Canmi Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 22 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 890 (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
Canmi Ltd appealed a joint-and-several excise liability notice issued alongside an assessment to Miss Miriam Bumah for underpaid excise on beer imports. The Tribunal found Canmi, acting as Bumah’s direct customs representative and having completed the C88 declarations, was “involved in the importation” and therefore jointly and severally liable under Regulation 12(2) of the 2010 Regulations; knowledge of the irregularity was not required. The appeal was dismissed and Canmi was held liable for £13,972.
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 identified the ratio decidendi as the plain wording of Regulation 12(2): where an importation is irregular, any person “involved in the importation” is liable to joint and several excise liability, and that liability does not require the person to have knowledge of the irregularity; a direct customs representative can be such an “involved” person.
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 obiter that conventional agency or accessory/tort principles (including de minimis thresholds) are of limited assistance in construing statutory excise liability and that customs provisions such as Article 199 address different responsibilities for declaration inaccuracies and do not determine excise liability under Regulation 12(2).