French Sole (Marylebone) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 913 (TC)
Anra Deals Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
13 September 2023
[2023] UKFTT 755 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company imported goods with many mistakes on the paperwork. They'd been warned before about this. The government seized the goods and wouldn't give them back. The company tried to appeal, but the judge said the government was right because the company hadn't tried hard enough to get the paperwork right.
Key Facts
- •Anra Deals Limited (appellant) imported goods with incorrect import declarations.
- •18 of 21 entries (85%) were incorrect, leading to the seizure of goods.
- •Appellant had been previously warned about incorrect declarations.
- •Appellant used a third-party website for tariff codes after their agent refused to assist.
- •HMRC refused restoration of seized goods, citing the substantial number of errors and previous warning.
- •Appellant argued honest mistake, disproportionate penalty, and difficulties obtaining correct codes.
- •HMRC maintained that the seizure and refusal to restore were proportionate and in line with policy.
- •Appellant had not demonstrated increased due diligence after the previous warning.
Legal Principles
Unreasonableness of a decision
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Restoration refusal review – supervisory jurisdiction
s16(4) Finance Act 1994
Importer's responsibility for accurate declaration
Implicit in HMRC policy and decision-making
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found the refusal to restore was not unreasonable. HMRC considered all relevant factors, and the appellant's actions did not demonstrate sufficient due diligence.