[2025] KETAT 80 (KLR)

Export Trading Company Inputs Kenya Limited v Commissioner Customs and Border Control (Tax Appeal E617 of 2024) [2025] KETAT 80 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (31 January 2025) (Judgment)

Neutral citation: [2025] KETAT 80 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Tax Appeal Tribunal

Commercial and Tax

Tax Appeal E617 of 2024

CA Muga, Chair, BK Terer, EN Njeru, E Ng'ang'a & SS Ololchike, Members

January 31, 2025

Between

Export Trading Company Inputs Kenya Limited

Appellant

and

Commissioner Customs and Border Control

Respondent

Judgment

Background 1. The Appellant is a private limited liability company incorporated in Kenya whose principal activity is to import fertilizer into the country.

2. The Respondent is a principal officer appointed under Section 13 of the Kenya Revenue Authority Act, CAP 469 of Kenya’s Laws (hereinafter “the Act”). 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 the Appellant lodged entry number 24MBAIM401529603 and declared the product HIGH-N NPK 30-11-11+TE under 2022 East African Community Common External Tariff (hereinafter “EACCET”) tariff code 3105. 20. 00 which provides for other mineral and chemical fertilizers. The Respondent noted that there was possible misclassification of the product and carried out a verification on the tariff classification of the product. Consequently, the Respondent issued a tariff ruling dated 8th April 2024 classifying the product under HS code 3824. 99. 90 by applying General Interpretation Rules (hereinafter “GIR”) for the classification of goods 1 and 6.

4. The Appellant applied to the Respondent on 16th April 2024 seeking review of the tariff classification indicating that Heading 3105 as the most appropriate heading to apply. On 9th May 2024, the Respondent upon considering the Appellant's application and the submissions made, upheld the classification of High-N NPK 30-11-11+TE under HS Code 3824. 99. 90 by application of GIR 1, 3 (c) and 6.

5. Aggrieved by the Respondent’s findings, the Appellant filed the instant Appeal vide its notice of appeal dated 27th May 2024 on 7th June 2024.

The Appeal 6. The Appellant filed memorandum of appeal dated and filed on dated 27th May 2024 and filed on 7th June 2024 wherein the Appellant raised the following grounds of appeal:a.That the Respondent regarded the NPK Composition of between 52% and 69% as inferior to the 0. 255% of the Trace elements (micro elements) and used that logic to elevate the trace elements to be conferring essential character to the mixture hence excluding the NPK fertilizer from chapter 31 through misinterpretation of the General Note to the Explanatory Notes to chapter 31. b.That the Respondent violated the sequential order of application of the GIR of the Harmonized System by elevating rule 3(c) where 3(b) suffices classification.c.That among the duties of the Respondent is to facilitate trade and collect taxes maintaining balance over the two. In this case the Respondent seems to have been obsessed by collecting taxes at the expense of trade facilitation and that explains why the Respondent is ready to disregard the law to collect more taxes.

Appellant’s Case 7. In support of the appeal, the Appellant relied on its statement filed on 7th June 2024. The Appellant did not file any written submissions.

8. The Appellant’s case was that its sister company M/S Export Trading company inputs Kenya limited is a registered business entity and a regular importer of fertilizer and has been in business for a long time. It imported a consignment of 1x40' container of 23. 736 metric tons NPK Fertilizer in powder form around 13th March, 2024 from Jordan. It entered the goods vide Import Entry number 24MBAIM401529603 of 14th March 2024.

9. The Appellant classified these goods under heading 3105 tariff line 3105. 20. 00 under the guidance of the provisions of the EACCET and the GIR of the Harmonized System. The Appellant asserted that it registered the entry and paid all taxes due.

10. The entry reached the releasing point at Regional Logistics Centre Cargo Freight Station where the goods were to be delivered. The Appellant stated that the officer at that point said that there was an alert in the integrated customs management system on the classification, that NPK Fertilizer is classifiable under tariff code 3824. 99. 90 and not 3105. 20. 00 as declared. The Appellant stated that it asked for tariff justification of the classification but the officer could not give an answer to the same instead the officer referred the entry to customs valuation and tariff office in Mombasa on the 19th March 2024 for advice.

11. When it followed the entry at the valuation and tariff office the following day, the Appellant alleged that it was told to avail material safety data sheet of the product as well as the certificate of analysis which the Appellant asserted it provided. The Appellant stated that it was then informed that the matter had been referred to tariff headquarters in Nairobi for the determination of the tariff classification dispute around 22nd March 2024.

12. It was the Appellant’s case that it kept on following the matter and that it was not until 8th April 2024 when the Appellant was served with tariff ruling number KRA/C&Bc/BIA/THQ/216/04/2024 dated 8th April 2024. The Appellant alleged that it went through the ruling but the reason given by the tariff headquarters as justification was a clear misinterpretation of the law. The Appellant asserted that it tried to make the officers understand that they had misinterpreted the law but they seemed so determined to collect more taxes even if it was through unjustifiable means.

13. The Appellant stated that it paid all extra taxes of Kshs 929,155. 00 as demanded by the Respondent’s officers so as to have the goods released in order to avoid further demurrage charges accruing.

14. According to the Appellant, it incurred demurrage charges amounting to USD 4,520. 00 owing to the Respondent’s ruling arising from misinterpretation by those in charge of tariff classification.

15. The Appellant averred that it wrote to Respondent requesting for a review of the tariff ruling through the letter dated 12th April, 2024. The head of tariff in headquarters in Nairobi called for a meeting which the Appellant attended and deliberated on the issue. The Appellant asserted that from the look of things it seemed impossible to overrule the officer hence the offer stood by defending the earlier position though the officer had problems justifying his classification.

16. According to the Appellant, the Respondent’s response through the letter ref. KRA/C&BC/BIA/THQ/APPEAL/044/5/2024 dated the 8th May 2024 denied the Appellant review application and upheld the ruling giving reasons not supported by the correct interpretation of the law hence this appeal.

17. The Appellant maintained that under the EACCET, the terms of heading 3105; the GIR of the Harmonized System (HS) (second part of Rule 1; Rule 3(b); and even note 6 to the notes to chapter 31 all point to heading 3105 as the most appropriate heading for the classification of NPK Fertilizer as compared to any other heading in the Nomenclature.

18. It argued that even the Respondent’s own tariff rulings posted on their website in March of 2018 on the same product NPK fertilizer found that tariff 3105. 20. 00 is the most appropriate.

19. The Appellant acknowledged that the Respondent has a duty to collect taxes on behalf of the government but it noted that the Respondent must not forget that it also has a duty to facilitate legitimate trade. It added that an overtaxed business cannot be said to be facilitated.

20. The Appellant stated that tariff classification determines the rate of taxes payable for imported goods hence the trend of overtaxing goods through vague tariff rulings should be opposed by all Kenyans as it contributes directly to the high cost of living.

21. The Appellant further stated that the rules of tariff classification were not adhered to when making the ruling as NPK is known worldwide to be a fertilizer and classifiable under heading 3105 whether in solid or liquid form. The Appellant asserted that it asked the Respondent to have the law interpreted correctly but the Respondent was adamant to do so. The Appellant stated that this negatively affected its business.

22. According to the Appellant, the product in question is NPK Fertilizer in powder form in three varieties as follows: NPK 30-11-11+TE, NPK 15-10-31+TE and NPK 12-52-5+TE.

23. The Appellant stated that the Chemical Composition of the Three Varieties of NPK is as follows:a.NPK 30-11-11+TE is composed of Nitrogen (N) 30%, Phosphorus Pentaoxide (P205) 11%, Potassium Oxide (K20) 11%, Trace Elements (TE) of Boron (B) 0. 03%, Copper EDTA (Cu) 0. 07%, Iron EDTA (Fe) 0. 014%, Manganese EDTA (Mn) 0. 07%, Molybdenum (Mo) 0. 0019% and Zinc EDTA(Zn) 0. 07%. The Appellant stated that this variety has NPK composition of 52% and total Trace Elements 0. 255%.b.NPK 15-10-31+TE is composed of Nitrogen (N) 15%, Phosphorus Pentaoxide (P205) 10%, Potassium Oxide (K20) 31%, Trace Elements (TE) of Boron (B) 0. 03%, Copper EDTA (Cu) 0. 07%, Iron EDTA (Fe) 0. 014%, Manganese EDTA(Mn) 0. 07%, Molybdenum (Mo) 0. 001% and Zinc EDTA(Zn) 0. 07%. it noted that this variety has NPK composition of 56% and total Trace Elements 0. 255%.c.NPK 12-52-5+TE is composed of Nitrogen (N) 12%, Phosphorus Pentaoxide (P205) 52%, Potassium Oxide (K20) 5%, Trace Elements (TE) of Boron (B) 0. 03%, Copper EDTA (Cu) 07%, Iron EDTA(Fe) 0. 014%, Manganese EDTA(Mn) 0. 07%, Molybdenum (Mo) 0. 001% and Zinc EDTA(Zn) 0. 07%. This variety has NPK composition of 69% and total Trace Elements 0. 255%.

24. The Appellant’s case was that this fertilizer is clearly composed of a mixture of chemicals and which can be grouped into two categories, the major elements macro elements of NPK and the trace elements of micro elements of Boron, Copper EDTA, Iron EDTA, Manganese EDTA, Molybdenum and Zinc EDTA. According to the Appellant, in all the varieties the NPK content is between 52% and 69% while in all the varieties the total trace element content is a constant 0. 255%. Therefore, it stated that the Macro elements of NPK gives this product its essential character.

25. In this regard, the Appellant cited Rule 3(b) of GIR which states, "Mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, insofar as this criterion is applicable." The Appellant therefore argued that this product is to be classified as if it consisted wholly of NPK according to the rule.

26. Further, the Appellant relied on the provisions of the second part of Rule 1 of the GIR which states in part, "...for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter Notes, provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise require, according to the provisions of Rules 2,3,4 and 5. "

27. The Appellant cited Note (v) to the Explanatory note of Rule 1 of the GIR of HS which according to the Appellant makes it clear that the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter Notes are the first to be considered in determining tariff classification as it reads in part. The Appellant maintained that the expression "provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise require" is intended to make it quite clear that the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes are paramount, that is, they are the first consideration in determining classification.

28. It added that the terms of heading 3105 states in part, "Mineral or chemical fertilizers containing two or three of the fertilizing elements nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium." It therefore argued that NPK is a chemical fertilizer containing three of the fertilizing elements nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.

29. The Appellant also cited the provisions of Note 6 of the chapter notes to chapter 31 which states," For the purpose of heading 31. 05, the term "other fertilizers" applies only to products of a kind used as fertilizers and containing, as an essential constituent, at least one of the fertilizing elements nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium." According to the Appellant, NPK is normally used as fertilizer and the NPK in question has all the three fertilizing elements as essential constituents.

30. The Appellant also referred to the terms of heading 3824 which provides in part, "....chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries (including those consisting of mixtures of natural products), not elsewhere specified or included." The Appellant stated that the proviso "not elsewhere specified or included" in heading 3824 disqualifies NPK fertilizer from the heading as the heading requires that for any product to fall under 3824 it should not be specified or included anywhere in the nomenclature. The Appellant asserted that NPK is specified in heading 3105, hence cannot qualify to be classified under the heading.

31. The Appellant therefore, asserted that the most appropriate HS Code for NPK fertilizer is 3105. 20. 00 according to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System.

Appellant’s Prayers 32. The Appellant urged this Tribunal to compel the Respondent to:a.Review tariff ruling reference number KRA/C&BC/BIA/THO/216/04/2024 dated the 8th April, 2024;b.Interpret the law on tariff classification of NPK Fertilizer correctly and apply it across board;c.Revoke the ruling as it is unjustifiable if the correct interpretation of the laid down rules on tariff classification as set by WCO is applied; andd.Refund all extra taxes collected on the basis of this unjustifiable ruling and all Extra cost incurred such as the demurrage charges which the Appellant would not have accrued had it not for the ruling.

The Respondent’s Case 33. In response to the appeal, the Respondent filed statement of facts dated and filed on 6th July 2024 and written submissions dated 7th October 2024 and filed on 8th October 2024. However, the Tribunal expunged the submissions of the Respondent who failed to comply with its directions on 12th September 2024 requiring parties to file and serve their respective written submissions on or before 26th September 2024.

34. The Respondent averred that the Appellant lodged entry number 24MBAIM401529603 and declared the product HIGH-N NPK 30-11-11+TE under 2022 EACCET HS code 3105. 20. 00. The Respondent stated that the product was described as containing Nitrogen 30% as (N), Phosphorous pentoxide 11% as (P205), Potassium Oxide 11% as (K20) and micronutrients: Boron 0. 03% as (B). Copper EDTA 0. 07% as (Cu), iron EDTA (Fe), manganese EDTA 0. 07% as (Mn), molybdenum 0. 001% as (Mo) and Zinc EDTA 0. 079% as (Zn).

35. The Respondent being convinced that the product was misclassified, issued a tariff ruling dated 8th April 2024 classifying the product under HS code 3824. 99. 90 by applying GIR for the classification of goods 1 and 6. This prompted the Appellant to apply to the Respondent on 16th April, 2024 seeking for a review of the tariff classification indicating that Heading 3105 is the most appropriate heading to apply. Subsequently, the Respondent issued its decision vide a letter dated 8th May 2024.

36. The Respondent stated that it considered the provisions of the Custom Tax Nomenclature classification and the GIR and applied it correctly when classifying the Appellant's goods. It averred that Chapter 31 covers classification of chemical fertilizers as specified in the limitive lists in heading 31. 02 - mineral or chemical fertilizers; nitrogenous, 31. 03- mineral or chemical fertilizers; phosphatic, 31. 04 - mineral or chemical fertilizers: potassic, and 31. 05 - Mineral or chemical fertilisers containing two or three of the fertilising elements nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium: other fertilisers.

37. The Respondent submitted that general notes to chapter 31 excludes micronutrient preparations which are applied to seeds, to foliage or to soil to assist in seed germination and plant growth. It argued that they may contain small amounts of the fertilising elements nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, but not as essential constituents like heading 38. 24.

38. According to the Respondent, heading 38. 24 covers the classification of prepared binders for foundry moulds or cores: chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries (including those consisting of mixtures of natural products), not elsewhere specified or included. It pleaded that as per the terms of heading 38. 24, the heading provides for, in pertinent part, the classification of chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries (including those consisting of mixtures of natural products).

39. It argued that considering the composition of the product also includes micronutrients, the tariff classification can not only be limited to the macronutrients Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium.

40. According to the Respondent, both macronutrients and micronutrients are essential in the overall growth and development of the plant cycle in that macronutrients are essential for plant growth and overall state of the plant while micronutrients help plants by providing minerals and vitamins crucial for disease prevention, healthy development and well-being of the plant.

41. The Responded asserted that the Appellant's product, High-N NPK30-11-11+TE contains mixture of micronutrients and macronutrients and thus cannot be classified within the scope of chapter 31. It noted that both macronutrients and micronutrients are important for plant's overall growth. The Respondent thus pleaded that the appropriate code for the Appellant's product is HS Code 3824. 99. 90.

42. It asserted that it applied the GIR in a sequential manner that is, Rule I; Rule 3c and Rule 6. The Respondent therefore, pleaded that any taxes that were paid subject to the tariff classification issued were properly paid and the Appellant is not entitled to a refund as claimed.

Respondent’s prayers 43. The Respondent prayed that this Tribunal upholds its classification; its Review decision dated 8th May 2024 and that this Appeal be dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Issues For Determination 44. Having examined the parties’ pleadings, the Tribunal is of the view that the following is the issue for determination:Whether the Respondent erred in classifying the Appellant’s consignment under HS code 3824. 99. 90 instead of HS code 3105. 20. 00.

Analysis And Findings 45. The Tribunal analyses the issue as hereunder.Whether the Respondent erred in classifying the Appellant’s consignment under HS code 3824. 99. 90 instead of HS code 3105. 20. 00.

46. It was the Respondent’s case that the Appellant ought to have declared the consignment under HS code 3824. 99. 90. Heading 3824 provides as follows:‘‘Prepared binders for foundry moulds or cores; chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries (including those consisting of mixtures of natural products), not elsewhere specified or included.’’

47. The Tribunal notes that tariff code 3824. 99. 90 provides for ‘Other.’ The Appellant declared its consignment under Heading 31. 05 which provides as follows:‘‘Mineral or chemical fertilisers containing two or three of the fertilising elements nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium; other fertilisers; goods of this Chapter in tablets or similar forms or in packages of a gross weight not exceeding 10 kg .’’

48. Further, the tariff code 3105. 20. 00 provides as follows:‘‘Mineral or chemical fertilisers containing the three fertilising elements nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.’’

49. The Appellant stated that the consignment that it imported contained the following chemical composition:a.NPK 30-11-11+TE is composed of Nitrogen (N) 30%, Phosphorus Pentaoxide (P205) 11%, Potassium Oxide (K20) 11%, Trace Elements (TE) of Boron (B) 0. 03%, Copper EDTA (Cu) 0. 07%, Iron EDTA (Fe) 0. 014%, Manganese EDTA (Mn) 0. 07%, Molybdenum (Mo) 0. 0019% and Zinc EDTA(Zn) 0. 07%. The Appellant stated that this variety has NPK composition of 52% and total Trace Elements 0. 255%.b.NPK 15-10-31+TE is composed of Nitrogen (N) 15%, Phosphorus Pentaoxide (P205) 10%, Potassium Oxide (K20) 31%, Trace Elements (TE) of Boron (B) 0. 03%, Copper EDTA (Cu) 0. 07%, Iron EDTA (Fe) 0. 014%, Manganese EDTA(Mn) 0. 07%, Molybdenum (Mo) 0. 001% and Zinc EDTA(Zn) 0. 07%. It noted that this variety has NPK composition of 56% and total Trace Elements 0. 255%.c.NPK 12-52-5+TE is composed of Nitrogen (N) 12%, Phosphorus Pentaoxide (P205) 52%, Potassium Oxide (K20) 5%, Trace Elements (TE) of Boron (B) 0. 03%, Copper EDTA (Cu) 07%, Iron EDTA(Fe) 0. 014%, Manganese EDTA (Mn) 0. 07%, Molybdenum (Mo) 0. 001% and Zinc EDTA (Zn) 0. 07%. This variety has NPK composition of 69% and total Trace Elements 0. 255%.

50. The Tribunal notes that the classification of goods provides that classification of goods in the Nomenclature shall be governed a number of principles. In this regard, GIR 1 provides as follows as follows:‘‘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.’’

51. The Tribunal examined tariff code 3105. 20. 00 vis a vis the consignment that the Appellant imported, and noted that the consignment contained fertilising elements nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. The consignment that the Appellant imported had other elements including Boron (B), Copper EDTA (Cu), Iron (Fe), Manganese EDTA (Mn) among other elements. HS Code 3105 refers to ‘other fertilisers.’ In this regard, note 6 to chapter 31 provides as follows:‘‘For the purposes of heading 3105, the term “other fertilisers” applies only to products of a kind used as fertilisers and containing, as an essential constituent, at least one of the fertilising elements nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium.’’The Respondent did not dispute that these other elements are also fertilizers.

52. GIR 2(b) is applicable to this case. It provides as follows:‘‘Any reference in a heading to a material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to mixtures or combinations of that material or substance with other materials or substances. Any reference to goods of a given material or substance shall be taken to include a reference to goods consisting wholly or partly of such material or substance. The classification of goods consisting of more than one material or substance shall be according to the principles of Rule 3. ’’

53. The consignment that the Appellant imported contained a mixture or combination of that material or substance with other materials or substances. Therefore, pursuant to GIR 2(b), the Appellant’s imports could still be classified under tariff code 3105. 20. 00 because the code does not imply that the fertilising elements nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium must be in pure form.

54. The Tribunal notes that heading 3105 refers to ‘other fertilisers’ whilst note 6 to chapter 31 defines ‘other fertilizers.’ The Respondent did not dispute that these ‘other elements’ that the Appellant imported are also fertilizers or that they did not contain fertilising elements nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium.

55. The Tribunal also reviewed the provisions of GIR 3 in relation to the issue at hand. GIR 3 provides as follows:‘‘When by application of Rule 2 (b) or for any other reason, goods are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows:a.The heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods.b.Mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to 3 (a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, insofar as this criterion is applicable.c.When goods cannot be classified by reference to 3 (a) or 3 (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration.’’

56. The Tribunal notes that GIR 3(a) provides that the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. The Tribunal established that heading 31. 05 provides a more specific description as it expressly mentions the elements unlike heading 38. 24 which provides for general description of chemical products. Secondly, chapter 31 deals with fertilizers and the Respondent admitted that chapter 31 covers classification of chemical fertilizers and that the Appellant imported fertilizes. The point of departure between the parties is that the Respondent stated that whereas HS Code 3105. 20. 00 provides for three elements that is fertilising elements nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, the Appellant’s imports included other elements.

57. The Tribunal noted that it is true that tariff code 3105. 20. 00 expressly provides for three elements that is fertilising elements nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium yet the Appellant’s imports included other elements. However, heading 31. 05 also refers to ‘other fertilisers’ while note 6 to chapter 31 defines those other fertilisers. Consequently, the Tribunal’s view is that the presence of Trace Elements (TE) of Boron (B), Copper EDTA (Cu), Iron EDTA (Fe), Manganese EDTA (Mn), Molybdenum (Mo) and Zinc EDTA (Zn) does not oust the Appellant’s consignment from heading 31. 05. Secondly, the consignment that the Appellant imported contained a mixture or combination of that material or substance with other materials or substances apart from fertilising elements nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium and applying GIR 2(b) still places the consignment under HS Code 3105. 20. 00 instead of HS code 3824. 99. 90.

58. The Tribunal’s view is that the consignment that the Appellant imported clearly indicates nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in their respective percentages and the Respondent did not controvert this information. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Appellant’s import was well declared under tariff code 3105. 20. 00 because this is the code that provides the most specific description.

59. Consequently, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Respondent erred in classifying the Appellant’s consignment under HS code 3824. 99. 90 instead of HS code 3105. 20. 00.

Final Decision 60. The upshot to the foregoing is that the Tribunal finds and holds that the Appeal is meritorious and makes the following Orders:a.The Appeal be and is hereby allowed;b.The Respondent’s decision dated May 9, 2024 be and is hereby set aside;c.The Appellant’s consignment the product namely: HIGH-N NPK 30-11-11+TE as declared under entry number 24MBAIM401529603 be and is hereby classified under tariff code 3105. 20. 00. d.The Appellant be and is hereby entitled to a refund of any duties paid in protest pursuant to Section 144(3) of EACCMA.e.Each party to bear its own cost.

61. It is so Ordered.

DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2025. CHRISTINE A. MUGA - CHAIRPERSONBONIFACE K. TERER - MEMBERELISHAH N. NJERU - MEMBEREUNICE N. NG’ANG’A -MEMBEROLOLCHIKE S. SPENCER - MEMBER