Laurence Supply Co (Leather Goods) Limited v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2025] UKUT 00031 (TCC)
Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery decision of Judge Raghavan on 24 January 2025
Read full decision
1. The applicant 바카라 사이트淟aurence Supply바카라 사이트�, applies to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery) (바카라 사이트淯T바카라 사이트�) for permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (바카라 사이트淔TT바카라 사이트�) released on 6 February 2024 (바카라 사이트渢he FTT Decision바카라 사이트�) following a hearing which took place over the dates 12-14 September 2022 and 6 June 2023 and published as Laurence Supply Co (Leather Goods) Limited v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 124 (TC). 2. Laurence Supply renewed its application for permission to the UT. I had previously refused permission to appeal in my decision of 5 September 2024. This is my decision following the oral renewal of the application heard on 14 January 2025. Laurence Supply was represented by counsel, Timothy Brown (who had not appeared below in the FTT, the company having represented itself at the hearing there through its director Mr Laurence Gordon and with another direction Mr Mark Gordon also attending). HMRC were represented at the oral renewal of permission hearing by counsel, Joanna Vicary who had appeared for HMRC below. I was grateful for both Mr Brown바카라 사이트檚 and Ms Vicary바카라 사이트檚 submissions. 3. The FTT Decision concerned Laurence Supply바카라 사이트檚 appeal against a C18 Post Clearance Demand Note (바카라 사이트淐18바카라 사이트�) related to imports by Laurence Supply of handbags and purses from China including 拢603,548.58 customs duty. The extent to which that was correct turned in summary on whether the relevant customs classification was the one which applied to handbags and purses with an outer material predominantly of 바카라 사이트減lastic sheeting바카라 사이트� (with a duty rate of 9.7%), as HMRC argued, or the classification in respect of 바카라 사이트渢extile materials바카라 사이트� or 바카라 사이트渙ther바카라 사이트� (with a duty rate of 3.7%), as Laurence Supply argued. In accordance with a relevant Explanatory Note the question was whether [63] 바카라 사이트渢he resultant outer layer being visible to the naked eye has the same visual appearance as an applied layer of manufactured plastic sheeting바카라 사이트�. As regards 바카라 사이트淚tem C바카라 사이트� being one sort of handbag the FTT examined, the FTT considered the leatherette on that did not meet that description and that HMRC had misclassified it under the code for 바카라 사이트減lastic sheeting바카라 사이트� (reducing the C18 by 拢2,064.36). The FTT thus allowed the appeal in part, but was not satisfied Laurence Supply had met the burden on it to show the classifications in respect of the remainder of the goods covered by the C18 were wrong.