[2025] UKUT 00031 (TCC)

Under this ground, Laurence Supply’s written submissions, as developed orally by Mr Brown, challenge three sets of findings by reference to certain paragraphs in the FTT Decision as amounting to errors of law on the basis the findings are (1) based on a finding of fact or inference from fact which is perverse or irrational; or (2) lacking in evidence or (3) made by reference to irrelevant factors or without regard to relevant factors.

In further support for this ground Laurence Supply sought to rely on a witness statement from Mr Mark Gordon which amongst other matters exhibited a set of purchase orders in respect of handbags for its customer River Island and was said to represent some 70% of its turnover during the relevant period. It is accepted that Laurence Supply had these orders in its possession at all times. Foreshadowing HMRC’s objection to adducing this evidence now Laurence Supply’s application attaching the new evidence explained that Laurence Supply “…did not produce these documents at the FTT hearing as it understood HMRC’s case was binary i.e. if it could prove Item C qualified for 3.7% duty rate, then all other items, being made from the same material would also be classified as such and the assessment would fall away.” The purchase orders detail the composition of the goods ordered as being “100% Polyurethane”. As well as pointing out the evidence could have been adduced earlier, HMRC submit the evidence is irrelevant. It revealed nothing about the visual appearance of the products and whether they have the appearance of manufactured plastic sheeting. The orders were not linked to the imported goods on the C18. For the purposes of this application for permission, I will proceed, in the applicant’s favour, on the assumption that the purchase orders would be admitted. Mr Brown fairly accepted that the orders were minor evidentially (they just added to the overall picture and showed the goods passed the first hurdle of being goods made out of polyurethane but were not conclusive of the 3.7% duty classification).