Caribbean Cement Company Ltd v The Collector General


Revenue Court

Marsh, J.

17 of 1972

Caribbean Cement Company Ltd.
The Collector General

Br. L.G. Barnett instructed by Messrs. Milholland, Ashenheim & Stone for the appellant.

Mr. V.O. Maxwell, Mr. R.G. Langrin for the respondent.

Revenue Law - Customs Duties

Marsh, J.

This is an appeal from a decision of the respondent made on the 7 th September 1972 whereby it was ordered that certain equipment imported by the appellant for use in its factory at Rockfort, should be classified under Item # 732.03 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Revision) Resolution 1954 as a – “road Motor Vehicle, complete not elsewhere specified”; and that the duty payable thereon was $3,470.66. The equipment in question is an industrial machine described or known as, a “Tennant 92 Industrial Power Sweeper”.


Before me it was contended for the appellant that the respondent's classification was wrong and that the equipment should have been classified under Item # 716.13.9 or Item #713.01 of the aforesaid Tariff Resolution.


Evidence was given on behalf of the appellant by Donald Lloyd Mattis, a Motor Vehicle Examiner employed by the Ministry of works and on behalf of the respondent, by Stanley Rockwell Myers, Deputy Collector General in charge of the Customs Division of the Collector General's Department. A number of exhibits were also tendered in evidence including a brochure printed in colour and issued by the manufacturers of the equipment and including its specifications.


Item #732.03 of the Tariff Resolution is to be found in Division 73 thereof, which deals with “transport equipment”, and is located under the sub-heading “Road Motor Vehicles” and reads as follows–

“Item # 732.03 buses, trucks, lorries and road motor vehicles complete, not elsewhere specified”,


It follows from this that the respondent's classification of the equipment implicitly embodies an allegation that it is a Road Motor Vehicle. For reasons which will presently appear, I do not accept that this machine is a Road Motor Vehicle in the ordinary meaning of that expression, although on the evidence it may be capable of being used on the roads. However, the fact that it may be/used in an emergency, or for some limited special purpose, is not sufficient on my understanding approach to be taken to the Tariff, to bring it within Item #732.03 thereof.


The Items of the Tariff relied on by the appellant be found in Division 71, which deals with “machinery other than electrical machinery”.


Item 713.01 appears under the sub-heading “Tractors other than Steam” and reads as follows–

“Item 713.01 — Tractors other than steam (but excluding road motor tractors)”.


The other item relied on by the appellant, namely item #716.13.9, is located in the same Division and appears, the sub-heading — “Mining Construction and other Industrial Machinery”, and reads–

“Item #716.13.9 — Other”.


The respective rates of duty payable under all of these are as follows–

  • (i) Under Item #732.03–20% ad valorem under the Preferential Tariffs and 40% ad valorem under the General Tariff;

  • ...

To continue reading