Splitting Shipments No Longer Shields Imported Parts from Anti-Dumping Duties

Separate part shipments can be classified as a finished product

In its judgment of October 7, 2026 (Case T‑529/25), the General Court of the European Union held that e-bike parts can be classified for tariff purposes as unassembled electric bicycles. This applies even where the parts come from different suppliers, travel in different containers and are imported over several months under separate customs declarations.

The ruling has far-reaching implications for importers, and not only those bringing in e-bike parts. Complete e-bikes from China attract anti-dumping and countervailing duties of up to around 70 percent. These duties do not apply to e-bike parts of heading 8714, as the European Commission recently confirmed expressly.

The General Court’s reasoning is not confined to e-bikes. Any business that imports components in stages and assembles them in the EU into a finished product subject to higher duties or safeguard measures may be affected.

27 declarations, six complete e-bikes: staggering imports over time is no defense

The case concerns a Belgian bicycle retailer that, between January 22, 2019 and April 27, 2021, had a total of 27 import declarations lodged for frames, forks, motors and other e-bike parts of Chinese origin, all at the same customs office and all as parts of CN heading 8714. Identical invoice reference numbers allowed the declarations to be grouped into six sets, each of which could be assembled into complete e-bikes. The customs authorities and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) treated this as the import of unassembled e-bikes and accused the company of evading more than EUR 2.9 million in duties. Following convictions at first instance, the Antwerp Court of Appeal referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, and the Court of Justice transferred it to the General Court.

Some background: under General Interpretative Rule 2(a) (GIR 2(a)), a cornerstone of tariff classification, goods imported unassembled are classified as the finished article. A bicycle imported in parts in a box must therefore be declared as a bicycle. What is new is that this can also apply to parts that are not presented together, but are presented to customs and cleared in separate consignments over a period of months.

The General Court found that GIR 2(a) sets no time limit within which the components of an article must be presented. Simultaneous presentation, which earlier Court of Justice case law had assumed, is merely one indicator among others. Otherwise, importers could choose the most favorable classification simply by splitting their shipments.

In the operative part of the judgment, the General Court ruled that the parts must be classified as unassembled e-bikes where objective factors show that they form a unit and comprise all the essential components of the e-bikes. Whether that is the case is for the national court to determine.

The ruling undermines the duty exemption for EU assembly

Many e-bike components, such as frames, forks, wheels, brakes and handlebars, fall under heading 8714 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) and qualify as “essential bicycle parts.” In principle, they are caught by the anti-dumping duty on Chinese bicycles, which stands at 48.5 percent for most manufacturers. Motors and batteries are not. Under Article 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97, these parts are exempt under the end-use procedure pursuant to Article 254 of the Union Customs Code (UCC) where they are used, among other things, to assemble cycles with an auxiliary motor, i.e., e-bikes (point (d)). Taken together with the e-bike duties, which cover only finished e-bikes, the result is a clear system: finished e-bikes from China bear the duties, while their assembly in the EU from Chinese parts, in principle, does not.

The ruling renders this policy choice ineffective. Once the parts are classified under GIR 2(a) as unassembled e-bikes of CN subheading 8711 60 10, they are no longer bicycle parts within the meaning of the Regulation. The exemption falls away, and the anti-dumping and countervailing duties on e-bikes from China apply instead.

Our assessment of the General Court’s interpretation

In our view, the General Court’s broad interpretation raises serious concerns. It runs counter to the EU legislator’s deliberate decision to exempt e-bike parts from anti-dumping duties. It is also hard to reconcile with the Additional Notes to Sections XVI and XVII of the CN. These permit split consignments to be grouped only for certain goods, which do not include e-bikes, and only at the declarant’s request. The General Court draws the opposite conclusion from the very same provisions. As a result, exemptions for assembly operations and smaller businesses are largely hollowed out, and the European e-bike industry faces serious consequences.

It remains unclear whether the e-bike duties also apply where only some of the components originate in China. In direct actions, the parties may appeal General Court judgments to the Court of Justice within two months. That route is not available for preliminary rulings such as this one. Here, the Court of Justice may review the judgment only exceptionally, on a proposal by its First Advocate General made within one month of delivery, i.e., by November 9, 2026. The businesses concerned cannot request a review themselves. That makes it all the more important for industry associations to press the Commission for clarification.

Importers should review their imports now and keep complete records

Importers of e-bike parts should promptly review current and past imports to establish whether orders, invoices, bills of materials or correspondence indicate that the parts together form complete e-bikes. Because the General Court focuses on objective factors, documentation is key. Independent sourcing, components of other origin and in-house assembly work should all be evidenced. Exemptions under Regulation (EC) No 88/97 offer no protection against reclassification. Where there is doubt, we recommend applying for Binding Tariff Information (BTI).

Given the criminal law dimension of the underlying case, businesses should assess whether declarations already lodged need to be corrected with customs, where appropriate by way of a voluntary disclosure. Project companies set up for larger assembly projects can limit risk, provided they genuinely carry on independent business activity. The General Court treats purely formal structures designed to circumvent duties as manipulation. Businesses should also monitor whether a review of the judgment by the Court of Justice is proposed, and how courts and customs authorities apply it. Other industries should likewise assess their exposure under GIR 2(a).

Questions about your imports? Get in touch. The Baker Tilly customs team is here to help.