Tax

Invamed Group Ltd & Ors v Revenue & Customs (Customs Duty - classification)

[2016] UKFTT TC TC05502First-tier Tribunal (Tax)2016

Get the AI brief for this case

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.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

Appeal numbers: LON/2007/7061, 7062, 7066, 7067 & 7106, LON/2008/7002 &7063, LON/2009/7007, MAN/2007/7031

Customs Duty - classification - mobility scooters - 8703: vehicles for persons, or 8713: carriages for disabled persons

A Decision made without a further hearing following a reference to the CJEU and further written submissions from Fieldfisher LLP for the Appellants, and Kieron Beal QC, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents

This decision relates to the classification of certain mobility scooters for the purposes of the Combined Nomenclature ("the CN"). The question is whether those scooters fall under the heading 8713 (carriages for disabled persons) or 8703 (motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons).

(1) that the effect of GIR 3 was that if the scooters were prima facie classifiable under 8713 they would fall within that heading rather than 8703 [116 - 119];

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Tax cases

Wood & Anor v Revenue and Customs (Stamp Duty Land Tax - rate of SDLT applicable - whether Table A or Table B - whether the house and land included land that was not residential property - whether all of land was, or formed part of, grounds of house - Finance Act 2003, ss 55, 116)

[2026] UKFTT TC 265

New Claire Wine Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Discovery assessments - extended time limit assessments - penalty for inaccuracy in a return - deliberate inaccuracy - whether deliberate inaccuracy necessarily involves dishonesty - whether HMRC required to specifically plead and prove dishonesty - whether the FTT erred in failing to explain how the appellant's conduct might not involve dishonesty)

[2026] UKUT TCC 116

Trees v Revenue and Customs (VAT - penalties - director's liability notice (DLN) - section 60 and 61 VATA 1994 - Kittel appeal in 2020 - HMRC expressly not pleading dishonesty)

[2026] UKUT TCC 92

RSK Cars Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - whether trader was entitled to use the VAT margin scheme for second-hand vehicles)

[2026] UKFTT TC 122

Alesen Direct Solutions Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Company undertaking construction work; VAT assessment; hardship application; company made advances to related entities/persons; hardship denied)

[2026] UKFTT TC 398

Rodrigues v Revenue and Customs

[2026] UKUT TCC 75

Common Room

Discussion

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.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.

Tax