Push Investment Group Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 11 December 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1534 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

Push Investment Group Ltd appealed HMRC assessments charging anti-dumping duty, countervailing duty, import VAT and a penalty after a consignment of solar panels was released into free circulation with an Export Undertaking Certificate (EUC) that had expired 13 days earlier. The tribunal held that Article 3(1) of the ADD Regulation requires the EUC to be valid at the time the customs declaration for release into free circulation is accepted, so the expired EUC did not qualify for the exemption. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s C18 demand and penalty were upheld; parties have 56 days to apply for permission to appeal.

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

The binding ratio is that exemptions under Article 3(1) of the ADD Regulation require strict compliance with the procedural/formal conditions, including presentation of an EUC "according to Annex IV," at the time the customs declaration for release into free circulation is accepted; a certificate with an expiry date is no longer a valid certificate after that date for claiming the exemption.

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 (obiter) that the non-legislative Undertaking may be admissible as contextual material late in analysis but is subordinate to the Regulations, and that more relaxed rules in preferential origin regimes do not justify similar latitude when the ADD/CVD Regulations do not provide for it.