![[2025] UKUT 00315 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
The FTT Decision
The FTT Decision
As we have noted at the outset the Appellant’s claim for drawback was not made until April 2021, having been notified in 2020, yet the excise duty on the goods was paid some seven years earlier in 2014. Nonetheless the Appellant relied on the nature of the correspondence it had had with HMRC in 2019 as to whether the three-year time limit in Reg. 7(6) EGDR might have been waived. The FTT first considered the nature of the correspondence in dispute at [24]-[26]:
- 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