UK Tribunal Determines Solar Cells Consigned From Taiwan, Upholds Customs Debt Notification, and Grants Duty Remission

Citation: [2024] UKFTT 85 (TC)
Judgment on


In the case of Canadian Solar EMEA GmbH v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, the UK First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) adjudicated on a number of intricate issues surrounding the importation of solar cells into the UK. This case touches upon the application of anti-dumping and countervailing duties (ADD and CVD), the interpretation of consignment origins, the validity of customs debt notifications, and remission of duties under EU customs law. The legal principles applied in this case are pivotal to understanding the nuances involved in customs and trade law within the UK.

Key Facts

Canadian Solar EMEA GmbH, the appellant, imported solar cells manufactured in Taiwan into the UK but contested the liabilities to ADD, CVD, and import VAT totaling £4,681,762.03 imposed by HMRC. HMRC contended that the cells were “consigned from” Taiwan, while the appellant argued they were consigned from Vietnam; this critical distinction formed the crux of the dispute. Other issues included whether the appellant had been properly notified of the customs debt and whether the appellant’s submissions of amended declarations in February 2021 fulfilled the requirements of the EU’s 2016 Implementing Regulations. The appellant also contested HMRC’s refusal to remit duty.

The tribunal examined a range of legal principles:

  • The interpretation of “consigned from” within the 2016 EU Implementing Regulations, which extended ADD and CVD to imports previously avoiding duties via consignment routes through third countries.
  • The application of ADD and CVD exemptions based on proper invoice declarations, and the window for submitting declarations to claim exemptions.
  • The procedural requirements for validly notifying a party of a customs debt, as outlined in Article 29 and Article 102 of the Union Customs Code (UCC).
  • The criteria for remission of duties under Articles 116, 117, 119, and 120 UCC, particularly the conditions relating to overcharged duties and the “special circumstances” justifying remission under the “general equity” clause.

The tribunal’s analysis was deeply rooted in the statutory text, considering the broader intent and purpose of the regulations, as well as references to EU case law such as Megasol Energie AG v European Commission, which addressed the interpretive nuances of the Implementing Regulations, though it was determined that this case did not directly apply.


The tribunal concluded that the solar cells were indeed “consigned from” Taiwan, rejecting the appellant’s interpretation. The appellant had failed in its argument, which would have wide implications for avoiding ADD and CVD.

It was also decided that HMRC had validly notified the appellant of the customs debt within the mandatory three-year notification period, as required by the UCC.

However, the tribunal did find for the appellant concerning the remission of duty under Article 120 UCC, acknowledging that there were “special circumstances” and an absence of “obvious negligence” on the part of the appellant. This decision took into consideration the complexities of the regulations and the fact that the appellant had sought and received expert legal advice that the 2016 Implementing Regulations did not apply to its imports.


In conclusion, this case reaffirms the complexity of interpreting and applying customs regulations. The tribunal’s careful dissection of “consigned from” against the backdrop of anti-dumping and countervailing duties ensures a continued, cautionary approach by importers on compliance with EU customs regulations. It underscores the importance for traders to meticulously understand and follow the specific requirements for exemptions to avoid significant levies. However, it also recognizes that in cases where the law is ambiguous and due diligence is exercised, there may be grounds for equity-based relief.

This case will serve as a paradigm for future disputes involving cross-border tariffs and the application of trade duties, highlighting the intricate interplay between legal interpretations, regulatory intentions, and principles of fairness within customs law.

Related Summaries