![[2025] UKUT 00142 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Additional facts and the structure of the FTT’s Decision
Additional facts and the structure of the FTT’s Decision
These comprise the relevant background facts. Our consideration of the issues before us will oblige us to refer to other matters of fact and/or to expand upon the foregoing factual recitation. We want to make clear that such factual references are drawn from the Decision and we have not found any facts outside the Decision.
We make this point because one of HMRC’s arguments in regard to the general equity issue was that the FTT’s decision on this point was flawed because it was inadequately reasoned. In particular, it was said that it was not possible to understand the reasoned basis for the FTT’s conclusion on the general equity issue. This is obviously a very serious criticism of the Decision, and we will come to it in due course. But it is appropriate now to provide an overview of the structure of the Decision insofar as it relates to the FTT’s consideration of the general equity issue. All paragraph references are again to the Decision:
The facts and general legal background (which is, in this case, very difficult to separate from the facts, although the Decision helpfully uses headings and sub-headings) are generally stated in [6] to [70].
At [71], there is a summary of the main issues before the FTT, with the general equity issue being identified last (rightly so, if we may say so) at [71(5)].
Substantive consideration of the general equity issue begins at [128], and the Decision first sets out the relevant legal provisions: [128] to [132]. Thereafter, the submissions of Canadian Solar and HMRC are described, and described in some detail: [133] to [148]. The “discussion” section is slightly elided with the “submissions” section because of a minor typographical error whereby the title “Discussion” appears not as a title, but as the first word of [149]. Nevertheless it is absolutely clear that the FTT’s determination of the general equity issue (i) appears at [149] to [159] and (ii) is (completely unsurprisingly) in large part based on the submissions section that precedes it.
We turn now to consider the three issues that are before us, beginning with the interpretation issue.
THE INTERPRETATION ISSUE
TARIC Codes
The system was summarised in Vital Nut Co Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, [2017] UKUT 192 (TCC), as follows:
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- We refer to these collectively as the “charges”
- No agreed statement of facts
- The facts as found by the FTT
- Additional facts and the structure of the FTT’s Decision
- The European Community is a contracting party to the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System (the “Harmonised System”). The Convention requires that the tari
- The preliminary provisions, additional section or chapter notes and footnotes relating to CN sub-headings The CN uses an eight-digit numerical system to identify a product, the first six digits of which are those of the Harmonised System, while the t
- Rules of origin
- The anti-dumping and anti-circumvention rules
- Submissions, analysis and determination of the interpretation issue Introductory
- The Solar Module Code was the correct TARIC Code: Canadian Solar’s submission
- The Alternative Solar Module Code was the correct TARIC Code: HMRC’s positive case
- The correct TARIC Code was Code 8541 40 90 73 (solar cells consigned from Taiwan): the FTT’s conclusion
- Conclusions