Turkish Food Supplies Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 1 May 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 496 (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

Turkish Food Supplies Ltd (TFS) appealed an HMRC post-clearance import VAT demand arising from large advance "hedge" payments to supplier Vitan. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that most of the £718,000 were advance payments to secure supply/pricing and were not payments for specific imported goods, so import VAT was only due on the declared values totalling £111,390.32; the appeal against HMRC's reduced demand of £121,321.93 was allowed. A separate £972.22 demand for a single import was not shown by TFS to be incorrect and that part of the appeal was dismissed.

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: medium

Where payments are made in advance to secure a general supply of unspecified goods on unspecified dates, those payments are not necessarily part of the "price actually paid or payable" for particular imported goods for customs valuation; credible documentary and oral evidence (including the nature of the hedge agreements and longstanding commercial dealings) can support a finding that such sums are advances rather than prices attributable to specific imports.

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 observed difficulties in applying and interpreting the UCC time‑limit provisions (Articles 103 and 22) on the facts but did not decide that point. It also noted that the mere size of advance payments, without further evidence, does not by itself establish that import values were understated.