Zackrisson v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 684 (TC) (27 October 2011)

Zackrisson v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 684 (TC) (27 October 2011)

There was no error by customs authorities within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b), as the correct duty was charged and any alleged error was reasonably detectable by the appellant through publicly available information. The appellant's reliance on alleged misleading advice did not meet the threshold for repayment, and the claim of unjust enrichment was not supported as the duties were legally owed.

Citation
[2011] UKFTT 684 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Alan Zackrisson; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
27 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Dumping Duty, Customs Duties, Repayment of Duties, Error by Customs Authorities, Unjust Enrichment
Tax Law Customs Law European Union Law Anti Dumping Duty Customs Duties Repayment of Duties Error by Customs Authorities Unjust Enrichment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Zackrisson

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an error was made by customs authorities in charging Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD)
  2. 2 Whether the appellant could have reasonably detected any such error
  3. 3 Whether HMRC was unjustly enriched by receipt of the duty

Ratio Decidendi

There was no error by customs authorities within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b), as the correct duty was charged and any alleged error was reasonably detectable by the appellant through publicly available information. The appellant's reliance on alleged misleading advice did not meet the threshold for repayment, and the claim of unjust enrichment was not supported as the duties were legally owed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed