TC09625 - [2025] UKFTT 01066 (TC)

Fecha: 19-Ago-2025

Disproportionate?

Disproportionate?

67.

Mr Mciver also submitted that it would be disproportionate to give the disclosure sought by UWG, because it would require HMRC to search not only their electronic files, but also paper files in various locations.

68.

I disagree, for the following reasons:

(1)

As the UT said in Hughes, “the obligation to assess the first duty point for which sufficient information is available is an obligation on HMRC as a body…what mattered was what HMRC as a body knew”. As HMRC is a national organisation, it follows that what it knows “as a body” may be stored in more than one location.

(2)

As Mr Thornton said, if and to the extent that HMRC have evidence about Brands, GB, or other entities in the supply chain, HMRC must already have considered that evidence before deciding that UWG was the first holder of the goods. Locating the evidence about the supply chains should thus not beonerous, and the burden not disproportionate.

(3)

In relation to Mr Mciver’s comment about paper files, there was no evidence before me about how HMRC stored their data. However, I find it very unlikely that their earlier paper files have no indexing system. Until the advent of electronic filing, HMRC would always have had to search paper files wherever they were involved in litigation to which the CPR applied and must have a method for doing so.