A Landmark Ruling Few Saw Coming

Most finance leaders will have missed it, but on 22 September 2025, the First-tier Tribunal quietly handed down one of the most consequential customs decisions since Brexit. HMRC won a £4.7 million case against WM Morrison Supermarkets over the declared origin of aluminium foil. On paper, it’s a technical point about where foil “comes from”. In reality, it’s a warning shot that will send ripples through every major importer in the UK. 

Morrisons had declared the foil to be of Thai origin, avoiding anti-dumping duty. HMRC argued that the real origin was China, because the foil’s final processing in Thailand, heating, cutting, and boxing, wasn’t enough to transform it into a new product. The tribunal agreed. The Thai factory added about 5% to total manufacturing cost and made only microscopic changes to the foil’s properties. Worse still, the manufacturer’s website openly admitted the plant had been established “to eliminate anti-dumping duties.” That was enough to fail the test of being “economically justified”, and the product was reclassified as Chinese – the outcome: £4.7 million in unpaid duty and VAT. 

For the customs specialists, this is the first significant UK ruling on non-preferential origin, the rules that decide a product’s nationality when no trade deal applies. For everyone else, especially finance leaders, it’s the moment to realise that origin isn’t just a logistics question. It’s a financial exposure. 

Where HMRC Scrutiny Is Heading

Until now, most UK importers have focused on preferential origin, which is the kind that secures tariff relief under trade agreements. But non-preferential origin determines anti-dumping and countervailing duties, safeguard measures, sanctions and even future CBAM liabilities. It’s where HMRC scrutiny is heading, and the line between “processing” and “manufacturing” is far thinner than many realise. In Morrisons’ case, public online statements and open-source evidence were enough to build HMRC’s case. The tribunal made it clear: the burden of proof lies squarely with the importer. 

That should make every finance director pause. Anti-dumping duties can reach 30–50% of product value, and HMRC can look back three years or more. The knock-on effect extends to import VAT, penalties, interest and restated margins. The fact that a major, well-advised retailer could lose at tribunal shows how easily this can sit undetected until it hits the P&L. 

A New Category of Risk

The real lesson here is that non-preferential origin now belongs in the same category as transfer pricing, VAT or corporate tax risk, complex, evolving, and deserving of periodic independent review. Yet, unlike those areas, it rarely receives it. Many finance teams assume customs has it covered, or that supplier certificates are sufficient. The tribunal has just shown they’re not. 

Ask yourself: If the biggest importers are still getting this wrong, could we also be at risk?

An independent customs audit isn’t about finding fault. It’s about testing assumptions, looking into the granularity of supplier processes, and understanding whether the evidence supports the declared origin. It’s the kind of assurance finance routinely applies elsewhere, and it’s now needed here.

Because this ruling won’t remain an isolated case, HMRC has made it clear that it’s prepared to apply EU case law and use any available evidence to challenge origin declarations. The next business caught out may not have the benefit of seeing it coming.

Finance leaders don’t need to become customs experts. But they do need to act. Non-preferential origin has become one of the most fluid and financially significant risks in post-Brexit trade. If a small slice of late-stage processing can determine whether your goods attract 0% or 35% duty, the question isn’t whether your team has this under control; it’s whether you’ve independently verified that they do.

When HMRC asks, “Where did this really come from?”, you’ll want an answer that stands up.