UK PPT 30% Recycled Content Exemption: What Evidence HMRC Actually Wants
Claiming the 30% recycled content exemption from UK Plastic Packaging Tax is straightforward on paper and audit-prone in practice. Here is the evidence HMRC expects and the failure modes that turn an exemption claim into back tax plus penalties.
By Kevin Kai Wong, Managing Partner at gCurv Technologies
April 27, 20269 min read
Why this is the highest-risk PPT line
The 30% recycled content exemption is the only way to remove a plastic packaging component from PPT liability. It is also the line that HMRC scrutinizes most aggressively, because it is the one taxpayers most often get wrong, sometimes innocently, sometimes not.
A failed exemption claim does not just reverse the exemption. It typically produces a back-tax assessment for the period, plus penalties, plus interest. Getting the evidence right the first time is materially cheaper than getting it wrong and remediating.
What "recycled content" means under PPT
For PPT, recycled plastic means plastic that has been reprocessed from recovered material, either pre-consumer or post-consumer, by means of a chemical or manufacturing process. It excludes regrind from the manufacturer's own production where that regrind would otherwise be reused without leaving the original process.
Recycled content is measured by weight of recycled plastic divided by total plastic weight of the component, expressed as a percentage. The 30% threshold is per component, not averaged across a SKU or a portfolio.
The evidence HMRC expects
HMRC has published expectations for evidence supporting the exemption. The strongest evidence chain typically includes:
- A recycled content declaration from the resin supplier for the specific resin grade used, identifying the recycled fraction and its source (post-consumer, pre-consumer, mechanical, chemical).
- Mass balance or batch records from the converter showing the recycled and virgin resin used in the production run that produced the components.
- Component-level traceability linking the production run to the components placed on the UK market in the filing period.
- Independent certification where available (e.g., third-party recycled content certification schemes), though certification is not always strictly required if other evidence is robust.
Refer to HMRC's current published evidence guidance for the latest requirements.
The chain has to be auditable end-to-end. A supplier letter saying "this product contains 35% recycled content" is not evidence; it is a claim. The evidence is the documentation that supports the claim.
Common failure modes
Failure 1, Annual averaging. A supplier reports 32% recycled content as an annual average, but specific batches dipped below 30%. Per-component, those batches are non-compliant. Annual averaging does not satisfy the per-component threshold.
Failure 2, Resin-grade vs component confusion. The resin used in a component is 35% recycled, but the component also includes a label, a closure liner, or an in-mold additive that dilutes the recycled fraction below 30%. Recycled content is measured at the component level, not the resin-grade level.
Failure 3, Mass balance without segregation. Some recycled-content claims rely on mass balance accounting at a producer's plant, where recycled and virgin streams are mixed but the producer attributes recycled content to specific outputs. Mass balance is acceptable in principle but only if the methodology is rigorous and aligned to recognized standards. Refer to HMRC's current published position on mass balance methodologies.
Failure 4, Missing batch-level traceability. The supplier can prove the production run was 35% recycled, but cannot tie specific batches to specific UK-bound shipments. HMRC may disallow the exemption for the period.
Failure 5, Treating regrind as recycled. Internal production scrap regrind that never leaves the manufacturer's process is not recycled content under PPT. Including it in the percentage inflates the claim.
What this means operationally
For producers claiming the 30% exemption on any component:
- The evidence has to be on file before the tax return is filed, not assembled later in response to an audit letter.
- The evidence chain has to be component-specific, not SKU-level or portfolio-level.
- Supplier evidence has to be refreshed when resin grades, suppliers, or production sites change.
- The evidence has to be tied to the filing period, not to a "current state" snapshot.
What to do in 2026
- Audit your existing exemption claims. For each component currently claimed as exempt, identify whether the evidence chain meets HMRC's expectations or merely asserts the percentage.
- Standardize the supplier evidence template. A consistent format makes audit response faster and reveals gaps earlier.
- Stop accepting annual-average claims as evidence for per-component exemption. They are not equivalent.
- Build a refresh cadence, at minimum annually, more frequently when supplier or resin changes occur.
How Packgine helps
Packgine attaches a recycled-content evidence chain to every component-level claim, flags claims where evidence is missing or stale, and generates audit-ready packages on demand. When HMRC asks for proof of a specific period's exemptions, the answer is one query rather than a six-week supplier scramble.
Related reading
Ready to automate your packaging compliance?
See how Packgine manages EPR, PPWR, and sustainability reporting from a single dashboard.
