Fox v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY APPEALS : Jurisdiction) [2016] UKFTT 669 (TC) (23 September 2016)

Fox v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY APPEALS : Jurisdiction) [2016] UKFTT 669 (TC) (23 September 2016)

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider financial hardship as a ground for remission of customs debts under the Community Customs Code, and the appellant has no alternative grounds with a reasonable prospect of success. The procedural irregularity regarding the right to be heard does not affect the outcome as it would not have changed the decision.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 669 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Michael Fox; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
23 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Appeal (jurisdiction) / Application to Strike Out Appeal
Outcome
Appeal struck out
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Customs Debt, Jurisdiction, Remission of Duty, Right to Be Heard, Financial Hardship
Tax Law Customs Law European Union Law Excise Duty Customs Debt Jurisdiction Remission of Duty Right to Be Heard +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Fox

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Appeal (jurisdiction) / Application to Strike Out Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider financial hardship as a ground for remission of customs debts
  2. 2 Whether the appellant has alternative substantive grounds of appeal with a reasonable prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether infringement of the 'Right to be Heard' period is sufficient for annulment of the C18 demand

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider financial hardship as a ground for remission of customs debts under the Community Customs Code, and the appellant has no alternative grounds with a reasonable prospect of success. The procedural irregularity regarding the right to be heard does not affect the outcome as it would not have changed the decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck out

Orders

  • Application to strike out proceedings granted under Rule 8(2)(a) and 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Rules 2009
  • Requirement for filing a Statement of Case suspended until 60 days after the preliminary matter is dealt with