Anra Deals Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 755 (TC)
French Sole (Marylebone) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
30 October 2023
[2023] UKFTT 913 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company's shoes were seized because of mistakes on the import papers (wrong value and type of shoe). Even though the mistakes weren't deliberate, they were big enough that the government wouldn't give the shoes back, and a judge agreed with the government.
Key Facts
- •French Sole (Marylebone) Ltd imported 517 pairs of shoes into the UK.
- •HMRC seized the shoes due to misclassification and undervaluation.
- •A previous appeal (First Appeal Judgment) resulted in a directive for HMRC to undertake a further review.
- •The second review upheld the refusal to restore the shoes.
- •The Appellant's representative failed to appear at the hearing due to travel issues and prior non-compliance.
- •The Tribunal proceeded in the Appellant's absence.
- •The undervaluation of the consignment was significant (£24,076 declared as £5,408.50).
Legal Principles
The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to considering the reasonableness of HMRC's decision.
First Appeal Judgment
A finding that HMRC acted unreasonably does not automatically result in the decision being set aside if the same decision would have inevitably been reached.
John Dee v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1995] STC 941
HMRC's policy is generally not to restore goods on which duty and import VAT have not been paid unless there are exceptional circumstances.
HMRC policy
The Tribunal cannot consider the legality or correctness of the seizure itself if the Appellant did not challenge it through condemnation proceedings.
The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Jones & Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 824
The Tribunal may proceed with a hearing in a party's absence if satisfied the party was notified and it is in the interests of justice.
Rule 33 Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
HMRC's decision was reasonable. The significant undervaluation of the goods, even considering the administrative nature of the error, justified the refusal to restore. The Tribunal considered the Appellant's non-compliance and absence at the hearing.