Gtflix Tv (C‑251/20, EU:C:2021:745), according to which ‘any such over-ruling of earlier case-law should not take place absent a serious reason to do so and be limited to what is necessary’.
17 See Article 56(1) and (2) of the Customs Code.
18 Judgment of 8 May 1974 (183/73, EU:C:1974:50, paragraph 7).
19 See judgments of 16 June 1994, Develop Dr. Eisbein (C‑35/93, EU:C:1994:252, paragraph 19), and of 27 April 2023, X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane (C‑107/22, EU:C:2023:346, paragraph 22).
20 The term ‘split consignments’ refers to the successive importation of parts of an article which, for various reasons, are not transported together. This might be distinguished from the importation of parts in multiple shipments for the purposes of industrial assembly (see WTO: ‘China – Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile Parts’, Reports of the Panel (18 July 2008), WT/DS339/R, WT/DS340/R and WT/DS342/R, pp. 306 to 310, paragraphs 7.434 to 7.439), although it is not certain that such a distinction is necessary or justified. For the purposes of my Opinion, it does not appear necessary to me, since most of the considerations relating to the first scenario apply a fortiori to the second. That said, it cannot be ruled out that the operations at issue in the main proceedings must be classified as imports not in split consignments, but in multiple consignments.
21 Judgment of 8 May 1974 (183/73, EU:C:1974:50).
22 Council Directive of 30 July 1968 on harmonisation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to: 1. customs treatment of goods entering the customs territory of the Community; 2. temporary storage of such goods (OJ 1968 L 194, p. 13).
23 Council Regulation of 21 December 1988 laying down the provisions applicable to goods brought into the customs territory of the Community (OJ 1988 L 367, p. 1).
24 Definition subsequently reproduced in the Customs Code.
25 Judgment of 3 March 2005, Papismedov and Others (C‑195/03, EU:C:2005:131, paragraph 27).
26 Subject to Article 171 of the Customs Code.
27 Verification during the customs procedure, therefore prior to release, must be distinguished from post-release controls (Article 48 of the Customs Code).
28 The submission of the declaration marks the start of the process of placing the goods under a customs procedure. See, to that effect, judgment of 27 June 2013, Codirex Expeditie (C‑542/11, EU:C:2013:429, paragraph 35 et seq.).
29 See points 30 and 31 of the present Opinion.
30 See Article 188 of the Customs Code and, to that effect, judgment of 15 September 2011, DP grup (C‑138/10, EU:C:2011:587, paragraph 39).
31 See, to that effect, judgments of 23 May 1989, Top Hit Holzvertrieb v Commission (378/87, EU:C:1989:209, paragraph 26), and of 15 September 2011, DP grup (C‑138/10, EU:C:2011:587, paragraphs 34 and 40).
32 See, to that effect, judgments of 17 March 1983, Dinter (175/82, EU:C:1983:86, paragraph 10); of 6 February 2014, Humeau Beaupréau (C‑2/13, EU:C:2014:48, paragraph 45); and of 10 March 2016, VAD and van Aert (C‑499/14, EU:C:2016:155, paragraphs 40 and 41).
33 Judgment of 8 May 1974 (183/73, EU:C:1974:50). See also the Opinion of Advocate General Capotorti in IMCO (165/78, EU:C:1979:82, point 3), which refers to examining the parts ‘at the time of importation’ in the light of ‘whether they are capable of being fitted together so as to constitute a given finished product’.
34 See, to that effect, judgments of 17 January 2013, Commission v Spain (C‑360/11, EU:C:2013:17, paragraph 18), and of 12 May 2021, Hauptzollamt B (Sturgeon caviar) (C‑87/20, EU:C:2021:382, paragraph 43).
35 Judgment of 8 May 1974 (183/73, EU:C:1974:50).
36 It is not clear from that judgment whether the Court carried out a linguistic comparison and, if so, whether it based its decision on the four official languages of the founding Member States (see Council Regulation (EEC) No 1/72 of 20 December 1971 amending Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1972 L 1, p. 1)) or on the six languages of the Member States since the 1973 enlargement (see Council Regulation (EEC) No 1/73 of 19 December 1972 amending Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1973 L 1, p. 1)).
37 Council Regulation of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958 17, p. 385).
38 See Regulation No 1/73.
39 The German version used a generic term from customs law, namely ‘Gestellung’, meaning ‘presentation to customs’.
40 See, to that effect, judgments of 9 December 1997, Knubben Spedition (C‑143/96, EU:C:1997:597, paragraph 15), and of 1 August 2025, Keesing Deutschland (C‑375/24, EU:C:2025:624, paragraph 47).
41 See points 41 to 43 of the present Opinion.
42 Judgment of 8 May 1974 (183/73, EU:C:1974:50).
43 See Article 1 of Regulation No 1/72, which amends the annex to Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 of the Council of 28 June 1968 on the common customs tariff (OJ 1968 L 172, p. 1).
44 See, respectively, notes No 4 of Section XVI and No 6 of Section XVII of the Annex to Regulation No 950/68, as well as note No 2 of Section IX, Chapter 44, the note to Chapter 89 in Section XVII and note No 3 to Chapter 94 in Section XX of that annex.
45 Those notes constitute useful information for the interpretation of the CN. They must be distinguished from the explanatory notes, which are not legally binding: judgment of 17 February 2016, Salutas Pharma (C‑124/15, EU:C:2016:87, paragraphs 30 and 31).
46 See footnote 20 of the present Opinion.
47 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 of 8 September 1993 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Community of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China and collecting definitively the provisional anti-dumping duty (OJ 1993 L 228, p. 1).
48 See, in particular, recitals 10 to 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of 10 January 1997 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 on bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain bicycle parts from the People's Republic of China, and levying the extended duty on such imports registered under Regulation (EC) No 703/96 (OJ 1997 L 016, p. 55), as well as the explanations of Driessen, B, ‘New Battle Lines in the Anti-Dumping War – Recent Movements on the European Front’, Journal of World Trade, 1997, No 31-3, pp. 135 to 157 (pp. 147 to 151).
49 See WTO: ‘China – Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile Parts’, Reports of the Panel (18 July 2008), WT/DS339/R, WT/DS340/R and WT/DS342/R, pp. 294 and 295, paragraphs 7.398 to 7.400, for the position of the Communities, and pp. 299 and 300, paragraphs 7.412 to 7.415, for the position of the panel, which essentially reproduces the same position.
50 Examples of machinery covered by Section XVI of the CN include nuclear reactors and electrical transformers, as well as table fans and electric batteries. As for headings 8608, 8805, 8905 and 8907 of Section XVII of the CN, these include, for example, floating or submersible drilling platforms, as well as buoys and beacons. See also the criticism of Berr, C.J., ‘Droit douanier – Étude’, La Semaine Juridique. Édition Entreprise, 1994, No 40-390, pp. 459 to 464 (p. 463).
51 Judgment of 28 April 2016, Oniors Bio (C‑233/15, EU:C:2016:305, paragraphs 32 and 33). The inherent intended use of the parts must be distinguished from their actual use, which is not relevant (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 July 1986, Kleiderwerke Lampe, 222/85, EU:C:1986:314, paragraph 15). See also the Opinion of Advocate General Capotorti in IMCO (165/78, EU:C:1979:82, point 3), referred to in footnote 33 of the present Opinion.
52 In that regard, it is apparent from point VII of the explanatory note to General Rule 2(a) of the HS that the application of that rule to the parts required for the assembly of a complete article is not affected by the importation of parts which are in excess of the number required. The latter are subject to their own procedure, which means that they are classified individually. See, to that effect, judgment of 29 May 1979, IMCO (165/78, EU:C:1979:133, paragraph 10).
53 Judgment of 27 April 2023 (C‑107/22, EU:C:2023:346, paragraphs 28, 29 and 34).
54 The reference, in paragraph 26 of the judgment in X and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane (C‑107/22, EU:C:2023:346), to the ‘relatively simple’ nature of the manipulations does not, in my view, appear decisive. It seems to stem from the fact that the Court applied, by analogy, the findings set out in the judgment of 10 March 2016, VAD and van Aert (C‑499/14, EU:C:2016:155) concerning the criteria for establishing that several goods form part of a ‘set’ within the meaning of Rule 3(b) of the General Rules of the CN.
55 See, to that effect, judgment of 1 October 2020, Entoma (C‑526/19, EU:C:2020:769, paragraphs 41 to 43), and Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in Helmut Müller (C‑451/08, EU:C:2009:710, point 39).
56 See, to that effect, judgment of 4 March 2026, Heineken România (T‑691/24, EU:T:2026:166, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
57 See explanatory notes relating to Chapter 44 of Section IX and to Sections XVI and XVII of the HS.
58 See footnote 6 of the present Opinion: the Convention establishing the HS was approved on behalf of the European Economic Community.
59 See paragraph 10 of the decision of the HS Committee of November 1995, contained in Annex I J/7 to document 39.600 E (pp. 139 to 140), drawn up at the 16th session of the committee on 17 November 1995. The term ‘State’ appears to refer to the contracting parties to the HS and therefore includes the European Union.
60 Brussels Convention on the Nomenclature for the Classification of Goods, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 347, p. 127.
61 See, to that effect, judgment of 30 October 2025, Compañía de Distribución Integral Logista (C‑348/24, EU:C:2025:845, paragraph 56).
62 Concerning the scope of the obligation to declare, see point 86 of the present Opinion.
63 See, by analogy, judgment of 15 September 2011, DP grup (C‑138/10, EU:C:2011:587, paragraphs 37, 38 and 40).
64 See points 56 and 80 of the present Opinion.
65 See, by analogy, the explanatory note relating to additional note 3 to Section XVI of the CN.
66 See, to that effect, judgments of 13 March 2014, SICES and Others (C‑155/13, EU:C:2014:145, paragraphs 29 to 33), and of 22 November 2017, Cussens and Others (C‑251/16, EU:C:2017:881, paragraphs 30 to 32).
67 Opinion in Fonnship and Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet (C‑83/13, EU:C:2014:201, points 69 and 70).
68 Judgment of 27 April 2023 (C‑107/22, EU:C:2023:346, paragraphs 24 to 27).
69 See points 62 to 64 and 80 of the present Opinion.