Zackrisson v Revenue & Customs

�Anti Dumping Duty� charged on importation of a bicycle � alleged misleading/incomplete advice received from HMRC � whether an error was made by customs authorities � whether the Appellant could have reasonably detected any such error � whether HMRC �unjustly enriched� by receipt of the duty � appeal dismissed

Mr S. Charles, Counsel instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents

By Notice of Appeal dated 24 November 2010, the Appellant appealed against HMRC�s rejection of a claim for repayment of customs duty paid on a bicycle imported into the UK by the Appellant for his own use on 2 September 2010.

The Appellant purchased a shop soiled 2009 GT Force 1.0 mountain bike in the sum of $2,000 from a retailer called Samuel Mishkin of Giant Nerd, 2897 Mapleton Avenue, Suite 100, Boulder, Colorado, USA. FedEx were engaged by the Appellant to courier the bicycle into the UK on 2 September 2010 under import entry number 760029383J. The Country of Origin was entered under code �CN� (China) and the value of the item recorded as $2,000 (�1,282.54).

Having received the commercial invoice from the retailer, issued on 30 August 2010, FedEx issued invoice number 5-422-38327 on 7 September 2010 in the sum of �1,195.45 comprised of �29.16 advancement fee, �364.72 import VAT and �801.57 duty. The Appellant queried with FedEx and HMRC the amount of charges applied and was informed that the �duty� amount was made up of Third Country Duty at 14% (�179.55) and Anti Dumping Duty (�ADD�) at 48.5% (�622.03).