Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
CUSTOMS DUTY - inward processing relief - requirements of a bill of discharge (�BOD�) - data mismatches without clearly referenced corrections held to incur a customs debt under Article 204 Community Customs Code - a single error within a BOD held to invalidate the entire BOD - appeal dismissed
For the Respondents: �� Edward Waldegrave, counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs
             The hearing lasted 6 days. With the consent of the parties, the form of the hearing was video using the Tribunal�s Video Hearing Service platform. The documents to which we were referred were contained within the 1,974-page hearing bundle (separated into parts A-G), a 3,551-page authorities bundle and skeleton arguments from both parties.
              Prior notice of the hearing had been published on the gov.uk website, with information about how representatives of the media or members of the public could apply to join the hearing remotely in order to observe the proceedings. As such, the hearing was held in public.
             Thyssenkrupp Materials UK Limited (�TK�) appeals against the decision by the Respondents (�HMRC�) to issue a C18 Post Clearance Demand Note (�the Demand�) dated 26 April 2017 in the amount of �8,889,275.43, comprising of �2,409,009.91 customs duty and �6,480,265.52 Value Added Tax (�VAT�) for the period March 2014 to December 2014 .
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.