Canmi Ltd v Revenue & Customs (application for stay pending the CJEU decision) [2020] UKFTT 16 (TC) (09 January 2020)

Canmi Ltd v Revenue & Customs (application for stay pending the CJEU decision) [2020] UKFTT 16 (TC) (09 January 2020)

A stay was refused because the facts in this case remain to be found, and the CJEU decision in Perfect would not provide sufficient material assistance or expediency at this stage. The defence of innocent agent cannot be considered until findings of fact are made regarding the appellant's knowledge. The issues in Perfect concern physical possession under Regulation 13, whereas this case concerns involvement under Regulation 12, making the CJEU decision unlikely to be determinative or materially assistive without factual findings.

Citation
[2020] UKFTT 16
Parties
Appellant: Canmi Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
09 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay Pending CJEU Decision / Interlocutory Application Prior to Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay refused
Legal Topics
Excise Duty Liability, Joint and Several Liability, Irregular Importation, Case Management Stay, Strict Liability, Innocent Agent Defence
Tax Law Customs and Excise Excise Duty Liability Joint and Several Liability Irregular Importation Case Management Stay Strict Liability Innocent Agent Defence

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canmi Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay Pending CJEU Decision / Interlocutory Application Prior to Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a stay of proceedings pending the CJEU decision in HMRC v Martin Glenn Perfect
  2. 2 Whether the CJEU decision in Perfect would provide material assistance to the substantive appeal
  3. 3 Whether the appellant can rely on the 'innocent agent' defence in the context of Regulation 12

Ratio Decidendi

A stay was refused because the facts in this case remain to be found, and the CJEU decision in Perfect would not provide sufficient material assistance or expediency at this stage. The defence of innocent agent cannot be considered until findings of fact are made regarding the appellant's knowledge. The issues in Perfect concern physical possession under Regulation 13, whereas this case concerns involvement under Regulation 12, making the CJEU decision unlikely to be determinative or materially assistive without factual findings.

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused

Orders

  • The appellant’s application for a stay is refused.
  • The appellant’s application for a reference to the CJEU is refused.