TC09670 - [2025] UKFTT 01260 (TC)

On 14.2.25 the Appellant lodged a T240 Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) with the Tribunal by email.

HMRC were copied to the email using the address [email protected].

The NOA stated at [5.1]:

“Whilst the supply is in time with review letter (Ref: REV-382311) stating an appeal should be made within 30 days of the date of this letter, 17th January 2025, the business considered it's decision in detail prior to lodging this appeal, including seeking advice from it’s authorised representative (The Customs People) with regards to available next steps and their potential outcomes.”

The Grounds of Appeal stated at [6.1] of the NOA were:

“Figa Store Ltd purchase fabric and material from UK suppliers, which is subsequently exported to a factory in Morocco, where this fabric is processed. Specifically, while in Morocco, the fabric is cut, made into a garment (exclusively women's clothing), packaged and exported from Morocco and re-imported into the UK prior to onward supply by Figa Stores Ltd.

The material exported out of the UK is primarily polyester fabric, although some cotton fabric is also exported outside the UK for processing prior to re-import.

As per the notification of final decision (ref: CFSS-5606311) issued on 31^st October, it is HMRC's view that the business has incorrectly claimed preference of goods imported for Morocco and has subsequently raised a Cl 8 with a total value of £1,052,965.00, including £878,730.54 customs duty.

The basis of the assessment as stated on the final decision is that the officer considers that following his audit the goods imported from Morocco under cover of EUR1s do not qualify for preferential treatment.

On review, the Rules of Origin governing preferential origin between the UK and Morocco are met for some of the consignments in question. In this regard we are also looking to agree a way forward in quantifying the true debt involved.

In this respect and on discussions with Figa Store Ltd and on reviewing relevant documentation, including long terms suppliers' declarations (LTSDs) that are in place, which I attach for reference, we have concluded that the assessment in it's current form is not appropriate as the LTSDs confirm that a proportion of material exported from the UK is of UK origin and so are treated as originating material under cumulation.

In summary, the decision is disputed on the basis that, under cumulation, duty is not due on a proportion of the goods covered by HMRC's decision.”

The boxes in the “Checklist” section of the NOA were both ticked as confirming that (a) a copy of the original decision notice or letter, and (b) a copy of the review conclusion letter were included with the NOA. Neither document was in fact included with the NOA.

Mr. Atkins, who lodged the NOA, mistakenly failed to attach the documents and did not realise his error at the time of lodging. Mr. Atkins was aware of the requirement to attach the documents and accepted that he failed to take reasonable care by not including them with the NOA.

There were no defects in the NOA itself.

On 3.3.25 at 09:41a Tribunal clerk notified Mr. Atkins that the Appellant’s appeal had been returned because a copy of any written record of any decision appealed against, and/or any statement of reasons for that decision, that the appellant has or can reasonably obtain, was not received with the NOA. There was no judicial consideration of whether the NOA should have been rejected.

Mr. Atkins’ line manager was not in the office on 3.3.25. Mr. Atkins discussed the issue with him on 4.3.25 and redrafted the appeal documentation that day. There was an issue with the online T240 form which prevented Mr. Atkins from printing the document, in that all but one text box disappeared when he tried to do so. Mr. Atkins did not attempt to use a pdf version of the form, which he could have done. On 5.3.25 Mr. Atkins reattempted using the online T240 and the issue was resolved. On the same day Mr. Atkins sent the form to the Appellant to sign it. On 6.3.25 at 12:15 Mr. Atkins re-filed the NOA with both the original decision letter and review conclusion letter.

By this point the NOA was 17 days beyond the 30-day time limit to make an appeal.

On 30.5.25 the Respondents objected to the application to make a late appeal.

The main purpose of the appeal was for the Appellant to enter ADR (which cannot be done absent an appeal being made to the Tribunal), but the Appellant’s ultimate purpose in making the appeal was because it was of the view that it had evidence to prove that preferential origin treatment could apply to a proportion of the goods that were the subject of the C18 demand.