TC09514 - [2025] UKFTT 00524 (TC)

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 outside the original time limit, the appellant must give its grounds for making a late appeal on the Notice of Appeal form. It goes on to say that if the appellant did not “the Tribunal will reject the appeal again”. (Emphasis in the original).

The tribunal’s letter was emailed to Mr Cardey on 26 January 2024, and then again on 23 April 2024. On that latter date, Mr Cardey resubmitted the original notice of appeal together with a copy of the review conclusion letter but, given that the 30 day time limit had expired, did not provide, in the notice of appeal, grounds for making a late appeal. Indeed, the notice of appeal stated that the appeal was made in time.

On 2 July 2024, Mr Cardey spoke to a member of the tribunal staff over the telephone, and followed up with an email, on that date, to “confirm the reasons [for] the late response…”.

In a letter dated 20 August 2024 to Mr Cardey, the tribunal acknowledged receipt of the notice of appeal dated 23 April 2024 and deemed it to have included an application for permission to make a late appeal.

The notice of appeal records four grounds of appeal. Firstly, the CHIEF system was not working properly which was a Brexit transitional issue. Quotas were not accessible on the system and the only way to get clearances through was with a duty override code. Secondly, the quota had been exhausted by the time the appellant made a retrospective claim, and no explanation has been given for this by HMRC. Thirdly, safeguarding duty which is described as a safeguarding measure is damaging the UK steel industry. Finally, given announcements by the Government concerning EU and UK trade deals, which suggested zero tariffs and zero quotas would be introduced, the appellant had no reason to suspect that quotas were in place during the relevant period.

It was Mr Cardey’s evidence that: once he had paid the safeguarding duty on 17 January 2024, he relaxed; he took his eye off the ball: he is a businessman not a lawyer, and it was therefore understandable that he failed to upload the correct document with the company’s notice of appeal on 17 January 2024: he is responsible for providing full-time care and support to his son who has significant mental health issues, and thus Mr Cardey suffers from regular sleep deprivation: during the first half of 2024, the company was extremely busy as most of its customers had a record year in 2024: the company employed agents to deal with its imports who told them that there was no need to make a quota claim: they were told that it was quicker and easier to use an override code since this would ease the traffic jams around Kent.