You are ordered to withdraw robots or machines imported from China

The case, in five lines

What is brought

A reply to the market surveillance authority's request with a plan of proportionate corrective measures (arts. 14 and 16 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020); an appeal against the withdrawal, prohibition or detention order with a request for a stay (art. 117 of Law 39/2015) and, if needed, a judicial review claim with interim measures; submissions in the penalty proceedings under the Industry Act (Law 21/1992); and a claim against the Chinese manufacturer for lack of conformity (arts. 35, 39 and 74 of the Vienna Convention).

Before which court

The order is issued by the industry department of the autonomous community (Spain's regional government) (art. 4 of Royal Decree 1644/2008) or, if the robot is sold to consumers, by the consumer affairs department as well; for radio equipment, by the Secretaría de Estado de Telecomunicaciones e Infraestructuras Digitales (Spain's Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Digital Infrastructure). The administrative appeal (recurso de alzada) is decided by the hierarchically superior body. In judicial review, the Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo del Tribunal Superior de Justicia (the administrative chamber of the regional High Court of Justice) hears orders made by a regional department and regional fines above 60,000 euros, and the sección de lo contencioso-administrativo del Tribunal de Instancia (the administrative section of the court of first instance) hears fines of up to 60,000 euros with a cessation of activity of up to six months, unless they come from the regional Consejo de Gobierno (art. 8.2.b of the LJCA). Against the supplier, the court or arbitration the contract designates.

Deadline

The request: within the period the authority sets (art. 16(2) of Regulation 2019/1020). If customs release has been suspended at the border, the surveillance authority has four working days to ask for the suspension to be maintained (art. 27): the documentation must reach it before then. Administrative appeal: one month from notification (art. 122(1) of Law 39/2015); a requested stay is deemed granted if not decided within a month (art. 117(3)). Judicial review: two months (art. 46(1) of the Administrative Jurisdiction Act, LJCA). Against the supplier: notice of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time and at the latest two years from delivery, unless a longer contractual guarantee applies or the seller knew of the defect and did not disclose it (arts. 39 and 40 of the Convention).

Who can bring it

Before the authority, the answerable party is the economic operator established in the Union: the authorised representative if the Chinese manufacturer appointed one in writing for those tasks and, if not, the importer (art. 4 of Regulation 2019/1020), which is also liable for the infringement (art. 33(1)(c) of Law 21/1992). Whoever sells the robot under its own brand or modifies it takes on the manufacturer's obligations. Against the supplier, the claim is brought by the buyer that signed the order, against the seller named in it.

Financial risk

The appeal does not suspend the withdrawal unless a stay is requested. If the machine cannot be corrected, it may be destroyed without compensation (art. 10(3) of Law 21/1992), and a serious infringement carries fines of up to 6,000,000 euros, plus periodic penalty payments of up to 20 % of that fine if the products are not brought into line within the deadline set in the request (arts. 34 and 35). The measure is reported to the Commission and the other Member States. Claiming against the Chinese manufacturer requires technical evidence and, if you win, enforcement in China: nobody can promise you will recover what you lost.

Who orders the withdrawal of your robots and with what powers

In Spain, market surveillance of machinery is a matter for the autonomous communities: the order to withdraw a robot, to stop selling it or to detain it is normally issued by your region's industry department, which also withdraws or prohibits CE-marked machinery that endangers people (art. 4 of Royal Decree 1644/2008), since 19 July 2023 under the procedure in Chapter VI of Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 rather than the former safeguard clause (art. 52(1)). If the robot is sold to consumers, such as a robot vacuum cleaner or a robotic lawnmower, the consumer affairs authorities may step in, and if it incorporates radio equipment, so may the Secretaría de Estado de Telecomunicaciones e Infraestructuras Digitales (Spain's Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Digital Infrastructure). The first step is to read who signed it, which rule it relies on and what appeal it states: the appeal and the court depend on that.

Its powers are wide. Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 allows it to demand documents, specifications and access to embedded software, to inspect without notice, to buy samples under a cover identity and, if the operator does not take corrective action, to prohibit or restrict sales and order withdrawal or recall (art. 14(4)). If the product may endanger health or safety, or does not comply, the authority must first require corrective measures within a period it sets; only if they are not taken does it ensure the withdrawal itself and inform the public, the Commission and the other Member States (art. 16(2) and (5)). The Industry Act adds that, if the defect cannot be corrected, destruction without compensation may be ordered, depending on how serious the risk is (art. 10(3)).

If the problem arises at the border, the border control authorities suspend release for free circulation when documentation is missing, the CE marking is false or misleading, the responsible operator cannot be identified or there are grounds to believe the product does not comply (art. 26). The suspension lapses if within four working days the surveillance authority does not ask for it to be maintained, but release does not prove conformity (art. 27). SOIVRE (Spain's official foreign-trade inspection service) does not check the safety of machinery or of industrial or household robots, because its annex contains no code from chapter 84; if the robot is electrical equipment, it does check hazardous substances and the importer's entry in the Registro Integrado Industrial (Spain's integrated industrial register), and it controls drones and toy robots. That front is covered in "SOIVRE non-conformity: your product is blocked at Spanish customs".

What the rules require today and what changes on 20 January 2027

Until 19 January 2027 Royal Decree 1644/2008 applies; it transposes Directive 2006/42 and lays down no obligations specific to importers. That does not leave you out: where there is no manufacturer within the meaning of the rules, whoever places the machine on the market or puts it into service is deemed its manufacturer (art. 2(2)(i)), the manual must be at least in Spanish, and placing it on the market requires an economic operator established in the Union that answers to the authority (art. 4 of Regulation 2019/1020): the authorised representative if the Chinese manufacturer appointed one in writing for those tasks and, if not, you as importer. The Industry Act makes manufacturers, sellers and importers liable for the infringement (art. 33(1)(c)). Neither set of rules defines ‘robot’: it is machinery or partly completed machinery under the general criteria.

Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 applies from 20 January 2027, the date set by its corrigendum, not the 14th that still appears in some texts. From then on the importer places only conforming machinery on the market and, beforehand, makes sure that the manufacturer carried out the conformity assessment, drew up the technical documentation and affixed the CE marking, and that the machine comes with the required documents and identification details (art. 13(2)); it adds its own details (art. 13(3)) and, for ten years, keeps the declaration and ensures that the authority can obtain the technical documentation and even the source code or programming logic on a reasoned request (art. 13(8)). Products placed on the market under the Directive before that date may continue to be sold (art. 52(1)). And another obligation is coming that is not about safety: the European Critical Raw Materials Act will require anyone placing on the market industrial robots with permanent magnets to label the magnet type and carry a data carrier, two years after the implementing act setting the format, and to publish their recycled content where they contain more than 0.2 kg of neodymium, samarium-cobalt or alnico magnets (articles 28 and 29 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1252).

What nobody tells you is how easy it is to become the manufacturer. If you sell the robot under your name or brand, or modify it in a way that may affect its conformity, you take on all the manufacturer's obligations (art. 17), as does anyone who makes a substantial modification (art. 18); and if you integrate a Chinese arm with other equipment into a cell that works as a single machine, that machine is yours (art. 3(1)(d)). The opposite mistake is also common: an arm without its end effector or a drive system is partly completed machinery, which comes with a declaration of incorporation and assembly instructions, not the declaration of conformity or the CE marking of a machine. For consumer robots, and in what their own rules do not cover, Regulation (EU) 2023/988 also requires the importer to check safety, identify itself, provide understandable instructions and report through the Safety Business Gateway portal if the product is dangerous (art. 11).

Notified body, AI and the ‘CE certificate’ that is no good

From 20 January 2027, Annex I to the Machinery Regulation determines which robots cannot be self-certified. Part A lists safety components with self-evolving behaviour using machine learning and the machines that incorporate them: the manufacturer must go through a notified body (art. 25(2)). Part B covers, among others, devices for detecting persons and logic units for safety functions: internal production control is only enough if harmonised standards or common specifications covering all the requirements were applied; otherwise, a notified body is needed too (art. 25(3)). The law requires that assessment of the manufacturer and the notified body carries it out; we coordinate it with the Chinese factory and check that the certificate matches the model you import.

The ‘CE certificate’ that many Chinese suppliers hand over is usually a test report or a voluntary certification from a laboratory. It does not replace what the rules require: the declaration of conformity signed by the manufacturer, the complete technical documentation and, where Annex I requires it, the notified body's certificate for that model. Customs release proves nothing either (art. 27 of Regulation 2019/1020). If the authority finds that the CE marking or the declaration of conformity is missing, or that the CE marking was affixed to a product outside the scope of the Royal Decree, Royal Decree 1644/2008 requires the product to be brought into conformity on the conditions the authority sets, and only if the non-conformity persists are sales restricted or the product withdrawn (art. 17); Regulation 2023/1230 follows the same logic for formal non-compliance (art. 46), and its market surveillance chapter, which includes that article, has applied since 19 July 2023 to machinery placed on the market under the Directive, in place of the Directive's safeguard clause (art. 52(1)).

If the robot uses artificial intelligence or connects to a network, more rules come into play, with dates that have changed. The digital omnibus, Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, moved machinery to Section B of Annex I to the AI Act: its AI requirements will arrive through delegated acts under the Machinery Regulation, applicable by 2 August 2028 at the latest. A robot with wifi or Bluetooth has had to meet the cybersecurity requirements for radio equipment since 1 August 2025, and since 11 September 2026 the manufacturer must report actively exploited vulnerabilities and severe incidents under the Cyber Resilience Act, also for units already sold. All of this is covered in "You import AI robots from China: the AI Act and cybersecurity".

How to answer the request and negotiate the measure

The authority must act proportionately (art. 14(2) of Regulation 2019/1020), and that opens the door to negotiation. The possible corrective measures include: bringing the product into conformity, including by rectifying a formal non-compliance; preventing it from being made available; withdrawing or recalling it; destroying it; affixing warnings; setting prior conditions; or alerting users (art. 16(3)). Warnings and conditions are only possible where the risk arises only in certain conditions or for certain users (art. 16(4)), and that is often where the defence lies: if the failing is the manual, the rating plate or a guard, a batch-by-batch correction plan with dates is proposed instead of a general recall.

The reply must arrive on time, complete and in a language the authority understands (art. 4(3)(b) of Regulation 2019/1020): declaration of conformity or of incorporation, technical documentation, certificates, tests, the list of units and buyers and, if requested, access to the software (art. 14(4)). What nobody tells you is that failing to reply is an infringement in itself: not complying with a request is minor the first time and serious if repeated, resisting the provision of information is serious and an outright refusal, very serious (art. 31 of the Industry Act). And if the deadline in a request to bring the products into line with the rules expires, periodic penalty payments of up to 20 % of the fine set for the infringement may be imposed (art. 35).

The practical problem is that the technical documentation is at the Chinese factory and the authority asks you for it. That is why the firm works with partners with offices in China, who obtain the technical file, certificates and tests from the manufacturer, and with engineering experts in Spain and China, who examine the detained units, the manufacturing and the specifications to establish what does comply and to design the correction: a new safety module, the manual in Spanish, the rating plate with the importer's details. We do not promise you the outcome of that review, but without it the reply is just a letter. And bear in mind that the measure taken in Spain is reported to the Commission and the other Member States, which must take measures regarding the same product if the measure is considered justified or no other Member State disputes it (art. 16(5) to (7)).

Appeal, stay and penalty: deadlines and court

The order can be challenged by a recurso de alzada (an administrative appeal to the superior body) within one month if it does not exhaust the administrative route; if no decision is made within three months, it is deemed dismissed (arts. 121 and 122 of Law 39/2015). If it does exhaust that route, an optional request for reconsideration (recurso de reposición) lies, or judicial review can be sought directly (art. 123). The appeal does not suspend the order (art. 117(1)): a stay must be requested, showing harm that is impossible or difficult to repair or a ground of nullity, and if it has not been decided within a month of its filing, enforcement is deemed suspended (art. 117(2) and (3)). Security may be required (art. 117(4)). Destroying the machines or recalling them from customers is the typical example of harm that is difficult to repair.

The judicial review claim is filed within two months of the express act that exhausts the administrative route (art. 46(1) of the LJCA); against a deemed dismissal, the six-month limit still found in that article cannot be relied on (STC 52/2014, of 10 April). A withdrawal or prohibition order from a regional department and regional fines above 60,000 euros go to the Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo del Tribunal Superior de Justicia (the administrative chamber of the regional High Court of Justice), with a court representative (procurador); regional fines of up to 60,000 euros go to the sección de lo contencioso-administrativo del Tribunal de Instancia (the administrative section of the court of first instance). Interim measures are granted where enforcing the act would defeat the purpose of the claim, after weighing the interests at stake, and may be refused if they would seriously disturb the public interest (art. 130); in cases of special urgency, the court decides within two days without hearing the authority (art. 135). The prior negotiation attempt required by Organic Law 1/2025 does not apply here.

The penalty proceedings run separately. Under the Industry Act, importing or selling without complying is a serious infringement if it entails serious danger or harm, and a minor one if it does not amount to a more serious one (art. 31(2)(a) and (3)(a)); it is very serious if the breach is intentional and causes serious risk or harm (art. 31(1)(a)); fines reach 60,000 euros for minor, 6,000,000 for serious and 100,000,000 for very serious infringements, and are graded by, among other things, intent, the number of products sold and the group's turnover (art. 34). Serious and very serious infringements may also mean losing subsidies and being barred from public contracts for up to two or five years. Infringements become time-barred after five years if very serious, three if serious and one if minor (art. 32). If the robot is a consumer product, the Consumer Protection Act (TRLGDCU) applies, with fines of up to 1,000,000 euros that can be raised in line with the unlawful gain (art. 49), and the importer is jointly liable for its supplier's penalties if it did not take the measures within its reach (art. 51(4)). The best defence is documented diligence.

What you can claim from the Chinese manufacturer and which clause would have prevented it

With the Chinese supplier, the sale is governed by the 1980 Vienna Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), because Spain and China are both parties, unless the contract excludes it. A robot that cannot be sold in the Union is a lack of conformity if the contract required CE conformity (art. 35(1)) or if, when contracting, you made known to the seller that it was for sale here (art. 35(2)(b)); the supplier will argue that you knew of the defect, for example the manual in English (art. 35(3)). The authority's request is usually when the defect is discovered: notify the supplier straight away, specifying the defect (art. 39(1)), because the cut-off is two years from delivery (art. 39(2)), unless the seller knew of the defect and did not disclose it (art. 40). You may claim repair (art. 46(3)), replacement or avoidance if the breach is fundamental (arts. 46(2) and 49(1)(a)), a price reduction (art. 50) and foreseeable damages, such as the costs of the withdrawal and of bringing the units into conformity (art. 74), subject to the duty to mitigate (art. 77). Keep the units: without them you cannot avoid the contract (art. 82).

The decisive evidence is technical. In a trial in Spain, the expert report is signed by an expert holding an official qualification and is filed with the claim (arts. 336 and 340 of the Civil Procedure Act, LEC); the inspection reports, samples and tests carried out in China and Spain by our partners and engineering experts are the basis for that report, not a substitute for it. The forum is set by the contract; to sue in Spain the negotiation required by Organic Law 1/2025 must be attempted first, which is not required for arbitration. Without a chosen law, a Spanish court will apply Chinese law, which allows four years to claim (art. 594 of its Civil Code); under Spanish law, it is five (art. 1964(2) of the Civil Code). Winning is not collecting: an award is enforced in China under the New York Convention, and a Spanish judgment under the 1992 Spain-China treaty, if the Spanish court had jurisdiction for its purposes. This is covered in "You want to sue your Chinese supplier: arbitration or the courts?" and, if people were injured, in "Your robot or battery from China caused damage: why you are liable".

The clause that would have prevented it is written before the order: express conformity with the applicable European rules (machinery, radio, electromagnetic compatibility, hazardous substances), with the list of harmonised standards and, where Annex I requires it, the notified body's certificate; delivery of the technical documentation or an undertaking to make it available to the authority within a few days, with access to the software; a manual in Spanish and a rating plate with your details; pre-shipment inspection by our partners and engineering experts, with the right to refuse shipment and part of the price withheld until the report; the manufacturer's cooperation in any withdrawal, with reimbursement of your costs and an indemnity against penalties, because without an agreement passing the fine on is debatable; a regulatory warranty longer than the two years of art. 39(2); and arbitration before a designated institution (if the seat is in China, Chinese law requires it to be named) or written submission to the Spanish courts. For individual components, see "Your Chinese supplier delivers magnets or parts that are not as agreed".

How we run the case, step by step

1. 1

   Read the order and pin down the deadlines

   With the order, the request and the inspection report, we identify the authority, the rules relied on (Royal Decree 1644/2008, Regulation 2019/1020, the Industry Act or consumer legislation), the units affected, the deadline for the measure and the appeal stated: whether an administrative appeal lies within one month or the order exhausts the administrative route.

2. 2

   Gather the technical file from China

   Our partners with offices in China ask the manufacturer for the declaration of conformity or of incorporation, the technical documentation, any notified body certificates and the tests, and we check that they match the model and serial numbers you imported.

3. 3

   Expert examination of the units

   Our engineering experts examine the detained and sold units in Spain, and the manufacturing and specifications in China, to separate what complies from what does not and to design the correction. If there is litigation, that work is the basis for the report signed by an expert with an official qualification.

4. 4

   Reply and propose the measures

   A timely reply with the documentation and a plan of proportionate corrective measures: batch-by-batch correction, a manual in Spanish, warnings or conditions if the risk is limited, and recall only where needed (arts. 14(2) and 16 of Regulation 2019/1020).

5. 5

   Appeal and request a stay

   If the order stands, an administrative appeal within one month with a request for a stay (arts. 117 and 122 of Law 39/2015), submissions in the penalty proceedings and, if needed, judicial review within two months with interim or urgent interim measures (arts. 46, 130 and 135 of the LJCA).

6. 6

   Notify the supplier and protect the next order

   Notice of the lack of conformity to the Chinese manufacturer, specifying the defect (art. 39 of the Vienna Convention), and a claim for repair and costs through the negotiation required by Organic Law 1/2025 or through the agreed arbitration. In future orders, clauses on conformity, documentation and pre-shipment inspection.

The law that applies

• Arts. 2, 4, 11 y 17 del RD 1644/2008. It defines machinery and partly completed machinery and, where there is no manufacturer within the meaning of the rules, treats whoever places the machine on the market or puts it into service as the manufacturer. It assigns market surveillance to the autonomous communities, which withdraw or prohibit machinery that endangers people, and requires non-compliant marking to be brought into conformity before sales are restricted. BOE-A-2008-16387
• Arts. 4, 14, 16, 26 y 27 del Reglamento (UE) 2019/1020. It requires an operator established in the Union for the product to be placed on the market: manufacturer, importer, authorised representative or, as a last resort, fulfilment service provider. It gives the authority powers to demand documents and software access, to inspect and to order withdrawal or recall, after requiring proportionate corrective measures within a deadline. At the border, the suspension of release lapses if no request to maintain it is made within four working days. 02019R1020-20260812
• Arts. 13, 17, 18, 25 y 52 del Reglamento (UE) 2023/1230. From 20 January 2027, the importer checks the conformity assessment, the technical documentation and the CE marking, identifies itself on the machine and keeps the declaration for ten years. Whoever sells under its own brand or modifies the machine becomes the manufacturer. The Annex I categories require a notified body under art. 25, and products placed on the market under the Directive before that date may continue to be sold. 32023R1230
• Arts. 10, 31, 32, 33, 34 y 35 de la Ley 21/1992, de Industria. It allows non-compliant products to be withdrawn, with a deadline for correction, and destroyed without compensation if that is not possible. It classes importing or selling without complying, with serious danger, as a serious infringement, and failing to meet requests or refusing information as infringements; fines of up to 60,000, 6,000,000 and 100,000,000 euros, limitation periods of one, three and five years, liability of importers and periodic penalty payments of up to 20 %. BOE-A-1992-17363
• Arts. 117, 121, 122 y 123 de la Ley 39/2015. An appeal does not suspend the act, but a stay may be requested on grounds of harm that is impossible or difficult to repair or of nullity, and it is deemed granted if not decided within a month. An administrative appeal lies within one month against acts that do not exhaust the administrative route, deemed dismissed after three months; optional reconsideration against acts that do. BOE-A-2015-10565
• Arts. 46, 130 y 135 de la LJCA. Two months to bring a judicial review claim against an express act that exhausts the administrative route; the six-month limit that article 46(1) sets for a presumed act cannot be relied on against a deemed dismissal (STC 52/2014). Interim measures where enforcement would defeat the purpose of the claim, weighing the interests at stake, and, in cases of special urgency, a decision within two days without hearing the other party. BOE-A-1998-16718
• Arts. 35, 39, 40, 74 y 82 de la Convención de Viena de 1980. The goods must be of the agreed quality and fit for the particular purpose made known to the seller. The buyer gives notice of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time and no later than two years from delivery, unless the seller knew of the defect and did not disclose it. Foreseeable damages are recoverable, and the right to avoid the contract is lost if the goods cannot be returned in substantially the same condition. BOE-A-1991-2552
• Arts. 49 y 51 del TRLGDCU. It sets consumer protection fines, from 150 to 1,000,000 euros depending on seriousness, which can be raised in line with the unlawful gain. The importer of consumer products that may affect safety must ensure they comply and is jointly liable for its supplier's penalties if it did not take the measures within its reach. BOE-A-2007-20555

Each article checked against the consolidated text published in the BOE (the Spanish official gazette).

Frequently asked questions