Ecoconcrete Limited v Commissioner of Customs and Border Control (Tax Appeal E936 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 286 (KLR) (10 July 2026) (Judgment)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL AT NAIROBI** **TAX APPEAL NO. E936 of 2025** **ECOCONCRETE LIMITED..............................................................................APPELLANT** VS **COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER CONTROL…………….....RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** BACKGROUND 1. The Appellant is a limited liability company duly incorporated in Kenya whose principal business activity is the manufacture and supply of precast beam and block slab, among other building and construction materials. 2. The Respondent is a principal officer appointed under Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, CAP 469 of Kenya’s Laws. Under Section 5 (1) of the Act, the Kenya Revenue Authority is an agency of the Government for the collection and receipt of all tax revenue. Further, under Section 5(2) of the Act with respect to the performance of its functions under subsection (1), the Authority is mandated to administer and enforce all provisions of the written laws as set out in Part 1 and 2 of the First Schedule to the Act for the purposes of assessing, collecting and accounting for all revenues in accordance with those laws. 3. The Respondent conducted an audit on the taxpayer's customs declarations which revealed that there were instances of tariff misclassification of some consignments of 5MM prestressed (PC) steel wire leading to assessment of extra taxes amounting to Kshs 13,715,532.54. 4. Consequently, a notice of demand for the short-levied duties was issued to the taxpayer on 30th June 2025 vide letters ref: KRA/CBC/RMD/PCA/219/2025(NOD). The letter was based on tariff misclassification of 5MM prestressed steel wire chevron under tariff line 7312.10.00 as opposed to the applicable tariff code of 7217.10.00 and as guided by General Interpretative Rules 1 and 6 of the harmonized system and, tariff ruling referenced KRA/CBC/V&T/THQ/ 1232/05/2025 dated 13th May 2025. 5. The Appellant objected to the notice of demand vide a letter dated 1st July 2025. Upon review of the application, the Respondent issued a review decision vide letter ref: KRA/CBC/RMD/PCA/219/ 2025 (CRD) dated 17th July 2025, upholding the initial demand and highlighting the correct tariff rulings of the product after lab analysis. The Respondent in the said review decision, noted that the taxpayer was using the correct tariff before the introduction of the 2022 EACCET version, which amended the import duty of the product. 6. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the Respondent's ruling, lodged a notice of appeal dated 15th August 2025 and filed it on the same date. **THE APPEAL** 1. The Appellant lodged a memorandum of appeal dated 29th August 2025 and filed it on the same date, raising the following grounds of appeal: 2. That the Appellant correctly classified imported post-tensioning concrete (PC) steel wire in HS Code 7312.10.00 based on the General Interpretation Rules (GIRS) 1 & 6. 3. That without prejudice to the foregoing, the Respondent erred in law by applying a tariff ruling issued in May 2025 retrospectively. 4. That the Respondent's decision is contrary to the principles of natural justice and Article 50 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing. 5. That the Respondent's decision is unfair, irrational, and unreasonable, contrary to Article 47(1) of the Constitution. **The Appellant’s Case** 1. In support of the appeal, the Appellant relied on a statement of facts dated 29th August 2025 and filed on the same date, and written submissions dated 13th May 2026 and filed on 15th May 2026, and written submissions dated 19th May 2025 and filed on 20th May 2026. 2. According to the Appellant, the Respondent undertook a post-clearance compliance audit of the Appellant's import transactions for the period August 2023 to May 2025 pursuant to Sections 235 & 236 of the East African Community Customs Management Act (EACCMA), 2004. 3. Upon conclusion of the audit, the Respondent issued a Management Letter referenced KRA/CBCRMDIPCA219/2025(ML) dated 30th June 2025, communicating the audit findings. In the letter, the Respondent alleged that the Appellant had misclassified PC Steel Wire 5MM Chevron (hereinafter "PC Wire" or the "product") in HS Code 7312.10.00 which covers "stranded wire, ropes and cables of iron or steel" instead of HS Code 7217.10.00 which covers "wire of iron or non-alloy steel, not plated or coated, whether or not polished". HS Code 7312.10.00 attracts 10% import duty while HS Code 7217.10.00 attracts the higher of 35% or USD300/MT. 4. On the same day 30th June 2025, the Respondent followed up the Management Letter with a Notice of Demand referenced KRA/CBC/RMD/PCA/219/2025(NOD), calling for additional taxes in the sum of Kshs 13,715,532.54 on the alleged tariff misclassification of the Appellant. 5. The Appellant objected to the demand in a letter referenced Sup.290.01 dated 1st July 2025, stressing that HS Code 7312.10.00 was the most appropriate tariff for PC wire based on the product's physical and chemical characteristics, intended use, and internationally recognized HS classification rules. The Appellant stated that it shared the mill test certificate and the supplier and Laboratory Test Report by the Ministry of Roads and Transport with the Respondent for review. 6. According to the Appellant, the Respondent disregarded the information provided by the Appellant and issued an objection decision. The Appellant, being dissatisfied with the Respondent's objection decision, appealed to this Tribunal. 7. In support of the first ground of appeal, the Appellant stated that the classification of goods in the Nomenclature (the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, or HS Code) is governed by the six (6) General Interpretation Rules (GIRS) as outlined in the East Africa Community Common External Tariff (EAC CET) 2022, applied in sequence. Further, the Appellant argued that the World Customs Organization (WCO) Harmonized System (HS) Explanatory Notes (ENS) which constitute the official interpretation of the Nomenclature at the international level, are an indispensable complement to the HS. 8. The Appellant asserted that it classified the imported PC wire under HS Code 7312.10.00 in accordance with the General Interpretative Rules (GIRS) 1 & 6 and the World Customs Organization (WCO) Harmonized System Explanatory Notes. 9. It stated that Heading 7312 covers "stranded wire, ropes, cables, plaited bands, slings and the like, of iron or steel, not electrically insulated" and that the product in issue is PC wire strand and is therefore properly covered by Heading 7312. It pointed out that, at the subheading level, HS Code 7312.10.00 is most appropriate in classifying the Appellant's product since it covers “stranded wire, ropes and cables." 10. The Appellant contended that, as per the Explanatory Notes to Heading 7217, wire of heading 7217 is used in the manufacture of “fencing, gauze, netting, nails, rope, pins, needles, tools and springs." As such, wire of heading 7217 does not find application in concrete reinforcement, and therefore the Appellant's product cannot be classified in HS Code 7217.10.00 since it finds application in concrete reinforcement. 11. It made reference to the supplier's Mill Test Certificate and the Test Report by the Ministry of Roads and Transport. It argued that both the Certificate and Test Report found the imported products to adhere to the British Standard BS 5896 which specifies the requirements for high tensile steel wire products that are to be used for the prestressing of concrete. Considering the foregoing, the Appellant applied the correct HS Code 7312.10.00 in classifying PC steel wire strand as per the EAC CET 2022. 12. In support of the second ground of appeal, the Appellant stated that, in the objection decision, the Respondent cited a ruling referenced KRACBCN&T/THQJ1232/05/2025 and dated 13th May 2025 as the basis for retrospectively demanding additional taxes for the period dating back to August 2022 from the date of the ruling. 13. The Appellant stated that the Respondent's decision was contrary to the legal principle of prospective application of the law. It averred that, pursuant to Section 248A of the EACCMA, tariff rulings are binding upon the taxpayer once it has been issued, and that the Respondent could only enforce the tariff ruling against the Appellant for importations made after the issuance of the tariff ruling. 14. Therefore, the Appellant argued that the Respondent's decision to apply a tariff ruling issued in May 2025 to prior importations is not only unfair and unreasonable, but also a flagrant violation of a long-established principle of law. It cited the Court of Appeal in **Madison Insurance Kenya Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2025] KECA4 (KLR)** in which, while affirming the principle of prospective application of the law, stated as follows: *"To our mind, the general rule is that, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, statutes should be considered as affecting future matters only; and more especially that they should if possible be so interpreted as not to take away rights actually vested at the time of their promulgation."* 1. The Appellant asserted that the tariff ruling could only be applied prospectively, and the Respondent's attempts to retroactively apply the ruling are illegal. The Appellant therefore prayed that this Honourable Tribunal declares the decision invalid and sets it aside. 2. In support of the third ground of appeal, the Appellant contended that the application for review dated 1st July 2025, the Appellant requested the Respondent to make an independent and objective laboratory analysis of the product. The Appellant also stated that it shared the Mill test certificate and the Supplier and Laboratory test Report by the Ministry of Roads and Transport with the Respondent for review. However, the Respondent issued a review decision without allowing for the requested laboratory analysis or reviewing the additional information provided. 3. In light of the foregoing, the Appellant averred that the review process was conducted arbitrarily and without according the Appellant an opportunity to participate in the process and defend its case. Therefore, the Appellant argued that it's right to a fair hearing was violated, thus compromising the integrity of the process. It relied on the decision in **Safaricom Limited v Josenga Company Limited & 4 others [2021] eKLR**, in which the court held that the right to a fair hearing is a principle of natural justice and cannot be limited or derogated from as per the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, at Article 50(1). 4. The Appellant contended that the denial of an opportunity to participate in the process and to be accorded an opportunity to defend itself severely compromised the process. Therefore, the Appellant maintained that the Respondent's decision was in direct violation of the right to a fair hearing, and as such, it should be set aside. 5. In support of the fourth ground of appeal, the Appellant argued that the Respondent's conduct in the management of the audit was unfair, irrational, and unreasonable, thus violating the Appellant's right to fair administrative action. 6. The Appellant averred that its exclusion at the review stage rendered the decision unfair. It relied on the case of **Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority ex-parte Amsco Kenya Limited [2014] eKLR** where the High Court held: *"Further an administrative action cannot be said to be fair where a decision is arrived at based on an opinion formed as a result of the consideration of the version of only one side since by a consideration of one side one cannot be said to have felt certain about the truth of the matter in dispute."* 1. The Appellant also averred that the decision was manifestly unfair and that it was arrived at without allowing the Appellant an opportunity to participate in the review process. Further, it stated that its invitation to have the products subjected to an independent laboratory analysis was ignored. According to the Appellant, this meant that the decision was arrived at without taking into account the Appellant’s perspective, contrary to the principles set out in the Wednesbury case. It cited the case of **Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v Minister for Civil Service, [1984]3 All E.R. 935** wherein Lord Diplock expressed himself as follows: *"By "irrationality" I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as "Wednesbury unreasonableness" (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd, v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223). It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it."* 1. The Appellant stated that the process and the decision emanating from the process were marred with unfairness and irrationality, which is a gross violation of its right to fair administrative action. The Appellant therefore prayed that the decision be set aside. 2. The Appellant lodged written submissions dated 13th May 2026 and filed on 15th May 2026, wherein it submitted that the product is properly classifiable under HS Code 7312.10.00 pursuant to GIR 1 and GIR 6 of the EAC CET 2022; that the Respondent cannot lawfully apply Tariff Ruling No. KRA/CBC/V&T/THỌ/1232/05/2025 dated 13th May 2025 retrospectively to imports entered prior to its issuance; that the Respondent violated the Appellant's right to fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution; and that the Respondent's decision was unlawful and irrational. unreasonable, and procedurally unfair, contrary to Article 47(1) of the Constitution. 3. In support of its position, the Appellant relied on the cases of **Madison Insurance Kenya Limited v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes [2025] KECA 4; Safaricom Limited v Josenga Company Limited (2021] eKLR; and Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority ex parte Amsco Kenya Limited (2014] eKLR** which have been discussed herein above. **Appellant’s prayers** 1. The Appellant prayed for the following reliefs: 2. The objection decision dated 17th July 2025 be set aside; 3. The costs of the appeal be awarded to the Appellant; and 4. The Tribunal be pleased to make such other orders that it may deem appropriate. **THE RESPONDENT’S CASE** 1. In response to the appeal, the Respondent relied on the Statement of Facts dated 30th September 2025 and filed on the even date, and written submissions dated 19th May 2025 and filed on 20th May 2026. 2. In response to the first ground of the appeal, the Respondent stated that the East Africa Community Common External Tariff (EAC CET) provides for the classification of goods for customs purposes, as guided by the General Interpretation Rules of Classification of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System and in accordance with Annex 1 to the Protocol on the Establishment of the East Africa Community Customs Union. 3. The Respondent contended that it was established that the Appellant's consignment of 5mm prestressed steel wire chevron had been subjected to verification and lab analysis, and a tariff ruling referenced KRA/CBC/BIA/THQ /1232/05/2025 dated 13th May 2025 was issued to the Appellant. 4. Based on the tariff ruling, the 5mm prestressed steel wire chevron was considered as wire of iron or non-alloy steel with spiral groove on the surface and was classified in EAC CET 2022 Tariff code 7217.10.00 which attracts import duty at the rate of 35% or USD 300/MT whichever is higher, and 16% VAT. 5. According to the Respondent, the Appellant's tariff ruling was at variance with the taxpayers' declared tariff of 7312. 10.00 which had 10% import duty and VAT at a standard rate. 6. In response to the second ground of appeal, the Respondent stated that it relied on the provisions of Sections 135, 229 and 236 of EACCMA. 7. It maintained that its decision was guided by the provisions of the EACCMA and that there was no malice nor any unfairness in demanding the short-levied taxes. 8. The Respondent also asserted that it applied the principles of Fair Administrative Action by ensuring fairness through the right to be heard. It stated that upon the issuance of the notice of demand, the Appellant was advised on the procedure to follow in case they are in disagreement with the demand notice, as per the provisions of section 229(1) and (2) of the EACCMA. 9. The Respondent also pointed out that the Appellant has the right of appeal. It stated that upon the issuance of the review decision, the Appellant was advised on the procedure for appeal to the Tax Appeals Tribunal as per the provisions of Section 230 of EACCMA. 10. In addition, the Respondent relied on the Witness Statement of Gilbert Kanyingi dated and filed on 18th March 2026, which was admitted as evidence in chief on 5th May 2026, which rehashed the Respondent’s Statement of Facts. 11. The Respondent also filed written submissions dated 19th May 2025 and filed on 20th May 2026, wherein it submitted that the review decision was justified; and that tariff heading 7217.10.00 was the correct classification. **Respondent’s Prayers** 1. The Respondent urged the Tribunal to uphold the review decision and dismiss the appeal with costs to the Respondent. **ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION** 1. The Tribunal identified the following issues for determination: 2. **Whether the Respondent was justified in classifying the imports under HS Code 7217.10.00 instead of HS Code 7312.10.00.** 3. **Whether the Respondent erred in law by applying the tariff ruling retrospectively.** **ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS** 1. The Tribunal proceeds to analyse the issues as follows: 2. **Whether the Respondent was justified in classifying the imports under** **HS Code 7217.10.00 instead of HS Code 7312.10.00.** 3. The appeal involves the classification of the Appellant’s imports. The General Interpretation Rules (GIR) as cited in the EAC-CET provide for principles that govern the classification of goods in the nomenclature. GRI 1 provides, *as inter alia*: *‘‘The titles of Sections, Chapters and sub-Chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes and, provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise require…’’* 1. GIR 6 is also instructive. It provides that: - *‘‘For legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related Subheading Notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above Rules, on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this Rule the relative Section and Chapter Notes also apply, unless the context otherwise requires.’’* 1. The EAC CET 2022 took effect from 1st July 2022, and the audit focused on transactions of the Appellant from the period 2023 to May 2025. Therefore, the EAC CET 2022 was applicable to the goods imported during the period under review. 2. HS Code 7217.10.00, as the Respondent preferred provide as follows: | | | | | --- | --- | --- | | *Wire of iron or non-alloy steel.* *Not plated or coated, whether or not polished* | *kg* | *35% or US$ 300 / MT whichever is higher* | 1. Note 1(o) to Chapter 72 defines ‘wire’ as follows: *“Cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross-section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products”* 1. On the other hand, HS Code 7312.10.00 under which the Appellant declared its products, provides as follows: *Stranded wire, ropes, cables, plaited bands, slings and the like, of iron or steel, not electrically insulated.* *- Stranded wire, ropes and cables kg 10%* 1. Note 2 to Chapter 73 defines ‘wire’ as follows: *2.- In this Chapter the word “wire” means hot or cold-formed products of any cross-sectional shape, of which no cross-sectional dimension exceeds 16 mm.* 1. The Respondent, in its statement of facts, pointed out that the Appellant's consignment of 5mm prestressed steel wire chevron was subjected to verification and laboratory analysis, and a tariff ruling referenced as KRA/CBC/BIA/THQ /1232/05/2025 dated 13th May 2025, issued to the Appellant. 2. The Respondent's laboratory analysis and tariff ruling concluded that the product consisted of wire of non-alloy steel with spiral grooves on the surface and therefore fell under Heading 7217.10.00. 3. The Respondent relied on laboratory analysis which indicated the following: Appearance : Grey metallic rod with indentation Iron content, as FE : 97.89% m/m Manganese content, as Mn : 0.9% m/m Chromium content, as Cr : 021% m/m Silicon content, as Si : 0.25% m/m carbon content, as C : 0.68% m/m 1. Based on the above analysis, the Respondent classified the product as a non-alloy steel rod with indentation under Heading 7217. 2. The Appellant has a duty in law to prove that the Respondent erred in deviating from HS Code 7312.10.00 declared by the Appellant. Section 223 of the EACCMA provides as follows: *“223. In any proceedings under this Act—* 1. *the onus of proving the place of origin of any goods or the payment of the proper duties, or the lawful importation, landing, removal, conveyance, exportation, carriage coast- wise, or transfer, of any goods shall be on the person prosecuted or claiming anything seized under this Act.”* 2. Further, section 30 of the Tax Appeal Tribunal Act Cap 469A (TATA) provides as follows: *“In a proceeding before the Tribunal, the appellant has the burden of proving—* *(a) Where an appeal relates to an assessment, that the assessment is excessive; or* *(b) In any other case, that the tax decision should not have been made or should have been made differently.”* 1. The Tribunal is guided by the case of **CMC Aviation Ltd v Cruisair Ltd (1) [1978] KLR 103,** where Madan J. held that: - *“Pleadings contain the averments of the parties concerned. Until they are proved or disproved, or there is an admission of them or any of them, by the parties, they are not evidence and no decision could be founded upon them. Proof is the foundation of evidence. Evidence denotes the means by which an alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted for investigation. Until their truth has been established or otherwise, they remain un-proven. Averments in no way satisfy, for example, the definition of “evidence” as anything that makes clear or obvious; ground for knowledge, indication or testimony; that which makes truth evident, or renders evident to the mind that it is truth.”* 1. The Respondent’s laboratory analysis and tariff ruling concluded that the product consisted of wire of non-alloy steel with spiral grooves on the surface and therefore fell under Heading 7217.10.00. The Appellant did not place before the Tribunal any independent expert evidence rebutting the laboratory findings relied upon by the Respondent during the objection stage. 2. The Appellant provided quality test certificates and mill test certificates from Hortichina HK LTD and a laboratory test report from the Ministry of Roads and Transport, State Department for Roads, to support its tariff classification in its bundle of documents at the appeal stage. 3. The quality test certification indicates a number of parameters as follows: Product: Low Relaxation PC Steel wire with Chevron Normal Diameter: 5.00mm Executive standard: Bs 5896:2012 Tensile strength: 1770MPa Bending Times (R=15mm):≥ 3 times Yield strength: ≥1560Mpa Elongation (Lo=100mm):≥3.5% Relaxation: Low relaxation Modulus of elasticity: (205±10)Gpa 1. While the Appellant relied on mill certificates and quality test certification indicating compliance with British Standard BS 5896 for prestressing steel, such evidence demonstrates the intended use of the product and not necessarily the tariff heading applicable under the Harmonized System. The Tribunal notes that classification must primarily be determined by the wording of the heading and relevant notes rather than commercial use alone. 2. The Tribunal reviewed the mill test certificate and the quality test certification from Hortichina HK Ltd and the lab test report from the Ministry of Road and Transport, in the Appellant’s bundle of documents. These documents describe the product as “Low relaxation PC steel wire with chevron” and prestressed concrete steel wire, respectively. The term "Chevron" refers to the surface pattern of the wire, not to a stranded configuration. 3. The Tribunal finds that the evidence clearly establishes that the product is a single wire with chevron indentations on its surface, not a stranded wire made by twisting multiple wires together. 4. Explanatory notes to heading 7312 provide as follows: *“The heading covers stranded wire (or wire strand) obtained by closely twisting together two or more single wires, and cables and ropes of all sizes which are in turn formed by twisting such strands together”* 1. This finding is crucial because Heading 7312 covers “**stranded wire, ropes, cables"** which are produced by twisting together two or more individual wires. A single wire with surface indentations (chevrons) does not meet the description of a "stranded wire." 2. The Tribunal is satisfied that the product in issue is a single steel wire with chevron indentations/spiral grooves on its surface, not a stranded wire. This has been corroborated by the Appellant’s evidence before this Tribunal being the Test Mill Certificate and Quality Test Certification from Hortichina HK Ltd and the Laboratory Test Report from the Ministry of Roads and Transport. 3. The Tribunal further finds it significant that the Appellant had historically classified the same product under tariff heading 7217.10.00 prior to the 2022 EAC CET amendments and has not satisfactorily explained the basis for departing from that classification. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that neither the product specifications nor the manufacturer changed. 4. In **Commissioner of Investigations and Enforcement v Sangyug Enterprises (K) Ltd [2022] KEHC 59 (KLR)**and numerous decisions of the superior courts, it has been reiterated that the burden lies on the taxpayer to demonstrate that the Commissioner's decision is wrong. 5. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant did not discharge that burden. The Appellant largely relied on assertions and alternative interpretations without producing sufficient technical evidence capable of displacing the Respondent's laboratory findings and tariff ruling. 6. Having found that the product is a single wire with chevron indentations, the Tribunal must determine the proper classification for such a product. 7. Heading 72.17 covers "Wire of iron or non-alloy steel." The Explanatory Notes to Heading 7217 provide that: *"Wire of this heading is defined in Note 1(o) to this Chapter. Wire is mostly produced from hot-rolled bars and rods of heading 72.13 by drawing them through a die but may also be obtained by any other cold-forming process (e.g., cold-rolling). Wire is presented in coils (with non-aligned spirals or with aligned spirals, with or without support)."* 1. The Explanatory Notes further provide that: *"Wire which has been worked (e.g., by crimping) remains in this heading, provided it does not thereby assume the character of articles or of products of other headings."* 1. The product in issue, being a single wire with chevron indentations (surface working), falls squarely within Heading 7217. The presence of chevrons or spiral grooves on the surface of the wire does not transform it into a stranded wire; it remains a single wire that has been worked (crimped or indented). 2. The Appellant placed significant reliance on Chapter Note 1(f) to Chapter 72, which provides that Chapter 72 does not cover: *"Stranded wire, cables... of heading 73.12."* 1. The Tribunal finds that this Chapter Note is not applicable in this case because the product in issue is not stranded wire. The product is a single wire with chevron indentations. Therefore, the exclusion under Chapter Note 1(f) does not apply. 2. The Respondent's classification under HS Code 7217.10.00 (Not plated or coated, whether or not polished) is therefore correct. The product is a single wire of iron or non-alloy steel with chevron indentations, and it is properly classifiable under Heading 7217. 3. Consequently, the tribunal finds and holds that the Respondent was justified in classifying the imports under HS Code 7217.10.00 instead of HS Code 7312.10.00. 4. **Whether the Respondent erred in law by applying the tariff ruling retrospectively.** 5. The Appellant argued that the Respondent applied the tariff ruling issued on 13th May 2025 retrospectively. 6. The evidence before the Tribunal demonstrates that the Respondent's demand arose from a post-clearance audit conducted pursuant to Sections 135, 235 and 236 of EACCMA. The audit sought to establish whether customs duties had been correctly declared on past importations. 7. The Tribunal is unable to agree with the Appellant that the Respondent retrospectively applied a new law. Rather, the tariff ruling constituted the Respondent's interpretation of the correct classification of an existing product. The audit merely applied what the Respondent considered to be the proper tariff heading to importations already undertaken. 8. Consequently, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Respondent did not err in in law by applying the tariff ruling retrospectively. 9. Pursuant to GIR 1 and 6, the provisions of HS Code 7217.10.00 and the evidence on record, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent was right to reclassify the imports under HS Code 7217.10.00. Consequently, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Respondent did not err in classifying the imports under HS Code 7217.10.00 instead of HS Code 7312.10.00. **FINAL DETERMINATION** 1. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Tribunal finds and holds that the Appeal lacks merit and makes the following orders: - 1. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed; 2. The review decision dated 17th July 2025 be and is hereby upheld; 3. Each party to bear its own cost. 2. It is so ordered. **DATED and DELIVERED** at **NAIROBI** this………**10th** ….…..day of…..…**July**…….…2026 **……………………..……………..….** **DR RODNEY ODHIAMBO OLUOCH** **CHAIRPERSON** **……………………………… ……..….……..……………..** **CYNTHIA MAYAKA DR. ERICK KOMOLO MEMBER MEMBER** **……………………………..….** **ABDULLAHI DIRIYE** **MEMBER**