Key Facts
- •Appeal against two C18 Post-Clearance Demand Notices totaling £18,924.98.
- •Notices issued due to valuation and classification errors in six imports.
- •Appellant, M & S Property Services (NW) Ltd, imported electronic bicycles.
- •Dispute centered on correct commodity code: 8711609090 (appellant's claim) vs. 8711609010 (HMRC's claim).
- •Key difference: Code 8711609010 includes anti-dumping and countervailing duties for bicycles with pedal assistance.
- •Appellant claimed goods lacked pedal assistance; HMRC argued otherwise.
- •Appellant's evidence deemed insufficient to meet burden of proof.
Legal Principles
Customs value of goods is primarily the transaction value (price paid/payable for export).
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (UCC) Article 70(1) (pre-31/12/20) and Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, Part 1, Section 16(3) (post-01/01/21)
Goods classification uses the Common Customs Tariff of the European Union (pre-31/12/2020) or the UK Global Tariff (post-01/01/21).
Articles 56 and 57 of UCC (pre-31/12/2020); Sections 7 and 8 of TCTA (post-01/01/21)
Tariff classification follows General Interpretive Rules. Most specific description takes precedence.
General Interpretive Rules (not explicitly sourced but referenced)
Appellant bears the burden of proof to show the commodity code used was correct.
s16(6) Finance Act 1994
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof in demonstrating the imported goods lacked pedal assistance.
HMRC demand notices upheld in full.
Insufficient evidence supported appellant's claim; HMRC's evidence and appellant's own contradictory statements pointed to pedal-assist bicycles.