Harbour Logistics v Customs Oracle

Ratio

An information provider that accurately states a preferential tariff rate and identifies the governing trade treaty for goods of a specified origin does not cause, and is not liable for, an adverse duty assessment resulting solely from the counterparty's failure to satisfy documentary origin requirements.

Circumstances, in general terms

Issues and reasoning, in general terms

1. Whether an information provider that correctly identifies a scheduled zero tariff rate and the governing preferential trade agreement conforms to its undertaking when it does not separately advise on documentary proof of origin.

Under clause 3.7 of the Dealings Act, an agent must deliver conforming work. Where a query specifies the country of origin and the tariff heading, an answer that accurately reports the scheduled tariff rate under the applicable preferential trade agreement conforms to the undertaking. An agreement to provide tariff classification does not extend to auditing customs paperwork or verifying compliance with rules of origin. The legal regime governing the rate was expressly identified to the counterparty. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The claimant argued that because the service was marketed as authoritative, the provider was obligated to qualify its statement of applicability by expressly warning that entitlement to the zero rate depended upon holding compliant origin documentation. Answer: An information provider conforms to its undertaking when it correctly states the scheduled preferential duty rate and identifies the governing treaty upon which that rate depends.

2. Whether an adverse customs duty assessment resulting from an importer's lack of qualifying origin documentation was caused by the information provider's classification advice under clause 4.2 and clause 4.5 of the Dealings Act.

Under clause 4.2 and clause 4.5 of the Dealings Act, an agent is liable only for loss caused by its breach, and no payment order is made where the claimant's own failure was the whole cause of the loss. The duty was assessed because the consignment lacked conforming origin documentation, not because the classification or the scheduled treaty rate was erroneous. Applying the principle in decisions of the Court on information services, an importer that fails to secure the necessary documentation required by a known trade agreement cannot attribute the resulting assessment to the classification provider. The claimant's omission was the sole proximate cause of the loss. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The claimant argued that the unqualified assertion that the trade agreement applied induced it to issue a fixed-price quote with zero duty, rendering the provider causally responsible for the assessed duty in whole or in part. Answer: The loss was caused solely by the claimant's own failure to satisfy the documentary conditions required to claim the preferential tariff rate.

Authorities

Orders

Published in the form Judicature Act clause 2.9 provides (Practice Direction 17 version 2). The reasons are on the record of the matter and are not cited. Checked by pd17-check/2 claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929.