![[2025] UKUT 00315 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
CONCLUSION ON APPEAL AND CROSS APPEAL
We have dismissed both the cross-appeal and the appeal. There was no material error of law in the Decision. It therefore follows that the Decision is confirmed. The Appellant’s claim for drawback is to be refused for the most part but is allowed to the limited extent of £9,695.27.
JUDGE RUPERT JONES JUDGE KEVIN POOLE
UPPER TRIBNAL JUDGES
RELEASE DATE: 25 September 2025
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- BACKGROUND – HMRC’S REFUSAL OF EXCISE DUTY DRAWBACK CLAIM
- THE APPEAL AND CROSS APPEAL
- THE CROSS APPEAL
- to provide for the determination of the person on whom any such entitlement is conferred
- The FTT’s powers on appeal against a drawback decision
- The FTT Decision
- HMRC’s submissions
- The FTT’s lack of a general public law jurisdiction
- Specific considerations applicable to s16(5) FA 94
- Discussion and Analysis
- The public law jurisdiction of the FTT
- Ground 2 – Waiver of time limit for drawback claim (see [6] above)
- HMRC’s original and review decisions
- The FTT Decision
- In late 2019, he wrote to HMRC. The letter stated
- The letter was sent under a covering email which stated
- HMRC’s submissions
- Discussion and Analysis
- Ground 1 – Procedural irregularity (see [6] above)
- Discussion and Analysis
- THE APPEAL Ground 1 – Compliance with de-stamping obligations (see [5] above)
- Actions required if goods carry fiscal marks or duty stamps
- Ground 2 – Evidence of export (see [5] above)
- What supporting evidence do I need to submit with my drawback claim form?
- The supporting evidence you need to submit with your drawback claim form
- HMRC’s submissions
- Discussion and analysis
- Discussion and Analysis
- Conclusions