[2010] UKFTT 413 (TC)

TC00683
	
Appeal number: LON/2007/7071

CUSTOMS DUTY – On clearance of goods on importation no claim for preferential treatment indicated to HMRC even though the goods qualified for preferential treatment under Decision 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council (“the Basic Decision”) – On the contrary by mistake no preferential treatment was claimed by the Appellant and full duty on importation was paid – On application for repayment being made by the Appellant, part of the claim for repayment was refused on the grounds inter alia that A.TR movement certificates had not been submitted within 4 months of their date of issue (as required by art. 8(1) of Decision 1/2006 of the EC-Turkey Customs Cooperation Committee (“the Implementing Decision”)) and that the goods had not been submitted within the said period of 4 months so that belated presentation of A.TR movement certificates could not be accepted by HMRC pursuant to art. 8(3) of the Implementing Decision – Appellant appealed contending inter alia  that on a proper interpretation of art. 8(1) of the Implementing Decision the A.TR movement certificates, which had been held by the Appellant at the time the goods went through clearance, had been ‘submitted’ and that on a proper interpretation of art. 8(3) of the Implementing Decision the goods had been ‘submitted’ within the said period of 4 months – held that on a proper interpretation of art. 8(1) of the Implementing Decision the A.TR movement certificates had not been ‘submitted’ at the time the goods went through clearance and that on a proper interpretation of art. 8(3) of the Implementing Decision the goods had not been ‘submitted’ within the said period of 4 months – These points taken as preliminary issues pursuant to an earlier Direction of the Tribunal – Preliminary issues decided against the Appellant

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX 
	DSG RETAIL LIMITED	Appellant

	-and-
	
	THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
	REVENUE AND CUSTOMS (Customs Duty)	Respondents

		TRIBUNAL: 	JOHN WALTERS QC (TRIBUNAL JUDGE)		
				SHEILA CHEESMAN							
Sitting in public at 45 Bedford Square, London WC1 on 2 and 4 June 2010

Jeremy White, Counsel, instructed by HBJ Gateley Wareing, for the Appellant 
Mario Angiolini, Counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2010

DECISION ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES

1.	This is an appeal by DSG Retail Limited (“the Appellant”) against a decision of the Respondent Commissioners (“HMRC”) not to repay an amount of £263,285.33 of import duty relative to an importation of televisions into the UK from Turkey.  The decision was originally made by Officer Steve O’Brien and communicated to the Appellant in a letter dated 9 July 2007.  The Appellant asked for a formal departmental review of the decision.  This was carried out by Officer John Evans, whose decision on review was to uphold the decision.  His letter communicating his decision on review was dated 16 August 2007.  The appeal is pursuant to sections 14 to 16, Finance Act 1994, and invokes the Tribunal’s full appellate jurisdiction. 
2.	 The Tribunal (Judge Cornwell-Kelly) directed (release date: 22 October 2009) that this hearing would be exclusively concerned with questions raised by the Appellant in relation to article 8(1) and 8(3) of Decision 1/2006 of the EC-Turkey Customs Cooperation Committee (“the Implementing Decision”) as preliminary issues, and in particular:
(i)	whether the proofs of entitlement to free circulation were submitted at the time of the customs declaration in compliance with article 8(1) under the simplified declaration procedure, and
(ii)	whether the Appellant is entitled to belated presentation under article 8(3).
3.	It will be convenient to give here the text of article 8 of the Implementing Decision:
“Article 8
1.	An A.TR. movement certificate shall be submitted, within four months of the date of issue by the customs authorities of the exporting State, to the customs authorities of the importing State.
2.	A.TR. movement certificates submitted to the customs authorities of the importing State after the final date for submission specified in paragraph 1 may be accepted where the failure to submit these documents by the final date set is due to exceptional circumstances.
3.	In other cases of belated presentation, the customs authorities of the importing State shall accept A.TR movement certificates where the goods were submitted before the said final date.”
4.	The Implementing Decision sets out the implementing provisions for Decision 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council (“the Basic Decision”) which (by article 4 thereof) abolished import and export customs duties between the Community and Turkey.  The effect of article 3 of the Basic Decision is that goods can be imported into the Community from Turkey free of customs duties, provided those goods have been produced in Turkey or have otherwise been in free circulation in Turkey.
5.	 The Appellant wishes to put an argument based on article 8(2) of the Implementing Decision (exceptional circumstances) if its arguments based on article 8(1) and 8(3) fail.  Following Judge Cornwell-Kelly’s direction, that argument, if it arises, would be for a further hearing.  We considered whether to amend the direction so that all relevant issues could be considered and determined at this hearing, but we were dissuaded from doing so by the parties who had not come prepared to deal with the article 8(2) point.
6.	Witness statements were made by Ole Krebs, office manager of Maritime Cargo Processing PLC of Felixstowe, Kevin John Sach, at the relevant time Customs Team Leader for NYK Logistics (UK) Ltd. (“NYK”), which acted as the Appellant’s agent from mid 2006 to the spring of 2008, and Emma Hammerton, at the relevant time an import co-ordinator at NYK.  These witness statements were served on behalf of the Appellant.  None of these witnesses was required for cross-examination by HMRC and their statements therefore stand as evidence of their contents.
7.	There was no oral evidence received, but we were provided with two bundles of documents.  From the evidence we find the following facts.
The facts
8.	The Appellant imported into the UK numerous shipments of electrical goods from Turkey between November 2006 and March 2007. It paid duty on those consignments at the normal rate (that is, without claiming the benefit of preferential duty arrangements, the scheme for which was at the material time set out in the Implementing Decision).
9.	The Appellant was authorised to operate what is known as the “Customs Freight Simplified Procedure” (“CFSP”) which allows declaration to be made without the physical submission of supporting documents, which the Appellant was permitted to retain for later inspection. A simplified declaration for imports (“SDI”) is made electronically.
10.	In the relevant SDIs made by the Appellant, in the place equivalent to Box 36 of the Single Administrative Document (“SAD”) provided by article 205 of Commission Regulation 2454/93/EEC (“the Implementing Code”), which is the place to indicate tariff preferential treatment claimed, the Appellant mistakenly inserted the code “100” when it should have inserted the code “400”.
11.	The code “100” indicates “tariff arrangement erga omnes”, which indicates a tariff arrangement ‘in relation to everyone’, in other words, that normal duty rates apply and a preferential customs duty is not requested or does not exist.
12.	The code “400” indicates that non-imposition of customs duties under the provision of customs union agreements concluded by the Community is claimed, in this case the scheme set out in Decision 1/2006 of the EC-Turkey Cooperation Committee.
13.	In all but two of the relevant SDIs made by the Appellant, in the place equivalent to Box 34 of the SAD, the code “TR” was inserted, indicating that the origin of the goods was Turkey.  In the two exceptions, the code “PA” (indicating Panama) was incorrectly inserted. However for the purposes of this Decision, this mistake is not mentioned further because HMRC have agreed that the case may be determined on the basis of a single ‘sample’ import.
14.	The Appellant paid duty on the consignments at the normal rate.
15.	 On 29 June 2007, the Appellant (having discovered its mistake) applied for repayment of £808,436.10, on the basis that the goods imported were entitled to preference and should not have been subject to duty on importation.  The Appellant produced A.TR. movement certificates in support of its claim for repayment.  A.TR movement certificates are the documentary evidence required under articles 5 and 6 of the Implementing Decision to prove that the provisions on free circulation laid down in the Basic Decision are met in relation to goods imported into the Community from Turkey.  A.TR movement certificates are issued at the exporter’s request by the Turkish customs authorities.
16.	HMRC agreed to repay £545,150.77 of the sum claimed.  This was in recognition of the fact that the A.TR movement certificates relating to certain of the imported goods fulfilled the conditions of article 8(1) of the Implementing Decision (see: above) as they had been submitted within 4 months of their date of issue and therefore within their period of validity.
17.	However HMRC refused to repay the remaining £263,285.33 (the sum disputed in this appeal) on the basis that the 59 A.TR movement certificates relative to the reclaim of this sum were submitted to HMRC more than 4 months after they were issued and there were no ‘exceptional circumstances’ (cf.  article 8(2) of the Implementing Decision) to justify repayment.
18.	An internal review on 16 August 2007 upheld that refusal. The reviewing officer also considered the Appellant’s argument that article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision applied, but concluded that the goods in question had not been ‘submitted’ within the 4 month period specified, as the Appellant’s SDIs had not indicated that the goods were entitled to preferential rates.
19.	The Appellant appealed the decision on 12 September 2007, claiming that it was entitled to the benefit of belated presentation of proof under article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision. On 21 February 2008, the Appellant filed further grounds of appeal. As stated above, the hearing (and this Decision) is concerned only with the arguments raised under article 8(1) and (3) of the Implementing Decision.
20.	The goods were (subject to the formalities with which this appeal is concerned) entitled to duty-free admission to free-circulation within the Community.  They had been in free-circulation in Turkey before exportation to the Community and they were covered by valid A.TR movement certificates.
The Appellant’s argument under article 8(1) of the Implementing Decision
21.	In the circumstances of this case, article 8(1) of the Implementing Decision requires an A.TR movement certificate to be ‘submitted’ to HMRC within four months of the date of its issue by the Turkish customs authorities.
22.	The Appellant submits that neither the Basic Decision nor the Implementing Decision provides detailed requirements as to how A.TR movement certificates are to be ‘submitted’.  Mr. White however points out that article 3 of the Implementing Decision applies the Community Customs Code (“the Code”) and its implementing provisions (“the Implementing Code”) to trade between Turkey and the Community, without prejudice to the provisions on free circulation laid down in the Basic Decision.
23.	Mr. White submits that the effect of articles 260 and 255 of the Implementing Code is that where the CFSP is operated, accompanying documents (such as A.TR movement certificates) can be retained by the declarant. When this is done he accepts that “data relating to missing documents [must] in all cases be indicated in the declaration” – see: the final indent of article 255(2), which applies to incomplete declarations and is also applied to declarations made under a simplified declaration procedure by the final words of article 260(4) of the Implementing Code.
24.	He contends that a sufficient indication in the declarations of the fact that valid A.TR movement certificates were held was provided by the indications in the places equivalent to Box 2 that the exporter was a person in Turkey and Box 34 that the country of origin of the goods was Turkey.  He argues that in combination, these indications together were sufficient indication of entitlement of the goods to be admitted to free circulation.
HMRC’s argument on the point under article 8(1) of the Implementing Decision
25.	Mr. Angiolini submitted that under the CFSP system, although the Appellant was not required physically to submit A.TR movement certificates with its declarations, it was required to enter, in the place equivalent to Box 44 of the SAD an identification of those certificates and all necessary information in relation to them.  He contended that only documents so identified could be treated as having been ‘submitted’ under article 8(1) of the Implementing Decision when retained by the Appellant.  
26.	However, the Appellant did not insert any information in the place equivalent to Box 44 of the SAD and, indeed, gave information contradictory to the fact that it held valid A.TR movement certificates, by indicating in the place equivalent to Box 36 that it did not hold a preference certificate (A.TR movement certificate).  This was the import of the insertion of the code “100” (erga omnes) in the place equivalent to Box 36.
27.	Mr. Angiolini submitted that that fact that the place equivalent to Box 34 was filled in to indicate that the goods originated from Turkey was not sufficient to indicate that the goods were entitled to be admitted to free circulation because it does not indicate that they actually fulfil the requirements of article 3 of the basic Decision (the A.TR movement certificates provide the evidence of this).  
28.	He said that on the contrary the declarations made by the Appellant under the CFSP system indicated that the goods did not qualify for preferential treatment and that no A.TR movement certificates were held (and therefore none was submitted).  He submitted that in a case where goods originating in Turkey were exported to the Community by a person in Turkey, this was a possible situation and the declarations did not ex facie suggest that the goods were entitled to preferential treatment.  The goods could, for example, have been made up of components derived from a different country which were not in free circulation in Turkey when assembled.  He cited Asda Stores Ltd. v Commissioners of HMRC (Case C-372/06) as an illustration of a case where goods imported into the Community from Turkey, accompanied by A.TR movement certificates, were nevertheless challenged on the basis that the real places of origin of the goods was China and Korea, by reason of the application of the test contained in contested provisions of a Regulation as to the validity of which a reference was sought by the VAT and Duties Tribunal from the European Court. The goods had been assembled in Turkey from various parts and it was relevant to decide whether such assembly had been a substantial working or processing operation sufficient to cause the goods to be deemed to originate in Turkey.
29.	Mr. Angiolini submitted that any other interpretation would effectively dispense with the need to use Box 44 (or its equivalent) to identify relevant documents.  He argued that in the case of an application of the CFSP system, where copies of documents are not actually lodged with HMRC, it is even more important for such documents to be precisely identified, so that an audit trail exists, should HMRC decide to undertake a verification of the relevant importation.  He said that the system of customs control is based on strict compliance with documentary requirements and that it would undermine that system if even the minimal requirements of CFSP were completely dispensed with, as (he said) the Appellant was arguing. 
Conclusion on the point under article 8(1) of the Implementing Decision
30.	We decide this point in favour of HMRC.  Although we accept that the inclusion of indications in the places equivalent to Box 2 that the exporter was a person in Turkey and Box 34 that the country of origin of the goods was Turkey, might raise a prima facie assumption that the goods qualified for preferential treatment, the entitlement to such treatment is not established unless valid A.TR movement certificates are held.  They, after all, are evidence of the Turkish customs authorities’ validation of the entitlement to preferential treatment.  Declarations under the CFSP system which do not refer to valid A.TR movement certificates held, do not in our judgment satisfy the requirement that “data relating to missing documents [must] in all cases be indicated in the declaration” in the final indent of article 255(2), applied to declarations made under a simplified declaration procedure by the final words of article 260(4) of the Implementing Code.
The Appellant’s argument under article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision
31.	 Here the issue is whether in a case of belated presentation of the A.TR movement certificates, the goods themselves were ‘submitted’ before the final date (4 months after the date of issue by the Turkish customs authorities).
32.	Mr. White, for the Appellant, argues that the goods themselves were ‘submitted’ before the final date because they were presented to customs under article 40 of the Code when an import declaration was filed with HMRC, on the importation of the goods, or in any event when the goods are presented at clearance, when the SDI was made.
33.	Article 40 of the Code provides:
“Goods which, pursuant to article 38(1)(a), arrive at the customs office or other place designated or approved by the customs authorities shall be presented to customs by the person who brought the goods into the customs territory of the Community or, if appropriate, by the person who assumes responsibility for the carriage of the goods following such entry.”
34.	Mr. White contends that ‘submission’ of the goods for the purposes of article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision is the same as ‘presentation’ of the goods for the purposes of article 40 of the Code. 
35.	 He points out that at the time of presentation of the goods for the purposes of article 40 of the Code there is no opportunity to declare that a claim for preferential treatment may be made.  A claim for preferential treatment is properly made at the later stage of declaration (in this case, when the SDI is made under the CFSP system).  
36.	Mr. White submits that article 8(1) of the Implementing Decision lays down a time limit for the submission of A.TR movement certificates by reference to the date of issue of the certificates – that is, they must be submitted within 4 months of the date of issue.  Article 8(2) of the Implementing Decision extends this time limit in cases of ‘exceptional circumstances’.  Article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision  provides a time limit with a different point of reference – the submission of the goods themselves.  In cases within article 8(3) A.TR movement certificates can be submitted more than 4 months after the date of issue where the goods themselves have been submitted within that 4 month period.
37.	He submits that ‘submission’ of the goods within article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision cannot require an indication to be made of an entitlement to free circulation (which arises from the preferential status of the goods).  The preferential status of the goods can only be determined by verification of the A.TR movement certificate, and it would be impossible to determine entitlement to free circulation by any examination of the goods before clearance.
38.	He submits that customs controls are not prejudiced by the consequences of the interpretation for which the Appellant contends.  He reminds us that, on his interpretation, duty has been paid, a reclaim is then made, HMRC can call for the A.TR movement certificates and request verification of them by the Turkish authorities if they are in doubt.  He says that this is the same order of events and the same controls with respect to the A.TR movement certificates regardless of the time of their presentation.
39.	He cited Firma Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven (Case C-253/99) for the proposition that the production of a certificate of origin (such as an A.TR movement certificate) before the goods to which it relates are released into free circulation is not a precondition for the substantial entitlement to preferential tariff treatment (ibid. Judgment at [48]).  The certificate in such cases is a means of proof of entitlement.  Therefore it is appropriate (and necessary) for provision to be made for (and the legislation itself envisages) repayment or remission of duty to be given where a certificate of origin is produced after the customs declaration has been accepted and the goods released into free circulation. 
HMRC’s argument under article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision
40.	HMRC contend that the expression in article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision: “where the goods were submitted before the said final date”, refers to presentation of the goods for the purpose of preferential treatment, rather than simply presentation and declaration of the goods for the purposes of article 40 of the Code.
41.	Mr. Angiolini submits that ‘submission’ of the goods within article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision requires a claim for preferential origin status to be made.  Such a claim is not made on the occasion of presentation for the purposes of article 40 of the Code.
42.	Mr. Angiolini accepts that article 8(3) is not entirely clearly worded and he says that HMRC is not aware of any authority directly on the point of interpretation arising.  He submits that the Tribunal should interpret article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision in the light of its context, which is to lay down requirements for claiming preferential treatment pursuant to the Basic Decision.
43.	He submits that the Appellant’s interpretation undermines the procedure whereby HMRC is able to monitor and control imports through verifying the nature and origin of goods, by effectively obliging HMRC to accept all retrospective reclaims, however late the submission of the A.TR movement certificates except in cases where the goods have entered the UK illegally (so that they have not been presented for the purposes of article 40 of the Code at all) or where the goods have been so severely delayed in transit, that they do not arrive in the UK and are therefore not presented for the purposes of article 40 of the Code until after the expiry of the 4 month period starting with the issue of the A.TR movement certificates by the Turkish customs authorities.
44.	 He also submits that the Appellant’s interpretation of article 8(3) effectively renders nugatory the primary positive requirement of article 8(1) of the Implementing Decision that an A.TR movement certificate ‘shall’ be submitted within 4 months of the date of its issue.  Because presentation of goods for the purposes of article 40 of the Code is effectively routine and would in almost all cases take place within 4 months of the issue of the relevant A.TR movement certificates, the primary positive requirement of article 8(1) would have virtually no practical consequence.
45.	Likewise in relation to article 8(2) of the Implementing Decision: the extension of time for the submission of A.TR movement certificates due to ‘exceptional circumstances’ would be deprived of practical effect, if the Appellant’s construction of article 8(3) were accepted as correct.  He points out that the Court of Justice has restrictively interpreted the scope of ‘exceptional circumstances’ (see, for example: Firma Söhl & Söhlke v Hauptzollamt Bremen  (Case C-48/98) [1999] ECR I-7877).
46.	Mr. Angiolini submits that in order to meet these points and give coherence and internal cohesion to article 8 of the Implementing Decision, article 8(3) must be interpreted as requiring ‘submission’ of the goods to be something more than mere presentation of them for the purposes of article 40 of the Code.  ‘Submission’ of the goods must entail some indication being given to HMRC that the goods are imported under preferential arrangements, that is, that they are being submitted for the purpose of claiming preferential treatment.  In practice, he submitted, goods will only be ‘submitted’ for the purposes of article 8(3) of the Implementing decision when the SDI containing full fiscal information is provided.  The space equivalent to Box 36 of the SAD would indicate that preferential rates are being claimed (by the insertion of the code “400”) and the space equivalent to Box 44 of the SAD would be used to give details of the relevant A.TR movement certificates. 
47.	He contended that this is the only interpretation of article 8(3) which fits with the scheme of preferential treatment of goods covered by A.TR movement certificates.  Any other interpretation (he said) would prevent HMRC from undertaking the necessary checks on the origin of the goods at the time of importation or clearance if they wished – and their ability to do so was an important guarantee of the integrity of the scheme.
Conclusion on the point under article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision
48.	We are impressed by Mr. Angiolini’s submissions on the interpretation which must be given to article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision in order to give rational effect to the provisions of article 8 as a whole.
49.	 We consider that Mr. White’s interpretation of article 8(3) does indeed rob article 8(1) and (2) of much of their practical effect for the reasons submitted by Mr. Angiolini.  
50.	In reply, Mr. White submitted that this is not so and that there are, on his interpretation of article 8(3), cases which could only come within article 8(1) or article 8(2).  These principally involved cases where an A.TR movement certificate is issued after exportation of the goods to which it relates – see: article 15 of the Implementing Decision.
51.	However, article 15 relates, on its own terms, to exceptional cases.
52.	Mr. White also stated in reply that on his interpretation of article 8(3) it would not apply to goods imported more than 4 months before release for free circulation.  We can see that this would be so in a normal case, if ‘submission’ of the goods did not take place before clearance (the making of the SDI), for then ‘submission’ would not take place before the end of 4 months beginning with the date of issue of the A.TR movement certificate by the Turkish authorities (the “final date”).  But, as we understood his submissions, Mr. White contended that in such a case there would have been ‘presentation’ of the goods for the purposes of article 40 of the Code at the time of importation, which would be well before the final date.  Accordingly we cannot understand why, on his argument, this example could not be covered by article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision.
53.	Mr. White also objected to Mr. Angiolini’s interpretation of article 8(3), as requiring ‘submission’ of the goods for its purposes to include the making of a claim for preferential status, on the ground that article 8(3) would then become the primary requirement covering the normal case, and article 8(1) would be relegated to apply to the exceptional cases where certificates of movement do not accompany an SDI.  We cannot accept this objection.  Article 8 deals with the submission (or presentation) of A.TR movement certificates – that, is the submission of proof of entitlement to preferential treatment.  The primary rule – laid down by article 8(1) – is that an A.TR movement certificate must be submitted within 4 months of its issue.  Article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision extends this time limit where a claim to preferential status has been made within the 4 month period.  Mr. Angiolini’s interpretation of article 8(3) does not envisage that where article 8(3) applies the A.TR movement certificate will accompany the SDI.  It simply seeks to put a realistic time limit for the acceptance by HMRC of belatedly presented A.TR movement certificates – that is, certificates presented outside the primary time limit provided for by article 8(1).
54.	Mr. White also contended that the importance attached in HMRC’s submissions to the need to be able to verify entitlement to preferential status at the time of importation or clearance was unfounded.  He said that movement certificates were commonly verified after the goods had been released into free circulation (as had happened in the cases where repayment had in fact been made to the Appellant).
55.	We accept this, and we also accept Mr. White’s point that the integrity of the customs system is adequately protected even if the ‘long stop’ period for presentation of A.TR movement certificates is extended in accordance with the interpretation of article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision for which the Appellant contends, by the fact that the duty has been paid and it is a repayment claim which would require to be verified.  It has also to be borne in mind that presentation of A.TR movement certificates is not a precondition to entitlement to preferential treatment, but a means of proof of such entitlement (Firma Bacardi GmbH).
56.	   Nevertheless, as this is a matter of interpretation of the terms of article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision, and as we must (as Mr. Angiolini submitted) interpret article 8(3) in the context of its implementing, by laying down conditions for claiming, the preferential treatment granted by the Basic Decision, we consider that article 8(3) must be interpreted as an exception to (or derogation from) article 8(1).  We cannot accord to article 8(3) a meaning which in practical terms deprives article 8(1) – and article 8(2) – of effective force.  We consider that the Appellant’s interpretation does this and HMRC’s interpretation does not.
57.	Our conclusion therefore is that the goods with which this appeal is concerned were not ‘submitted’ before the final date for the purposes of article 8(3) of the Implementing Decision.
Decision and Directions 
58.	For the reasons given above, we decide the preliminary issues in this appeal – those raised by the Appellant in relation to article 8(1) and 8(3) of the Implementing Decision – in favour of the Respondents. 
59.	We direct that the rules in relation to costs provided by the VAT and Duties Tribunals Rules 1986 shall apply to this appeal pursuant to our powers under the transitional provisions.  This direction is made following agreement between the parties that it should be made.
60. We further direct that the remaining issues in the appeal should be heard by a tribunal with the same constitution as this Tribunal.  

Right to apply for permission to appeal
61.  This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009.   The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party.  The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice.

JOHN WALTERS QC

TRIBUNAL JUDGE
RELEASE DATE: 26 August 2010