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 � Post clearance demand notice � Whether waiver of notice � No � Whether correct customs information provided � No � Whether importer liable to pay import duty and for accuracy of presented documents � Yes � Burden of proof not discharged � Appeal Dismissed
Trevor Bewell, Senior Manager and Simon Pritchard, Counsel instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
This is an appeal against the decision of HM Revenue & Customs (�the Respondents�) to issue a port clearance demand notice (�C18�) for customs duty totalling �44,647.55.� This was for 15 consignments of millet imported on dates between 19 November 2008 and 24 September 2009.� The consignments were entered to commodity code 1008 2000 00.
The Respondents carried out a post clearance check of imports made by the Appellant between November 2008 and September 2009.� These were found to have not met the conditions to allow a zero rate of customs duty to be applied to the importation into the European Community (EC).
On 22 January 2011, the Appellant requested a formal Departmental Review.� On 17 March 2011, the decision to issue the C18 was upheld on view.
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.