Tax

FATIMA JEWELLERS LIMITED v Revenue & Customs (CUSTOMS DUTY AND IMPORT VAT - C18 post clearance demand note - export of gold and import of gold jewellery - outward processing relief - whether Customs Duty and import VAT payable)

[2023] UKFTT TC TC08964First-tier Tribunal (Tax)2023

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

For the Respondents: �� Mr James Abernethy of counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs

             Since approximately 2012, the appellant, Fatima Jewellers Limited has been exporting gold to Dubai and importing gold jewellery from Dubai.

             Where gold is temporarily exported from the UK in order to be made into jewellery, it is possible, subject to certain conditions, for Customs Duty and import VAT to be paid only on the cost of the work carried on outside the UK when the jewellery is imported into the UK and not on the full value of the jewellery.

             Following an investigation, HMRC concluded that Fatima Jewellers did not satisfy the relevant conditions.� As a result of this, on 17 November 2020, they issued Fatima Jewellers with a post clearance demand note (C18) for Customs Duty of �151,427.95 and for import VAT of �1,241,709.48 in respect of 18 importations of gold jewellery made by Fatima Jewellers between September 2017 and July 2018.

             Fatima Jewellers appeals against the assessment both in relation to Customs Duty and import VAT.� The appeal does not take issue with HMRC�s calculations but Fatima Jewellers believes that it was entitled to pay the duty and the VAT only on the processing costs incurred outside the UK and not on the full value of the gold jewellery imported.�

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

Ferguson & Anor v Revenue and Customs (STAMP DUTY LAND TAX - residential property - whether paddock was part of garden or grounds of dwelling - paddock was part of grounds)

[2026] UKFTT TC 238

MWL International Ltd & Anor v Revenue and Customs (NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS - agreement with inspector of taxes that certain cars would be "pooled cars" for NICs purposes if various conditions satisfied - HMRC subsequently sought to collect NICs retrospectively - whether HMRC estopped from doing so - whether the FTT had jurisdiction to decide whether Appellants had legitimate expectation that decisions would not be retrospective)

[2026] UKUT TCC 62

BGC Services Holdings LLP v Revenue and Customs (Determinations under Reg 80 of the PAYE Regs - whether it appeared to HMRC that there may be tax payable)

[2026] UKFTT TC 558

Best Cosmetics Ltd v Revenue and Customs (IMPORT VAT - Postponed VAT Accounting - importer not VAT registered - post-clearance demand notices issued for unpaid VAT - no evidence that postponed VAT was accounted for)

[2026] UKFTT TC 236

Ivey v Revenue and Customs (Strike Out - Jurisdiction)

[2026] UKFTT TC 233

Revenue and Customs v Electric Mobility Euro Ltd & Anor (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 37

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