International Trade

Duty Refund Hit By Seven-Year Hitch

September 2007
Mike Hodge, International Trade Today

In the last edition, I made several comments relating to the fact that HMRC needed to get its act together regarding the treatment of businesses engaged in international trade.

I have made the point previously that there are other countries in the EU where the tax authorities have a much less jaundiced view of business and that it would not surprise me at all to see a trade exodus.

I finished the article mentioned with the Max Bygraves promise ‘I wanna tell you a story’ and that is exactly what I’m going to do.

I am also going to write to Paul Gray, the executive chairman of HMRC, because he needs to be aware of this case – and I’m sure there are many others. We, as taxpayers, have been told we are ‘the customers of HMRC’. This is, as you have heard me say time and time again, is utter nonsense. Customers have a choice, taxpayers don’t. We have no choice, so we are taxpayers. QED.

Anyway, this particularly sorry tale goes back to about the year 2000 but let me tell you a bit about the company first. It is a well-established importer that once upon a time operated Import Period Entry. How many readers of International Trade Today remember that? (In fact, whilst I think of it, whatever happened to The Blueprint? Maybe the road map has been lost).

So, to go on…the company now operates CFSP together with a Customs warehouse. It is a good, reliable trader with an unblemished revenue history, and would be an ideal candidate for approval under the Authorised Economic Operator scheme. Its average annual Customs Duty bill is around £100,000 and VAT, £500,000. It operates under a product code list of some 5,000 items and a range of 180 tariff headings.

Within... continued on page two >

 

 

 1 2 3 4 5  Next page >>

 

Advertisement

Advertisement