Best Cosmetics Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 6 February 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 236 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
Best Cosmetics appealed two C18 post‑clearance demand notices totalling £320,251.68 for unpaid postponed import VAT after its EORI was used on 371 C88 declarations submitted by a customs agent. The tribunal admitted the late appeal but found on the facts that the C18s were correctly addressed to Best Cosmetics because its EORI was used, that neither Best Cosmetics nor the other company (UK Best) had shown they accounted for the PVA on VAT returns, and dismissed the appeal so the VAT remains due.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where a customs declaration is made in the name of a person by use of that person’s EORI on the C88s, that person is liable for the import VAT reflected in post‑clearance demand notices; postponed import VAT is only treated as accounted for if there is evidence it was entered on a VAT return in respect of goods used to make taxable supplies, and absent such evidence the liability remains.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal noted, as non‑decisive observations, that HMRC’s failure to flag a non‑VAT‑registered EORI sooner is unfortunate and that small businesses’ reliance on third‑party agents and the complexity of PVA are contextual factors, but these do not displace the importer’s legal responsibilities to ensure correct information is provided to agents and to check monthly PVA statements.