https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/ketat/2026/113

Starlink Internet Services (Kenya) Ltd v Commissioner of Customs and Border Control (Tax Appeal E1166 of 2025) [2026] KETAT 113 (KLR) (22 May 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KETAT 113 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Tax Appeal Tribunal Tax Appeal E1166 of 2025 RM Mutuma, Chair, E Ng'ang'a, G Ogaga & JM Malla, Members May 22, 2026 Between Starlink Internet Services (Kenya) Limited Appellant and Commissioner of Customs And Border Control Respondent Judgment Background 1.The Appellant is a limited liability Company registered in Kenya providing broadband internet connectivity services through a constellation of Low Earth Ortbit satellites, supported by terrestrial gateway infrastructure. 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 Appellant imported telecommunication equipment described as Gateway Antenna V4, Ka + E Band Sspa (32-way), Lri Optics and declared on entry number 25MBAIM403340988 on 3rd June, 2025, under the 2022 EAC/CET HS Code 8517.62.00 that provides for the machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and routing apparatus. 4.The Respondent while processing the import entry conducted a verification of the declared HS code and guided the Appellant to declare the imports under HS Code 8517.71.00 which the Appellant disputed. 5.The Respondent issued the Appellant with a Tariff ruling vide letter reference: KRA/CBCN&T/THQ/O022/07 /2025-2026 dated 8th July 2025 which classified the equipment under 2022 EAC/CET HS Code 8517.71.00. 6.Dissatisfied with the classification decision, the Appellant lodged an appeal vide appeal letter Ref: SISKL/20250807 dated 7th August 2025 disputing the tariff classification. 7.Upon consideration of the objection, the Respondent communicated the review decision vide the letter reference: KRA/C&BC/V&T/THQ/APPEAL/042/09/2025-2026 dated 5th September, 2025 upholding its decision where it classified the product under 2022 EAC/CET HS Code 8517.71.00. 8.Dissatisfied with the Review decision, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated and filed on 3rd October, 2025. The Appeal 9.The Appeal is premised on the Memorandum of appeal dated and filed on 17th October 2025 which raised the following ground:That the Respondent erred in law and fact in classifying the Gateway Antenna as an aerial or aerial reflector under Tariff Code 8517.71.00, whereas the Gateway Antenna is an integrated composite machine used to process, convert, and transmit data between two distinct networks correctly classified under Tariff Code 8517.62.00. The Appellant’s Case 10.The Appellant’s case was premised on the following:a.Statement of facts dated 17th October2025 and filed on the even date.b.Written submissions dated 24th March 2026 and filed on 31st March 2026.c.Witness statement of William Burkey dated 13th February 2026 which was admitted as evidence in chief on 3rd March 2026. 11.In further support of its case Appellant also filed the following documents:i.Review decision dated 5th September 2025;ii.Tariff classification dated 8th July 2025;iii.Application for review dated 7th August 2025;iv.Space x Starlink Gateway 4 product specification;v.US Custom and Boarder Protection Ruling dated 7th December 2012;vi.Bill of lading/invoice dated 26th July 2022;vii.Nigerian Product certificate 3(Licensed product) by intertake; andviii.Australia entry from July 2021; 12.The Appellant stated that the Respondent erred in fact and law by classifying Gateway Antenna under Tariff Code 8517.71.00 which covers aerials and aerial reflector whereas the Gateway Antenna is a fully integrated composite machine used to process, convert, and transmit data between two distinct networks. The Appellant contended that such machines that are used for reception, conversion and transmission of data are appropriately classified under Tariff Code 8517.62.00 in accordance with GIR 1 and 6. 13.According to the Appellant, Gateway Antenna is a high-performance satellite communication apparatus forming part of SpaceX's Starlink ground infrastructure. That as detailed in the product specification sheet (SPX- 00004926), each Gateway Antenna is a fully integrated, composite machine that houses all the essential components of a microwave satellite transceiver system in a single assembly. 14.That the principal function of the Gateway Antenna is to actively process, convert, and transmit data between two distinct networks: Starlink's terrestrial fiber-optic network; and its Non-Geostationary Orbit (NGSO) satellite constellation. That further, the unit performs these operations autonomously, without dependence on any external processing device. 15.The Appellant stated that the integrated components of the Gateway Antenna include:i.Ka-band modem: This is the core processing unit of the machine. Its function is to bridge Starlink's fiber-optic ground network with the NGSO constellation. It modulates outgoing data from Internet Protocol ("IP") packets into a radio frequency ("RF") signal for uplink and demodulates incoming RF signals from the satellite back into IP packets for the ground network.ii.BUC with SSPA: This system takes the modulated RF signal from the modem, converts it to a higher frequency (up-conversion), and amplifies it to the required power level for uplink.iii.LNB: This system captures the extremely weak RF signal from the satellite, amplifies it to a usable level while minimizing noise, and converts it to a lower frequency (down-conversion) that can be processed by the modem.iv.Parabolic reflector antenna: The 1.85m parabolic reflector, enclosed in a radome, focuses and directs the RF signals to and from the feed horn and the RF electronics i.e., the BUC and LNB for efficient transmission and reception of satellite signals.v.Motorized non-geostationary satellite tracking system: The Gateway Antenna is designed to communicate with a constellation of satellites in LEO. This requires the unit to actively and continuously track a satellite as it moves across the sky. The motorized azimuth and elevation system (0' to 360 and 25' to 90' respectively) is a critical component that enables the primary functions of continuous reception and transmission. 16.The Appellant emphasized that the radome structure enclosing the Gateway Antenna is not a simple protective housing for a passive dish but a fully integrated enclosure containing the complete front-end transceiver assembly, including all RF electronics and waveguide interconnects. 17.The Appellant asserted that these components are mounted directly behind the antenna feed, enabling environmental protection, precise RF alignment, and thermal stability. Accordingly, it maintained that the radome constitutes an integral part of the machine, housing both the reflector and the transceiver electronics critical to the unit's independent operational capability. 18.The Appellant averred that the classification of goods within the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) is governed by the GIRS, which must be applied sequentially and in their appropriate order. It added that these rules constitute the backbone of all tariff determinations under the EACCET. 19.It stated that GIR 1 requires that classification be determined according to the literal terms of the headings of the Nomenclature and any relevant section or chapter notes and that GIR6 applies the same principle at the sub-heading level, providing that classification between sub-headings shall also be determined according to their terms and any related sub-heading notes, with the preceding rules applied mutatis mutandis. 20.The Appellant asserted that where goods cannot be classified solely under GIR 1, and provided that the headings or legal notes do not otherwise require, the subsequent interpretative rules may then be invoked. According to the Appellant, the expression "provided the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require" emphasises that the wording of the headings and any relevant notes are paramount- they are always the primary consideration in determining classification. 21.The Appellant contended that the Explanatory Notes (ENS) issued under the Harmonized System form the official international interpretation of the nomenclature and complement the GIRS. It noted that the ENs provide detailed commentary on the scope of each heading, including the principal inclusions and exclusions, technical descriptions of the goods, their properties, methods of production and use, and practical guidance for identification. Consequently, the ENs offer authoritative guidance for interpreting the scope of the headings and applying the GIR correctly under the EACCET. 22.That by applying the foregoing principles, the Gateway Antenna is properly classified under Tariff Heading 8517 of the EAC CET. 23.That the Gateway Antenna is most specifically and appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 8517.62.00, whose legal text provides for "Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and routing apparatus. " 24.The Appellant noted that the terms of sub-heading 8517.62.00 directly describe the Gateway Antenna, which is fundamentally a machine performing three distinct functions -reception, conversion, and transmission of data. The device receives data signals from satellites and terrestrial networks, converts these through modulation and demodulation via its integrated modem, and transmits the processed signals onward. Classification under this sub-heading therefore aligns perfectly with the equipment's essential character and primary function. 25.The Appellant emphasised that the conditional precedent for classification under sub-heading 8517.62.00 is that the item must be a machine, switching or routing apparatus capable of receiving, converting and transmitting data. The Gateway Antenna, by design and operation, meets each of these conditions and is therefore a qualifying machine within the meaning of this sub-heading. 26.That the sub-heading 851 7.71.00 provides for "Aerials and aerial reflectors of all kinds; parts suitable for use therewith." According to the Appellant, an aerial, or antenna, within this context, is a passive component whose sole function is to radiate or receive electromagnetic waves. On the other hand, the Gateway Antenna incorporates a parabolic reflector as one element, that reflector forms only a fraction of a larger, integrated and functional machine possessing multiple active electronic subsystems. Classification of the complete assembly as a mere aerial is therefore legally and technically incorrect. 27.That whereas the Respondent observed in its ruling that the Gateway Antenna was presented for importation without certain ancillary site-level equipment such as routers, network switches, power-distribution units and backup power supplies, the Appellant clarified that, although these components are typically deployed alongside the Gateway Antenna at complete ground-station installations, they are external site infrastructure and not integral to the imported article. It maintained that the imported unit retains full operational capability as a stand-alone machine. 28.The Appellant asserted that the absence of such ancillary equipment at the time of importation does not affect the essential character of the Gateway Antenna. The Appellant stated that its inherent and defining features – signal conversion, modulation/demodulation, and amplification - are all performed internally by its integrated modem, BUC, LNB and SSPA systems. Therefore, the Appellant contended that its classification cannot be altered by reference to external items that are not part of the imported assembly. 29.According to the Appellant, the essential character of the Gateway Antenna is determined by its active functions of data conversion and processing, performed by its integrated transceiver subsystems. It stated that classifying this complete, functional machine as a mere "aerial" or "part" disregards its principal function and contravenes the fundamental principles of tariff classification. The Appellant maintained that the Gateway Antenna is a complete machine in its own right, not a component of another apparatus. 30.The Appellant made reference to the World Customs Organization's Explanatory Note to sub-heading 8517.62 which specifically provides that "This sub-heading includes cordless handsets or base units, when presented separately." The Appellant also contended that by analogy, the Gateway Antenna constitutes a base unit of the Starlink communication system and retains its identity and classification as such when imported independently. 31.The Appellant noted that the Respondent acknowledged in its Review Decision that the Gateway Antenna is "responsible for sending and receiving internet data" and acts as a "vital bridge between the terrestrial internet and the satellite network" The Appellant emphasised that this description directly corresponds to the functional language of sub-heading 8517.62.00 and confirms that the product performs the active communication functions envisaged therein. It therefore affirmed that it cannot simultaneously be treated as a passive aerial under sub-heading 8517.71.00. 32.The Appellant further asserted that the Harmonized System Convention, to which Kenya is a contracting party, was established to achieve global uniformity in customs classification and to facilitate international trade. It stated that consistency with international precedent is therefore an essential aspect of proper application of the HS rules. 33.The Appellant maintained that the Respondent's classification of the Gateway Antenna under sub-heading 8517.71.00 departs from established practice for this type of equipment. It stated that comparable devices have consistently been classified under sub-heading 8517.62.00 by other customs administrations applying the same Harmonized System framework. In particular, the Appellant made reference to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in Ruling No. N235633, which classified a functionally identical Ka-band Gateway Earth Station Antenna under HTSUS 8517.62.0050, expressly describing it as a machine for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of data. That this decision is appended to these proceedings. 34.The Appellant also made reference to the Nigerian Customs Service, following its review of the same Starlink product in 2021 (SGD Reference 2021/01TC/138024), concluded that the correct classification was 8517.62.0000 under its national tariff schedule. 35.That whereas the Appellant recognised that the Respondent retains authority to make independent classification determinations, such discretion must be exercised consistently with the facts of the case and the established international interpretative framework. It maintained that the composition, function and use of the Gateway Antenna clearly corresponds to those items classified internationally under sub-heading 8517.62.00. 36.The Appellant therefore contended that the imported Gateway Antenna was correctly classifiable as a complete satellite communication machine under Tariff Code 8517.62.00 of the EACCET, based on GIR 1, GIR6. It maintained that the Respondent's classification of the item under Tariff Code 8517.71.00 as an aerial or part thereof fails to recognise the essential character, composition, and functional operation of the Gateway Antenna, and consequently represents an error in both fact and law 37.The Appellant submitted that the Respondent erred in fact and law by failing to acknowledge that the Gateway Antenna is a fully integrated machine capable of independently receiving, converting and transmitting data. That further, the Respondent erred in fact and law by classifying the Gateway Antenna under Tariff Code 8517.71.00 instead of Tariff Code 8517.62.00. 38.The Appellant submitted that the classification of goods under Tariff Heading 8517 has been determined by courts of law in multiple jurisdictions. It cited the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai v Reliance JioInfocom Ltd, Customs Appeal No. 85882 of 2018, wherein the Mumbai Tax Appellate Tribunal held as follows:“44.Comparing the data placed on the imported goods, we find merit in the contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellant that for an Antenna [to be classified as] a machine, it needs to be something more than a passive element of receiving and sending electro-magnetic waves when attached to a base station. 39.The Appellant cited the Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Vodafone Idea Limited vs Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Customs & Excise Tribunal Appeal No. 51167 of 2020 in further support of the HS Code 8517.62.00. 40.The Appellant further submitted that the value of customs decisions from other jurisdictions have been recognised by Kenyan courts. In this regard, the Appellant cited the case of Unity Homes Limited v Commissioner of Customs & Border Control (Appeal 404 of 2022) [2023] KETAT 266 (KLR), wherein this Tribunal held inter alia:“56.It is important to note that tariff classification is done under the Harmonized Coding System to ensure that all goods in the international trade are classified uniformly and consistently according to a common international nomenclature to which the Respondent and by extension Kenya subscribes to, as Kenya is party to the World Customs Organization…'' 41.The Appellant cited the case of Commissioner of Customs & Border Control v Sai Pharmaceuticals Limited (Customs Tax Appeal E048 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 12267 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (29 August 2025) (Judgment) where it was held that the onus rests upon the Commissioner to justify a change in classification and that the lack of transparent and verifiable evidence was procedurally infirm and susceptible to have the classification set aside. 42.In further support of its case, the Appellant also cited the following case laws:i.Commissioner of Customs and Border Control v Redavia Kenya Asset Limited (Customs Tax Appeal E016 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 1169 (KLR);ii.Vigati Limited v Commissioner of Customs and Border Control (Tax Appeal 117 of 2024) [2024] KETAT 1088 (KLR); andiii.Chrystal Africa Limited v Commissioner of Customs and Border Control (Tax Appeal E352 of 2024) [2025] KETAT 56 (KLR). Appellant’s Prayers 43.The Appellant prayed;a.That the Appeal be allowed, andb.The Respondent's decision be set aside in its entirety. The Respondent’s Case 44.The Respondent’s case is premised on the following:a.Statement of facts dated 14th November 2025 and filed on 15th February 2026.b.Written submissions dated 23rd March 2026 and filed on even date.c.Witness statement of Sosten Kiprop dated 25th February 2026 which was admitted as evidence in chief on 3rd March 2026. 45.In response to the Appellant’s case, the Respondent stated that in classifying the equipment, the Respondent strictly applied the General Rules for the Interpretation (GIRS) of the Harmonized System. In particular GIR1 and GIR6. 46.The Respondent noted that the equipment imported was described as "Gateway Antenna v4" which is specified to be a Starlink gateway antenna, specifically the V4 version, designed for KA and E band communication and featuring a 32-way Solid State Power Amplifier (SSPA). It stated that these antennas are part of the ground infrastructure that connects the Starlink satellite network to the internet. 47.That the Respondent was of the view that GIR 6 directs that classification at the sub-heading level shall also be effected mutatis mutandis (sequentially). 48.The Respondent averred that the imported equipment is part of the satellite network infrastructure and that the Antenna/aerials refers to a device for transmitting or receiving electromagnetic waves such as radio, television, or satellite signals. 49.That further, the terms of subheading 8517.71.00 provide for the classification of "Aerials and aerial reflectors of all kinds; parts suitable for use therewith.’’ 50.The Respondent asserted that having no dispute on the classification at the Heading level i.e Heading 85.17 which covers the classification of Telephone sets, including smartphones and other telephones, including telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks; other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data, including apparatus for communication in a wired or wireless network (such as a local or wide area network), other than transmission or reception apparatus of heading 84.43, 85.25, 85.27 or 85.28, at the subheading level, the equipment is specifically and accurately covered by the terms of sub-heading 8517.71.00. 51.The Respondent asserted that the equipment imported is properly and correctly classified under 2022 EAC/CET HS Code 8517.71 .00. 52.According to the Respondent, the Appellant in Paragraph 17 affirmed that the aerials/antenna also consist other components eg Parabolic reflector antenna, modem, BUC with SSPA, LNB etc. the Respondent was of the view that this was clearly envisaged in sub-heading 8517.7 1.00 where the terms of the sub-heading provides for the classification of "Aerials and aerial reflectors of all kinds; parts suitable for use therewith." 53.That throughout the submissions of the Appellant, it confirmed that the equipment in question is an antenna that is receiving and transmitting signals but without any justification fails to classify the equipment under the most appropriate tariff line under the 2022 EAC/CET HS Code 8517.71.00 as guided by GIR1 and 6. 54.The Respondent averred that all actions were taken in accordance with the provisions of the EACCMA, and related regulations. The Respondent maintained that it is the body tasked with the mandate of verifying and coordination of imports and exports in Kenya as per the provisions of Section 4 of the EACCMA. 55.The Respondent further averred that its ruling was guided by the verification findings and it solely relied on the basic principles of customs classifications under Harmonized System. 56.That the tax implication is a clear evidence that the review decision was based on relevant document and information. The Respondent contended that the Appellant is undeserving of the prayers sought due to the foretasted reasons. 57.That in its written submissions, the Appellant submitted that the Heading is not in dispute but what is in dispute is the subheading levels. 58.The Respondent relied on GIR 1 which provides that Classification shall be determined according to: the terms of the headings and any relevant Section or Chapter Notes. The Respondent submitted that the classification is based on the objective characteristics and principal function of the goods as imported. 59.The Respondent further submitted that under GRI 3(a), when goods are, prima facie, classifiable under two or more headings, ‘the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. …’ and that its classification is correct. Respondent’s Prayers 60.The Respondent prayed;a.That the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal with costs andb.That the Tribunal upholds the tariff ruling dated 8th July, 2025 as confirmed by the Review decision dated 5th September, 2025. Issues for Determination 61.The Tribunal has considered the parties’ pleadings and submissions, and has identified the following issue for determination: Whether the Respondent was justified in classifying the imports under HS Code 8517.71.00 instead of HS Code 8517.62.00. Analysis and Findings 62.Having identified the issues for determination, the Tribunal proceeds to analyse the same as hereunder: - Whether the Respondent was Justified in classifying the Imports under HS Code 8517.71.00 instead of HS Code 8517.62.00. 63.The Appellant imported equipment described as Gateway Antenna V4, KA+E Band SSPA (32-Way), LR1 Optics (Gateway Antenna) vide import entry number 25MBAIM403340988. The Appellant classified the Gateway Antenna under Tariff Code 8517.62.00. Conversely, the Respondent classified the imported article under HS Code 8517.71.00. The Appellant being aggrieved, filed this appeal. 64.The Appeal revolves around classification of the import. The General Interpretation Rules (GIR) as cited in the EACCET provide for principles that govern 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…’’ 65.GIR 6 is key. 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.’’ 66.The Canadian Court in Puratos Canada Inc v Canada (Customs and Revenue) (2004) CA CITT observed as follows regarding classification of goods:“The General Rules for the Interpretation of the Harmonized System referred to in section JO of the Customs Tariff originated in the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding Systems. They are structured in cascading form so that if the classification of the goods cannot be determined in accordance with Rule 1, then regard must be had to Rule 2 and so on.... The above legislation requires the Tribunal to follow several steps before arriving at the proper classification of goods on an appeal: first to examine the schedule to see if the goods fit prima facie within the language of a Tariff Heading; second, to see if there is anything in the Chapter or Section notes that precludes the goods from classification in the Heading; and third, to examine the Classification Opinions and the Explanatory Notes to confirm classification of the goods in the Heading.” 67.Based on the foregoing provisions of the EAC CET and case law, the Tribunal evaluated the matter in light of provisions of the GIR as follows. 68.Heading 8517 provides as follows:Telephone sets, including smartphones and other telephones, including telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks; other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data, including apparatus for communication in a wired or wireless network (such as a local or wide area network), other than transmission or reception apparatus of heading 84.43, 85.25, 85.27 or 85.28. 69.The Tariff Code 8517.62.00 under which the Appellant declared the import in issue provides as follows:-- Machines for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of voice, images or other data, including switching and routing apparatus: 70.On the other hand, the Respondent’s preferred HS Code 8517.71.00 provides thus:-- Aerials and aerial reflectors of all kinds; parts suitable for use therewith. 71.In order to determine the correct classification of the imported article, the Tribunal must examine the objective characteristics, composition and principal functions of the goods as presented at importation, in accordance with GIR1 and GRI 6 of the EACCET. 72.The competing subheadings under consideration fall within Heading 85.17. the dispute therefore does not concern the heading level classification, but rather the appropriate subheading classification pursuant to GIR 6. The Tribunal is therefore required to determine whether the import is properly classifiable as:a.An Aerial or aerial reflector under HS Code 8517.71.00 orb.a machine for the reception, conversion and transmission or regeneration of data under HS Code 8517.62.00 73.The Tribunal has carefully examined the technical documentation place before it including the product specifications supplied by the manufacturer, SpaceX, as well as the pleadings and witness statements filed by both parties. The evidence demonstrates that the imported Gateway Antenna is not merely a passive radiating or receiving device. Rather it is an integrated satellite communication apparatus incorporating multiple active electronic subsytems within a single operational assembly. 74.The product specification document production before the Tribunal indicates that the Gateway Antenna houses integrated transceiver components including:a.a modem responsible for modulation and demodulation of data signals;b.a Block Up Converter (BUC) with Solid State Power Amplifier (SSPA) responsible for frequency conversion and amplification of uplink signals;c.A Low Noise Block Downconverter (LNB) responsible for reception, amplification and down-conversion of incoming satellite signals; andd.Motorised tracking systems enabling active communication with Low Earth Orbit satellites. 75.The Tribunal further notes that the imported article performs the function of receiving, converting, processing and transmitting data signals between terrestrial networks and satellite systems. These functions are undertaken internally through the integrated electronic systems contained within the imported unit itself. 76.The Respondent’s witness similarly acknowledged that the equipment’s primary function is “to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves between satellite and terrestrial networks.” The Tribunal notes that this description is consistent with the functional scope contemplates under subheading 8517.62.00 relating to the machines for the reception, conversion and transmission of data. 77.While the imported article incorporates an antenna or reflector component, the Tribunal finds that the presence of such component does not by itself determine the classification of the complete imported assembly. Tariff classification must be determined according to the imported article as a whole taking into account its principal function, integrated design and operational capability. 78.The Tribunal is persuaded that the imported Gateway Antenna possesses independent operational functionality extending substantially beyond that passive aerial or aerial reflector contemplated under HS Code 8517.71.00. 79.The evidence before the Tribunal demonstrates that the imported article is complete and integrated communication machine capable of modulation, demodulation, signal conversion, amplification, reception and transmission of data signals without reliance on external principal processing apparatus. 80.It is therefore the Tribunal’s considered view that HS Code 8517.71.00 principally contemplates passive aerials, aerial reflectors and parts suitable for use therewith. Conversely, the imported Gateway Antenna performs the active telecommunication functions expressly described under HS Code 8517.62.00. 81.Consequently, applying GIR 1 AND GIR 6 and having regard to the objective characteristics and principal function of the imported article, the Tribunal finds that the Gateway Antenna is properly classified under 8517.62.00. 82.Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act Cap 469A mandates the taxpayer to demonstrate that the Respondent’s decision is incorrect. It provides as hereunder: 30.Burden of proofIn 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. 83.The Court in Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Block International Limited [2024] KEHC 8889 (KLR) had the following to say about the provisions of Section 30 of the TATA:“…the Taxpayer who is the respondent in this case, bears the burden of proving that a tax decision is wrong. To his end, I agree with the appellant that pursuant to the provisions of Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act and Section 56(1) of the Tax Procedures Act, the respondent bears the burden of proving that a tax assessment and/or decision is incorrect…’’ 84.Having carefully evaluated the pleadings and witness statements, technical specifications and applicable principles of the tariff classification under the EACCET, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Appellant discharged its burden of imposed under Section 30 of the Tax Appeals Tribunal Act. 85.Consequently, the Tribunal finds and holds that the Respondent erred in classifying the imports in issue under HS Code 8517.71.00 instead of HS Code 8517.62.00. Final Decision 86.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 Review Decision dated 5th September 2025 be and is hereby set aside; andc.Each party to bear its own cost. 87.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY 2026ROBERT M. MUTUMACHAIRMANEUNICE N. NG’ANG’AMEMBERGLORIA A. OGAGAMEMBERJIMMY M. MALLAMEMBER