HMRC v International Plywood: Case Highlights Importance of Accurate Customs Classification

Citation: [2023] UKUT 278 (TCC)
Judgment on


In the case of The Commissioners for HMRC v International Plywood (Importers) Limited, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) was called upon to determine the correct Customs classification of imported wooden panels known as Plastform panels. This decision would have significant implications for the Customs Duty and Import VAT payable by International Plywood (Importers) Limited (IPL). The case illustrates important principles around the classification of goods for customs purposes and the interpretation of tariff codes under the Combined Nomenclature (CN).

Key Facts

IPL imported Plastform panels, which HMRC had classified under commodity code 4412, attracting a 10% customs duty. IPL argued that the correct classification was under subheading 4418 40 00 (“shuttering for concrete constructional work”), carrying a zero rate of duty. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) agreed with IPL’s classification, but HMRC appealed, contending that the FTT erred in its interpretation of the law.

The legal principles in this case revolve around the proper interpretation and application of the CN and the General Rules of Interpretation (GIRs). The GIRs are pivotal in determining the classification of goods for customs purposes. The GIRs were referenced throughout the decision, specifically, GIR 1 establishing the primacy of heading and subheading terms over section or chapter titles, and GIR 3 dictating that the most specific description has precedence in classification cases.

The case also examined the role of the Harmonised System Explanatory Notes (HSENs) and the Combined Nomenclature Explanatory Notes (CNENs). While these notes are not legally binding, they are highly persuasive and ensure consistent application of the CN across Member States.

Determinative to the case was the interpretation of the CNEN and HSEN for heading 4418, with specific attention given to the concept of ‘assembled shuttering’ and what constitutes plywood as per the HSEN to heading 4412. The case Build-A-Bear Workshop v HMRC was referenced for the hierarchical approach to classification, emphasizing the necessity to compare headings and subheadings at the same level.

Additionally, the Interpretation of the EC Classification Regulation 309/2010 provided insight into how similar products may be classified and how specific characteristics, such as coatings, impact the classification.


The Upper Tribunal found that the FTT erred in two key respects. Firstly, they held that the FTT did not give appropriate weight to the requirement for goods to be an assembled shuttering to classify under heading 4418, as indicated by the explanatory notes. Secondly, the FTT erred by not treating laminboard as being sufficiently similar to plywood, such that it would be excluded from the classification under 4418.

As a result of these errors, the Upper Tribunal allowed HMRC’s appeal, setting aside the FTT’s decision and classifying the panels under the heading of 4412 94 10, thereby upholding the customs duty and VAT demand by HMRC.


The Upper Tribunal’s decision reinforces the approach that classification of goods within the CN must strictly follow a hierarchical, objective analysis based on the goods’ characteristics and the GIRs. For legal professionals, this case serves as a valuable reminder of the intricate nature of tariff classifications and the significance of closely adhering to the correct interpretative rules and practices when classifying goods for customs purposes. The decision underscores that the intended use of a product must be inherent and evident in its objective properties to be relevant for tariff classification. Furthermore, it demonstrates how regulatory materials such as the CNENs and HSENs, although not legally binding, are critical aids in interpreting tariff classifications.

Related Summaries