Key Facts
- •Appeal concerned customs classification of imported mobility scooters.
- •Competing classifications: heading 8703 (vehicles for person transport, 10% duty) or heading 8713 (carriages for disabled persons, duty-free).
- •Importations by Electric Mobility Euro Ltd and Sunrise Medical Ltd between 2016-2020.
- •Appellants argued for classification under heading 8713.
- •Case involved review of previous Invamed litigation concerning mobility scooter classification.
- •Commission Regulation (EC) No 718/2009 considered for potential analogous application.
Legal Principles
Decisive criterion for customs classification is the goods' objective characteristics and properties, as defined in the CN.
Invamed CJEU at [18] and [22]
Intended use is an objective criterion if inherent to the product and assessable based on objective characteristics.
Invamed CJEU at [22]
Marketing literature and manuals are part of objective materials for tariff classification.
HMRC v Honeywell Analytics [2020] EWCA Civ 243 at [127] and [130]
"For disabled persons" in heading 8713 means solely for persons with a non-marginal limit on walking ability.
Invamed CJEU at [27], [34]
Classification regulations are binding and may be applicable by analogy to similar products, but great care is needed.
VTech Electronics (UK) Plc v HMRC [2003] EWHC 59 (Ch) and Anagram International Inc (Case C-14/05)
Application by analogy of a classification regulation is unnecessary if the CJEU has provided all necessary information for classification.
Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services BV (Case C-51/16) and subsequent cases
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Imported mobility scooters were designed solely for persons with a non-marginal limit on their walking ability, based on objective characteristics. The 2009 Regulation was not applicable by analogy.