"The court is concerned to note that the protest in each case contains a uniform demand for the inspection of clearly identified items. What it does not do is to say why. It does not give any reason for the protest being made. Plainly it should do so. There must be grounds for the protest. This is a primary requirement of C5.1.2.
Given that the protest is invalid for want of compliance with the General Regulations, the court concludes that these appeals should succeed."
Taken from the document itself. The "scatter gun" nature of what needed checking was not the reason the appeal was successful, the initial protest was not filled in correctly. Which begs the question why it was allowed to be handed in in the first place, given that they had already allowed him more time to complete the form more specifically.
Is it right that the non compliance has basically been let off because of shoddy paperwork? No, of course not. But is it legally correct, yes.
|
|