HMRC has updated its guidance on applying zero-rated VAT to goods exported from the UK – VAT Notice 703.
The amendments reflect the latest legal requirements (the latest force of law) and customs processes as of 13 February 2026 and removes outdated customs terminology and guidance.
Summary
Goods exported from the UK can be zero‑rated provided they physically leave the UK and all HMRC conditions are met. Notice 703 sets out who can apply zero‑rating and the legal basis under the VAT Act 1994.
Conditions & time limits: Exporters must ensure goods are exported within specified time limits (generally within three months, but longer in some cases) and meet detailed conditions depending on whether the export is direct, indirect, or in special scenarios (eg; retailers, ships, aircraft).
Evidence & record‑keeping: Zero‑rating is only valid if acceptable proof of export is obtained and retained (such as customs declarations and commercial transport documents), with clear rules on records, customs systems, and compliance checks.
In order to zero-rate a supply, it is vitally important that exporters obtain the correct evidence that goods have physically left the UK and that all descriptions of the goods are accurate and satisfy HMRC requirements. There has been a significant amount of case law on export documentation (an example here) which illustrates that this is often an area of dispute.
A curious matter and one which brings into focus the drinking habits of people across the EU. Now, as those who know me will be aware, I am not adverse to a good single malt, nor a decent claret, but I do wonder sometimes where people draw the line.
Background
It transpires that in Lithuania people who choose not to drink, or cannot afford, even the cheapest alcoholic items have turned to drinking perfume and mouthwash which contain isopropyl alcohol. This has a similar effect on the human body to what most people would regard as being from more usual beer, wine or spirits etc. Sounds delicious eh?
Issue
The issue was whether these products where subject to Excise Duty, or, as the appellant contended, they were duty free as cosmetic products.
Decision
The AG found that isopropyl alcohol is almost unpalatable to most people. The fact that Bene Factum held out, advertised and marketed to people to drink the products did not affect the fact that the main purpose of the goods was for their use as cosmetics and mouthwash. What must be considered is Excise Duty depends on an objective classification to determine whether it is intended for human consumption. This classification is not affected by the fact that Bene Factum actively encouraged people to drink these products rather than use them for cosmetic purposes.
Consequently, the goods where not subject to Excise Duty. Good news for Lithuanian alcohol connoisseurs! It remains to see if the court follows this opinion, in most cases they do, but one never knows.
Commentary
If there is anybody out there who is getting ready for their Christmas party, looks at some cosmetic products and considers taking a swig, I make the following comments:
HMRC has published its annual report and accounts 2024 to 2025 on 17 July 2025.
Highlights
EORI is an acronym for Economic Operator Registration & Identification.
An EORI number is assigned to importers and exporters by HMRC (EOs) and is used in the process of customs entry declarations and customs clearance for both import and export shipments moving to or from the UK.
What is the EORI number for?
An EORI number is stored both nationally and on a central EU EORI database. The information it provides is used by customs authorities to exchange information, and to share information with government departments and agencies. It is used for statistical and security purposes.
A business may need to demonstrate to HMRC that it has carried out proper due diligence in certain cases.
Who needs an EORI number?
You will require an EORI number if you are planning to import or export goods. EOs can be sole proprietors, partnerships, UK incorporated companies, registered charities, and overseas companies. However, private individuals bringing their own possessions to or from the UK do not need an EORI number. An EO does not need to be VAT registered to have an EORI number.
For VAT groups, each member who imports or exports goods needs an EORI number.
Format of the EORI number
VAT registered companies will see the EORI as an extension of their VAT number. Your VAT nine digit VAT number will be prefixed with “GB” and suffixed with “000”.
How do I apply for an EORI Number?
Non VAT registered companies can apply using this link – FORM C220
VAT registered companies can apply using this link – FORM C220A
Once completed, your form should be emailed to: eori@hmrc.gsi.gov.uk
How long will my EORI application take?
The process is straightforward and EORI applications usually take up to three working days to process.
Please contact us if you have any issues with importing or exporting.
EORI checker
Gov.uk has provided a new tool to check a business’ EORI number. (This used to be an EU resource now not available due to Brexit).
Access
Who has access to an EORI number?
The general public can access limited data, When a business is notified of its EORI number, it will be asked whether it objects to this data being published on the site.
EU Member States (MS) recently agreed the much-discussed ViDA package. Since Brexit, this does not directly affect the UK, however, it is an important pointer to the future and where we are all heading, so it will impact the UK in some ways.
The ViDA package (or a version of the finalised package) was first discussed in 2022 and has gone through a tortuous process before all MS agreed it.
What is ViDA?
ViDA aims to tackle what have been identified as three main challenges:
The new system introduces real-time digital reporting for cross-border trade, based on e-invoicing. It will give MS the information they need to increase the fight against VAT fraud, especially carousel fraud. The VAT Gap – the difference between expected and actual VAT revenue, has been widening across the EU over a number of years.
It is said that the move to e-invoicing will help reduce VAT fraud by up to €11 billion a year and bring down administrative and compliance costs for EU businesses by over €4.1 billion per year over the next ten years. It should ensure that existing national systems converge across the EU, and this should pave the way for EU countries that wish to introduce national digital reporting systems for domestic trade.
More on e-invoicing here.
Technological and business developments, especially in e-commerce, mean that VAT rules have struggled to keep pace. Under the new rules, platforms facilitating supplies in the passenger transport and short-term accommodation sectors will become responsible for collecting and remitting VAT to tax authorities when their users do not, for example because they are a small business or individual providers.
This will ensure a uniform approach across all MS and contribute to a level playing field between online and traditional short-term accommodation and transport services. It will also simplify life for SMEs who currently need to understand and comply with the VAT rules, often in different EU countries.
Building on the already existing VAT One Stop Shop (OSS) model for e-commerce, the package allows more businesses selling to consumers in another MSs to fulfil their VAT obligations via an online portal in one EU country. Further measures to improve the collection of VAT include making the Import One Stop Shop (IOSS) mandatory for certain platforms facilitating sales by persons established outside the EU to consumers in the EU.
Commentary
Many countries worldwide already have versions of e-invoicing and real-time reporting or plan to introduce them. Businesses operating in the EU will need to consider how the new rules impact them and what changes are needed for; systems, procedures, tax declarations, along with the commercial implications.
ViDA should result in a more harmonised VAT system and the UK will need to keep in step in order to avoid becoming even more of a commercial outlier.
The UK has also confirmed a consultation on e-invoicing so lessons which can be taken from ViDA will undoubtably inform the UK process.
Latest from the courts
In the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case of Procurement International Ltd (PIL) the issue was whether the movement of goods constituted a zero-rated export.
Background
Both parties essentially agreed the facts: The Appellant’s business is that of a reward recognition programme fulfiller. The Appellant had a catalogue of available products, and it maintained a stock of the most ordered items in its warehouse. PIL supplied these goods to customers who run reward recognition programmes on behalf of their customers who, in turn, want to reward to their customers and/or employees (reward recipients – RR). The reward programme operators (RPOs) provide a platform through which those entitled to receive rewards can such rewards. The RPO will then place orders PIL for the goods.
A shipper collected the goods from PIL in the UK and shipped them directly to the RR (wherever located). The shipper provided the services of delivery including relevant customs clearances etc. on behalf of the Appellant. PIL had zero-rated the supply of goods sent to RRs located overseas. All goods delivered to RRs outside the UK are delivered duty paid (DDP) or delivered at place (DAP). As may be seen by Incoterms the Appellant remained at risk in respect of the goods and liable for all carriage costs and is responsible for performing or contracting for the performance of all customs (export and import) obligations. The Appellant was responsible for all fees, duties, tariffs, and taxes. Accordingly, the Appellant is responsible for, and at risk until, the goods are delivered “by placing them at the disposal of the buyer at the agreed point, if any, or at the named place of destination or by procuring that the goods are so delivered”.
Contentions
HMRC argued that in situations where the RPO was UK VAT registered, the appellant was making a supply of goods to the RPO at a time when the goods were physically located in the UK, and consequently there was a standard-rated supply. It issued an assessment to recover the output tax considered to be underdeclared.
PIL contended that there was a supply of delivered goods which were zero-rated when the goods were removed to a location outside the UK. It was responsible (via contracts which were accepted to reflect the reality of the transactions) for arranging the transport of the goods.
Decision
The FTT held that there was a single composite supplies of delivered goods, and these were a zero-rated supply of exported goods by PIL. The supplies were not made on terms that the RPOs collected or arranged for collection of the goods to remove them from the UK. The Tribunal found that the RPOs took title to the goods at the time they were delivered to the RR, and not before such that it was PIL and not the RPOs who was the exporter. This meant that the RPOs would be regarded as making their supplies outside the UK and would be responsible for overseas VAT as the Place Of Supply (POS) would be in the country in which it took title to the goods (but that was not an issue in this case).
The appeal was allowed, and the assessment was withdrawn.
Legislation
Domestic legislation relevant here is The VAT Act 1994:
Some paragraphs of VAT Notice 703 have the force of law which applies here, namely the sections on:
Commentary
The Incoterms set out in the relevant contracts were vital in demonstrating the responsibilities of the parties and consequently, who actually exported the goods. It is crucial when analysing the VAT treatment of transactions to recognise each party’s responsibilities, and importantly, when (and therefore where) the change in possession of the goods takes place.
Latest from the courts
The second-hands of time.
In the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether the second-hand goods margin scheme (margin scheme) was applicable and whether HMRC’s assessments for £5,474,249 (later reduced to £5,004,595) of underdeclared of output tax were issued in best judgement.
Background
The Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited (A&M) sold second-hand wristwatches with the majority of the sales properly accounted for via the margin scheme. However, from information obtained from Italian tax authorities in respect of supply chain fraud, HMRC issued the assessments on the basis that supplies of certain goods did not meet the conditions of the margin scheme so that output tax was due on the full value of the watches rather than the difference between the purchase and sale values. HMRC decided to penalise A&M because the errors were deliberate and prompted and subsequently to issue a PLN on the basis that such conduct was attributable to the director. A&M is a “High Value Dealer” for anti-money laundering purposes.
Contentions
Appellant
The appellant claimed that HMRC did not use best judgement on the grounds that:
so the assessments and penalties were invalid.
Whilst accepting that a best judgment challenge is a high bar A&M contended that the conduct and mindset of HMRC’s investigating and assessing officer was so unreasonable that it vitiated the whole assessment.
Respondent
HMRC contended that the assessments were based on best judgement and that its focus was not on the supply chain fraud claims (as claimed by A&M). Additionally, a previous inspection in 2014 had raised prior concerns which provided adequate grounds for the assessments. Moreover, A&M was aware of the terms of operation of the second-hand margin scheme and considered that A&M had wilfully misused the scheme in several regards. The scheme had been incorrectly used for goods purchased by way of intracommunity supplies – which had been imported with the appellant claiming input tax on the imports and then including them in the margin scheme. A&M wilfully failed to carry out due diligence on its suppliers.
Best Judgement
It may be helpful if we consider what the words “best judgement” mean. This was best described by Woolf J in Van Boeckel v CEC [1981] STC 290
“What the words ‘best of their judgement’ envisage, in my view, is that the commissioners will fairly consider all material before them and, on that material, come to a decision which is one which is reasonable and not arbitrary as to the amount of tax which is due. As long as there is some material on which the commissioners can reasonably act, then they are not required to carry out investigations which may or may not result in further material being placed before them.”
Technical
The second-hand margin scheme is provided for under The VAT Act 1994, Section 50A, The Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 and certain paragraphs of VAT Notice 718 which have force of law.
Decision
The appeal was dismissed. It was found that A&M deliberately rendered inaccurate VAT returns. The director of the company was aware both of how the margin scheme worked and that the terms of the scheme had to be complied with if a supply was to be taxed under the it. A&M was found to have acted deliberately in misusing the scheme by including ineligible supplies. A&M had been lax in the completion of its stock book, and it had not met the record-keeping requirements necessary to use the scheme for the relevant transactions. Additionally, some of its EU suppliers were not registered for VAT, a fact A&M did not take steps to discover, and so related purchases could not qualify for the scheme. Also, it was likely that some of the purchases were of new watches which made them ineligible for the margin scheme.
Re, evidence; the FTT found much of the A&M director’s evidence to have been self-serving and, in parts, evasive and that it did not consider that the integrity of HMRC could be impugned. The court determined that; the inspector was diligent and thorough, HMRC had legitimate concerns regarding A&M’s use of the margin scheme generally and specifically and there was a wider concern that the company was a participant in fraudulent supply chains. The FTT considered that the investigation was proportionately carried out considering these concerns and the assessments raised in exercise of best judgment.
Penalties and PLN
The case further considered penalties: whether the appellant’s conduct was deliberate (yes – appeal dismissed). Whether the Personal Liability Notice (PLN) [Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, 19(1)] was appropriate for the conduct attributed to the director – whether his conduct led to penalty (yes – appeal dismissed).
Commentary
This case is a long read, but worthwhile for comments on; the margin scheme use, HMRC’s inspection methods, best judgement, evidence and MTIC amongst other matters.
HMRC has updated its guidance on how to pay Customs Duty, Excise Duties and VAT on imports from outside the UK.
The document covers, inter alia:
The update includes the removal of references to the Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight (CHIEF) system, as all import declarations must now be made through the Customs Declaration Service.
The new guidance explains how to manage a Customs Warehouse, handle goods, and process, repair and move goods.
Customs Warehouse
A Customs Warehouse is a warehouse that is under Customs control. Goods stored in a customs warehouse are not in free circulation. No duties or taxes have to be paid until that time when you ship the goods to their next destination.
There are two types of Customs Warehouse where goods may be stored.
This is a warehouse operated by a business whose purpose is to store other people’s goods. They are the warehousekeeper and you’re the depositor.
This is a warehouse operated by you to store your own goods. You are the warehousekeeper and the depositor.
You do not need to be authorised by HMRC to be a depositor in a public or private customs warehouse but, if you operate a private customs warehouse, you’ll need to be authorised as the warehousekeeper.
The warehousekeeper is responsible for coordinating general warehouse operations and activities including shipping and receiving deliveries, conducting stock checks, documenting warehouse transactions and records, and storage of inventory.
To be approved as a warehousekeeper, a person will need to:
Guidance Amendments
Updates include information for warehousekeepers who use a duty management system and guidance on when someone else uses your warehouse.