The point about you selling to B2B customers as opposed to final consumers doesn't negate the need to assess the risk to the final consumer and the Standard has deliberately used the word 'consumer' not 'customer' in this clause. If you think about it, very few packaging materials are sold directly to consumers, most are sold to packers of some description.
To take the example of tamper evidence for instance, if you make caps with snap off lugs for tamper evidence, you may have a minimum torque level to guarantee that they will always break when twisted so that anybody wishing to deliberately contaminate the product will not be able to remove the cap without it being noticed. (It may also be that your caps are used on a product which, if opened, will start to go off and the snapped lugs would indicate that somebody has opened the bottle)
The fact that they have been designed into the product suggests that there is a perceived potential hazard. You then need to evaluate the level of risk of this hazard by looking at the likelihood and severity of it occurring in your normal way.
If they are not tamper evident types, I can't think of any other potential consumer misuse scenario and in this case saying 'none identified' is perfectly OK, but as I said earlier, look at your complaint history, there may be examples there that are relevant.