Grounds of appeal
Grounds of appeal
Ground 1
Cozy Pet’s first point is that the FTT was wrong to consider that the cat trees and cat scratchers were the same as the products classified under the classification regulation. Mr Blades, who appeared for Cozy Pet, took us to various European cases in support of the proposition that “same” in this context meant identical. Here, it could readily be seen from a comparison of the photos that Cozy Pet’s products were not identical.
We need not dwell on that submission because Ms Brown, who appeared for HMRC, accepts the FTT was wrong to consider the products identical. However, she argues that any error in this respect was immaterial to the outcome. Even if the products were not identical they were similar. That allowed the FTT to apply the classification regulation to classify Cozy Pet’s goods by analogy (which was, HMRC say, in effect what the FTT did in its decision in the alternative).Cozy Pet dispute this analysis for a number of reasons.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background facts
- background law and FTT decision
- Classification Regulations
- Classification Regulation 350/2014
- Classification Regulation 1229/2013
- CJEU case-law
- The FTT’s analysis
- Grounds of appeal
- Reasoning by analogy
- Factual differences and FTT’s fact-finding
- BR Pet BV’s treatment of classification regulations
- Set-aside FTT decision for error in regarding products as the same?
- Remaining Grounds of Appeal 2-7
- Pet Playpen panels and Heavy duty panels
- The FTT’s analysis
- Grounds of appeal and parties’ submissions
- Discussion
- Remaking Decision in relation to playpens in UT
- Cozy Pet’s application to make post-hearing submissions
- Conclusions
![UT/2023/000023 - [2024] UKUT 00096 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)