![[2025] UKUT 00315 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
HMRC’s submissions
HMRC’s submissions
Ms McArdle submitted that the FTT fell into error, when it found that it had jurisdiction to consider a public law challenge to the reasonableness of HMRC’s drawback decision pursuant to s16(5) FA 94 at [150]-[152]. She argued that in concluding that the jurisdiction and powers in s16(4) were incorporated in s16(5) by the words “shall also include”, the FTT erred in law.
Her argument consisted of two parts: the FTT’s lack of any general public law jurisdiction on appeal; and specific consideration of s.16(5) FA 94 itself.
- 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