Hughes v Revenue & Customs (CUSTOMS DUTY : Special situation) [2015] UKFTT 688 (TC) (18 December 2015)

Hughes v Revenue & Customs (CUSTOMS DUTY : Special situation) [2015] UKFTT 688 (TC) (18 December 2015)

The appellant's situation was a 'special situation' within the meaning of Article 239 because he was not a trader, his circumstances were not part of normal commercial risk, and the risk of illness and insurance issues was not a normal professional or commercial risk. Furthermore, the appellant did not act with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] UKFTT 688 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Mr Brian Hughes; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Customs Duty, Value Added Tax, Repayment or Remission of Import Duties, Special Situation Under Article 239, Obvious Negligence
Customs Law Tax Law European Union Law Customs Duty Value Added Tax Repayment or Remission of Import Duties Special Situation Under Article 239 Obvious Negligence

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Brian Hughes

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's circumstances constituted a 'special situation' under Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2913/92
  2. 2 Whether the appellant acted with 'obvious negligence' in relation to the importation of the motorhome

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's situation was a 'special situation' within the meaning of Article 239 because he was not a trader, his circumstances were not part of normal commercial risk, and the risk of illness and insurance issues was not a normal professional or commercial risk. Furthermore, the appellant did not act with obvious negligence as he had taken reasonable steps regarding insurance and acted prudently in returning to the UK. HMRC erred in treating the appellant as a trader and in misapplying the guidance and law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • HMRC to repay the sum of £3,840 to the appellant.