Border Force did not fully understand its own processes

What happened

Ms R intended to take goods overseas for business purposes in her baggage in winter 2012. She wished to use the Merchandise in Baggage process, under which the goods would be zero-rated for VAT. She had completed the necessary documentation, five sets of forms (called C88 forms), as a customs declaration.

Ms R presented the five sets of forms to the Customs Office at Heathrow airport. However, the customs officer cancelled the forms and refused to allow Ms R to carry the goods as Merchandise in Baggage. Ms R complained to Border Force.

During the complaints process, Border Force said that the goods appeared to be for Ms R's own consumption and were mixed in with her other items. Border Force also thought that Ms R's goods were an indirect export and so did not qualify for zero rating. Border Force also suggested that Ms R had a right of appeal. Lastly, it said that Ms R had not completed the correct codes in her C88 forms.

Ms R disputed that the goods were an indirect export, and said that they were a direct export. She also provided advice she had received from HM Revenue & Customs to support this. However, Border Force maintained its previous view.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. Border Force was wrong when it said Ms R's goods were an indirect export as it should have considered them as a direct export. Border Force did not fully understand the Merchandise in Baggage process and did not give Ms R accurate information about it. We also noted that Ms R had provided correct codes so it was unfair of Border Force to say she had not included them. Lastly, Border Force was wrong to suggest to Ms R that there was a right of appeal when there was no such mechanism.

However, we noted that Border Force had consistently maintained that Ms R's goods appeared to be packed in a way that suggested they were for personal use and that this presented reasonable grounds for it to refuse the C88 forms. We also accepted Border Force's explanation that Ms R could have used other modes of transport to obtain evidence of export (post and so on) and reclaim her VAT.

Putting it right

After our investigation, Border Force apologised for its handling of the case and the trouble it had put Ms R to. It paid her compensation of £100.

It also reviewed the training and instructions it gives customs officers with regard to the Merchandise in Baggage process.