![TC09514 - [2025] UKFTT 00524 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
Submissions
In summary Mr Abernethy submitted as follows:
The delay in making a valid appeal (which, even on the most benevolent interpretation of the documents was not until 2 July 2024, which is 164 days late) is serious and significant.
The appellant had been notified by the tribunal that its original attempt to submit an appeal on 17 January 2024, was defective. This was set out in the tribunal’s letter of 26 January 2024, which was notified to the appellant on that date, and subsequently on 23 April 2024.
No good reasons have been given why the appellant failed to upload the review conclusion letter with its original appeal to the tribunal.
Mr Cardey’s explanation of why he then failed to follow up the tribunal’s letter, namely that he took his eye off the ball because the company had paid the safeguarding duty on 17 January 2024, is not a good reason for that failure.
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- THE LAW
- Right of appeal
- The Rules
- Case law
- EVIDENCE AND FACTS
- The consequence of using a duty override code was that no customs duty was paid on the imported steel
- He followed up that letter by issuing the decision letter which confirmed his original view, on 7 November 2023
- The appellant requested a statutory review of the decision and in the review conclusion letter dated 20 December 2023 (“ the review conclusion letter ”) the reviewing officer upheld the decision
- That letter from the tribunal also explained that the appellant should rectify the error before resubmitting the notice of appeal, and that if this meant that the notice of appeal was submitted outsid
- DISCUSSION
- No weight should be attached to the fact that the appellant is a litigant in person
- Our view
- Conclusions