Skip to main content

This is a new service – your feedback will help us to improve it.

  • Import duties applied to shipping when goods value incl VAT below threshold?

    All of the available threads and comments and the are ambiguous about the criteria governing the application of import duty (as distinct from VAT or other tax or fees) to shipments where the goods value is below the £135 threshold. I have been asked to pay import duty on a shipment from japan where the goods value (includingVAT) paid by me is below £135 (specifically to avoid imposition of import duty which would make the goods uneconomical (and these are non-excise goods)). because the duty has been calculated on the goods value PLUS the cost of shipping. My understanding is that the intention is that duty is payable where the goods value including any taxes exceeds £135 but it isnt intended to be applied to the cost of shipping (as this is not "goods value"). it is clear from the site however that - i quote..."if you are charged Customs Duty, you'll need to pay it on both: the price paid for the goods, and postage packing and insurance". So if the actual value of goods is below £135 then customs duty should not apply, since shipping etc is not "goods" (it is "services") and the threshold for liability states that it is based on the value of the "goods". So i understand that if the "value of goods" is greater than £135 then duty will be payed on the combined value of both the goods AND shipping etc, but if not then duty should not be charged on either. The wording on the site is ambiguous and i can understand that people would be confused, as am I, but it does clearly distinguish between "goods" and "postage, packaging and insurance" and states that : "You'll be charged Customs Duty on all GOODS sent from outside the UK if they're either: EXCISE GOODS (which mine are not); or Worth more than £135 (the GOODS i have purchased - incvluding VAT - are below £135 (i have paid £133.05 for the GOODS, shipping was £26.43). Is someone able to either confim my interpretation or refute this with an unambiguous explanantion please?? many thanks.