InAmoena v HMRC[2016] UKSC 41 (13 July 2016) the Supreme Court found that a mastectomy bra was an accessory to the breast form and should therefore be ‘classified with it’ thus attracting no customs duty.
The appeal concerned the appropriate customs classification of a ‘mastectomy bra’ designed to be worn with an artificial breast form by women who have undergone surgical removal of one or both breasts. The main issue was whether the bra should be classified as an ‘artificial part of the body’ being an accessory ‘suitable for use solely or principally with’ the breast form therefore ‘classified with it’ and attracting no duty.
The Court of Appeal had found that the bra was not an ‘accessory’ because it did not ‘improve the performance of the breast form’ or give it ‘any additional functionality’. The...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
InAmoena v HMRC[2016] UKSC 41 (13 July 2016) the Supreme Court found that a mastectomy bra was an accessory to the breast form and should therefore be ‘classified with it’ thus attracting no customs duty.
The appeal concerned the appropriate customs classification of a ‘mastectomy bra’ designed to be worn with an artificial breast form by women who have undergone surgical removal of one or both breasts. The main issue was whether the bra should be classified as an ‘artificial part of the body’ being an accessory ‘suitable for use solely or principally with’ the breast form therefore ‘classified with it’ and attracting no duty.
The Court of Appeal had found that the bra was not an ‘accessory’ because it did not ‘improve the performance of the breast form’ or give it ‘any additional functionality’. The...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
