Landmark tribunal case highlights customs agent liability over import VAT errors
Nick Crouch · Posted on: July 24th 2025 · read
In a pivotal ruling, the UK First-tier Tribunal has shed new light on the responsibilities and liabilities of customs agents in relation to Postponed Import VAT Accounting (PVA).
The Roseline Logistics Limited v HMRC case has far-reaching implications for logistics professionals and customs intermediaries.
Case overview
Roseline Logistics Limited faced a demand from HMRC for import VAT totaling £1,126,249.64, linked to 32 import declarations filed between January and May 2022. The declarations were made using PVA, a scheme that allows VAT-registered businesses to account for import VAT on their VAT return rather than paying it upfront at the border.
Roseline was engaged by Craig Isaac Transport (CIT), a haulage firm, to submit the declarations on behalf of QP Trading Limited (QPTL), the importer of record. However, QPTL’s VAT registration had already been deregistered at the time, rendering it ineligible to use the PVA scheme.
Significantly, Roseline had no direct communication or formal agreement with QPTL and acted solely under CIT’s instructions.
Tribunal ruling
The Tribunal found that Roseline was not officially appointed as QPTL’s customs agent due to the absence of a formal representation agreement. As such, the company lacked the authority to make PVA declarations on QPTL’s behalf.
However, the Tribunal also determined that Roseline had participated in a breach of customs regulations and had failed in its duty of due diligence. The company should have verified QPTL’s VAT registration status and confirmed its eligibility for PVA before making the declarations.
Despite the lack of intent, Roseline was held jointly liable for the customs debt.
Key takeaways for the industry
This decision sends a strong message to the customs brokerage and logistics industry:
- Due diligence is non-negotiable: Customs agents must verify the legal and VAT status of the importers they act for, even if instructed by a third party.
- Representation must be formalised: Without a signed and clear agency agreement, agents risk acting without authority and being held liable for any compliance errors.
- Unintentional errors still carry penalties: Even well-meaning mistakes can result in substantial financial consequences if basic compliance checks are neglected.
Conclusion
The Roseline case reinforces the importance of thorough compliance practices and legal safeguards in customs operations. It serves as a cautionary tale for logistics professionals: failing to confirm the basics can result in high-stakes liabilities. For customs agents, this is a timely reminder to document every agency relationship and verify every claim before submission.
Get in touch
If you act as a customs intermediary or logistics provider, now is the time to review your agency agreements, client onboarding processes, and VAT status verification protocols.
Need support strengthening your compliance framework? Get in touch with MHA’s specialist Customs team to ensure you're protected from similar liabilities.
View our latest insights
How are green U-turns in Europe affecting the food and beverage sector?
Mark Lumsdon-Taylor
Executive Development & Sustainability Lead
Draft UK Carried Interest Legislation: Key Highlights for Investment Managers
Alison Conley
Retail & Consumer, Corporate and International Tax Partner
Crossing the threshold: What large business classification means for your tax governance and relationship with HMRC
Michael Spencer
Head of Corporate Tax - Northwest Region, Tax Partner
