WM Morrison Supermarket Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 11 March 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 557 (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
This appeal concerned whether aluminium foil imported by WM Morrison, declared as Thai origin after final processing in Thailand, was entitled to that origin or was instead an operation established principally to avoid EU anti‑dumping duty. The Tribunal found objective contemporaneous evidence that the Thai factory was set up primarily to avoid anti‑dumping duty so Article 33 UCC-DA applied, and that the Thai annealing produced only microscopic/sub‑structural changes insufficient to amount to a substantial last process under Article 60 UCC/Article 34 UCC-DA. The Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof and the appeal was dismissed, leaving HMRC’s anti‑dumping duty intact.
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 contemporaneous objective evidence demonstrates that the principal or dominant purpose of establishing processing outside the EU was to avoid trade measures, Article 33 UCC-DA will render that operation not economically justified unless the party proves a different reasonable ground; and a final processing step will only confer origin as a "substantial" last process if it effects a significant qualitative change in the product beyond merely microscopic or sub‑structural alterations.
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 that certificates of origin from foreign authorities are relevant but not determinative where the issuing authority’s basis for certification is unclear and there is evidence of non‑cooperation or sanction; and that OLAF investigatory opinions should not be determinative when the Tribunal must itself decide the legal questions on the undisputed facts.