Case law

No

- CS STEEL Case thanornational UCC) Topic Case (link) Date Key holding (one line) Practical takeaway Non-preferential / substantial transformation Judgment -(steel 02/10/2025pipes) C-86/24 In C‑86/24 CS STEEL, the CJEU ruled that cold finishing of hot‑finished steel tubes does not constitute a “substantial transformation” under Annex 22‑01 of Delegated Regulation 2015/2446, so the origin of the goods is determined by the initial hot‑finishing. This confirms that EU non‑preferential origin rules in primary regulations take precedence over later processing steps. Facts The referring court was the Krajský soud v Ostravě – pobočka v Olomouci (Czech Republic). The dispute involved the company— CS STEEL a.s. versus the Czech customs authority,v Generální ředitelství cel. The goods in question were seamless steel tubes/pipes under subheading 7304 41 of the HScel. (Harmonised System) — “Tubes, pipes and hollow profiles, seamless, of ironEUR-Lex) (otherEUR-Lex) 2 castOct iron)2025 Annex steel”.22-01’s These tubes were hot‑finished in one country (China, according to commentary) and then underwent cold reduction (cold finishing) in another country (India, in the commentary) before import into the EU. (The commentary describes the operations: hot‑finished tubes originating in China, cold‐reduced in India) The legal question referred to the CJEU: Is the primary rule (setexcluding outcold-reduction in Annex 22‑01 to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446) valid to the extent that it rules out that cold processing (e.g., cold reduction) of hot‑finished pipes under subheading 7304 11 is sufficient to conferas a change of origin tofor subheadingcertain 7304 41? Inhot-finished othersteel words:tubes theis questionvalid was whether the— later cold finishing coulddid countnot ascreate thea “last substantial transformation” for the purposes of determining origin — or whether the earlier hot finishing already fixed thenew origin. The(EUR-Lex) If court asked whether the rule excluding the cold finishing from constituting origin change is valid under EU law. Decision / Holding The Court held that thea primary rule in questionthe (forUCC/Delegated subheadingReg. 7304 41)lists iswhich validoperations andchange doesorigin, notthose breachcodified EUrules lawoverride byad-hoc excludingarguments coldthat reduction/finishinglater fromprocessing beingcreates sufficientorigin; to confer a new origin. In effect:check the factexact thatAnnex anentry explicit rule in Annex 22‑01 says that only certain types of processing (for that tariff heading) can constitute the lastHS substantial transformation means that cold finishing alone is not enough. The earlier hot‐finishing thus determined the origin, and the later cold finishing in India did not change that origin under the rule.code. (Commentary) EUR-Lex) Binding Origin Information (BOI) / administrative review C-297/23 P — Harley-Davidson Europe Ltd & Neovia Logistics v Commission (EUR-Lex / CURIA) (EUR-Lex) 21 Nov 2024 The Court foundreviewed noCommission manifest errorrevocation of assessmentBOI decisions — clarified scope of ‘processing not economically justified’, administrative procedure and thatlegitimate-expectation thelimits ruleon isrevoking compatible with the requirements of Union lawBOIs. (Article 60(2)EUR-Lex) BOIs regardingprovide validityuseful ofcertainty originbut rules.can be revoked; companies should document economics/processing rationale and be ready to contest revocations on procedural or substantive grounds. (EUR-Lex)