![UT/2023/000023 - [2024] UKUT 00096 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
The FTT’s analysis
The FTT’s analysis
The FTT found (at FTT [83]):
the items include grills of iron or steel wire (welded at the intersections), and each of the grills has been ‘finished’ and powder coated to be rust-proof as required; the grills are incorporated into the outer forms with the inclusion of hinges, latches and brackets to create openings, and to allow the panels to be interlinked.
the products are ready for assembling into use to erect a barrier or enclosure of various dimensions.
The process of assembling the Panels is not a manufacturing process, and the Panels are therefore supplied in their final form of manufacturing, ready to be put into use by simply assembling them into the required structure.
In the FTT’s view, the items within 7314 were “indicative that the items are to be made into, or incorporated into, a finished product”. The context of 7314 pertained “to the class of items which [were] a component – to be fashioned or incorporated into a finished product by some form of manufacturing process”. Rejecting Cozy Pet’s case the FTT concluded the playpen panels were not however a component to a finished product but were supplied in their final form (FTT [85] and [86]).
- 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