N2J Ltd v HMRC Chancery Division, 3 June 2009 N2J was refused zero-rating of certain goods that it thought had been exported. HMRC denied that there was any evidence of export and N2J was unable to persuade the Tribunal that the goods had in fact left the UK. N2J attacked the Tribunal’s decision on several grounds: • that the Tribunal had concentrated on whether N2J had taken steps to avoid being involved with fraudulent transactions, when HMRC had at no point accused N2J of fraud; • that the Tribunal had not explicitly found that the goods had not been exported; • that a CMR consignment notice (which in this case stated that the goods had been exported) was conclusive evidence of the facts stated on its face; and • that once HMRC had accepted a CMR as valid it could not later refuse to acknowledge its validity. The Judge rejected all of these arguments. The Tribunal had concluded that the goods had not been exported and that was determinative of the case, unless an incorrect CMR was conclusive evidence, which under established law it was not (see R (oao Teleos plc & others) v CCE Case C- 409/04 [2007] ECR I-7797).
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.