'No caviar here': Sushi King wins Customs dispute
KUALA LUMPUR: They may be tiny, colourful and look a little like caviar, but fish eggs found on sushi are not necessarily considered a luxury delicacy under the law.
In a recent decision, the High Court has ruled that certain fish eggs found on sushi are not considered caviar substitutes under the law, despite being seasoned, coloured, and preserved. The dispute revolved around whether tobiko, masago, and frozen mentaiko imported by Sushi King Sdn Bhd should be subject to an 8 per cent import duty or zero import duty.
Initially, the Customs Department classified the products as caviar substitutes, but Sushi King successfully appealed this decision to the Customs Appeal Tribunal, which ruled in its favor in December 2023. The Customs Department director-general then challenged the tribunal's decision in the High Court, arguing that the products met the requirements for caviar substitutes due to their processing methods and fish egg content.
However, Judge Norliza Othman disagreed, stating that not all fish roe can be classified as caviar substitutes and that how the products are consumed is an important factor in their classification. Norliza noted that the World Customs Organisation's guidelines define caviar substitutes as products made from fish eggs other than sturgeon, prepared and consumed as caviar.
She concluded that the imported goods should be classified according to the relevant legal provisions and the WCO's guidelines, emphasizing that Sushi King's products were used as toppings or garnishes in Japanese cuisine and not marketed as alternatives to caviar.
Written by urgent.news from New Straits Times's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
