Recoverypak Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 226 (TC) (19 May 2010)

Recoverypak Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 226 (TC) (19 May 2010)

The Appellant failed to declare the correct classification code, and there was no credible evidence that incorrect advice was given by the Commissioners. The goods underwent substantial transformation in China, making China the country of origin. Anti-Dumping Duty was therefore due, and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2010] UKFTT 226
Parties
Appellant: Recoverypak Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Post Clearance Demand, Incorrect Customs Declaration, Anti Dumping Duty, Country of Origin, Tariff Classification, Notice of Duty Imposition
Customs Law Tax Law European Union Law Post Clearance Demand Incorrect Customs Declaration Anti Dumping Duty Country of Origin Tariff Classification +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Recoverypak Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether incorrect information was given to the Appellant by the Commissioners regarding tariff classification
  2. 2 Whether insufficient notice of the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty was given
  3. 3 Whether the goods originated in China or the UK for the purposes of Anti-Dumping Duty

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant failed to declare the correct classification code, and there was no credible evidence that incorrect advice was given by the Commissioners. The goods underwent substantial transformation in China, making China the country of origin. Anti-Dumping Duty was therefore due, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed