TC09661 - [2025] UKFTT 01227 (TC)

s16(3) FA 1994 states that an appeal against a relevant decision shall not be entertained if the amount of relevant duty which HMRC have determined to be payable in relation to that decision has not been paid or deposited with HMRC, or a hardship application has been granted by HMRC or the Tribunal. s13A FA 1994 includes, in the definition of ‘relevant decision’, any decision by HMRC as to whether or not a person is entitled to drawback, or the amount of drawback to which a person is entitled.

The excise duty assessed in 2014 and unsuccessfully appealed has never been paid. HMRC contend that, as the duty has not been paid and no hardship application has been granted, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

BSS contend that s16(3) is a sweeping catch-all provision and the statute refers to payment of “the amount of relevant duty which HMRC have determined to be payable in relation to that decision”. It is contended that, in the refusal of a drawback claim as in this instance, there has been no determination by HMRC of an amount to be payable in relation to that refusal. Any amount payable was determined by the assessment which was unsuccessfully appealed; BSS contend that that is not an amount payable in relation to the relevant decision.

Further, BSS contended that this was not a matter that merited strike out; if hardship is engaged, they contend that the appropriate course of action is to stay the appeal to allow time for the parties to settle the question of hardship.