BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
First-tier Tribunal (Tax) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Tax) >> Sat-Comm Broadcast Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 215 (TC) (20 February 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2014/TC03355.html Cite as: [2014] UKFTT 215 (TC) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[2014] UKFTT 215 (TC)
TC03355
Appeal number: TC/2013/02593
Customs Duty – inward processing relief – failure to lodge C99 bill of discharge within time limit – whether Appellant obviously negligent – no – appeal allowed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
|
SAT-COMM BROADCAST LIMITED |
Appellant |
|
|
|
|
- and - |
|
|
|
|
|
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S |
Respondents |
|
REVENUE & CUSTOMS |
|
TRIBUNAL: |
JUDGE ALISON MCKENNA |
|
MRS GILL HUNTER |
Sitting in public at Bedford Square on 4 February 2014
Mr Keith Lardner, Finance Director of the Appellant company for the Appellant
Sadiya Choudhury of counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2014
DECISION
“Applicable Law
8. IP Suspension is governed by European Council Regulation 2913/92/EEC (“the Customs Code”) and European Commission Regulation 2454/93 (“the Implementing Regulation”). The relevant provisions are at Tabs 1 and 2 of the Authorities Bundle and some of these are set out below for ease of reference.
9. Article 4 of the Customs Code states:
“(9) 'Customs debt' means the obligation on a person to pay the amount of the import duties (customs debt on importation) or export duties (customs debt on exportation) which apply to specific goods under the Community provisions in force.
…
(13) 'Supervision by the customs authorities' means action taken in general by those authorities with a view to ensuring that customs rules and, where appropriate, other provisions applicable to goods subject to customs supervision are observed.
…
(16) 'Customs procedure' means:
(d) inward processing
(17) 'Customs declaration' means the act whereby a person indicates in the prescribed form and manner a wish to place goods under a given customs procedure.
(18) 'Declarant' means the person making the customs declaration in his own name or the person in whose name a customs declaration is made.
(21) 'Holder of the procedure' means the person on whose behalf the customs declaration was made or the person to whom the rights and obligations of the abovementioned person in respect of a customs procedure have been transferred.”
10. Article 204 of the Customs Code imposes a customs debt in certain circumstances:
“1. A customs debt on importation shall be incurred through:
(a) non-fulfilment of one of the obligations arising, in respect of goods liable to import duties, from their temporary storage or from the use of the customs procedure under which they are placed, …
in cases other than those referred to in Article 203 unless it is established that those failures have no significant effect on the correct operation of the temporary storage or customs procedure in question.
2. The customs debt shall be incurred either at the moment when the obligation whose non-fulfilment gives rise to the customs debt ceases to be met or at the moment when the goods are placed under the customs procedure concerned where it is established subsequently that a condition governing the placing of the goods under the said procedure or the granting of a reduced or zero rate of import duty by virtue of the end-use of the goods was not in fact fulfilled.
3. The debtor shall be the person who is required, according to the circumstances, either to fulfil the obligations arising, in respect of goods liable to import duties, from their temporary storage or from the use of the customs procedure under which they have been placed, or to comply with the conditions governing the placing of the goods under that procedure.”
11. Article 199(1) of the Implementing Regulation provides that:
“Without prejudice to the possible application of penal provisions, the lodging with a customs office of a declaration signed by the declarant or his representative shall render him responsible under the provisions in force for:
- the accuracy of the information given in the declaration,
- the authenticity of the documents attached, and
- compliance with all the obligations relating to the entry of the goods in question
under the procedure concerned.”
12. Article 521 of the Implementing Regulation imposes an obligation to provide a bill of discharge, i.e. Form C99 within a specified time:
“1. At the latest upon expiry of the period for discharge, irrespective of whether aggregation in accordance with Article 118(2), second subparagraph, of the Code is used or not:
− in the case of inward processing (suspension system) or processing under customs control, the bill of discharge shall be supplied to the supervising office within 30 days;…
Where special circumstances so warrant, the customs authorities may extend the period even if it has expired.”
13. Article 859 of the Implementing Regulation sets out failures that have “no significant effect” on the operation of temporary storage or the customs procedure:
“The following failures shall be considered to have no significant effect on the correct operation of the temporary storage or customs procedure in question within the meaning of Article 204 (1) of the Code, provided:
- they do not constitute an attempt to remove the goods unlawfully from customs supervision,
- they do not imply obvious negligence on the part of the person concerned, and
- all the formalities necessary to regularize the situation of the goods are subsequently carried out:…
9. in the framework of inward processing and processing under customs control, exceeding the time-limit allowed for submission of the bill of discharge, provided the limit would have been extended had an extension been applied for in time;”
14. Finally, Article 860 of the Implementing Regulation provides that:
“The customs authorities shall consider a customs debt to have been incurred under Article 204(1) of the Code unless the person who would be the debtor establishes that the conditions set out in Article 859 are fulfilled.”
9. Ms Choudhury helpfully summarised the issue between the parties in this appeal as follows:
It is common ground between the parties that the failure to submit the Form C99 on time means that the Appellant has failed to meet one of the conditions for claiming IP Suspension so that a customs debt is incurred under Article 204(1) of the Customs Code. However, the customs debt is not incurred under this Article if it can be established that the failure did not have a significant effect on the operation of the customs procedure. The failure will not have a significant effect if the conditions in Article 859 of the Implementing Regulation are satisfied. The only condition in Article 859 that is in issue in this appeal is whether the Appellant was “obviously negligent” in failing to provide the Form C99 on time. The Appellant contends that it was not obviously negligent whereas HMRC contends that it was”.
10. Ms Choudhury submitted that “obvious negligence” must be interpreted in the light of the decision in Terex Equipment Ltd v HMRC [2010] STC 575, in which the ECJ held at [42] that inward processing relief is an “exceptional measure” and that the “beneficiaries of that regime are required to comply strictly with the obligation therefrom…the consequences of non-compliance with their obligations must be strictly interpreted”. She also referred us to C-48/98 Firma Söhl & Söhlke at [56] to [60] in which the CJEU held that the term should be interpreted in the same way whenever it occurred in the legislation and that, in order to determine whether there is obvious negligence, account must be taken of (i) the complexity of the provisions, the non-compliance with which has resulted in the customs debt being incurred, (ii) the professional experience of the trader, and (iii) the care taken by the trader.
11. Ms Choudhury submitted that in relation to (i) the legislation requiring the lodging of the Form C99 is not complex and referred the Tribunal to two decisions of differently-constituted panels of the First-tier Tribunal which had reached that conclusion: K C Engineering Limited v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 440 (TC) at [63] and Euro Trading Limited v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 56 (TC) at [39]. As to (ii), she referred us to the agreed fact that the Appellant company was an experienced importer, had used the Inward Processing Relief procedure on two previous occasions, and had been warned of the consequences of future non-compliance. As to (iii) HMRC’s case was that the Appellant did not have appropriate procedures in place to ensure compliance, despite having been warned of the need for this. Having taken the view that Allport Limited was the Appellant’s agent, Ms Choudhury submitted that any failure by an agent to supply the information required by the principal to complete the Form C99 was properly to be treated as negligence by the principal. She referred the Tribunal to a decision of the First-tier Tribunal in Loudwater Trade and Finance Limited v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 37 (TC), in which the agent’s negligence had been attributed to the principal. In conclusion, she invited the Tribunal to find that the Appellant had been “obviously negligent” in failing to file the Form C99 on time and in these circumstances to dismiss the appeal.
ALISON MCKENNA