C&J Clark International Ltd v Revenue & Customs (Customs Duty - anti-dumping duty)

Customs Duty - anti-dumping duty - preliminary issues - whether or not HMRC are required to repay the duty paid by Clarks - held no - whether or not HMRC are required to re-communicate the amount of the debt to Clarks - held no - whether or not the limitation period in Article 221(3) of the CCC was suspended by the lodging of an appeal - held yes - whether or not the limitation period has expired - held no - whether or not HMRC must repay any of the duty paid by Clarks - held no

The Tribunal determined the preliminary issues in this appeal on 23, 24, 25 and 26 November without a hearing with the consent of both parties under the provisions of Rule 29 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009.� A hearing was not held because it was considered that a face to face hearing was not appropriate during the pandemic and the Tribunal considered that the preliminary issues in dispute could be settled without the need for a hearing.

I received submissions from Sidley Austin LLP on behalf of the Appellant dated 1 September 2020, submissions from Mark Fell, counsel, on behalf of HMRC dated 22 September 2020 and a reply to those submission from Sidley Austin LLP dated 13 October 2020.� In addition, I received an electronic bundle of documents of 494 pages and three bundles of authorities totalling 872 pages.

These proceedings concern challenges, dating back to June 2010 and March 2012, in which the Appellant, C&J Clark International Limited, (�Clarks�) alleges that anti-dumping duty it paid was not owed due to the invalidity of the underlying regulations and argues that it is therefore entitled to repayment.

Two references have previously been made in this appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union (�CJEU�).� These references resulted in an initial ruling in C&J Clark International and Puma (C-659/13 and C-34/14) (� Clarks I �) that the original regulations imposing the definitive duty were invalid due to a procedural flaw.� A second ruling in C&J Clark International (Case C- 612/16) (� Clarks II �) determined that subsequent regulations issued by the EU Commission addressing the procedural flaw and re-imposing the duty at the same rate were valid.