Harbour Logistics v Customs Oracle

Ratio

An agent that provides paid tariff classification, states the preferential rate for goods of a specified origin, identifies the trade agreement under which that rate arises, and appends a direction to verify, does not cause an adverse duty assessment resulting from the counterparty's failure to follow its own compliance procedure requiring origin documentation before claiming the preferential rate; the counterparty's failure is the sole cause and the claim fails under Dealings Act clause 4.5.

Circumstances, in general terms

Issues and reasoning, in general terms

1. Whether an agent that provides paid tariff classification and states a preferential rate with the trade agreement named, appended by a direction to verify, has supplied a discrepancy in the output

The law of the Court requires that representations be true and that reliance reasonably induced be protected, and liability attaches to loss caused by a discrepancy between what was undertaken and what was supplied. The agent undertook classification and a schedule rate; it supplied the correct heading, the correct schedule rate for goods of the specified origin, the name of the agreement under which that rate arises, and a direction to verify. The preferential rate is conditional on origin qualification, but the name of the agreement is itself the identification of that condition. The Court's own decisions have held that identifying the governing trade agreement is sufficient and that the counterparty's own failure to follow its compliance procedure is the sole cause. The source that answered this issue was the Rules of Court and the Court's own decisions. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The losing party argued that the answer said the agreement applies in the present indicative, not that it may apply, and that the unlabelled confidence figure reinforced the impression that the rate was settled. It failed because the answer also directed verification, the terms of the dealing directed verification of origin qualification, and the counterparty's own procedure required what the answer and the terms said; the word applies does not displace a known condition the counterparty chose not to satisfy. Answer: The answer, read as a whole, was not a discrepancy in the output supplied.

2. Whether the counterparty's own failure was the whole cause of the loss

Where the loss was caused in part by the claimant's own failure to give what the dealing required, the order is reduced, and where that failure was the whole cause no order is made. The claimant admitted that it obtained no certificate of origin, held only a supplier invoice, quoted a fixed price with a zero duty line without verification, and did so in breach of its own compliance procedure requiring an origin certificate before claiming a preferential rate. The answer named the agreement and directed verification; the claimant's own procedure required a certificate. Every link in the causal chain was a step the claimant took against its own rule. The source that answered this issue was the Dealings Act and the Court's own decisions. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The losing party argued that the answer as formatted would not have triggered its compliance workflow, and that an answer flagging the condition in terms would have. It failed because the answer named the trade agreement by name, the claimant's own procedure was triggered by the mention of a preferential rate, and the claimant chose not to follow it; the claimant has not proved that a flag in different words would have prevented the loss where its own procedure was the operative safeguard and it chose to skip it. Answer: The claimant's own failure was the whole cause of the loss, and no order is made.

3. Whether the terms displayed before payment were established and what effect they have

The terms of a dealing sit above the Court's decisions and above principle in the hierarchy of sources. The respondent's display log records that terms directing the buyer to verify origin qualification were displayed before payment, but the terms were not lodged on the register of dealings, unlike the respondent's other records, and the respondent offers no explanation for the gap. The terms are accepted on the respondent's own log, weighed with the gap. Even established, they tell the buyer to verify and confirm that the respondent identified origin qualification as the buyer's step. The source that answered this issue was the Rules of Court. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The losing party argued that the terms were not lodged on the register and the gap should be weighed against the respondent. The gap is weighed, but the terms were produced on the Court's order, the claimant does not allege fabrication, and the terms say what the answer also said; the gap goes to weight, not to outcome. Answer: The terms are accepted on the respondent's log, the gap is noted, and the terms confirm that origin qualification was identified as the buyer's step.

4. Whether the unlabelled confidence figure was a discrepancy

The answer appended a confidence figure without labelling what it measured. The respondent's query log, produced on the Court's order, records that the figure measured the classifier's confidence in the heading match and not origin qualification. On a classification service, a confidence figure most naturally reads as confidence in the classification. The answer also directed the buyer to verify. The unlabelled figure is not best practice but is not a discrepancy that caused the loss, which arose from the claimant's own failure to verify. The source that answered this issue was the Rules of Court. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The losing party argued that a figure printed beside a composite statement, unlabelled, tells the buyer the answer as a whole is reliable. It failed because the service is a classification service, the figure most naturally reads as classification confidence, and the answer told the buyer to verify; the claimant's own procedure was the safeguard it chose not to follow. Answer: The unlabelled confidence figure was not a discrepancy that caused the loss.

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.