SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Positive Packaging Limited v Commissioner of Customs & Border Control (Tax Appeal 342 of 2022) [2023] KETAT 1007 (KLR) (6 October 2023) (Judgment)

[2023] KETAT 1007 (KLR) Tax Appeals Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Tax Appeals Tribunal
Case number
1007
Citation
[2023] KETAT 1007 (KLR)
Decided
6 October 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeTax AppealPostureAppeal from a review decisionCoramGRACE MUKUHA, G OGAGA, E KOMOLO, JEPHTHAH NJAGI, T VIKIRU
Holding

The Tribunal holds that the Respondent erred in reclassifying the Appellant’s product from HS code 4804.19.90 to HS Codes 4805.91.00 and 4805.92.00.

Facts

The Appellant, Positive Packaging Limited, imported kraftliner under HS code 4804.19.90, which the Respondent, Commissioner of Customs & Border Control, reclassified under HS Codes 4805.91.00 and 4805.92.00. The Appellant disputes the reclassification, while the Respondent argues the duty rate should be 25%.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent erred in reclassifying the Appellant’s product.
  2. Whether the rate of duty for the imports under HS Code 4804.19.90 is 25% or 10%.

Reasoning

The Tribunal found that the Appellant’s product, kraftliner, was specifically classified under HS code 4804, kraftliner, and not 4805. The Tribunal also held that the duty rate for HS Code 4804.19.90 is 10% based on the EACCET 2017 version.

Outcome

The Appellant’s appeal is upheld.

Orders

  • The Respondent is ordered to reclassify the Appellant’s product under HS code 4804.19.90.
  • The Appellant is ordered to pay the short levied taxes of Kshs. 4,570,500.00 and interest.

Remedies

  • Reclassification of the Appellant’s product under HS code 4804.19.90.
  • Payment of the short levied taxes and interest.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • East African Community Common External Tariff (EACCET)
  • Kenya Revenue Authority Act
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case