The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v A-Dec Dental UK Limited
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Berrner,Judge Raghavan |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKUT 0342 (TCC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Tax,10 October 2017 |
| Date | 10 October 2017 |
| Published date | 10 October 2017 |
[2017] UKUT 0342 (TCC)
Appeal number: UT/2014/0040
CUSTOMS DUTY – dental lamps – whether FTT erred in interpretation of
heading 9018 in Combined Nomenclature (“… appliances, used in dental
sciences …”) and explanatory notes – no – appeal dismissed
UPPER TRIBUNAL
TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Appellants
- and -
A-DEC DENTAL UK LIMITED Respondent
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE ROGER BERNER
JUDGE SWAMI RAGHAVAN
Sitting in public at The Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2 on 20
June 2017
Written submissions received from Appellants on 17 August, 5 and 13
September, and from the Respondent on 29 August and 9 September 2017
Jonathan Bremner, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM
Revenue and Customs, for the Appellants
Thomas Chacko, instructed under the Public Access Scheme, for the Respondent
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2017
DECISION
1. The question in this appeal concerns the correct classification, for customs duty
purposes, of what are described as “shadowless lamps”, of the kind used by a dentist 5 to see into the mouth. Are they, as HMRC submit, to be classified under code 940540
99 90 of the Combined Nomenclature (“CN”), broadly speaking as “Other electric
lamps and lighting fittings … Other” or, as A-Dec Dental UK Limited (“A-Dec”)
says, under code 901849 90 00, again in broad terms as “… appliances, used in dental
sciences … Other”? 10
2. Whereas if code 901849 90 00 applies the duty rate is 0%, the rate of duty under
940540 99 90 is 2.7%. A-Dec’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) was against
a post-clearance demand issued on 12 October 2012 in the sum of what was said to be
unpaid customs duty of £8,689.74 and import VAT of £1,446.52. The FTT (Judge
Kevin Poole and Mrs Shameem Akhtar) decided that the lamps were appliances for 15 the purpose of heading 9018 and that they were therefore excluded from heading 9405
and the associated sub-headings. A-Dec’s appeal was accordingly allowed. It is from
that decision that HMRC now appeal, with permission of Judge Sinfield in this
Tribunal.
The facts 20
3. The facts can be stated very briefly. The FTT described the lamps as specialist
lamps for use in dentistry, of a type attached to or used in conjunction with a dentist’s
chair and specifically designed for inspecting the oral cavity as part of dental
diagnosis and treatment.
4. A-Dec imports a range of specialist dental equipment into the UK, including 25 dental chairs and associated equipment. The dental operating lights that are the
subject of this appeal were presented as separate items for customs clearance, and not
as part of complete dental equipment or as an attachment to a dental chair. As
imported, the lights are attached to a pivoting arm which, in turn, can be mounted
either on a dental chair or on some other place, such as the wall or ceiling of the 30 dental surgery.
5. The lights are produced in conformity with the relevant ISO (International
Organisation for Standardization) standard (9680) for such lights and their
construction makes them essentially unsuitable for any other use. The colour
temperature, intensity, rendering index and pattern of light they produce is very 35 specific to the illumination of the oral cavity during dentistry. The product is
classified under the EU’s Medical Devices Directive (93/42/EEC; 14 June 1993)
(“The Medical Devices Directive”) as a Class I device.
Legislative background
6. There was no dispute as to the legislative background which can again be 40 described quite shortly. It has most recently been summarised judicially by Arden LJ
To continue reading
Request your trial