![TC09514 - [2025] UKFTT 00524 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
This decision deals with an application by the appellant (or “the company”) for permission to bring an out of time appeal (“the application”) against the decision by HMRC set out in the decision letter dated 7 November 2023 (“thedecision letter”) in which HMRC decided (“the decision”) that the appellant was liable to pay safeguarding duties of £243,599.87 (“the duty”) together with import VAT of £48,720.03 arising from the importation of steel products between January and November 2021.
The decision was upheld on review on 20 December 2023 (“the review conclusion”). However, it was not until 2 July 2024 that the company appealed to the tribunal.
This is outside the 30 day period permitted by the relevant legislation. HMRC oppose the application.
For the reasons given later in this decision, we have rejected the application, and the appellant does not have permission to appeal against the decision, or indeed against the review conclusion, out of time.
- 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