news agency
Free Tea: AJE will not have to pay more than S/239 million to Sunat thanks to the ruling of the TC

Free Tea: AJE will not have to pay more than S/239 million to Sunat thanks to the ruling of the TC

Ajeper SA, a subsidiary of the Peruvian multinational AJE Group, will not have to pay the S/239,381,464 that it had in dispute with the National Superintendence of Customs and Taxes (Sunat) for the safety of its product Free Tea, after the Constitutional Court (TC) determined that, in effect, it is a “healthy” drink, for which reason the application of the Selective Consumption Tax (ISC) does not correspond.

The amount in controversy accumulated between 2009 and 2016. The Añaños family company filed a lawsuit before the TC in defense of its “fundamental rights” to test the product and to due motivation during the process with the Sunat in the contentious-administrative stage before the Judiciary.

Ajeper lost in all instances, including in the Judiciary. What happened? The multinational stated that Free Tea had the quality of “healthy or nutritional drink” (2202.90.00.00), with which it was no longer taxed with ISC. However, since 2010, the Sunat classified it in a tariff subheading for products that contain flavored or sweetened water that includes mineral and carbonated water (2202.10.00.00).

In response, Aje presented a number of pieces of evidence in his favor, including a report from the European Union in which it was indicated that it qualified the product as a healthy drink. In view of this conflict, the TC finally stated that “the product under analysis contains vitamins and avigo tea, which makes the drink healthy, so it must be classified in Item 2202.90.00.00, in number 22 of the resolution” .

According to the TC, “the Sunat and the Judiciary omitted to carry out an analysis of the pertinent means of evidence intended to prove that the components of the Free Tea product distinguished it from the products classified in subheading 2202.10.00.00, and justified its classification in subheading 2202.90.00.00”. Likewise, this institution indicates that the PJ incurred in an “evident transgression” to the right of evidence.

Source: Larepublica

You may also like

Hot News

TRENDING NEWS

Subscribe

follow us

Immediate Access Pro