3 C.L.R. 1988 January 20 [LORIS,J.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION RODAFINIA IMPORTS EXPORTSLTD., Applicants, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEDIRECTOROFCUSTOMSDEPARTMENT, Respondent. (CaseNo. 623/84). Customs andexcise duties—Import ofgoods—Classification of—Judicial control—Principlesapplicable. Customsandexciseduties—TheCustomsDutiesandExcise(Impositionand Refund)Law,1978, asamended, Tariff90.18and94.01 para. 99—The 5 BrusselsNomenclature—TheRulesfor the Interpretation ofNomenclature,Rules3(a)and3(c). The applicant company applied for the clearing from customs of a "massagechair", which theyclassified underclass90.18 (free of import duty). 10 Therespondentdidnotacceptthesaidclassification, but,bymeansof thesubjucUcedecision,classifiedthesaidchairundertariff94.01 para.99. Inreachingsuchdecisionhereliedon aFindingthatthechairinquestion wasanordinarychairwithanadditionalmassagemechanismandonRule 3(c)*oftheRulesfortheInterpretationoftheBrusselsNomenclature. 15 Held, annulling the subjudice decision:
(1)In matters of classificationof goods,an Administrative Court hasnocompetence tosubstitute itsowndiscretion intheplaceof thediscretion oftheproperauthorities but,ofcourse,hastoexaminethelegalityofthesub-judicedecision,and *Rule3(c)b quotedatpp.48-49post. 45 Rodafinia Imports Exports v. Republic
(1988)alsowhetheritwasreachedthroughanymisconceptionandcognatemailers (A &SAntoniadesand Co.v.Republic
(1965)3C.L.R.673at p.680 adopted).
(2)Theleaflet concerning thechairinquestion leadstotheunequivocalconclusion thatitisnothingbutamassageapparatusandthemassage mechanism isnotadditionalbutisincorporatedinthechairandispartand parcelofsame. 5 Itisobvious therefore thatthefindingof therespondent tothe effect thatthemassagechairinquestionis"anordinary withanadditionalmassagemechanism"wasreacedthroughamisconceptionastomaterialfacts. 10
(3)Butevenifweweretoacceptthatthe"massagechair"couldbeprimafacieclassified undertwoclasses,therespondentshouldactunderRule 3(a)-andnotunderRule3(c)-of theRules for theInterpretation ofthe Nomenclature.Class90.18istheclasswhich providesthemorespecific description and should bepreferred toclasses providing a moregeneral 15 one. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: AandSAntoniadesandCo.v.Republic
(1965)3C.L.R.673; 20 Makridesv.Republic
(1979)3C.L.R. 584; DemetriouDairyProductsv. Republic
(1985)3C.L.R.
- Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents to classify "Massage Chairs" imported by applicants under customs tariff 25 94.01 instead of class 90.
- L. Papaphilippou, for the applicants. Y. Lazarou, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 46 3 C.L.R. Rodafinia Imports Exports v. Republic LORISJ.readthefollowingjudgment. Thegistof the present recourse is the CustomsTariff applicable totheimportedby the applicants "Massage Chairs" cleared from Customs on 16.10.
- 5 Itwas thestandof theapplicantsthroughout,that theMassage Chairsinquestion should beclassified underclass90.18 - (free from importduty)whilsttheRespondentheldtheviewthatsame should be classified under customs tariff 94.01 para. 99,code 821.0199 PartXX, Chapter94 of the Second Schedule of the 10 CustomsDutiesandExcise (ImpositionandRefund) Law 1978, asamended. On the 17th of October 1984, theapplicant company acting through its clearing agentfiled with theCustomsAuthorities an importclarification -FormC2-togetherwith other documents, 15 attached totherecourse,for theclearingfrom customsof thesaid massage chair,which they classified underclass 90.18 (free of importduty. Theaboveclassification was not acceptedby thecustoms offi cer incharge who decided that (a)Class 90.18, invoked by the 20 applicantsincludedmassage apparatuses likethosereferred toin thecorresponding classof theBrusselsNomenclature (videap pendix5attachedtotheopposition) whichwas notthecaseofthe applicantsas thechairinquestion was anordinary chairwithan additionalmassage mechanismanditscorrectclassification should 25 be94.01 whichcovers "chairsandotherseatseven capableofbe ingconvertedintobedsandpartsthereof, andinparticular94.01 para99undertheheading "Έτερα". (b) Evenincase the massage mechanismweretobetaken into accountthenRule 3(c)of theRules for theInterpretation of the 30 Nomenclaturewould beapplicable andaccordingly customsduty shouldbeleviedundertariff 94.01para
- 47 Loris J. Rodafinia Imports Exports v. Republic
(1988)Relying on the above decision therespondent classified the Massage Chairsinquestion underclass94.01 para99 andlevied customs duty amountingto£288.54, which was paid by the ap plicants underprotest Hencethepresentrecourse by meansof which theapplicants 5 pray thatthejub-judice decisionoftherespondentbedeclarednull anddevoid ofanylegaleffect whatever. Before goingintothemeritsofthiscaseIconsiderit necessary to set out herein below the relevant parts of Rule 3of the Rules for theInterpretation of theNomenclature,for purposes of easy 10 reference: "
- Οσάκις δι' οιονδήποτε λόγον, εμπορεύματα δύνανται εκ πρώτης όψεως να καταταχθούν εις δυο ή περισσοτέρας κλάσεις, η κατάταξις ενεργείται ως ακολούθως: 15 (α) Η κλάσις η οποία δίδει την πλέον ειδικήν περινραφήν προτιμάταιτων κλάσεων αι οποίαιδίδουν πλέονγενικήνπεριγραφήν (τωνεδαφίωντωνκλάσεωνμή λαμβανομένωνυπ'όψιν). (β) 20 (γ) Οσάκις ηκατάταξις εμπορευμάτωνδεν δύναταινα νίνη συμφώνως προς το 3(α) ή το 3(β), ταύτα κατατάσσονται εις τηνκλάσινεκείνηνηοποία απαντάται τελευταία μεταξύ των εξ ίσου χρηζουσών μελέτης 25 κλάσεων." (Andin English: "
- Where for anyreason goods canbeprimafacie classified undertwo ormoreclasses,theclassification shall be effected asfollows: 48 30 3 C.L.R. Rodafinia Imports Exports v. Republic Loris J. (a)The class which provides the more specific description shallbepreferred toclassesprovidingamoregeneraldescription (theitemsof theclasses nottaken intoconsideration) (b) (c)Wheretheclassification of thegoodscannot be effected according to3(a)or 3(b),goods arebeingclassified under that class which ismetlastamongclassesequally meriting consideration".). 10 15 20 "In matters of classification of goods, such as the present case,anAdministrative Courthasnocompetence tosubstitute itsowndiscretion in theplaceof thediscretion of theproper authorities (vide Decisions of the Council of State in Greece 479/1938, 564/1949);but of course, as inevery other case of recourseunderArticle 146theCourthastoexaminethelegalityofthesub-judice decision ,andalso,whether itwasreached throughanymisconception andcognatematters"(perTriantafyllides J.y as he then was - in A &. S Antoniades & Co., v. Republic
(1965)3 C.L.R. 673at p.680). To the same effect vide also cases: Makrides v. Republic
(1979)3C.L.R. 584 at p.601 andDemetriou Dairy Productsv. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 758 atp.766). Having c<refully considered the material before me I have cometotheconclusion thattherespondentfailed tocarryoutanin25 quiry before reaching atthesub-judice decision and asaresult he acted underamisconception astomaterial facts for the following reasons: A thorough examination of both leaflets (exh. 4 and ex. 5 attached to the written address of the applicant) leads to the une30 quivocal conclusion thatthe "massagechair" inquestion is nothing but a massage apparatus and the massage mechanism is not additional butisincorporated inthechairandispart andparcelof 49 Loris J. Rodafinia Imports Exports v. Republic
(1988)same.Thefact that themassage apparatus isin the shapeof a chair (Ex.4) is of no significance for itis theuseof samethat countsandnottheshape. Itisobviousthereforethatthefindingoftherespondenttothe effect thatthemassagechairinquestionis"anordinarychairwith 5 an additional massage mechanism" wasreached through amisconception astomaterial facts;itisclearfrom Ex.4,whichwas beforetherespondentsaswell,thatthemassagechairinquestion is an apparatus for massage ofpartsof thebody andis "power operated" asrequired bythecorrespondingitemoftheBrussels 10 Nomenclature(videappendix5attachedtotheopposition).Inthe circumstances therefore theapparatusinquestion oughttohave beenclassified underclass90.18(freeofimportduty). Butevenifweweretoacceptthatthe"goods"inquestion(the massagechair)couldbeprimafacieclassified undertwoclasses,J. 15 holdtheviewthattherespondentshouldactunderRule3(a)-and notunderRule3(c)-oftheRulesfortheInterpretationoftheNomenclature (set out above) in whichcase thegoods inquestion wouldhavebeenclassified underclass90.18,whichistheclass whichprovidesthemorespecific description andshould bepre- 20 ferred toclassesprovidingamoregeneralone. In theresultthepresentrecoursesucceedsandthe sub-judice decision ishereby annulled, butinthecircumstances Imakeno orderastocosts. Subjudicedecisionannulled.25 Noorderastocosts. I 50