[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Procter & Gamble (UK) v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKVAT V20205 (25 June 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2007/V20205.html Cite as: [2007] UKVAT V20205, [2007] STI 2251

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 


20205

ZERO-RATING – food – Excepted item 5 of Group 1 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994 – whether Pringles are similar to potato crisps – yes – whether they are made from the potato, potato flour or potato starch – yes – appeal dismissed

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

PROCTER & GAMBLE (UK) Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S

REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: DR JOHN F AVERY JONES CBE (Chairman)

CATHERINE FARQUHARSON BSc ACA

Sitting in private in London on 8 to 10 May 2007

Roderick Cordara QC, instructed by Robert Newey & Co, for the Appellant

Raymond Hill, counsel, instructed by the Acting Solicitor for HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2007

DECISION

1. This is an appeal by Procter & Gamble UK (a partnership of companies whose ultimate parent is The Procter & Gamble Company of Ohio) against a decision letter dated 4 January 2006, and upheld on review on 6 March 2006, that Regular Pringles are standard-rated. The Appellant was represented by Mr Roderick Cordara QC, and Customs by Mr Raymond Hill.
2. The issue in this appeal is whether regular Pringles are standard-rated as being within "potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs and similar products made from the potato or from potato flour, or from potato starch" in Excepted item 5 of Group 1 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994. The appeal relates only to regular Pringles. The formulation changed in Autumn 2004 and we are not concerned with their status before then. The status of Pringles Dippers has been the subject of previous proceedings in this Tribunal in Procter & Gamble UK v Customs and Excise Commissioners (2003) VAT Decision 18381 ("the Pringles Dippers case"), in which the Tribunal decided that they were zero-rated as not being packaged for human consumption without further preparation, not similar to potato crisps, sticks or puffs, and not being made from potato flour. The earlier formula for Regular Pringles was the subject of an appeal at the same time as the Pringles Dippers case but the Appellant withdrew the appeal.

Legislation

3. Group 1 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994 zero-rates:

"The supply of anything comprised in the general items set out below, except—

(a)     a supply in the course of catering; and

(b)     a supply of anything comprised in any of the excepted items set out below, unless it is also comprised in any of the items overriding the exceptions set out below which relates to that excepted item.

General items

Item No

Food of a kind used for human consumption.

…

Excepted items

Item No

…

Any of the following when packaged for human consumption without further preparation, namely, potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs, and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch, and savoury food products obtained by the swelling of cereals or cereal products; and salted or roasted nuts other than nuts in shell.

…"

4. Zero-rating is permitted by art 28.2 of the Sixth Directive (now art 110 of the Recast Directive). Article 17 of the Second Directive provided that Member States may:

"provide for reduced rates or even exemptions with refund, if appropriate, of the tax paid at the preceding stage, where the total incidence of such measures does not exceed that of the reliefs applied under the present system. Such measures may only be taken for clearly defined social reasons and for the benefit of the final consumer, and may not remain in force after the abolition of the imposition of tax on importation and the remission of tax on exportation in trade between member States."

Facts

5. We heard evidence from Mr Jerry Hogg, associate director, Market Strategy & Planning, Snacks Western Europe for Procter & Gamble SA, and we had a number of binders of documents including answers to further and better particulars requested by Customs. We find the following facts:

(1) Regular Pringles are a savoury snack. Regular Pringles come in the following flavours: original (ready salted), sour cream and onion, paprika, hot and spicy, cheese and onion, salt and vinegar, Texas barbeque sauce, cheesy cheese, and smoked bacon, all of which are within this appeal. The appeal does not concern Pringles Light, Pringles Lite Aroma, Pringles Gourmet, mini-Pringles or any other specialty range of Pringles. As mentioned, the zero-rated status of Pringles Dippers has been determined in previous proceedings.

(2) Regular Pringles are made from potato flour, corn flour, wheat starch and rice flour together with fat and emulsifier, salt and seasoning. The precise percentages of each ingredient of Regular Pringles have varied from time to time and are not identical in the range of flavours because, for example, the flavouring may affect the salt content. The overall mix of different ingredients is important to the product. There is a movement to reduce the fat (and within that, the saturated fat) content gradually. Nutritionalists have advised the Appellant that their priority should be to reduce the total fat content to help reduce obesity. During this process of reducing the fat content the proportions of other ingredients has varied. The different formulae are designed to taste the same, and they succeeded in obtaining an improved taste in the change made in July 2006. In round figures the potato content is currently around 42 per cent, other flours around 15 per cent, and the fat content around 33 per cent. The proportions have varied since the decision letter, which are the ones we are strictly considering, but Customs are content that the current and intermediate proportions should be included in the appeal.

(3) The potato content of Regular Pringles is not stated on the packet. It is in accordance with labelling regulations not to state this when the variation in quantity is not essential to characterise the food. The same applies to tortilla chips. Regular Pringles are not marketed as a potato snack but as a savoury snack. The ingredients state that they include dehydrated potatoes.

(4) Regular Pringles are manufactured by mixing the dry ingredients into a dough with water and emulsifier; cutting shapes out of a dough sheet, frying it for a few seconds, adding oil and salt, cooling it and then adding flavours. A similar procedure applies to maize (in US parlance, corn) chips like tortillas. Mr Hogg considered that the unique feature of Regular Pringles was that the manufacturing process causes oil to go into the spaces throughout the texture of the product replacing the water content removed during the frying. This gives the "mouth-melt" feel when it is eaten. By contrast with potato crisps most of the fat stays on the surface.

(5) Regular Pringles have a regular shape in the form of a saddle, which aids stacking them enabling high production speeds. They are a uniform pale yellow colour, which is paler than a potato crisp. They have a crisp texture. Tortilla chips tend to be triangular.

(6) The impression that the Appellant aims to create for Regular Pringles is that it is a great-tasting snack that is fun to eat. The "mouth-melt" experience is unique.

(7) No other manufacturer has managed to copy Pringles and so there are no own-brand versions in supermarkets. All the major retailers in he UK have tried to sell an own-brand version and Walkers produced a product called Stax but none has been successful.

(8) Regular Pringles are not designed for dipping (as are Pringles Dippers, which are a different shape and dips are sold by the Appellant alongside them) although research showed that 4 per cent of Regular Pringles sold were in fact used for dipping, as are 1 per cent of all potato crisps sold. The flavour of products intended for dipping is less strong than those of regular Pringles so that they do not overpower the dip. Pringles Dippers come in fewer flavours than Regular Pringles. Pringles Dippers, being less flavoured, are seen as too bland to eat on their own. Originally Pringles Dippers were stronger than Regular Pringles so that they did not break during dipping but since they were introduced the thickness of Regular Pringles has increased and they are now the same thickness.

(9) Regular Pringles are classed by the industry as a savoury snack, which includes such items as maize (corn) snacks (for example, tortilla chips), extruded snacks, nuts, potato crisps, rice snacks, savoury snacks, popcorn and pretzels. Savoury snacks are sold either in small packs used for eating between meals, and larger packs used for sharing, classified by the industry as "large adult sharing." 91.1 per cent of Regular Pringles are sold in 170g tubular cans or larger, which fall into the large adult sharing category, and 8.9 per cent in 43g tubular cans which are larger than a normal single serving. The cans come with a plastic cap for resealing them. Regular Pringles are expected to be eaten from the carton. It is unusual for potato crisps to be sold in tubular cans but there are examples of this (Tyrrells in 500g tubular packs, and Yorkshire Crisps in 100g tubular packs); they are normally sold in bags, as are tortilla chips.

(10) Regular Pringles are normally eaten in the evening, for example in front of the television or with drinks with friends and not as part of a meal. They are not normally purchased primarily for nutrition.

(11) The calorie, fat content and salt content of Regular Pringles is similar to that of Walkers' potato crisps, although the saturated fat content is higher for Pringles. The Appellant considered that manufacturers of potato crisps found it difficult to reduce the total fat content and so were emphasising the reduced saturated fat content. The sugar content is also higher in Pringles.

(12) Regular Pringles have a shelf life of 15 months; normal potato crisps have a shelf life of about four months. This gives a commercial advantage allowing more time in the chain of supply and on the retailer's shelves. The Appellant regards this as important particularly for small retailers where their proportion of the market is smaller than the share of Walkers' potato crisps. Most Pringles are opened within 5 weeks of purchase. Once opened the Appellant considers that they stay fresh for 10 days when resealed using the plastic lid with which they are sold. This is not based on research as the time is not critical but is the Appellants' long-standing understanding. In practice their research has shown that consumers keep them for between 2 and 12 days after opening. Research has shown that about 42 per cent of the larger size pack is eaten on one occasion; for potato crisps closer to 90 per cent are eaten on one occasion.

(13) The top 10 products that buyers of Pringles are likely to buy are KP Skips (now no potato content although there was formerly; zero-rated; 15.5 per cent of the people who buy savoury snacks buy Skips, whereas they are bought by 20.6 per cent of those who buy Pringles—other percentages in this paragraph are to the same points); Monster Munch (no potato content but standard-rated as made from swelling cereal; 13.9 and 18.1 per cent); Total McCoys Large Sharing (thick crinkly potato crisps; standard-rated; 6 and 7.7 per cent); KP Hula Hoops (ingredients include potato flour; standard-rated; 34 and 42.6 per cent); Total Doritos (no potato content; zero-rated; 29.2 and 36.2 per cent); Walkers' quavers (ingredients include potato flour; standard-rated; 28.5 and 35.3 per cent); Walkers' Potato Heads (thick crinkly potato crisps; standard-rated; 18.8 and 23.2 per cent), Quaker Snack-a-Jacks (no potato content; zero-rated; 20.2 and 24.8 per cent); Jacobs Twiglets (no potato content; zero-rated; 9.9 and 12.1 per cent); and Mc Vities mini-cheddars (a biscuit with no potato content; zero-rated; 33.3 and 40.4 per cent).

(14) The market share of Regular Pringles is 6.5 per cent (major multiples: we assume, supermarkets) and 6.4 per cent (impulse stores) of the savoury snacks market. Most of the marketing effort is devoted to supermarkets. The approved layout in Tesco stores for larger packets, which aims to put products that customers will choose between together, is that from left to right one finds first potato crisps, then tortilla chips and dips, then Pringles, and finally other savoury products (such as potato rings and triangles, Twiglets, and cheese puffs).

(15) In its annual report the US parent company reports that its share of the market is 13 per cent of the potato chips (in US parlance) market. This is used because different countries have different contents of products classified in the snack category and so the potato crisps market is the only global comparison available. We understand this to mean that although Pringles are not included in that market it is comparing sales of Pringles with the total of the potato crisps (in English parlance) market.

(16) Potato crisps (in US parlance, chips) are made from cutting slices of potato, washing it to remove starch, frying them for several minutes, and adding flavours. A typical potato crisp will have a potato content of around 60 per cent and a fat content of around 33 per cent. The lowest fat versions may have about 20 per cent fat (Sainsbury's low fat crisps have 20.3 per cent fat, and there is a crisp sold in Norway with 16.5 per cent fat), which allowing for other ingredients means that the highest percentage of potato content is in the 70s. Potato crisps come in irregular shapes and sizes and have imperfections such as burnt bits. The marketing of potato crisps tends to emphasise the potato content. Potato sticks are made in the same way but cut differently, although today some may be made from potato powder or starch (Walkers' French Fries, Pom-Bear and Red Mill Saucers). Potato puffs are not generally known in the industry today.

(17) In a tasting where the product was not identified of 111 people, 90 correctly identified them as regular Pringles original. Of the remaining 21 8 said they tasted like Walkers (presumably potato crisps, of which Walkers is the leading brand with 55 per cent of the snack and crisp market, although this was not stated), two as Smiths crisps, three of various types of crisps, and various other answers were given by the remainder. Of 113 people sampling the Regular Pringles sour cream and onion, 98 correctly identified them and of the remaining 15, 5 said they tasted like Walkers, and various other answers were given by the remainder.

(18) Research shows that focus groups of consumers asked to categorise savoury snacks will put Pringles into a separate category. When asked to put them with another category they will put them with potato crisps.

(19) The Appellant's US website gives advice to diabetics to treat Pringles like potato crisps as regards their value in relation to carbohydrate exchanges; and the answer to a frequently asked question states that diabetics should treat Pringles like other potato crisps. Carbohydrate exchange is a concept invented by the American Diabetic Association in the 1950s, although it has fallen partly out of fashion since then. However, in terms of carbohydrate value which is important to diabetics, Pringles have similar value to potato crisps.

(20) There are references to Pringles as crisps in the group's US website. In US parlance crisps have no definite meaning and we do not regard this as significant. The only reference in the US website to Pringles potato chips (in US parlance) was in a recruitment advertisement in Jackson Tennessee. It is illegal in the US to describe Pringles as potato chips as it is not made of actual potatoes. We do not regard this one advertisement as significant.

(21) The World Customs Organisation customs duty classification of Regular Pringles is different from potato crisps which have a separate heading. Pringles fall within a crisp savoury foods heading, as does tortilla chips.

Contentions of the parties

6. Mr Cordara for the Appellant contends in outline:

(1) Regular Pringles are not similar to potato crisps on the ground of regularity of shape, having a shape not found in nature, uniform colouring, texture, taste particularly "mouth-melt." Crisps do not contain non-potato flours as does Pringles. Crisps are not normally packaged in tubes.

(2) No one ingredient of Regular Pringles is over 50 per cent.

(3) The manufacturing process is different from potato crisps and more like that of a cake or biscuit, being made from a dough, then cut into a standard shape, and then cooked separately.

(4) Customers do not see Regular Pringles as potato crisps. The ingredients of products in the modern snack market are largely irrelevant to purchasers, as is demonstrated by the labelling requirements.

(5) The approach of the Tribunal in the Pringles Dippers case should be followed both as to similarity to potato crisps and whether Regular Pringles are made from potato flour.

(6) The World Customs Organisation categorises Regular Pringles with other savoury snacks and separately from potato crisps, which is merely a factor to be taken into account.

7. Mr Hill, for Customs, contends in outline:

(1) The Tribunal in the Pringle Dippers case made two errors. First, it considered that it was possible to make potato crisps almost entirely out of potato. The maximum potato content of a normal potato crisp is in the 60s and 70s per cent range. There was no need for the draftsman to say partly made from the potato etc because none of potato crisps, potato sticks or potato puffs could be made wholly from potato. The "made from the potato, from potato flour or from potato starch" part of the test implies that the product is partly made from such products. The degree is determined by whether the product being similar to a potato crisp. In order for a product to be similar to a potato crisp it needs to have a significant potato content.

(2) Secondly, the Tribunal confused the two tests. The reason that potato cakes (or farls), which are made almost wholly from potato, remain zero-rated is that they fail the test of being similar to potato crisps. That cannot support their argument that the comparative amount of potato is not conclusive and therefore the product must be made almost wholly from potato products in order to satisfy the "made from" test.

(3) The similarity of Regular Pringles with potato crisps consists of the following: potato is the main ingredient; they are not intended for dipping as are tortilla chips; they are intended to be eaten as a snack and are not purchased primarily for nutrition; they are intended to be eaten on their own; the texture is more similar to potato crisps than tortilla chips; they broadly resemble the shape of potato crisps rather than the triangular shape of tortilla chips; any product made from potato flour will have to be manufactured from a dough; not all potato crisps are sold in bags, some are sold in canisters.

(4) The World Customs Organisation categorisation is based on different criteria. Food labelling regulations are also irrelevant as they apply also to zero-rated non-potato products.

Reasons for our decision

8. On the approach that we should adopt, Lord Woolf said in Customs and Excise Commissioners v Ferrero UK Ltd [1977] STC 881 concerning whether certain products were biscuits under the same Group:

"I do urge tribunals, when considering issues of this sort, not to be misled by authorities which are no more than authorities of fact into elevating issues of fact into questions of principle when it is not appropriate to do so on any inquiry such as this."

We were not invited to consider other decisions on the issue in this appeal. In Customs and Excise Commissioners v Quaker Oats Ltd [1987] STC 683 in relation to the phrase similar confectionary in another part of group 1, Kennedy J approved the comparison based on ingredients, process, appearance and manufacture. We do not derive any assistance from the VAT Directive. Food is obviously zero-rated for clearly defined social reasons and for the benefit of the final consumer. If Parliament chooses not to zero-rate some foods, whether a product falls on the taxable or zero-rated side of the dividing line is a matter of normal interpretation of domestic legislation.

9. We look first at the purpose of the legislation. VAT took over an existing purchase tax category. The history of that category was that in 1962 ice cream and confectionary was put into a new 15 per cent rate, which was increased to 22 per cent in 1969 when potato crisps and salted and roasted nuts were added. The current wording of Exempted group 5 was the same as the 1969 purchase tax wording. One can detect an intention by Parliament to tax food not normally bought primarily for nutrition but eaten as snacks. As the Pringles Dippers Tribunal stated at [49] they are the sort of food that might have been purchased with pocket money in a sweet shop in the 1960s, as distinguished from more nutritional foods that would be purchased from a grocery shop. The industry has changed very considerably since then and singling out potato products now seems strange given the variety of savoury snacks on the market many of which do not have any potato content. Although there was a consultation paper issued in 1992 proposing to update the category nothing became of it. Because of the age of the legislation and the very considerable changes in the market since then we find little help in the purpose of the legislation in deciding this appeal. Indeed the unreality of our task is demonstrated by the fact that while the legislation concentrates on potato content, for which there was no doubt good reason in the 1960s when potato crisps were the main savoury snack, as stated in paragraph 5(13) above, six of the Appellant's top 10 competing products have no potato content and five of them are zero-rated (one being standard-rated on other grounds). However, we accept Mr Hill's contention that in general the intention of Parliament was to standard-rate food that was not purchased primarily for the purpose of nutrition.
10. The legislation imposes a double test, both parts of which have to be satisfied if a food product is to be standard-rated: (a) whether the product is similar to potato crisps, potato sticks or potato puffs; and (b) whether it is made from the potato, or from potato flour, or potato starch. Thus potato content is not decisive; it is only potato products that are similar to potato crisps (to avoid repetition we shall not continue to repeat references to potato sticks or puffs) that are standard-rated. Thus if the product contains no potato (as was the case for six out of the top 10 competing products in the list in paragraph 5(13) above) one need not even ask whether test (a) is satisfied. Conversely a product made entirely of potato is only standard-rated if it is similar to a potato crisp. A difficulty is that a product may be, and Regular Pringles are, made of potato flour and something else. The legislation is silent on the proportion that satisfies that it is made "from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch." Mr Hill was reluctant to imply any such proportion but he contended that a product that did not contain a significant proportion of potato would not satisfy test (a) so that one need not consider the proportion in applying test (b) so long as there was some potato content. He contended that it must be implied that the draftsman knew that a potato crisp could not be made entirely from potato and so test (b) must apply to products made partly from potato products. Mr Cordara contended that the intention of Parliament was clear in requiring that potato, potato flour or potato starch (or a combination of them) should be the overwhelming ingredient.
11. Regular Pringles are a unique product in ingredients, taste, and shape, and so asking whether they are similar to potato crisps as required by test (a) is a difficult task. Each party produced an impressive list of ways in which they were similar, or dissimilar, to potato crisps. In Quaker Oats it was agreed that test (a) was that of the ordinary reasonable man in the street which should take into account appearance, taste, ingredients, process of manufacture, marketing and packaging.
12. As Mr Cordara stated, the answer to the test depends on the level of generality at which it is posed. But if we are to take account of all the factors of appearance, taste, ingredients, process of manufacture, marketing and packaging, it is clearly wrong to say that Regular Pringles are similar to potato crisps as a crispy savoury snack, with potato content, made by frying, and marketed as a snack.
13. We consider that in applying this test we should ignore the difference that Regular Pringles are made from flours and that the manufacturing process involves making a dough, on the basis that this will necessarily be true of any products made from potato flour or potato starch which clearly must be capable of satisfying test (b). We shall ignore the US website references to Pringles' similarity with potato crisps on the basis that crisps has no particular meaning in US parlance. As did the Tribunal in the Pringles Dippers case, we also ignore the World Customs Organisation categorisation, as being aimed at a different test and also probably being outside the knowledge of the reasonable man.
14. We are reluctant to grade the other factors to be considered, as the Tribunal did in the Pringles Dippers case, who took the ingredients as the most important, the size of packaging, marketing for dipping, manufacture, appearance and taste apparently in that order (or at least taking the first three as the most important in that order). We consider that the reasonable man applies the test as a whole without applying an order. However, we do not regard the shape of Regular Pringles as particularly important to this test given the wide variety of products on the market. Nor do we regard the size of packaging as particularly important. While potato crisps may primarily be sold in smaller packs, they are often sold in larger packs, and occasionally in tubes, and a smaller proportion of Regular Pringles are sold in smaller packs. While we are aware of the potato content, the reasonable man may not be aware of the fact that a normal potato crisp has a maximum potato percentage in the 70s, the next largest ingredient being fat, or that Regular Pringles have a potato content of about 42 per cent because this is not required to be stated on the packaging. While the potato content of Regular Pringles is not advertised as such, a purchaser can see from the label that it does contain potato.
15. Standing back and taking all the factors of appearance, taste, ingredients, process of manufacture, marketing and packaging together (other than the ones we have stated above that we should ignore) and applying the reasonable man test in test (a), we consider that while in many respects Regular Pringles are different from potato crisps and so they are near the borderline, they are sufficiently similar to satisfy that test.
16. In relation to test (b) whether they are made from the potato, potato flour or potato starch, in the Pringles Dippers case the Tribunal said at [87]:

"Two aspects of this phrase are telling, namely the reference to 'the potato' and the fact that the words 'made from' are not followed by the words 'or partly from.' In our view both of these aspects of the phrase point to the conclusion that the products referred to are made wholly (or substantially wholly) from potato. We are confirmed in this view that the presence of potato, or the amount of potato, in a product is not a factor which, by itself, takes the product out of zero-rating. Indeed, some products made almost wholly of potato (for example, potato farls,) are zero-rated. That must mean that the mere fact that a product contains some potato is not conclusive and so the comparative amount of potato (if less than the whole) cannot be conclusive either"

We respectfully disagree. The context is that such products are similar to potato crisps, the potato content of which is in the 60s to 70s per cent range, the higher figure being for low fat crisps which we suspect were not made in the 1960s although we do not have any evidence of this. We consider that the draftsman should be taken to know that potato crisps are not made substantially wholly from potato. Nor do we read anything into the slightly pedantic reference to "the potato" rather than to "potatoes." We agree with Mr Hill's criticism of the second part of the quotation; the reason why some products made wholly from potato are zero-rated is that they are not similar to potato crisps in test (a), and so test (b) is irrelevant and this cannot be used as an argument for the interpretation of test (b). We do not therefore find any implication that similar products must be so made. Accordingly we consider that the implication is that they can be partly so made. This immediately raises the question of what is the minimum proportion that will satisfy the test. We are attracted by Mr Hill's argument that the question is unlikely to arise when the proportion is very low because such a product is unlikely to be similar to a potato crisp, but we do not need to decide that in this case.

17. Here the potato flour content is over 40 per cent; it is the largest single ingredient by about 9 percentage points; and it is nearly three times larger than the other flours in the ingredients taken together. We have to give a yes or no answer to the question "are Regular Pringles [partly] made from the potato, from potato flour or from potato starch" and we are bound to say yes. There are other ingredients but it is made from potato flour in the sense that one cannot say that it is not made from potato flour, and the proportion of potato flour is significant being over 40 per cent. The fact that it is also made from other things does not affect this. Accordingly we find that Regular Pringles are made from potato flour and satisfy test (b).
18. We are conscious that it is undesirable that we have come to a different conclusion from the Tribunal in the Pringles Dippers case on the answer to tests (a) and (b), the decision in which has no doubt encouraged the Appellant to bring this appeal. Our principal disagreement with the previous tribunal is over test (b) and whether the legislation means wholly or partly from potato products. Test (a) is a matter of degree and Pringles Dippers had differences from potato crisps that are not present in Regular Pringles. Nothing we have said affects Pringles Dippers which are in any case outside Excepted Item 5 as not being packaged for consumption without further preparation.
19. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal in relation to the formulation of Regular Pringles from autumn 2004 to the present. Customs gave notice that they intended asking for costs but we omitted to raise the point at the end of the hearing. Subject to their applying for costs by notice to the Tribunal within 21 days from the date of release of this decision we shall award them.

JOHN F. AVERY JONES

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE DATE: 25 June 2007

LON/06/0371 (redacted version)