Customs and excise quarterly update: February 2019
In this update we report on the effect of a no deal Brexit in relation to (1) customs processes and procedures; (2) binding tariff information; and (3) changes to tax procedures. We also comment on three recent cases relating to (1) obtaining an injunction when HMRC revoke Authorised Warehousekeeper status; (2) the application of retrospective inward processing authorisation periods; and (3) the seizure of vehicles.
News
Updated guidance on customs processes and procedures in the event of a no-deal Brexit
On 6 February 2019, HMRC published an updated version of its partnership pack which provides guidance to businesses on customs processes and procedures in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Read more.
Important information about the effect of leaving the EU without a deal on Binding Tariff Information (BTI)
On 18 January 2019, HMRC published a letter to UK traders setting out the effect of leaving the EU without a deal on BTI. Read more.
Updated guidance on changes to customs, excise and VAT procedures in the event of a no-deal Brexit
On 6 February 2019, the Government published updated guidance on the customs, excise and VAT procedures which will have to be applied to goods traded with the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit. These are broadly the same as those currently applied to goods traded outside of the EU. Read more.
Case reports
Q Ltd – injunction granted following revocation by HMRC of Authorised Warehousekeeper status
In Q Ltd v HMRC, the High Court granted an interim injunction, following HMRC’s revocation of the taxpayer’s Authorised Warehousekeeper status. Read more.
Key Plant Automation Ltd – the application of retrospective inward processing authorisation periods
In Key Plant Automation Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners, the FTT held that under Article 508(3) of Council Regulation 2913/92, the maximum period for which a retrospective Inward Processing Authorisation (IPA) can be granted is one year. Read more.
Holly Clark – these were exceptional reasons to restore seized vehicle
In Holly Clark v Director of Border Revenue, the FTT held that UK Border Force did not consider all the evidence before it in deciding whether to restore a seized car to its innocent owner. Read more.