[2025] UKUT 00142 (TCC)
Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

[2025] UKUT 00142 (TCC)

Fecha: 12-Mar-2025

The Alternative Solar Module Code was the correct TARIC Code: HMRC’s positive case

(iii)

The Alternative Solar Module Code was the correct TARIC Code: HMRC’s positive case

37.

HMRC have contended from the outset of this dispute that the Alternative Solar Module Code was the Code that should have been used: see [8(5)(a)]. This would involve a contention that modules had been consigned from Taiwan. The problems with this interpretation are self-evident:

(1)

The anti-circumvention rules clearly differentiate between cells and modules, as do the TARIC Codes.

(2)

In these circumstances, it is a complete misdescription to say that modules were consigned from Taiwan. There were no modules in existence in Taiwan (only cells). Modules only came into existence when they were produced in Vietnam and that is the place where the modules were consigned from.

(3)

Given the fact that the TARIC Codes (see [17]) themselves differentiate between cells and modules, it is difficult to see how a misdescription of modules as cells can be justified given the very clear language used in both the anti-circumvention rules and the TARIC Codes.

38.

The only virtue in HMRC’s construction is that it avoids the evaders’ charter problem that we have referred to at [34]. However, this is in our judgement not enough to overcome the very clear language used in the rules, and we are obliged, for that reason, to reject HMRC’s positive case.