Jigsaw Wholesale Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 9 April 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 156 (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

Jigsaw Wholesale appealed an excise duty assessment of £75,531.07 and HMRC's revocation of its WOWGR registration after original AADs for three consignments were found in a lorry cab separate from the goods. The Tribunal found the seized AADs were originals but did not accompany the goods, creating an excise duty point; because Jigsaw had provided the security named on the AADs, it was strictly liable for the full duty and the bank/third‑party guarantee did not limit that statutory liability. The Tribunal also upheld HMRC's revocation of the WOWGR registration.

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 Tribunal held that EGAD regulation 6(1)(b) requires AADs to accompany excise goods until arrival, and separation can create an excise duty point under r21; where a person has provided the security/guarantee named on an AAD, domestic regulations impose strict statutory liability for excise due at that duty point, and a contractual or third‑party guarantee limit does not cap that statutory liability.

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 decision included observations rejecting close analogy to VAT strict‑liability authorities and noted that excise duties are treated differently (with seizure as a primary remedy). The Tribunal also commented (adopting earlier reasoning) that Member States should not accept limited third‑party guarantees if that would impede recovery by other Member States.