Judgment of the CJEU of 2 October 2025, Case C-86/24, CS STEEL a.s.
Facts
The case of CS STEEL (C-86/24) concerned seamless stainless steel tubes classified under heading 7304 41 of the Harmonized System. A Czech court sought a ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on whether cold-working carried out in India (including cold reduction and surface treatment) of tubes originally hot-formed in China resulted in the finished product being regarded as of Indian origin. This question became relevant in light of the rules of origin set out in Annex 22-01 to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446, since that rule expressly excludes mere cold-working from changing the origin of a product.
The customs authorities accordingly refused to grant the product Indian origin status and maintained that China was the country of origin, taking the view that no “substantial processing or working” had taken place in India. CS STEEL, by contrast, argued that the further processing carried out in India (cold reduction, pickling, passivation, and compliance with international standards) produced a technically new product.
The CJEU’s decision
On 2 October 2025, the CJEU confirmed the validity of the rule and held that, under the applicable law, cold-working alone is not sufficient to change the origin of a product where the rules of origin for the relevant tariff heading impose a different, stricter requirement. Individual mechanical finishing steps, such as polishing or surface finishing, therefore do not result in the product acquiring the origin of the country where that processing took place, provided the Regulation expressly excludes this.
The CJEU also distinguished this case from the Stappert judgment (C-210/22): in that case, greater latitude exists for assessing “substantial processing” in respect of certain input materials, whereas in CS STEEL, the codified rule established clear limits.
Recommendation for practice
The CJEU’s judgment strengthens legal certainty and predictability with regard to non-preferential origin: when planning for origin, companies should base their approach on the specific rules applicable to each tariff heading, rather than hoping for a favourable interpretation in the individual case. Where the rule of origin for a product expressly requires a particular type of processing, mere mechanical finishing is not sufficient. This means that, throughout the production chain, care must be taken to document all relevant processing steps and to review the regulatory requirements at an early stage, so that the desired origin status can be achieved.
That said, this very interesting judgment appears to us to be a decision confined to its own specific facts, and one that does not stand in contradiction to the Stappert judgment (C-210/22) referred to above.
By Sara Franke
