Uflex Europe Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 409 (TC)
Cozy Pet Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
8 April 2024
[2024] UKUT 96 (TCC)
Upper Tribunal
A pet supply company argued about the correct taxes on its cat trees, scratchers, and playpens. A court agreed with the tax agency on the cat items but said the tax agency was wrong about the playpens. The decision turned on how to interpret complicated tax rules and what makes a product 'essentially' one thing or another.
Key Facts
- •Cozy Pet Limited imported cat trees, cat scratchers, pet playpens, and panels.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) initially rejected Cozy Pet's customs classifications, resulting in a customs duty of approximately £30,000.
- •Cozy Pet appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) concerning the classification of these products.
- •The dispute centered on the correct Combined Nomenclature (CN) codes under EU regulations for customs duties.
- •Key classification regulations considered were Commission Implementing Regulation 350/2014 and 1229/2013.
- •The UT considered the applicability of reasoning by analogy from the classification regulations.
- •The case involved interpretation of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature (GIRs) and Explanatory Notes (HSENs and CNENs).
Legal Principles
Classification of goods is determined by the Combined Nomenclature (CN) and its General Rules for Interpretation (GIRs).
EC Council Regulation 2658/87, Annex 1; paragraphs 7, 9, 10
Classification regulations provide authoritative classifications which may apply by analogy to similar products.
Hewlett Packard Case C-119/99; VTech Electronics (UK) Plc [2003] EWHC 59 (Ch); paragraphs 12, 13
Reasoning by analogy from classification regulations is permissible for similar, but not necessarily identical, products, but requires careful consideration of the regulations' reasoning and decisive factors.
Grofa; Kreyenhop & Kluge GmbH (C-471/17); PR Pet BV Case C-24/22; paragraphs 37-49
In classifying mixed or composite goods, the material or component that gives them their essential character determines classification (GIR 3(b)).
GIR 3(b); paragraphs 9, 28
CN heading 9403 (furniture) is restricted to products intended for human use.
PR Pet BV; paragraph 50
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed for cat scratchers and cat trees.
The UT upheld the FTT's classification under heading 6307 (textile articles), finding that the plush fabric, even if knitted rather than woven as in the regulation, gave the products their essential character. Reasoning by analogy from Regulation 350/2014 was deemed applicable despite the products not being identical.
Appeal allowed for pet playpen panels and heavy-duty panels.
The UT found the FTT misinterpretated the HSEN for heading 7314, wrongly excluding finished products. The UT concluded the panels, being iron or steel wire grids welded at intersections, correctly fell under 7314 (fencing), regardless of being sold in finished form. The UT overturned the FTT's classification under 7326.
Similar Cases
Star-Images Enterprises Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 50 (TC)
The Commissioners for HMRC v International Plywood (Importers) Limited
[2023] UKUT 278 (TCC)
Laurence Supply Co (Leather Goods) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 124 (TC)
Petmaster Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 718 (TC)