DFS Australia Pty Limited and Comptroller-General of Customs

[2016] AATA 277

DFS Australia Pty Limited and Comptroller-General of Customs [2016] AATA 277 (29 April 2016)

Division	GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s)	2014/6388
Re	DFS Australia Pty Limited
APPLICANT
And	Comptroller-General of Customs
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Deputy President S E Frost
Date	29 April 2016
Place	Sydney

The decision under review is affirmed.

........................[sgd]................................................

Deputy President S E Frost

CATCHWORDS

CUSTOMS – import duty – claims for drawback of import duty on goods exported from Australia – whether duty drawback available to Applicant – whether Applicant ‘legal owner’ of goods at time of exportation – meaning of legal owner – decision affirmed

LEGISLATION

Customs Act 1901 s 4, 168

Customs Regulations 1926 regs 129, 134,

Customs Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 4)

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Explanatory Statement, Customs Amendment Regulations 2006 (No.4)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President S E Frost

29 April 2016

INTRODUCTION

1. The Applicant is the Australian member of a corporate group which operates a duty-free shopping network in Australia, Asia-Pacific, North America and the Middle East.

2. For about 15 years, between 1997 and 2013, the Applicant lodged more or less monthly claims for drawback of import duty in respect of goods exported from Australia.  The claims were generally approved and paid by the Respondent.

3. However, in November 2014, the Respondent notified the Applicant that 17 duty drawback claims made by the Applicant in respect of goods exported from Australia between August 2013 and October 2014 had been refused.  The Respondent refused the claims because it considered that the Applicant was not the ‘legal owner’ of the goods at the time they were exported from Australia, considering instead that legal ownership of the goods had by that time passed to the Applicant’s customers.  Since duty drawback is only available to the person who is the ‘legal owner’ of the goods at the time they are exported from Australia, the Respondent refused the claims.

4. The Applicant has now applied to the Tribunal, under s 273GA(jb) of the Customs Act 1901 (the Customs Act), for review of that decision.

   THE ISSUE

5. The issue before the Tribunal is whether, for the purposes of regulation 134(6) of the former Customs Regulations 1926 (the Customs Regulations), the Applicant was the ‘legal owner’ of the goods the subject of the claims at the time of their export from Australia. The Applicant says that it was, and that there is no impediment to the Respondent’s paying the drawback amount as claimed. The Respondent on the other hand maintains its position that the mandatory requirement in regulation 134(6) has not been satisfied.

   THE LEGISLATION

6. Section 168 of the Customs Act provides that the regulations may make provision for and in relation to allowing drawbacks of duty paid on goods imported into Australia.

7. At the time of the Applicant’s drawback claims, regulation 129 of the Customs Regulations provided as follows:

   (1)  This regulation applies to any imported goods on which import duty has been paid …

   (2)  Subject to these Regulations, drawback of import duty may be paid on the exportation of imported goods to which this regulation applies.

8. Regulation 134 provided:

   (1)  Drawback of import duty is not payable on the exportation of goods unless each of the requirements in this regulation is met.

   ...

   (6)  If the goods were exported on or after the day on which this regulation commences, the person who is the legal owner of goods at the time the goods are exported must give the claim to the Collector in the period:

   (a)starting on the day on which the goods are exported; and

   (b)ending:

   (i)for tobacco or tobacco products – 12 months after the day on which the goods are exported; and

   (ii)for other products – 4 years after the day on which the goods are exported.

   …

   (8)  Either:

   (a)the amount of the drawback must be at least $100; or

   (b)all of the following must apply:

   (i)the amount of the drawback is less than $100;

   (ii)the amount is claimed at the same time, and using the same approved form, as 1 or more other claims by the owner of the goods for drawback of import duty on the exportation of other goods;

   (iii)the sum of the drawbacks claimed is at least $100.

9. Section 4 of the Customs Act is the definition section. It provides relevantly:

   (1)  In this Act except where otherwise clearly intended:

   …

   Owner in respect of goods includes any person (other than an officer of Customs) being or holding himself or herself out to be the owner, importer, exporter, consignee, agent, or person possessed of, or beneficially interested in, or having any control of, or power of disposition over the goods.

   THE FACTS

10. At all relevant times the Applicant has operated in Australia two ‘off-airport outwards duty free shops’ as referred to in regulation 93 of the Customs Regulations. One of them is located at The Rocks in Sydney and the other is in Cairns.

11. The Applicant has two broad categories of customer who visit those stores, ‘Locals’ and ‘Travellers’.  ‘Locals’ are customers who will use the goods in Australia.  ‘Travellers’ are generally foreign tourists.

12. The category of customer determines the price for which the Applicant sells its goods.  The Applicant charges Locals a price that includes import duty and (where applicable) GST.  It charges Travellers a price that does not include those amounts.

13. Travellers are also required to complete specified documents at the time of sale, and to export the goods within 30 days[1] without using them in Australia.  These requirements are known as the ‘sealed bag regime’, described in more detail below, at [16]-[26].

    [1] This has since been changed to 60 days

14. The Applicant also has two broad categories of goods that it imports and sells in its stores.  The categories determine whether or not import duty is paid by the Applicant on the importation of the goods into Australia.  The categories are:

    ·‘Category 1 Products’ – these are goods on which the Applicant pays import duty at the time of importation as required by the Customs Act and Customs Regulations, and in respect of which the Applicant is granted an authority to deal with the goods. Included in this category are watches, sunglasses, jewellery, leather goods and clothing. These goods are sold to both Locals and Travellers under the dual-pricing system described above;

    ·‘Category 2 Products’ – these are goods on which the Applicant does not pay import duty at the time of importation. They include fragrance, cosmetics, select Cartier products, tobacco and alcohol. These goods are imported under the bonded warehouse scheme for the purposes of the Customs Act and Customs Regulations and are therefore only sold to Travellers.

15. Only Category 1 Products are relevant to the present dispute – and then only when they are sold to Travellers.

    Sale of goods in the duty free stores; the sealed bag regime

16. The following outline is taken from Exhibit A2, the witness statement of Alisa Okorn, the compliance director of DFS Venture Singapore (Pte) Limited and a former employee of the Applicant, and from Exhibit A1, the witness statement of Debra Lee Hamilton, the logistics manager of the Applicant.

17. The Applicant displays its Category 1 Products in its stores with two prices – the duty and GST paid price, payable by Locals; and the duty and GST free price, payable by Travellers.

18. When a Category 1 Product is sold to a Traveller, the goods are placed in a tamper-proof transparent sealed bag.  The bag forms an essential component of the ‘sealed bag regime’.  The outside of the sealed bag contains a warning sticker in bold type to the following effect:

    DUTY FREE GOODS UNDER CUSTOMS CONTROL

    DO NOT OPEN until proper export out of Australia

    Maximum fine of $50,000

19. The Traveller is provided with two documents which contain the terms of sale and the relevant declarations the Traveller must make under the sealed bag regime.

20. The first document is an Export Non-LAGS Docket.  For Category 1 Products, three copies of the Docket are printed: one copy is for the Traveller and it is placed in the sealed bag; a second copy is for Customs and it is stapled on the outside of the sealed bag; the final copy is retained by the Applicant.

21. The Docket contains the following declaration, which is signed by the Traveller:

    DUTY/GST FREE – SEALED BAG DECLARATION

    I declare that all the information given by me in this document is true and correct and that I will comply with the conditions provided to me in the Terms and Conditions information sheet provided to me at the time of purchase.

22. In addition, the Docket contains a credit card authorisation for the Traveller’s credit card to be debited for the amount of duty and other taxes for which the Applicant is liable in the event the Traveller fails to export the goods:

    I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE CARD HOLDER AGREEMENT AUTHORITY TO DEBIT MY CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT

    In consideration of DFS Australia Pty Limited (“DFS”) not charging me any Customs Duty or GST on goods I have purchased from them, I authorize DFS to debit my credit card account specified below with the amount of any Customs Duty and Excise/GST and WET [Wine Equalisation Tax] that DFS is required to pay to the Australian Customs Service and/or the Australian Taxation Office as a result of my failure to export these goods in the prescribed manner.

    I further authorize the recording of my credit card details below.

    …

23. The second document provided to Travellers is a ‘Duty/Goods and Services Tax (GST) & W.E.T Free Sealed Bag Declaration’, which is also stapled to the outside of the sealed bag.  This Declaration is a document published by Customs and is the ‘information sheet’ referenced in the Docket.  The Declaration is presented to the Traveller at the time of sale.  Some of the key terms of the Declaration are as follows:

    I will take these goods with me within thirty [now sixty] days of purchase when I depart from Australia on a journey to a foreign country.

    If I do not take the goods out of Australia on the flight/voyage specified above I will notify the proprietor of the store where the goods were purchased by noon the next working day that the goods were not exported; and

    ·if the goods are to be exported on a subsequent flight/voyage within 48 hours of the flight/voyage specified above, I will notify the proprietor of that intention and the next flight/voyage details; but

    ·if not so exported within 48 hours, I will return the sealed bag containing the unused goods to the store.

    I am aware that if I bring the goods back with me on my return to Australia I will declare the goods to Customs if the total value of the declarable goods in my possession exceeds the passenger concessional limits.

    If the goods are packed in a sealed bag for carriage as cabin or hold luggage on an aircraft or cruise vessel:

    I will carry them in full view at the airport or wharf departure area and not pack them in my luggage.

    …

    I will surrender the sealed bag for examination and for invoice detachment to an authorised collection officer after passing through Customs.

    Where the sealed package is to be stored in the hold of an aircraft or cruise vessel I will remove the Duty or Tax Free invoice and hand it to the authorised collection officer after the immigration point. …  Furthermore, I will not interfere with or break the seals of the bag or other package until I depart Australia; and

    I will not give a sealed bag or other sealed package to any other person to carry on to the aircraft or cruise vessel for me …

24. Travellers are instructed as to what they must do at the airport in respect of the goods.  The sealed bag regime requires Travellers to present the goods in the sealed bag to personnel of Duty Free Security Company (DFSC) located between Immigration and Security at the International Airport or after Customs at the dock (where the Traveller is departing Australia by ship).  The DFSC personnel remove and retain the invoice which was attached to the outside of the bag in the Applicant’s store, and then provide the Applicant with monthly lists of invoices they have collected.

25. DFSC personnel are required to inspect the sealed bag to see whether it has been tampered with and whether the goods have been either used or removed from the bag.  In either of these cases:

    ·DFSC personnel notify Customs officials who may impose a penalty on the Traveller;

    ·DFSC notifies the Applicant that the goods have been tampered with; and

    ·the Applicant does not claim a drawback on those goods and instead attempts to recover the duty and any GST from the Traveller by debiting their credit card as authorised in the sales docket.  For cost reasons, the Applicant chooses to do this only when the duty amount exceeds $50.

26. Dockets that have been collected by DFSC personnel at the airport or dock are used by the Applicant as proof of export to claim a drawback of duty.  If a particular Docket has not been collected by DFSC personnel, then the Traveller has not complied with the terms of the sale.  In these circumstances the Applicant attempts to recoup the duty and GST on the goods from the Traveller.

    The Applicant’s prior involvement in the duty drawback scheme

27. The Applicant’s use of the sealed bag regime procedures in these circumstances had its genesis in an agreement made with the then Australian Customs Service in 1997.  That agreement was made after the Applicant opened its landside store at Sydney International Airport.  The Applicant needed an agreement of that kind to allow it to sell to both Locals and Travellers and to claim duty drawback on the goods sold to Travellers.

28. The terms of the agreement (the 1997 Agreement) are set out in a letter dated 15 December 1997 to the Applicant’s representatives, Price Waterhouse, as follows[2]:

    [2] Exhibit A2, AO-1, Tab 6, quoted without correction

    …

    This advice is to confirm our recent discussions and meeting of Tuesday 09 December 1997.  Your clients application to claim drawback on duties and or taxes paid on goods sold to foreign residents at their airport retail outlet is granted, subject to the acceptance of the conditions detailed below.

    The conditions are procedures to be followed to enable compliance with the regulations in place at present.

    (a)  the purchaser will sign a declaration that the goods will be exported within 30 days, the sample sealed bag sales docket you have provided will meet this requirement;

    (b)  in addition to the declaration the purchaser will provide such information as the passenger’s name, nationality and residency (a passport/visa number and foreign residential address will satisfy this requirement), ticket number, destination, departing flight number and departure date.  As advised by Central Office in correspondence dated 28 November 1997 the sample sealed bag sales docket has provision to supply this information;

    (c)  the goods are to be exported in a sealed bag and export verification is to be provided by reconciliation of plucked dockets, as agreed at our meeting the reconciliation report will be sufficient for verification purposes;

    (d)  for audit purposes DFS will maintain evidence of import shipments, status of customer, passenger declaration (copy of docket) and export reconciliation report.

    …

    Your request for exemption to providing Pre-Export Notification (PEN) of the intention to claim drawback and Export Clearance Numbers (ECN’s) is granted. …

    Acceptance of the conditions by DFS Australia Pty Limited will be required to allow the processing of claims.  Registration for the drawback system must be finalised prior to the lodgement of your first claim and this can be arranged by completing the documents provided last Tuesday.

    …

29. In apparent reliance on the 1997 Agreement, the Applicant continued to make successful drawback claims right up until the 17 claims the subject of this dispute were refused in 2014.

    The 2006 amendments

30. In 2006 the Customs Regulations were amended by the Customs Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 4).  As a result of the amendments, from 21 October 2006, regulation 134 took the form quoted in [8] of these reasons.  That was the first time the Regulations made any reference to the expression ‘legal owner’ of the goods.

31. Before the 2006 amendments, the Regulations were expressed quite differently.  For example, subregulation 134(1) provided as follows:

    (1)  Drawback of import duty is not payable on the exportation of goods unless:

    (a)  before the exportation, the owner of the goods gives to the Collector a notice in an approved form, or in an approved statement, of the owner’s intention to claim drawback on the exportation; and

    (b)  before the exportation, the goods are available at all reasonable times for examination by an officer; and

    (c)  records that show:

    (i)that duty has been paid on the goods; and

    (ii)relevant details of the receipt, use and disposal of the goods by the owner;

    are available at all reasonable times for examination by an officer; and

    (d)  a claim for drawback of import duty paid in respect of the goods that:

    (i)is in an approved form; and

    (ii)sets out the amount of the claim and such other information as that form requires;

    is given by the owner referred to in paragraph (a) to the Collector:

    (iii)after exportation; and

    (iv)not later than 12 months after the day on which the goods are exported; and

    (e)  the claim also mentions that, to the best of the knowledge, information and belief of the person making the claim, the goods have not been used in Australia other than for the purpose of being inspected or exhibited; and

    (f)    the amount of the drawback:

    (i)is at least $50; or

    (ii)being less than $50, is claimed at the same time and in the same approved form as 1 or more other claims by the owner of the goods for drawback of import duty on the exportation of other goods, and the sum of the drawbacks claimed is at least $50.

32. The subregulation in its pre-amendment form referred simply to the ‘owner’ of the goods as a person permitted by paragraph (d) to make a claim for drawback.  On the other hand, after the 2006 amendments, the entitlement to make a drawback claim was restricted by subregulation (6) to ‘the person who is the legal owner of goods at the time the goods are exported’.

33. An Explanatory Statement issued by the authority of the Minister for Justice and Customs at the time of the 2006 amendments stated by way of general introduction (emphasis added):

    …

    The purpose of the amending Regulations is to make technical amendments to the provisions of the Customs Regulations 1926 (the Principal Regulations) in order to amend reporting and procedural requirements when claiming the payment of drawback of import duty on imported goods.  In particular, the amending Regulations extend the eligible application period, increase the minimum claim amount, remove the requirement for prior notice of manufacture for export and intention to claim drawback and allow for a new method of calculating drawback.

    …

    No consultation was undertaken in relation to these amendments as they are of a minor or machinery nature and do not substantially alter existing arrangements.

    …

34. The specific commentary in relation to the amendment of regulation 134 is as follows (quoted in full; emphasis added):

    Item 3 of Schedule 1 to the amending Regulations amends the conditions in regulation 134 of the Principal Regulations which relate to the payment of drawback of import duty.  Regulation 134 sets out conditions including who can make the claim, the time frame for making a claim, the minimum amount that can be claimed, the requirement to give Customs notice of the intention to manufacture goods for exportation, and the intention to claim drawback on such goods.

    The amending Regulations extend the duty drawback application period from 12 months after the day on which the subject goods are exported to 4 years.  This aligns the application period for drawback with that for applications for refunds of Customs duty and for the recovery of Customs duty.

    The amending Regulations also increase the minimum claim amount from $50 to $100.

    The amending Regulations also remove the requirement for prior notice of manufacture of goods for export and intention to claim drawback.  In place of actual examination of goods, Customs now relies upon other strategies, including risk management, to monitor and identify non-compliance with the drawback regime.  The amending Regulations also specify that the person who may claim drawback is now the legal owner of the goods at the time of exportation.

    The new conditions for claiming the drawback of import duty only apply to goods exported after the amendments take effect.

1. It would be fair to say that, while the Explanatory Statement certainly made reference to the new requirement that the drawback claimant be the ‘legal owner of the goods at the time the goods are exported’, it did not give any great prominence to it.

   WHY DOES THE APPLICANT SAY IT IS ENTITLED TO DRAWBACK?

2. The Applicant’s submissions are made in response to the position taken by the Respondent, which is that the only person who can make a valid claim for duty drawback under regulation 134(6) is the person who legally owns the goods at the time they are exported from Australia.  The Applicant submits as follows[3]:

   [R]egulation 134(6) is to be construed harmoniously with the balance of the legislative scheme.  Once that is done, it becomes clear that the expression  ‘legal owner’ directs attention to the person who paid import duty upon the relevant goods and who enjoys one or more incidents of ownership in respect of the relevant goods that would be recognised by law.  Those incidents include, but are not limited to, absolute ownership and extend, as the Act itself suggests, to persons who hold a beneficial interest in the goods, or who have a level of control or power of disposition over the goods.

   [3] Applicant’s Outline of Written Submissions, at [5]

3. The Applicant submits that the use of the expression ‘legal owner’ in regulation 134, when considered in light of the definition of ‘owner’ contained in the Customs Act, suggests that regulation 134(6) is referring to a category of ‘ownership’ more confined than that provided for in the broader statutory definition. A number of the concepts referred to in that statutory definition – including possession, beneficial interest, control and power of disposition – are concerned with legal incidents of ownership and the rights enjoyed by a person in respect of the use of goods. There is no reason, the Applicant submits, to conclude that the adjective ‘legal’, as used in regulation 134(6), was intended to confine the concept of legal ownership in a narrow way.

4. The Applicant points to a number of provisions in the remainder of regulation 134 which, it says, would be difficult or impossible for Travellers to satisfy on the Respondent’s construction, thus rendering a narrow construction of the regulation implausible.  These provisions include:

   (a)the requirement that records be available at all reasonable times for examination by Customs to show that duty has been paid on the goods – but Travellers will not always know whether duty has been paid and will rarely have access to relevant records;

   (b)the requirement that claims for drawback be in an ‘approved form’ – but Travellers are not provided with an approved form at the time of purchase of goods from the Applicant and in any event they would have no knowledge of some of the information required to be provided in the form;

   (c)a 4-year time limit for making drawback claims – a requirement that sits uneasily with an intention that individual Travellers make the claims;

   (d)the requirement that the person making the claim verify that, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, the goods have not been used in Australia other than in specified circumstances – but Travellers will rarely be in a position to give that verification;

   (e)the $100 threshold requirement –which many Travellers will not be able to meet.

5. The Applicant submits that it, rather than the Traveller, was in fact the ‘legal owner’ of the goods at the time they were exported from Australia, for the following reasons:

   (a)the Applicant was the entity who applied to enter the goods for home consumption under s 68(2) of the Customs Act and who received an ‘authority to deal’ in respect of the goods under s 71C of the Act, and in this way the Applicant enjoyed legal authority to deal with the goods that had been imported;

   (b)the Applicant retained property in the goods until their export, based on the following:

   (i)the Sale of Goods Act in each relevant jurisdiction, New South Wales and Queensland, provides that property in goods passes at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred[4], which is to be determined having regard to the terms of the relevant contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case[5];

   (ii)the parties intended that property in the goods did not pass until export – as is evident from the fact that the Traveller was prohibited from accessing the goods prior to export, with the goods instead remaining at all times within a sealed bag, as required by the sealed bag regime; the Traveller was under an obligation to return the goods (still within the sealed bag) to the Applicant if the goods were not exported within 4 days of the original intended export date; by necessary implication, the Traveller was prohibited from selling or otherwise disposing of the goods to any other person prior to their export;

   (c)alternatively, even if property in the goods did pass to the Traveller upon purchase, the obligations set out in (b)(ii) above meant that the Applicant had a beneficial interest in the goods until the time of export;

   (d)the legal and practical ability of the Traveller to exercise ownership of the goods was severely constrained, such that the Applicant enjoyed rights of control and disposition sufficient to render the Applicant a ‘legal owner’ of the goods for the purposes of regulation 134(6).

   [4] Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW), s 22(1); Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld), s 20(1)

   [5] Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW), s 22(2); Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld), s 20(2)

   CONSIDERATION

6. The use of the expression ‘the person’ – rather than ‘any person’ – who is the legal owner of goods at the time the goods are exported in regulation 134(6) contemplates that there can be only one such person who answers the composite description.  That this expression was introduced in the 2006 amendments indicates a clear intention to confine the availability of duty drawback to a much narrower class of claimant than had been the case before. 

7. Before the amendments, any person within the very broad definition of ‘owner’ was potentially able to make a claim for drawback of duty.  Now it must be the one person in the world who is the ‘legal owner’ of the goods at the time of export.

8. For the Applicant’s submissions to be accepted, it must be the case that the Applicant retains property in the goods until the goods are exported from Australia, for only in that circumstance would the Applicant be the one person in the world who is the ‘legal owner’ at the time the goods are exported.  This is because the alternative circumstance, that property in the goods passes to the Traveller at the time of sale, would (on the Applicant’s alternative submission, as summarised in [39] (c) and (d) of these reasons) make both the Traveller and the Applicant the ‘legal owner’ at the time of export.  And there is no room in regulation 134(6) for an outcome that has more than one person in the world answering the description ‘the person who is the legal owner of goods at the time the goods are exported’.

9. The agreement between the Applicant and the Traveller does not suggest that the parties intend that the Applicant will retain property in the goods until they are exported from Australia.  I am unable to identify anything in the documentation or the conduct of the parties to suggest an intention that property in the goods passes anywhere but in the store, when the goods are handed over by the Applicant’s staff to the Traveller.  The conditions and restrictions that the Applicant seeks to impose on the Traveller – that the sealed bag should not be interfered with, and that it will be presented for examination and invoice detachment at the departure point – are not aimed at having property in the goods remain with the Applicant until the time of export.  They are, instead, conditions bearing upon the price charged to the Traveller by the Applicant.  If the Traveller does not comply with the conditions, then the additional amount will be charged to the Traveller’s credit card – precisely in accordance with the agreement between the parties.

10. The Applicant’s complaint that Travellers will rarely, if ever, be able to satisfy regulation 134(6) and that, for that reason, a broader construction should be placed on the provision, is misplaced.  The complaint is founded on an assumption that, if the Respondent is right with its argument that drawback in these circumstances is not available to the Applicant, then it should be available to the Traveller.  But the complaint fails to acknowledge that the 2006 amendments were specifically designed to narrow the circumstances in which drawback would be paid, with the natural consequence that the total amount paid by the Commonwealth to claimants would be reduced.  In that circumstance the assumption is an unsafe one.

11. Nor can the Applicant derive any comfort from the comments in the 2006 Explanatory Statement, to the effect that the amendments were ‘of a minor or machinery nature and do not substantially alter existing arrangements’.  Those comments cannot be elevated to such a status as to displace the clear meaning of the language of regulation 134(6).  In any event, it may very well be that the comments are accurate in the broad run of cases – even if perhaps not so in the case of goods sold to Travellers under the so-called sealed bag regime.  The amendments would be likely, for example, to have had little or no impact in the case of a commercial exporter of goods, whose claims for drawback would appear just as meritorious after the amendments as before.

    CONCLUSION

12. The Applicant is not ‘the person who is the legal owner of goods at the time the goods are exported’ and therefore regulation 134(6) is not satisfied with respect to the 17 drawback claims refused by the Respondent.

13. The decision under review must therefore be affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 47 (forty -seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President S E Frost

..............................[sgd]..........................................

Associate

Dated 29 April 2016

Date(s) of hearing	10 December 2015
Counsel for the Applicant	Mr D Thomas
Solicitors for the Applicant	Pricewaterhouse Coopers
Solicitors for the Respondent	Legal Services Branch, Comptroller-General of Customs