Judgment summary
This appeal concerned a single import entry of steel pipes accepted by HMRC on 24 March 2022. Following a compliance check, HMRC issued a Liability Decision on 24 March 2025 finding £13,214.82 of import duty due, plus import VAT, totalling £15,857.78 (the Duty) (1).
The Appellant applied for remission of the Duty via a C285 form on HMRC's advice, which HMRC refused on 28 April 2025, a refusal upheld on statutory review on 4 July 2025 (the Review Conclusion) (1). The Appellant issued an appeal to the Tribunal on 5 September 2025, acknowledging it was out of time (1).
HMRC objected to the lateness of the appeal and applied to strike it out, and later applied very late to vacate the hearing because the Duty had not been paid and no hardship certificate had been granted (2). The Tribunal refused to vacate the hearing (2).
A dispute also arose as to whether the appeal covered only the Remission Refusal, as HMRC contended, or also the original Liability Decision, as the Appellant contended, with the Appellant applying in the alternative to amend its notice of appeal (3).
The Tribunal determined four matters: that it could decide the Late Appeal Application before the Hardship Application was resolved; that the Notice of Appeal as it stood did not cover the Liability Decision; that the Notice of Appeal should be amended to include a late appeal against the Liability Decision; and that permission for late appeals against both the Liability Decision and the Remission Refusal should be granted (4).
Background
The Goods, steel pipes, entered the UK on 16 March 2022 and were accepted by HMRC on 24 March 2022, with the Appellant's agent, George Baker Shipping Ltd, having declared commodity code 7308 9098 90 (8, 9).
HMRC commenced a compliance check in January 2025 and identified that the Goods had been declared under the wrong commodity code (11, 15). Extensive correspondence followed between HMRC Officer Gareth Rist and the Appellant's office manager, Lucy Swain, culminating in the Liability Decision of 24 March 2025, classifying the Goods under commodity code 7306 3072 80 and finding £13,214.82 of import duty due, plus import VAT, totalling £15,857.78 (21).
Following the Liability Decision, HMRC's Officer Rist advised the Appellant to apply for remission via a C285 form, which it did on 8 April 2025 (26, 29, 32). HMRC refused the remission application on 22 April 2025, on the basis that the relevant tariff quota had closed before the claim was registered, a decision upheld on statutory review on 4 July 2025 (33, 37-38).
The Appellant subsequently sought advice from PwC, who on 22 August 2025 advised that an out-of-time appeal against 'the C18' (the Liability Decision) was possible (49). On 5 September 2025, Ms Swain submitted a Notice of Appeal to the Tribunal, uploading only the Review Conclusion letter (51).
HMRC objected to the lateness of the appeal on 23 December 2025 and applied to strike it out, proceeding on the basis that the appeal concerned only the Remission Refusal (53). On 8 September 2026, HMRC applied to vacate the hearing on discovering the Duty had not been paid or deposited, and the Appellant applied for a hardship certificate under s.16(3) of the Finance Act 1994 on 9 September 2025 [sic, 2026] (56-57).
Core dispute
The first issue was whether the Tribunal could determine the Late Appeal Application while the Appellant's hardship application remained unresolved, given s.16(3) Finance Act 1994 and rule 22(4) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (60-63).
The second issue, the Scope of the Appeal Issue, was whether the Notice of Appeal as submitted covered only the Remission Refusal, as HMRC contended, or also the Liability Decision, as the Appellant contended (3, 71-72).
The third issue was whether, if the Notice of Appeal did not already cover the Liability Decision, the Tribunal should permit the Appellant to amend it to include a late appeal against that decision (3, 82).
The fourth issue was whether permission should be granted for late appeals against the Remission Refusal and, separately, against the Liability Decision, applying the three-stage test in Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC) (88-90).
Court findings
On the Vacation Application, the Tribunal followed Storm Environmental Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 01036 (TC) and concluded that a late appeal application can and should be determined before any hardship application, because no valid appeal exists until the Tribunal gives permission under s.16(1F) Finance Act 1994, so there is nothing yet to stay under rule 22(4) (64-69). The Vacation Application was accordingly dismissed to that extent (69).
On the Scope of the Appeal Issue, the Tribunal found the Notice of Appeal was not entirely coherent, with features pointing both ways, but concluded that, primarily because only the Review Conclusion letter had been uploaded, the Notice of Appeal as it stood appealed against the Remission Refusal only and did not identify the Liability Decision as an additional decision under appeal with sufficient clarity (78-81).
On the Appeal Notice Amendment Application, the Tribunal held it had power under rule 5(3)(c) of the Tribunal Rules to permit amendment of the Notice of Appeal to add an appeal against the Liability Decision, citing Ashington & Ellington Social Club & Institute Ltd and others v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 612 (TC), and allowed the amendment as furthering the overriding objective without material prejudice to HMRC (83-87).
On the Late Appeal Applications, applying Martland, the Tribunal found the delay in appealing the Remission Refusal (just over a month) was significant and serious, but concluded the balance favoured granting permission, having regard to the Appellant's reasonable but incomplete explanation, the complexity created by the sequence of the Liability Decision and Remission Refusal, and the prejudice to the Appellant of refusal (91-98).
As to the Liability Decision, although the delay of over one year four months was very serious, the Tribunal found the Appellant had acted reasonably throughout most of that period, first pursuing remission on HMRC's advice and then reasonably but mistakenly believing the Liability Decision was already under appeal. The Tribunal also noted prima facie strength in the Appellant's argument, based on paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 6 TCTA 2018 and R (Zaporozhchenko) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court [2011] EWHC 34 (Admin), that the Liability Decision was made outside the three-year statutory time limit. The balance favoured granting permission for this late appeal also (99-104).
Outcome
The Tribunal dismissed the Vacation Application insofar as it sought to prevent determination of the Late Appeal Application pending resolution of the hardship application (69). It found that the Notice of Appeal, as originally submitted, covered only the Remission Refusal (81). It allowed the Appeal Notice Amendment Application, permitting the Notice of Appeal to be amended to include a late appeal against the Liability Decision on the ground that it was invalid as made outside the three-year time limit under paragraph 4(1) TCTA 2018 (87, 105). It granted permission for late appeals against both the Remission Refusal and the Liability Decision (98, 104-105). The Tribunal directed that the appeal, including HMRC's Strike Out Application, be stayed pending resolution of the Appellant's hardship application (106).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Tribunal may determine a late appeal application before an outstanding hardship application under s.16(3) Finance Act 1994 is resolved.
- Whether a single Notice of Appeal, as submitted, covered both the Liability Decision and the Remission Refusal, or only the latter.
- Whether the Tribunal has power to allow amendment of a Notice of Appeal to add a late appeal against a further decision.
- Whether permission should be granted for a late appeal against the Remission Refusal, applying the Martland three-stage test.
- Whether permission should be granted for a late appeal against the Liability Decision, applying the Martland three-stage test, including the prima facie strength of an argument that the Liability Decision was issued outside the three-year time limit under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 6 TCTA 2018.