Category Archives: Customs

VAT: Zero-rated exports. The Procurement International case

By Marcus Ward 7 November 2024

Latest from the courts

In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Procurement International Ltd (PIL) the issue was whether the movement of goods constituted a zero-rated export.

Background

Both parties essentially agreed the facts: The Appellant’s business is that of a reward recognition programme fulfiller. The Appellant had a catalogue of available products, and it maintained a stock of the most ordered items in its warehouse. PIL supplied these goods to customers who run reward recognition programmes on behalf of their customers who, in turn, want to reward to their customers and/or employees (reward recipients – RR). The reward programme operators (RPOs) provide a platform through which those entitled to receive rewards can such rewards. The RPO will then place orders PIL for the goods.

A shipper collected the goods from PIL in the UK and shipped them directly to the RR (wherever located). The shipper provided the services of delivery including relevant customs clearances etc. on behalf of the Appellant. PIL had zero-rated the supply of goods sent to RRs located overseas. All goods delivered to RRs outside the UK are delivered duty paid (DDP) or delivered at place (DAP). As may be seen by Incoterms the Appellant remained at risk in respect of the goods and liable for all carriage costs and is responsible for performing or contracting for the performance of all customs (export and import) obligations. The Appellant was responsible for all fees, duties, tariffs, and taxes. Accordingly, the Appellant is responsible for, and at risk until, the goods are delivered “by placing them at the disposal of the buyer at the agreed point, if any, or at the named place of destination or by procuring that the goods are so delivered”.

Contentions

HMRC argued that in situations where the RPO was UK VAT registered, the appellant was making a supply of goods to the RPO at a time when the goods were physically located in the UK, and consequently there was a standard-rated supply. It issued an assessment to recover the output tax considered to be underdeclared.

PIL contended that there was a supply of delivered goods which were zero-rated when the goods were removed to a location outside the UK. It was responsible (via contracts which were accepted to reflect the reality of the transactions) for arranging the transport of the goods.

Decision

The FTT held that there was a single composite supplies of delivered goods, and these were a zero-rated supply of exported goods by PIL. The supplies were not made on terms that the RPOs collected or arranged for collection of the goods to remove them from the UK. The Tribunal found that the RPOs took title to the goods at the time they were delivered to the RR, and not before such that it was PIL and not the RPOs who was the exporter. This meant that the RPOs would be regarded as making their supplies outside the UK and would be responsible for overseas VAT as the Place Of Supply (POS) would be in the country in which it took title to the goods (but that was not an issue in this case).

The appeal was allowed, and the assessment was withdrawn.

Legislation

Domestic legislation relevant here is The VAT Act 1994:

Section 6(2) which fixes the time of supply of goods involving removal as the time they are removed
Section 7 VATA sets out the basis on which the place of supply is determined. Section 7(2) states that: “if the supply of any goods does not involve their removal from or to the United Kingdom they shall be treated as supplied in the United Kingdom if they are in the United Kingdom and otherwise shall be treated as supplied outside the United Kingdom”.
Section 30(6) VATA provides that a supply of goods is zero-rated where such supply is made in the UK and HMRC are satisfied that the person supplying the goods has exported them
For completeness, VAT Regulations 1995, regulation 129 provides the framework for the zero-rating goods removed from the UK by and on behalf of the purchaser of the goods.

Some paragraphs of VAT Notice 703 have the force of law which applies here, namely the sections on:

direct and indirect exports
conditions which must be met in full for goods to be zero-rated as exports
definition of an exporter
the appointment of a freight forwarder or other party to manage the export transactions and declarations on behalf of the supplier of exporter.
the conditions and time limits for zero rating
a situation in which there are multiple transactions leading to one movement of goods

Commentary

The Incoterms set out in the relevant contracts were vital in demonstrating the responsibilities of the parties and consequently, who actually exported the goods. It is crucial when analysing the VAT treatment of transactions to recognise each party’s responsibilities, and importantly, when (and therefore where) the change in possession of the goods takes place.

VAT: Second-hand goods scheme and best judgement – The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited case

By Marcus Ward 7 October 2024

Latest from the courts

The second-hands of time.

In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether the second-hand goods margin scheme (margin scheme) was applicable and whether HMRC’s assessments for £5,474,249 (later reduced to £5,004,595) of underdeclared of output tax were issued in best judgement.

Background

The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited (A&M) sold second-hand wristwatches with the majority of the sales properly accounted for via the margin scheme. However, from information obtained from Italian tax authorities in respect of supply chain fraud, HMRC issued the assessments on the basis that supplies of certain goods did not meet the conditions of the margin scheme so that output tax was due on the full value of the watches rather than the difference between the purchase and sale values. HMRC decided to penalise A&M because the errors were deliberate and prompted and subsequently to issue a PLN on the basis that such conduct was attributable to the director. A&M is a “High Value Dealer” for anti-money laundering purposes.

Contentions

Appellant

The appellant claimed that HMRC did not use best judgement on the grounds that:

the inspector did not impartially consider the evidence
HMRC lacked sufficient evidence to raise an assessment thereby failing to meet the Van Boeckel test
the calculated amounts were no more than unreasonable and random guesses
the inspector did not approach the investigation with an open mind to such an extent that it could not be said that the assessments and penalties were the product of the reasonable behaviours of HMRC
put in terms of the case law: HMRC had acted in a way which no reasonable body of commissioners could have acted or, put another way, had been vindictive, dishonest or capricious

so the assessments and penalties were invalid.

Whilst accepting that a best judgment challenge is a high bar A&M contended that the conduct and mindset of HMRC’s investigating and assessing officer was so unreasonable that it vitiated the whole assessment.

Respondent

HMRC contended that the assessments were based on best judgement and that its focus was not on the supply chain fraud claims (as claimed by A&M). Additionally, a previous inspection in 2014 had raised prior concerns which provided adequate grounds for the assessments. Moreover, A&M was aware of the terms of operation of the second-hand margin scheme and considered that A&M had wilfully misused the scheme in several regards. The scheme had been incorrectly used for goods purchased by way of intracommunity supplies – which had been imported with the appellant claiming input tax on the imports and then including them in the margin scheme. A&M wilfully failed to carry out due diligence on its suppliers.

Best Judgement

It may be helpful if we consider what the words “best judgement” mean. This was best described by Woolf J in Van Boeckel v CEC [1981] STC 290

“What the words ‘best of their judgement’ envisage, in my view, is that the commissioners will fairly consider all material before them and, on that material, come to a decision which is one which is reasonable and not arbitrary as to the amount of tax which is due. As long as there is some material on which the commissioners can reasonably act, then they are not required to carry out investigations which may or may not result in further material being placed before them.”

Technical

The second-hand margin scheme is provided for under The VAT Act 1994, Section 50A, The Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 and certain paragraphs of VAT Notice 718 which have force of law.

Decision

The appeal was dismissed. It was found that A&M deliberately rendered inaccurate VAT returns. The director of the company was aware both of how the margin scheme worked and that the terms of the scheme had to be complied with if a supply was to be taxed under the it. A&M was found to have acted deliberately in misusing the scheme by including ineligible supplies. A&M had been lax in the completion of its stock book, and it had not met the record-keeping requirements necessary to use the scheme for the relevant transactions. Additionally, some of its EU suppliers were not registered for VAT, a fact A&M did not take steps to discover, and so related purchases could not qualify for the scheme. Also, it was likely that some of the purchases were of new watches which made them ineligible for the margin scheme.

Re, evidence; the FTT found much of the A&M director’s evidence to have been self-serving and, in parts, evasive and that it did not consider that the integrity of HMRC could be impugned. The court determined that; the inspector was diligent and thorough, HMRC had legitimate concerns regarding A&M’s use of the margin scheme generally and specifically and there was a wider concern that the company was a participant in fraudulent supply chains. The FTT considered that the investigation was proportionately carried out considering these concerns and the assessments raised in exercise of best judgment.

Penalties and PLN

The case further considered penalties: whether the appellant’s conduct was deliberate (yes – appeal dismissed). Whether the Personal Liability Notice (PLN) [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] was appropriate for the conduct attributed to the director – whether his conduct led to penalty (yes – appeal dismissed).

Commentary

This case is a long read, but worthwhile for comments on; the margin scheme use, HMRC’s inspection methods, best judgement, evidence and MTIC amongst other matters.

How to pay duties and VAT on imports – updated guidance

By Marcus Ward 22 July 2024

HMRC has updated its guidance on how to pay Customs Duty, Excise Duties and VAT on imports from outside the UK.

The document covers, inter alia:

The update includes the removal of references to the Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) system, as all import declarations must now be made through the Customs Declaration Service.

Managing a Customs Warehouse. Updated HMRC guidance

By Marcus Ward 14 May 2024

The new guidance explains how to manage a Customs Warehouse, handle goods, and process, repair and move goods.

Customs Warehouse

A Customs Warehouse is a warehouse that is under Customs control. Goods stored in a customs warehouse are not in free circulation. No duties or taxes have to be paid until that time when you ship the goods to their next destination.

There are two types of Customs Warehouse where goods may be stored.

Public warehouse

This is a warehouse operated by a business whose purpose is to store other people’s goods. They are the warehousekeeper and you’re the depositor.

Private warehouse

This is a warehouse operated by you to store your own goods. You are the warehousekeeper and the depositor.

You do not need to be authorised by HMRC to be a depositor in a public or private customs warehouse but, if you operate a private customs warehouse, you’ll need to be authorised as the warehousekeeper.

The warehousekeeper is responsible for coordinating general warehouse operations and activities including shipping and receiving deliveries, conducting stock checks, documenting warehouse transactions and records, and storage of inventory.

To be approved as a warehousekeeper, a person will need to:

be established in the UK
have an EORI number
be financially solvent
have a good compliance record in dealing with customs
prove you have a business need for the warehouse
be able or prepared to make declarations, or employ an agent who is
be able to keep inventory records and run the warehouse to health and safety standards
provide a guarantee if needed for Customs Duty and VAT unless you’re an Authorised Economic Operator or can meet Authorised Economic Operator conditions

Guidance Amendments

Updates include information for warehousekeepers who use a duty management system and guidance on when someone else uses your warehouse.

VAT: Evidence for exports. The H Ripley case

By Marcus Ward 13 February 2024

Latest from the courts

In the H Ripley & Co Limited First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether the appellant had satisfactory evidence to support the zero rating of the export of goods (scrap metal).

Background

HMRC denied zero rating on the basis that the appellant did not provide satisfactory evidence to support the fact that the scrap metal was removed from the UK.

The requirements are set out in VAT Notice 725 para 5 and acceptable documentary evidence may include:

the customer’s order – including customer’s name and delivery address
inter-company correspondence
copy sales invoice
advice note
packing list
commercial transport documents from the carrier responsible for removing the goods from the UK, for example an International Consignment Note (CMR) fully completed by the consignor, the haulier and signed by receiving consignee
details of insurance or freight charges
bank statements as evidence of payment
receipted copy of the consignment note as evidence of receipt of goods abroad
a signed CMR document or note
a bill of lading
an airfreight invoice
an invoice from the carrier of the goods
official documents issued by a public authority, such as a notary, confirming the arrival of the goods
any other documents relevant to the removal of the goods in question which you would normally get in the course of business

or a combination of the above.

HMRC advised the appellant that it had received an information request from the Belgian tax authorities in respect of certain transactions and consequently, HMRC required information on the company’s documents in connection with the supplies. On receipt of the information HMRC concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support zero-rating so the sales were treated as standard rated and the appellant’s repayment claim was reduced to reflect this.

In these circumstances the burden of proof is on the appellant to show that it has satisfied the conditions set out in Notice 725 to zero-rate its supplies and provide documentation to show that the goods were removed from the UK.

Decision

The court noted that it was not HMRC’s position that supplementary evidence could not be provided post the required three-months period but that it was entitled to decline the additional evidence when it was provided some 18 to 30 months after the three-month period. It was clear that the evidence of removal must be obtained within three months and not that the valid evidence is brought into existence within the three-month time limit and obtained at some future date.

Notice 725 sets out the conditions which attach to the entitlement to zero-rate supplies. The FTT considered it to be clear from paragraph 4.3 and 4.4 (which have the force of law) that the onus is on the exporter company claiming zero-rating to gather sufficient evidence of removal within three months of the date of the supply. If it does not do so, it is not entitled to zero-rate the supplies.

Specifically, the court considered:

Sales Invoices – did not provide clear evidence that the goods were removed from the UK. Despite the invoices confirming the sale of scrap metal to a Belgium registered company it did not follow that the address of the purchaser is the same address as the destination that the goods were sent to.
Bank Statements – simply provided proof of payment they did not confirm who received the goods nor where the goods were delivered.
Weighbridge Tickets – merely confirm a consignment of scrap metal was sold to a Belgium based company and the goods were collected by a UK registered vehicle.
CMRs – none of the CMRs were fully completed by the haulier and signed by the receiving consignee.
P&O Boarding Cards –a taxpayer must have in its possession valid evidence of export within three months from the time of supply. The boarding cards were not provided to HMRC until 30 May 2018, some 18 to 30 months after the disputed consignments took place. It was not disproportionate for HMRC to state that the time limit for obtaining valid evidence of removal was three months and that the substantive requirements of Notice 725 had not been met. In any event, the court did not accept that the boarding cards evidence the exports of the scrap metal; none of the reference numbers on the boarding card match those used in any of the other documents and none of the lead names on the boarding cards match any of the other names in any other document. The boarding cards do not have any identifying features such that they may be matched with any of the disputed consignments.
E-mails and WhatsApp messages –none of the messages evidence that the loads were exported. At best they evidence a request from the buyer to a carrier to collect goods from the supplier’s yard and the WhatsApp messages were silent on whether the loads were exported from the UK.

The appeal was dismissed, and the assessments were upheld because none of the documents either individually or taken as a whole, were sufficient evidence to support zero-rating.

Commentary

Yet another case illustrating the importance of insuring correct documentation is held. It is not sufficient that goods leave the UK, but the detailed evidence requirements must always be met.

Why are Certificates Of Origin important? An overview

By Marcus Ward 18 December 2023

What is a Certificate of Origin (CO)?

A CO is a formal, official document which evidences in which country a good or commodity was manufactured. The certificate of origin contains information regarding the product, its destination, and the country of export.

A CO is required for most treaty agreements for cross-border trade and have become more important since Brexit (no more single market alas).

Why is a CO important?

The CO is an important document because it determines whether certain goods are eligible for import, or whether goods are subject to duties.

CO – General

Customs officials expect the CO to be a separate document from other commercial documents such as invoices or packing lists. Officials may also expect it to be signed by the exporter, the signature notarised, and the document subsequently signed and stamped by a Chamber of Commerce. Additionally, the destination Customs authority may request proof of review from a specific Chamber of Commerce.

Some countries accept electronically issued COs which have been electronically signed by a Chamber of Commerce.

Types of CO

A CO can be either in paper or digital format and must be approved by the requisite Customs Authority.

There is no standard CO document for global trade, but a CO prepared by the exporter, has at least the basic details about the product being shipped.

Non-Preferential Cos

Non-preferential COs, also known as “ordinary COs” indicate that the goods do not qualify for reduced tariffs or tariff-free treatment under trade arrangements between countries. If an exporting country does not have in place a treaty or trade agreement with the importing country, an ordinary CO will be needed.

Preferential COs

This is for shipments between countries with a trade agreement or reduced tariffs and proves the goods qualify for reduced import duties.

Legalised CO

Some countries require additional information to demonstrate the authenticity of the information in the CO. A Legalised CO is an ordinary CO that has been further authenticated. The legalisation process usually involves the CO being validated by various appropriate authorities to give more evidence to its authenticity.

Certified CO

A Certified CO is similar to a n ordinary CO. However, it has been certified by a Chamber of Commerce, government agency or other relevant authority to confirm its authenticity.

Certification involves an in-depth review of all of the information declared on the CO, as well as a thorough side-by-side comparison with the requirements of the trade agreement and regulations of the country of import to ensure full compliance.

EUR1

A EUR1 certificate is used in trade between the UK and partner countries. It is used to confirm that goods originate in the EU or a partner country so that the importer can benefit from a reduced rate of import duty.

EUR1 certificates are issued by Chambers of Commerce or Customs offices.

Contents of a CO

A CO will typically contain the following information:

name and contact information of the manufacturer of the goods
country of origin
contact information of the exporting agent
contact information of the receiver/importing agent
description of the goods, including the appropriate product codes
quantity, size, and weight of goods
A waybill or bill of lading number
means of transport and route information
commercial invoice of payment

* A waybill is a document issued by a carrier giving details and instructions relating to the shipment of a consignment of cargo. It shows the names of the consignor and consignee, the point of origin of the consignment, its destination, and route.

How do I find out if I need a CO?

A business will need to check with its local Chamber of Commerce.

VAT: Updated guidance on zero-rated exports

By Marcus Ward 7 November 2023

HMRC’s Public Notice 703 has been updated. The Notice sets out how and when a business can apply zero-rate exported goods.

The changes are: Information on the types of fuel that the Extra Statutory Concession 9.2 does not apply to, and when you cannot zero rate the export of a motor vehicle has been updated.

And: Information on evidence relating to zero rating and direct exports – paragraphs 6.1, 6.5, 7.3 and 7.4.

VAT: New guidance on zero rating exports

By Marcus Ward 4 April 2023

HMRC has published updated guidance on the evidence required to zero rate the export of goods. VAT Notice 703 sets out the following changes on the documentation which is required for proof of export:

Para 6.1 – For VAT zero rating purposes a business must produce official evidence or commercial evidence. Both types generally have equal weight but, if the commercial evidence is found to be lacking sufficient detail, a business will be expected to provide official evidence. An exporter must also provide supplementary evidence to show that a transaction has taken place, and that the transaction relates to the goods physically exported. If the evidence of export provided is found to be unsatisfactory, VAT zero rating will not be allowed and the supplier of the goods will be liable to account for the VAT at the appropriate UK rate.

Para 6.5 – What must be shown on export evidence (extract from the Notice)

“An accurate description of the exported goods and quantities are required, for example ‘2000 mobile phones (Make ABC and Model Number XYZ2000), value £50,000’.

If the evidence is found to be unsatisfactory you as the supplier will become liable for the VAT due.

If you’ve described goods inaccurately on an export declaration you may be liable for a customs penalty.

The rest of this paragraph has force of law.

The evidence you obtain as proof of export, whether official or commercial, or supporting must clearly identify:

- the supplier
- the consignor (where different from the supplier)
- the customer
- an accurate and full description of the goods including quantities
- an accurate and consistent value of the good
- the export destination, and
- the mode of transport and route of the export movement

Vague descriptions of good, quantities or values are not acceptable. An accurate value must be shown and not excluded or replaced by a lower or higher amount”.

Paras 7.3 and 7.4 on merchandise in baggage and direct exports of personal goods in accompanied baggage have also be amended.

Overview

It is vitally important that exporters obtain the correct evidence that goods have physically left the UK and that all descriptions of the goods are accurate and satisfy HMRC requirements. There has been a significant amount of case law on export documentation (an example here) which illustrates that this is often an area of dispute.

VAT: HMRC yearly average and spot rates

By Marcus Ward 3 March 2023

HMRC has published the annual yearly and spot foreign exchange rates in CSV format.

You should use these exchange rates if you have to convert any foreign currency to sterling for Customs and VAT purposes.

When searching for exchange rates a business should consider what it requires the rates for and and the type of rate needed.

HMRC have published guidance on the use of exchange rates for tax and accounting purposes:

VAT: The Windsor Framework

By Marcus Ward 1 March 2023

While we await the fine details, trade between GB and Northern Ireland is likely to be subject to new rules. These are set out under the heading of The Windsor Framework published by HM Government.

(Very) General

Via the Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP), Northern Ireland operated under the EU VAT rules. There are revised VAT rules set out in The Windsor Framework. The EU rules on VAT rates will not apply to a list of goods for consumption in Northern Ireland in certain circumstances.

The Windsor Framework amends the legal text of the NIP to ensure that Northern Ireland will be subject to the same VAT and excise rules that apply in the rest of the UK.

The Framework means that legislation to apply the zero-rate of VAT to energy saving materials can be introduced. A number of other flexibilities should enable UK-wide VAT changes to apply in Northern Ireland. It is anticipated that future VAT issues can be addressed in order to manage any divergences in policy between GB and Northern Ireland.

A bit more detail

The Windsor Framework sets up a new UK internal trade scheme, based on commercial data-sharing rather than traditional international customs processes.

Under the NIP, a framework exists that allows goods to move from GB to Northern Ireland tariff-free. If the goods do not fall within that framework, they are treated as if moving across an international border and full customs declarations are required.

This Framework introduces arrangements through a new UK internal market system (colloquially called the “Green Lane”) for internal trade. Goods being sold in Northern Ireland will not be subject to “unnecessary paperwork, checks and duties”.

The new scheme will significantly expand the number of businesses able to move goods using the Green Lane by being classed as internal UK traders.

The Changes

To ensure that internal UK trade is protected, the agreement expands the number of businesses able to be classed as internal UK traders and move goods as ‘not at risk’ of entering the EU through three changes:

businesses throughout the UK will now be eligible – moving away from the previous restrictions that required a physical premises in Northern Ireland.
the turnover threshold below which companies involved in processing can move goods under the scheme which they can show stay in Northern Ireland is increased from the current £500,000 limit up to £2 million (this means that four-fifths of manufacturing and processing companies in Northern Ireland who trade with GB will automatically be in scope).
if businesses are above that threshold, they will be eligible to move goods under the scheme if those goods are for use in the animal feed, healthcare, construction and not-for-profit sectors.

Businesses in the scheme that can show their goods will stay in Northern Ireland will gain access to a simplified process for goods movements, using ordinary commercial data rather than customs data.

Goods moving to the EU will be subject to normal third-country processes and requirements.

Reduction in so-called frictions

The Framework seeks to address a range of issues that added frictions or costs for internal UK trade:

safeguarded tariff-free movements of all types of steel into Northern Ireland .
a forward process for ensuring that Northern Ireland businesses can access other goods subject to Tariff Rate Quotas in the future, dealing with the unique disadvantages under the existing system.
where businesses cannot be certain of the end destination of their goods when first moving them into Northern Ireland, a new tariff reimbursement scheme for those who can show the goods were ultimately not destined for the EU.