The Canmi Case: How a Direct Representative Became the Centre of a Landmark Excise Duty Battle

Article

Why Indirect Tax Agents Can Now Be Held Liable The recent litigation involving Canmi Ltd has clarified, in the strongest possible terms, that excise duty liability can attach to agents, even where they act as direct representatives and even where they have no knowledge, no benefit, and no intent relating to an irregularity. In its July 2025 decision, the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) held that Regulation 12(2) of the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010 imposes strict liability on “any person involved in the importation” during an irregular importation. The FTT ruled that completing and submitting C88 declarations and paying excise duty on behalf of clients was more than enough to constitute “involvement.” Knowledge, purpose, or culpability were deemed irrelevant. Canmi’s subsequent application for permission to appeal was rejected by the FTT in October 2025. The tribunal dismissed arguments based on customs law, agency law, proportionality, and the Recast Directive, finding them either irrelevant or incapable of displacing the clear statutory wording. The Upper Tribunal (“UT”) then refused permission to appeal in January 2026, reinforcing the FTT’s position. It stressed that excise law does not incorporate customs distinctions between direct and indirect representation, that agency law cannot override statutory liability, and that EU case law—particularly WR and Perfect—confirms a system of strict excise liability, even for “innocent agents.” The UT called the phrase “any person involved” unambiguous and emphasised that the policy of excise legislation is to ensure duty is recoverable from someone. The combined effect of these decisions is a decisive shift: clearing agents, freight forwarders, and customs intermediaries must now assume that any involvement in an excise importation exposes them to liability, regardless of their role, knowledge, or benefit. The Canmi litigation signals a new compliance reality—agents must reassess client due diligence, documentation, indemnities, and overall risk exposure.