»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp

Since beginning to trade 18 months ago, Oliver has made errors on three declarations. A compliance officer spotted the first contravention 12 months ago and provided education to help Oliver understand what he had to do and when. However, on a recent visit the compliance officer found that Oliver had still made errors on two further declarations.

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp compliance officer considers the following points.

• This trader received education and advice at the previous intervention, but this was not followed up with a letter of written instruction.
• »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp trader has no history of previous Civil Penalty action. This has been confirmed by checking the CCP spreadsheet. For more information see CCPG26260.
• This contravention has occurred within this last three year period and the compliance officer’s intervention took place this year.
• »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp consideration of Civil Penalty action is appropriate.
• Oliver was responsible for making the declarations and so he is the person to be warned.
• »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp contravention falls within the category of poor compliance.
• We have previously given education but this has not resulted in good compliance.
• »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýappre are no facts or arguments advanced to suggest that there is a reasonable excuse for the contraventions.
• Oliver’s business is not substantial enough to have a HMRC Customer Compliance Manager.

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp Compliance officer decides it is appropriate to issue a Reason Code 051 warning letter to Oliver, so completes the Customs Penalty Action Checklist (CPAC), and obtains their managers authorisation of their decision on CPAC.

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp case officer then sends the CPAC to the PN301 Team. Once agreed, the PN301 Team provide a CPWL reference.

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp case officer updates the CPWL with the reference and sends to Customer via Central print.

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp case officer notifies the PN301 Team the date of issue, and confirms upload of letter to Caseflow / CRMM and the PN301 Team update the national database.