Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Option 2 constitutes a new methodology not previously pleaded or evidenced, advanced very late, and its admission would prejudice the appellants' ability to respond and jeopardise procedural fairness; therefore, it must be excluded.
Source excerpt
The Upper Tribunal held that O’Neill wetsuits are classifiable under Commodity Code 6113 0010 00, allowed HMRC’s appeal, and set aside the FTT decision.
The delay in conducting the second review did not render the decision unreasonable; the Tribunal has power to extend time for compliance with its directions. The review officer took into account all relevant material, did not consider irrelevant material, and properly exercised discretion. The refusal to restore the vehicle was reasonable in all the circumstances.
Source excerpt
Best Cosmetics is liable for the import VAT because its EORI was used for customs declarations, it was not VAT registered during the relevant period and could not account for VAT, and there is no evidence that UK Best accounted for the postponed VAT in its VAT returns.
Source excerpt
The Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal, holding it was not arguable that the First-tier Tribunal erred on the burden of proof over a disputed direct representation letter.
The imported equipment was not designed solely for use by disabled persons, as conceded by the appellant and confirmed by product specifications. Therefore, it does not qualify for VAT or customs duty relief under the relevant statutory provisions. Previous grants of relief and HMRC guidance do not alter the statutory requirement.
Source excerpt
The Upper Tribunal allowed HMRC’s appeal, held the First-tier Tribunal erred on tariff classification, and dismissed the traders’ cross-appeals about mobility scooters.
The Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal in a Border Force vehicle-restoration case, holding that the First-tier Tribunal made no arguable error of law.
The exemption from anti-dumping and countervailing duty for solar panels imported from China requires presentation of a valid, unexpired export undertaking certificate (EUC) at the time of declaration for release into free circulation. An expired EUC is invalid and does not entitle the importer to exemption. Strict compliance with the procedural requirements is necessary, and failure to present a valid EUC results in liability for duties and associated VAT.
Source excerpt
The delay of 164 days was serious and significant. The reasons for the delay, including being a businessman, personal circumstances, and misunderstanding the process, did not outweigh the need to respect statutory time limits and the prejudice to HMRC. The appellant's grounds of appeal were weak and largely outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. Permission to bring a late appeal was refused.
Source excerpt
Explore more
