Latest News
Feb 3, 2012
Beware of anti dumping duty
Beware anti-dumping duty (ADD)
The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the Appellant's appeal against HMRC for providing misleading advice regarding the amount of ADD payable on the importation of a bicycle purchased in the US. The FTT found that, irrespective of whether HMRC gave incorrect advice, there is a liability to pay ADD because the bicycle was made in China. Hence, no unjust enrichment was gained by HMRC for receipt of duty.
The importer sought verbal advice from HMRC on the amount the import duties he would have to pay on a bicycle purchased in the US.
Bicycles originating in (made in) China are subject to Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) though the origin of this particular bicycle does not appear to have been considered by either party during their discussions. The fact that the bicycle is purchased in and shipped from the US does not change the liability to ADD i.e. it remains a bicycle of Chinese origin because it has not undergone substantial transformation outside of China.
The outcome of this case is a sound reminder to anyone wishing to determine how much import duty they will have to pay, that where goods are classified in a tariff heading which attracts ADD depending on their origin, they must take extra care to determine the origin of these goods which is not necessarily the country of export.
It also reminds us that HMRC are not necessarily to be held accountable for advice they provide and especially where it is verbal advice. The importer is expected to be aware of and take full account of any information which is in the public domain including Official Journals containing ADD Regulations.
The decision is available on the BAILII website.
The outcome of this case is a sound reminder to anyone wishing to determine how much import duty they will have to pay, that where goods are classified in a tariff heading which attracts ADD depending on their origin, they must take extra care to determine the origin of these goods which is not necessarily the country of export.
It also reminds us that HMRC are not necessarily to be held accountable for advice they provide and especially where it is verbal advice. The importer is expected to be aware of and take full account of any information which is in the public domain including Official Journals containing ADD Regulations.
The decision is available on the BAILII website.
If you would like any advice on the issues raised in this case, please contact 4 Eyes Ltd.
When this article appears in the latest news section on our website then the website disclaimer applies. See also full disclaimer on PDF in document archive which also applies.
Previous page: News & Archives
Next page: 2012 Documents