Kilo Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 29 September 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 351 (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
Kilo Ltd imported citric acid declared as originating in Malaysia but OLAF and the Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the goods actually originated in China and were therefore subject to EU anti‑dumping duty. Kilo’s reliance on certificates of origin and limited due diligence did not prevent imposition of the duty, and its claim for repayment under Article 119 of the Union Customs Code failed because it did not establish a competent‑authority error, inability reasonably to detect that error, or the required good faith/diligence. Both the anti‑dumping duty appeal and the Article 119 repayment appeal were 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: high
Where the true origin of goods is China, that actual origin (not a declared or certificated origin) determines liability for anti‑dumping duty; incorrect certificates of origin do not negate the duty. For an Article 119 repayment claim the claimant must prove (1) an error by a competent authority, (2) that it could not reasonably have detected that error, and (3) that it acted in good faith with appropriate diligence; failure on these points justifies refusal of repayment.
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 suggested (obiter) that non‑preferential certificates of origin issued by chambers of commerce with liability disclaimers may not qualify as “competent authorities” for Article 119 purposes, and that exporters misleading their issuing bodies does not necessarily create an error attributable to a competent authority for remission purposes.