Binding tariff information: certainty obtained, an unwanted outcome and trust disappointed

Introduction

In customs law, binding tariff information is the instrument for obtaining certainty in advance about the tariff classification of goods. This certainty is of great importance to businesses: it has an impact on cost prices, contracts and supply chains and is relevant to compliance issues.

However, this certainty is not necessarily the certainty that the applicant hopes for. A BTI can also lead to a classification that is unfavourable to the company but yet legally binding. In that case, taking legal action against the BTI decision is not an unusual step, but a natural consequence of the available legal remedies.

This tension is clearly evident in the ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 28 October 2025, published on 19 December 2025. The case shows how certainty, expectations and tariff technique relate to each other in the BTI application, the decision and a subsequent appeal procedure, and why a BTI does not necessarily carry forward past expectations.

Facts and background

The claimant had applied to Dutch Customs for a BTI for an electric vehicle charging station (referred to in the ruling as a charging device). The product is technically complex and fulfils multiple functions, which meant that the tariff classification was not predetermined. In the application, the claimant defended a classification that was in line with its own classification opinion and previous experiences with a request for repayment of customs duties.

Customs issued a BTI, but assigned the product a different CN code than the one requested by the interested party. This classification had unfavourable consequences for the interested party. The claimant therefore lodged an objection to the BTI decision. After the objection was declared unfounded by Customs, it lodged an appeal with the District Court of North Holland and subsequently lodged an appeal to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal.

The product, the classification discussion and the court's ruling

The BTI concerned an electric charging device designed to charge an electric vehicle with alternating current (AC) via the mains connection of a home or business premises. The device is connected to a separate group in the meter cupboard and connected to the vehicle via a charging cable.

It is operated via a smartphone app. The device is connected to the internet via 4G, LAN or WiFi. The user can start charging, set charging schedules (e.g. at night or when electricity prices are low) and read information about the charging process on a display on the front of the device. In addition, the charging device ensures that the maximum capacity of the mains connection is not exceeded, in order to prevent damage to fuses (load management).

Positions of the parties

The claimant argued — albeit only on appeal — that the charger primarily fulfils multiple functions, the main one being power protection. The device should therefore be classified under CN heading 8536, more specifically under CN subheading 8536 30 10 (other apparatus for protecting electrical circuits).

Customs took the position that the charging device has one clear function: charging electric vehicles. Electric load management is only a supporting part of this. Moreover, the device is not susceptible to classification under heading 8536 due to its nature and complexity.

Rejection of heading 8536

The court agrees with Customs. It rules that the charging device has only one function, namely charging electric vehicles. Electric load management is only a minor part of this. If the user's primary concern were to protect the mains connection, he could simply refrain from using the charging device.

In addition, the court considers classification under heading 8536 to be excluded due to the nature of the product. Heading 8536 covers simple devices such as fuses, switches, relays, plugs and wire connectors. The charger, on the other hand, contains many more parts, including multiple printed circuit boards with a large number of components. It therefore does not fall within the scope of heading 8536.

Classification under heading 8537

In this situation, the parties no longer dispute that classification under CN-heading 8537 is required. The court considers classification under that heading to be correct. The charger consists of a plastic casing and is equipped with, among other things, relays, a socket and wire connection terminals. It is used for the electrical control of the charging process and therefore meets the wording of heading 8537. Classification under residual heading 8543 is therefore not an option.

The subheadings of 8537: programmable memory

The question then remains as to which CN subheading of heading 8537 applies. Customs took the position that the charger should be classified under CN subheading 8537 10 91, while the claimant argued for CN subheading 8537 10 98. The dispute centred on the question of whether the charging device had a 'programmable memory' as referred to in subheading 8537 10 91.

The court answered this question in the affirmative. The documents show that the device is equipped with firmware that can be modified by means of updates. The user manual explicitly states that the app contains an update menu that allows the user to perform firmware updates. It is therefore established that the charging device has a programmable memory within the meaning of CN subheading 8537 1091.

The court therefore concludes that the BTI was issued for the correct CN subheading.

Principle of legitimate expectations does not entitle to an incorrect BTI

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal rejects the claimant's appeal based on the principle of legitimate expectations and states that Customs is not obliged to issue a binding tariff information for a commodity code that it considers incorrect. Even if the claimant has in the past come to rely on the correctness of a particular tariff classification, that reliance cannot lead to the issue of a BTI that would be contrary to the correct application of customs law. In doing so, the Court of Appeal explicitly follows the established case law of the Court of Justice, in particular the judgment in Timmermans Transport & Logistics and Hoogenboom Production Ltd. of 22 January 2004 (joined cases C-133/02 and C-134/02), in which it was ruled that customs authorities may withdraw a BTI that has already been issued if they change their interpretation of the applicable tariff provisions.

In addition, the Court of Appeal points out that the District Court of North Holland was right to rule that there was no precise, unconditional and consistent confirmation in this case. The claimant might have been entitled to invoke the principle of legitimate expectations if Customs had raised reasonable expectations by means of a precise, unconditional and consistent undertaking. However, that was not the case.

The legal framework: objection and appeal against a BTI

A BTI is a decision within the meaning of the Union Customs Code and is open to appeal within the meaning of Article 44 UCC. In the Netherlands, this means first a reconsideration by Customs in the objection phase and then, if necessary, review by the independent specialised court of appeal. This may be followed by a further appeal, as in this case, and possibly cassation to the Supreme Court. The court will assess whether the tariff classification assigned to the product by Customs in the BTI decision is correct. The assessment is based on:

• the product as described in the application,
• the objective characteristics and properties,
• and the CN, the classification rules and explanatory notes.

Commercial names, intended use or historical practice are not decisive in this regard.

Certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations in the BTI procedure

The ruling shows that a BTI is not necessarily a confirmation of previous practical experience. The fact that a particular classification was used in previous declarations or checks does not mean that that classification was legally correct or must be continued.

The court makes it clear that a BTI requires an autonomous and new assessment. Expectations that have been placed in a particular tariff heading in the past are not automatically honoured if Customs concludes that a different classification is objectively correct. Correct application of EU law prevails over continuity of practice.

Practical interpretation

The ruling contains some clear lessons for practice.

• A BTI application requires certainty. Anyone applying for a BTI must be virtually certain of the legal correctness of their classification position. The BTI is not a trial balloon;
• Do not simply rely on the past. Previous declarations, audits, controls or informal coordination offer no guarantee that Customs will follow that line in a BTI decision;
• Be prepared and willing to litigate. A BTI can provide certainty, but also unwanted certainty. In the latter case, an appeal is the only option.

Conclusion

The ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 28 October 2025 shows that the BTI is a powerful but sharp instrument. It offers certainty, but not necessarily the desired certainty. Trust based on the past is not automatically confirmed by it, and Customs may revise its course.

Anyone applying for a BTI is therefore not only asking Customs for certainty, but must also be convinced of the correctness of their classification position and be prepared to defend it in appeal proceedings if necessary.

This ruling illustrates the questions that regularly arise in customs practice with regard to BTI applications. Over the years, companies often build up a certain degree of confidence in a tariff classification, for example as a result of previous declarations, checks or requests for repayment. A BTI application can confirm those expectations and result in legal certainty with regard to the classification of goods. However, the flip side of that coin is that a BTI application can also explicitly call that confidence into question and even undermine it.

Ploum customs practice

Within Ploum’s Customs Practice, Jikke Biermasz, Arjan Wolkers and their team members regularly assist companies with these types of cases. The central question is always whether a BTI is strategically wise, particularly in cases involving historically developed classification practices. This ruling underlines that a BTI cannot only provide certainty, but can also create tension between historically developed expectations and a renewed tariff assessment. In practice, this confirms that a BTI application requires careful preparation and that it is essential to critically assess in advance whether your own classification position can withstand a full judicial review. If you have any questions about tariff classification or BTI applications, please feel free to contact us to discuss the matter.