Court stops Customs’ 65% levy imposed on syringes importer

The Federal High Court in Lagos has ruled in favour of a firm, U-Mec Nigeria Limited, which kicked against the demand for 65 per cent levy on disposable needles and syringes it imported into the country in November 2019.

Justice Y. Bogoro declared that the Nigeria Customs Service lacked the legal backing to demand such levy from the firm.

The firm had, in the suit filed in February this year, contended that the demand by Customs for 65 per cent levy on the imported needles and syringes was in violation of the ECOWAS Common External Tariff 2015-2019, to which Nigeria is a signatory.

The firm argued that going by the ECOWAS Common External Tariff 2015 – 2019, what was required on the imported needles and syringes was five per cent duty.

But opposing the suit, Customs maintained the Senate in June this year passed a law imposing both 65 per cent levy and five per cent duty on imported needles and syringes.

Furthermore, Customs contended that the suit was statute barred because the subject matter happened in 2019 while the plaintiff filed the suit in 2021.

But the court resolved the issue in favour of U-Mec Nigeria Limited.

Justice Bogoro ruled, “I agree with the plaintiff that as of 2019, the law regulating tariffs was the ECOWAS CET, same being of international flavour, same binding on the defendant at that period did not and does not stipulate 65 per cent levy on the items in dispute.

“In all, I find that the plaintiff cannot impose and collect from the plaintiff 65 per cent levy on the items in dispute because such 65 per cent levy is not prescribed or stated to be payable on such products by the ECOWAS Common External Tariff 2015-2019, which at the material time was binding on the defendant and regulating its activities and under which the defendant was and should be operating and conducting its activities.”

“I also find that the suit is not caught by statute of limitation; as such the plaintiff is entitled to the judgment of this court, having established its case on balance of probity. As such, I enter judgment for the plaintiff.”