Case-law
Case-law
In this section we briefly summarise those case-law propositions relevant to putting Mr Ali’s grounds into context. We did not understand there to be any real dispute over the legal principles relevant to whether an assessment ought to have been made on an earlier supplier, and as to what constitutes “holding” (although as will be seen the principles have been progressively clarified over the period from when the FTT heard the case, issued its decision, the Upper Tribunal gave permission and when the appeal was heard before us). Rather the grounds concern whether the FTT Decision misinterpreted and/or misapplied those principles.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Law
- Case-law
- Assessment of earlier duty point
- Meaning of “holding” in the Regulations?
- FTT Decision and background
- Grounds of Appeal
- Discussion
- Does the error mean the FTT’s decision should be set aside?
- Ground 2 – Palm Palace Limited, not Mr Ali, had sufficient control in order to be “holding” for the purposes of Regulation 10(1) of the Regulations
- Ground 3 – the FTT failed to give sufficient reasons for the conclusion that Mr Ali was “holding” tobacco for Regulation 10(1) purposes
- Conclusions
![UT/2019/000009 - [2024] UKUT 00176 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)