188体育

Read full decision

1. The applicant 鈥淟aurence Supply鈥�, applies to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery) (鈥淯T鈥�) for permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (鈥淔TT鈥�) released on 6 February 2024 (鈥渢he FTT Decision鈥�) following a hearing which took place over the dates 12-14 September 2022 and 6 June 2023 and published as Laurence Supply Co (Leather Goods) Limited v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 124 (TC). 2. Laurence Supply renewed its application for permission to the UT. I had previously refused permission to appeal in my decision of 5 September 2024. This is my decision following the oral renewal of the application heard on 14 January 2025. Laurence Supply was represented by counsel, Timothy Brown (who had not appeared below in the FTT, the company having represented itself at the hearing there through its director Mr Laurence Gordon and with another direction Mr Mark Gordon also attending). HMRC were represented at the oral renewal of permission hearing by counsel, Joanna Vicary who had appeared for HMRC below. I was grateful for both Mr Brown鈥檚 and Ms Vicary鈥檚 submissions. 3. The FTT Decision concerned Laurence Supply鈥檚 appeal against a C18 Post Clearance Demand Note (鈥淐18鈥�) related to imports by Laurence Supply of handbags and purses from China including 拢603,548.58 customs duty. The extent to which that was correct turned in summary on whether the relevant customs classification was the one which applied to handbags and purses with an outer material predominantly of 鈥減lastic sheeting鈥� (with a duty rate of 9.7%), as HMRC argued, or the classification in respect of 鈥渢extile materials鈥� or 鈥渙ther鈥� (with a duty rate of 3.7%), as Laurence Supply argued. In accordance with a relevant Explanatory Note the question was whether [63] 鈥渢he resultant outer layer being visible to the naked eye has the same visual appearance as an applied layer of manufactured plastic sheeting鈥�. As regards 鈥淚tem C鈥� being one sort of handbag the FTT examined, the FTT considered the leatherette on that did not meet that description and that HMRC had misclassified it under the code for 鈥減lastic sheeting鈥� (reducing the C18 by 拢2,064.36). The FTT thus allowed the appeal in part, but was not satisfied Laurence Supply had met the burden on it to show the classifications in respect of the remainder of the goods covered by the C18 were wrong.