International Trade

Scales Of Justice Are Out Of Kilter

< continued from page three

...tribunal chairman said, ‘We have considerable sympathy for the appellants.’ But sympathy is not a lot of good when £110,000 is at stake.

The real point of this article is that HMRC was represented in the tribunal by Mario Angiolini, counsel, who had himself been instructed by general counsel and there was a Customs solicitor there, too. The importer was represented by a director and his friend! At the end of the judgement, the tribunal chairman records: ‘In a letter of 30 April 2007, Customs warned the appellant that, if successful, they would ask for costs…we award Customs the costs.’ I personally think ‘threatened’ would have been a better word than ‘warned’. So, what on earth has all this cost the battered importer – another £50, maybe more?

The tribunal was, I thought, set up so that traders could have their case heard in a ‘relaxed’ and generally inexpensive court. It is to be noted that HMRC does not go for costs in VAT and Excise cases so why does it need to do this for Customs disputes? This is actually why there are so few Customs cases – we have the Lightman ruling that says if the right answer is in the Official Journal, the importer is at fault and then there is the added financial strain of having to pay costs while Customs employs counsel using taxpayers’ money. Then it pursues costs!

There might, however, be a very small chink of light in that HMRC has just issued a Consultation Document on the workings of all of its tax appeals mechanisms. There is a proposal that ‘as many disputes as possible are resolved informally, without the expense or anxiety of a hearing’.

This would be a real step forward if the appellant could meet the HMRC review officer... continued on page five >

 

 

<< Previous page  1 2 3 4 5  Next page >>

 

Advertisement

Advertisement