WM Morrison Supermarket Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 22 September 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1145 (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 HMRC’s post‑clearance demand for anti‑dumping duty on household aluminium foil imported from Thailand, focusing on whether the Thai processing was economically justified or principally intended to avoid anti‑dumping duties, and if the final annealing in Thailand amounted to the last substantial processing conferring origin. The Tribunal found contemporaneous company material showed the Thai factory was set up mainly to avoid the anti‑dumping rate and that the Thai annealing produced only microscopic/sub‑structural changes (temper H18→0) insufficient to constitute the required substantial processing. The appeal by WM Morrison 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: high
Objective contemporaneous statements by a producer about the purpose of establishing or relocating production can be persuasive evidence that the principal purpose was avoidance of trade measures, and may outweigh later oral explanations. Where the final processing produces only microscopic or sub‑structural metallurgical changes that do not produce a readily perceptible or significant qualitative change in the product, that processing may be insufficient to qualify as the "last, substantial, economically‑justified processing" required to confer origin under the relevant provisions.
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 indicated that third‑country certificates of origin may be relevant but are not determinative if their basis is unclear or there is evidence of non‑cooperation, and that the absence of key internal documentary evidence or direct evidence from decision‑makers can justify drawing adverse inferences or reduce the weight of late, vague commercial explanations.