Grounds of appeal and parties’ submissions
Grounds of appeal and parties’ submissions
The key error Cozy Pet raises (under its Grounds 8 and 9) concerns the FTT’s interpretation of the HSEN to 7314 (see [62] above). Mr Blades submits the FTT wrongly interpreted the HSEN as excluding goods which had been fashioned into a finished product by a manufacturing process, thereby impermissibly narrowing the scope of the classification. That led the FTT to take an extremely narrow definition of the term “fencing” that was specifically mentioned in 7314 which diverged from the ordinary meaning of that word. Fencing could cover a single fencing panel. The panel did not stop being regarded as “fencing” because it was supplied in a final form.
Ms Brown submits the FTT was right to analyse the HSEN as not extending to finished products. Fencing in this context had to be read ejusdem generis with grill and netting. The articles mentioned were all used in a finished product but were not the finished product themselves.
- 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)