Key Facts
- •Janch Limited, a UK-incorporated company importing clothes from China, appealed late against HMRC decisions concerning underpaid import duty (£162,986.10) and VAT (£387,606.54), and a C18 Post Clearance Demand (£550,592.64).
- •The appeal was 30 days late (submitted 7 June 2022, due by 7 May 2022).
- •HMRC alleged undervaluation of goods and non-compliance with Onward Supply Relief (OSR) for VAT.
- •The Appellant's accountant, Pro Tax Plus Accountants, received HMRC correspondence but failed to act promptly.
- •Appellant's representatives provided inconsistent and belated explanations for the delay.
- •Appellant failed to provide sufficient grounds of appeal or supporting evidence despite repeated requests from HMRC.
Legal Principles
Three-stage test for late appeals: (1) length of delay, (2) reasons for delay, (3) all circumstances of the case, balancing prejudice to both parties.
Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)
Presumption that statutory time limits should be respected; applicant must justify granting permission to appeal late.
Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)
Significant breach of time limits warrants consideration of all three stages of the Martland test.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department v SS (Congo) and others [2015] ECWCA Civ 387; Romasave (Property Services) Limited v HMRC [2015] UKUT 0254 (TCC)
Failings of a litigant's advisors are generally treated as failings of the litigant.
HMRC v Katib [2019] UKUT 0189 (TCC)
Public interest in observing statutory time limits; allowing late appeals without good reason may encourage disregard of time limits.
Rose v HMRC [2009] UKFTT 189 (TCC)
Outcomes
Permission to appeal out of time refused.
Significant delay (30 days) with no good reason; Appellant's failure to engage with the case and provide necessary information; balancing exercise under Martland favoured HMRC due to inefficiency and lack of evidence.