Category: Customs and Excise

Giles v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 13 Sep 2018

EXCISE DUTY – assessments for duty and penalties in relation to excise goods seized from the appellant – Jones and Race considered – goods deemed to be for commercial use – penalties – no reasonable excuse – no special circumstances – penalties proportionate – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 536 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632301

Webber v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Restoration of Goods (See Also Excise Appeal) : New Review On Facts): FTTTx 3 Nov 2018

EXCISE DUTY – seizure of imported tobacco – tobacco deemed condemned as forfeit – request for restoration of tobacco – application to strike out – application refused – whether the decision not to restore was reasonable – no – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 645 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.632422

Parlitigu v Maksu ja Tolliameti Pohja maksu ja tollikeskus (Common Customs Tariff): ECJ 16 Jul 2009

Customs Classification Salmon backbones

Europa Common Customs Tariff Combined Nomenclature Tariff classification Subheading CN 0511 91 10 Subheading CN 0303 22 00 Frozen backbones of farmed Atlantic salmon Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 Anti-dumping duties.

Citations:

C-56/08, [2009] EUECJ C-56/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.374269

Tim Van Vlaandern Transport Sro v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty – Seizure of Vehicle): FTTTx 3 Dec 2020

Excise Duty – seizure of vehicle – restoration of vehicle offered for a fee – similar incidents involving vehicles owned by related company – whether or not decision of officer was reasonable – held yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 487 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661823

Amini v Revenue and Customs (Excise and Customs Duty – Importation of Tobacco Products): FTTTx 7 Dec 2020

Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 496 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661800

Lucky Technology Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Application for Disclosure): FTTTx 23 Feb 2021

Application for disclosure – Disclosure sought ‘potentially relevant’ to issue(s) in the case – Whether disclosure precluded by s 18 Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 and GDPR – No – Application allowed – Directions made for progression of appeal

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 55 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.661766

Kaufring v Commission T-293/97 (Customs Union): ECJ 10 May 2001

E J Action for annulment – Importation of television sets from Turkey – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Article 3(1) of the Additional Protocol – Compensatory levy – Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 – Remission of import duty not justified – Rights of the defence

Citations:

T-293/97, [2001] EUECJ T-293/97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.213980

Hauptzollamt Hannover v Telefunken Fernseh Und Rundfunk Gmbh: ECJ 7 Oct 1985

ECJ 1. The fact that goods are intended, or are even specifically designed, to be used together and that they are presented for customs clearance together in the same package is not a sufficient reason for classifying them as a functional unit within the meaning of the customs cooperation council’s explanatory notes, if they can be used separately.
The functional unit principle is intended to allow classification under a given heading of machines and appliances made up of components falling under several tariff headings, in cases where those components as a whole are intended to perform the single clearly-defined function referred to in the tariff heading in question. The principle does not apply where some of the components making up a product may be used independently of the other components and for functions other than those which may be performed by all the components together.
2. The expression ‘goods put up in sets’ in general rule A3(b) implies that the goods are closely linked from the marketing point of view, with the result that they are not only presented together for customs clearance but are also normally supplied together, at the various marketing stages and in particular the retail stage, in a single package in order to satisfy a demand or to perform a specific function. General rule A3(b) applies only where goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings and classification is not possible under general rule A3(a), that is to say where there is no specific heading taking precedence over more general headings.
3. A combined tuner, record-player and cassette recorder imported together with two loudspeakers intended for use with it constitutes a set of goods falling under heading no 85.15 of the common customs tariff, where the goods concerned are put up in a single package and are intended to be marketed together in order to satisfy a specific demand.

Citations:

R-163/84, [1985] EUECJ R-163/84

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.215375

Georg Brunner Kg v Hauptzollamt Hof: ECJ 4 Oct 1972

ECJ Article 1 of Regulation no 565/68 must be interpreted as meaning that goods must be considered as ‘coming from’ Poland when they remain until the moment when they are delivered in the community at the disposal and under the direct control of the seller who is bound vis-a-vis the Polish People’s Republic to comply with the undertakings entered into with regard to prices and when in the course of transportation they have not been given customs clearance, put into free circulation or processed in any way.

Citations:

C-9/72, R-9/72, [1972] EUECJ R-9/72

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.214172

Kaufring v Commission T-191/97 (Customs Union): ECJ 10 May 2001

ECJ Action for annulment – Importation of television sets from Turkey – EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Article 3(1) of the Additional Protocol – Compensatory levy – Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 – Remission of import duty not justified – Rights of the defence

Citations:

T-191/97, [2001] EUECJ T-191/97

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.213971

Kaur v Revenue and Customs (Customs and Excise Duty Penalties – Importation of 8kg Hand Rolling Tobacco): FTTTx 14 Jan 2021

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTY PENALTIES – importation of 8kg hand rolling tobacco – penalties imposed for conduct involving dishonesty – Appellant stated unaware of legal limits and had been given incorrect information when purchasing overseas – held conduct dishonest and appropriate mitigation given for disclosure and cooperation – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 8 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.661740

Munir v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 11 Sep 2018

TOBACCO DUTY – assessment to duty on appellant for handling goods not duty paid – application to strike out appeal on basis appeal had no reasonable prospects of success – appellant convicted of offence under s 170(2) CEMA 1979 – whether conviction irrebuttable evidence of handling to justify assessment – whether arguable that appellant a person who was not handling the goods – application dismissed.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 546 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.632314

Casa Di Vini Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duties – Refusal of Approval Under The Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme): FTTTx 20 Jan 2021

EXCISE DUTIES – refusal of approval under the Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme – appeal allowed on basis that decision not reasonable – held not inevitable that HMRC would reach the same decision – HMRC directed to review decision

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 11 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661732

Amoena (UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Customs Duty : Application for Reference To CJEU): FTTTx 7 Sep 2018

Application for reference to CJEU under art 267 TFEU – Validity of European Commission Implementing Regulation effectively overturning UK Supreme Court decision – whether appellant’s arguments well founded that (a) the Regulation contains a ‘manifest error’ and was ultra vires the Commission’s powers and (b) the Regulation breaches the principle of sincere co-operation – reference made.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 505 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise, European

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.632288

Wild (T/A Mark Wild Haulage) and Another (Exise Duties -Application): FTTTx 8 Feb 2021

EXISE DUTIES-application to debar HMRC-whether HMRC has realistic prospect of success-application to strike out appellants’ cases–whether fair hearing possible-whether fair to have a hearing-whether abuse of process by HMRC-whether abuse of process in re-litigating facts by appellants

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 34 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.661779

Whiteford and Another Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Civil Penalty (See Also Excise Hydrocarbon Oil [Duty]) : Evasion): FTTTx 18 Jan 2019

EXCISE DUTY and CUSTOMS DUTY- civil evasion penalties – s 8 of FA 1994 and s 25 of FA 2003 – whether engagement in conduct for evading excise duty – the fact at issue regarding whether the bags were searched before the green channel – the test of dishonesty after Ivey and Genting – whether penalty reduction sufficient – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 41 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.635679

British Sky Broadcasting Group (Common Customs Tariff): ECJ 14 Apr 2011

ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Digital satellite television receivers and decoders with a recording function – Community Customs Code – Article 12(5)(a)(i) and (6) – Period of validity of a binding tariff information.

Citations:

C-288/09, [2011] EUECJ C-288/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.433377

Director of Border Revenue v Dockett (Excise Duty – Border Force Decision To Refuse Restoration of Private Car): UTTC 29 Apr 2020

EXCISE DUTY – Border Force decision to refuse restoration of private car – FTT held Border Force decision unreasonable and directed further review taking into account FTT finding that goods not being carried for resale at a profit – effect of Jones and Jones – whether FTT erred in law – yes – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 141 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651191

Abraham v The Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 16 Apr 2013

FTTTx VAT and Customs Duty – importation of goods from Hong Kong – replacement item for previous purchase of wrong size – was VAT and Customs Duty due – yes- was review decision reasonable – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 233 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491849

Broome v Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 12 Apr 2013

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY RESTORATION OF VEHICLE – vehicle restored for fee representing excise duty on goods seized (hand rolled tobacco) – level of fee – non-apportionment of fee to goods attributable to appellant – appellant offered to pay fee – appellant incurred other costs relating to seizure and restoration – whether decision to restore for fee should have been made sooner – whether decision one that could not reasonably have been arrived at? – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 228 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.491850

Regina v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ex parte Lunn Poly Limited and Bishopsgate Insurance Limited: CA 26 Feb 1999

A tax on holiday insurance premiums which differentiated between policies sold by independent insurance brokers and those sold by travel agents was unlawful in European law, constituting state aid without the appropriate notice having been given.

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-1999, Gazette 31-Mar-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 867

Statutes:

EC Treaty Art 92

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

European, Insurance, Customs and Excise, Taxes – Other

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145782

Regina v H M Treasury; Commissioners of Customs and Excise and Attorney General ex parte Shepherd Neame Ltd: CA 12 Feb 1999

Community law does not impose any obligation on member states to refrain from imposing increases in excise duty. The differences between English and French rates are substantial, and damaging to brewers near the channel, but there remains no such duty.

Citations:

Times 17-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 776

Statutes:

ECTreaty art 99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.145691

Brown v Revenue and Customs (Excise – Red Diesel): FTTTx 8 Feb 2021

EXCISE – red diesel – whether penalty decision or restoration decision – whether decision valid – on assumption that a restoration decision, set aside as unreasonable – HMRC directed to make a new decision

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 35 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661752

Millennium Cash and Carry Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Alcoholic Liquor Duty – Alcoholic Liquor Wholesaling): FTTTx 25 Jan 2021

ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR DUTY – Part 6A Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 – Alcoholic Liquor Wholesaling – penalty for contravention of s88F (wholesale purchase from unapproved seller) – meaning of ‘sold wholesale’ – ‘incidental sale’ exception – one-off purchase of 840 bottles of gin on special offer from authorised retailer – was it proved that the sale was not ‘incidental’ to seller’s authorised retail sales? – held: no – contravention of s88F not proved – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 16 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661743

British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Jun 2012

FTTTx COSTS – Customs duty – Reference to CJEU – Challenge by Appellants to inappropriate CNEN – HMRC a party as Respondents – Appellants’ challenge succeeded – Whether costs of Appellants should be awarded against HMRC – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 r.10

Judges:

Sir Stephen Oliver QC

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 386 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Costs

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.462780

Directeur general des douanes et droits indirects v Brasserie Bouquet: ECJ 4 Jun 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Directive 92/83/EEC – Excise duty – Beer – Article 4 – Small independent breweries – Reduced rate of excise duty – Conditions – No operation under licence – Production in accordance with a process of a third party and authorised by it – Authorisation to use the trade marks of that third party

Citations:

C-285/14, [2015] EUECJ C-285/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:353

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 92/83/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.547690

Klevienes v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty – Seizure of Vehicle – Restoration of Vehicle Refused): FTTTx 21 Dec 2020

Excise Duty – seizure of vehicle – restoration of vehicle refused – reviewing officer decided that owner was complicit in smuggling attempt – whether or not decision of officer was reasonable – held no – decision remitted for a further review

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 510 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.661812

Hughes v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Appeals : Boxes Containing About 950,000 Cigarettes Found): FTTTx 19 Nov 2019

EXCISE DUTY – Boxes containing about 950,000 cigarettes found in a storage unit owned by the Appellant which the Appellant was still using but which she was sharing with another person or persons – Appellant pleaded guilty on an agreed basis of plea in the Crown Court of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of duty contrary to section 170 CEMA – Application to strike-out her Appeal on discretionary grounds – Rule 8(3)(c) – Key issue, was the Appellant ‘holding’ within the meaning of Regulation 10? – Application dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 700 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.646890

Namoale v Revenue and Customs (Excise and Customs Duty – Importation of Shisha Tobacco Products): FTTTx 4 Dec 2019

EXCISE AND CUSTOMS DUTY – importation of shisha tobacco products – appeal against penalty – s25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonestly – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – whether amount of penalty correct – yes- appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 733 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.646934

Latham v Customs and Excise: Excs 24 Feb 2005

RESTORATION – passenger on a coach trip – left on coach goods slightly in excess of indicative quantities on return to England – passed through customs without declaring any goods – insufficient evidence as to source of money to buy some of the goods – appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT-Excise E00852

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.271928

Zaari v Revenue and Customs (Excise and Customs Duty – Importation of Shisha Tobacco Products): FTTTx 4 Dec 2019

EXCISE AND CUSTOMS DUTY – importation of shisha tobacco products – appeal against penalty – s25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonestly – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – whether amount of penalty correct – yes- appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 734 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.646942

Mazurek v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Nov 2019

Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against an assessment for Excise Duty pursuant to s 12(1A) of Finance Act 1995 and Civil Evasion Penalties pursuant to Schedule 41 Finance Act 2008 – Regulation 13 of the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations – meaning of ‘Holding’ – whether the appellant was ‘holding the goods’ – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 690 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.646898

Ferenc v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty – Penalty): FTTTx 31 Dec 2019

EXCISE DUTY – PENALTY – new evidence after summary decision – refusal to set aside summary decision – jurisdiction of Tribunal – EU Directive – position if cigarettes also subject to excise duty in Hungary – proportionality – appeal refused

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 8 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.646943

Tallinna Ettevotlusamet v Statoil Fuel and Retail: ECJ 5 Mar 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Indirect taxation – Excise duties -Directive 2008/118/EC – Article 1(2) – Liquid fuel subject to excise duty – Sales tax – Concept of ‘specific purpose’ – Predetermined allocation – Organisation of public transport within the territory of a city

Judges:

M Ilesic P

Citations:

C-553/13, [2015] EUECJ C-553/13

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2008/118/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Scotch Whisky Association and Others v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 15-Nov-2017
The Association challenged the imposition of minimum pricing systems for alcohol, saying that it was in breach of European law. After a reference to the ECJ, the Court now considered its legality.
Held: The Association’s appeal failed. Minimum . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.543918

Regina (Mudie and Another) v Dover Magistrates’ Court and Another: CA 4 Feb 2003

The applicants wished to challenge the confiscation of their goods by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise on their return to Dover. They appealed the refusal of Legal Aid.
Held: The Convention guaranteed the right to legal assistance for someone charged with a criminal offence and who could not afford representation, but these condemnation proceedings were civil not criminal. The claimants argued that a finding against them involved a finding of reprehensible behaviour (Engel), but this mistook the court’s function which was to decide whether the goods were liable to seizure.

Judges:

Phillips of Worth Matravers, MR, Brooke, Laws LJJ

Citations:

Times 07-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 237, [2003] QB 1238, [2003] 2 WLR 1344

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Access to Justice Act 1999 12(2), Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 Sch 3 para 6, European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Goldsmith and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise QBD 7-Jun-2001
The applicants were stopped after bringing into the country 26 kilos of tobacco, without declaring it. The customs applied for an order condemning the tobacco. The applicants argued that the proceedings were, in effect, criminal proceedings, and . .
Cited – Engel And Others v The Netherlands (1) ECHR 8-Jun-1976
The court was asked whether proceedings in a military court against soldiers for disciplinary offences involved criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1): ‘In this connection, it is first necessary to know whether the provision(s) defining . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others CA 11-Apr-2003
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Magistrates, Legal Aid, Human Rights

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.178991

The Scotch Whisky Association and Others, Re Judicial Review: SCS 3 May 2013

(Outer House, Court of Session) The petitioners challenged the legality of an enactment of the Scottish Parliament – the Act. They also challenged the legality of the Scottish Ministers’ decision that they would make an Order setting the minimum price at 50 pence per unit of alcohol.
Held: The claim was rejected

Judges:

Lord Doherty

Citations:

[2013] ScotCS CSOH – 70, 2013 SLT 776

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – The Scotch Whisky Association and Others, Re Judicial Review SCS 26-Sep-2012
Outer House – application by Alcohol Focus Scotland for permission to intervene in the public interest in a judicial review application by The Scotch Whisky Association and two European bodies which represent producers of spirit drinks and the wine . .

Cited by:

See Also – Scotch Whisky Association and Others v The Lord Advocate and Another SCS 30-Apr-2014
(Extra Division, Inner House, Court of Session) Reclaiming motion is brought against the Lord Ordinary’s decision rejecting the petitioners’ challenge to the provisions of the 2012 Act. Reference to ECJ . .
See Also – Scotch Whisky Association and Others for Judicial Review SCS 11-Jul-2014
Extra Division, Inner House – Further application for leave to intervene. . .
See Also – Scotch Whisky Association And Others v Lord Advocate, Advocate General for Scotland ECJ 23-Dec-2015
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products – Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 – Free movement of goods – Article 34 TFEU – Quantitative . .
See also – The Scotch Whisky Association and Others v The Lord Advocate and Another SCS 21-Oct-2016
The Association sought to challenge the legality of the 2012 Act and orders made under it. The Government’s contended that the Act would bring health benefits of one sort or another to at least part of the population.
Held: In a reclaiming . .
See Also – Scotch Whisky Association and Others v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 15-Nov-2017
The Association challenged the imposition of minimum pricing systems for alcohol, saying that it was in breach of European law. After a reference to the ECJ, the Court now considered its legality.
Held: The Association’s appeal failed. Minimum . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, European

Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.495201

Zaki v Revenue and Customs (Procedure – Strike Out Application – Holding of Excise Goods With No Duty Paid): FTTTx 14 Nov 2019

PROCEDURE – strike out application – holding of excise goods with no duty paid – no timely challenge against seizure – deemed forfeiture – grounds of appeal no merits – no reasonable prospect of success – application granted

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 696 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.646916

Arif v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 2 Dec 2019

Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 711 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.646918

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Invicta Poultry Limited and Fareway Trading Co Limited: CA 6 May 1998

A trader who received guidance from the commissioners on what rate of duty would apply was nevertheless liable for the extra duty, when that advice was wrong, and it could have been checked against the Official Journal of European Community.

Citations:

Times 01-Jun-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 775

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise, VAT

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144253

Portable Multimedia Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Nov 2012

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTY – tariff classification – headings 8528594020 and 8528594090 – DVD video monitors on car headrests for viewing by rear seat passengers – attachment to headrests by Velcro straps – GIRs and Section Notes – practice in other EU states – meaning of ‘suitable for incorporation’ – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 725 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472747

Kacznarek v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Sep 2012

FTTTx TYPE OF TAX -application for permission to make a late appeal for a review of the UK Border Agency decision to refuse to restore a ceremonial sword which had been seized by them- application granted on grounds application made in time but not properly and specifically addressed due to appellant’s lack of English

Judges:

Radfird TJ

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 748 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472728

Steinel Vertrieb Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld: ECJ 18 Apr 2013

ECJ Commercial policy – Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 – Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 – Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of fluorescent compact lamps – Applicability of definitive anti-dumping duties to products classed in the tariff subheading referred to in the anti-dumping regulation – Product concerned – Scope

Judges:

R. Silva de Lapuerta, P

Citations:

C-595/11, [2013] EUECJ C-595/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001, Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472726

Pitts v Customs and Excise: Excs 21 Jul 2003

Excs EXCISE DUTY – seizure of vehicle in which excessive goods were carried – vehicle belonging to importer’s daughter – refusal to restore the vehicle – deemed upholding of decision – appeal conceded by Commissioners and remitted for further review – findings of fact

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT-Excise E00446

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.271539

News International Newspapers International Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 30 Mar 1998

Fantasy Fund Football management game organised through a newspaper, with payments in of funds, and with cash prizes, was subject to taxation as pool betting.

Citations:

Times 09-Apr-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 569

Statutes:

Gaming Duties Act 1981 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.84280

Abn Jewellers v Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 5 Mar 2013

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – Restoration of jewellery for a fee – civil evasion penalty for under-declaration of value of jewellery – whether Review Officer’s decision that there had been a deliberate evasion of the payment of duty was reasonable – yes – whether civil evasion penalty should have been imposed – yes – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 162 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472388

Harris v The Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 19 Feb 2013

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – restoration – whether decision not to restore reasonable having regard in particular to evidence of travel patterns of which was not before the officer making the decision.
Hellier TJ explained the limited role of the tribunal in such applications: We must explain at the outset that the role of this tribunal in an appeal of this nature is unusual and is limited. There are two aspects to this.
First, in relation to the question of whether or not a car should be returned, we are not given authority by Parliament to make a decision that it should or should not be restored. The decision as to whether or not to restore the car is left in the hands of [the UKBF]: only they have the power or duty to restore it. Instead we are required to consider whether any decision they have made is reasonable. If it is not reasonable we can set the decision aside and require them to remake it; we can give some instructions in relation to the remaking of the decision, but we cannot take the decision ourselves. If we set aside a decision and [UKBF] make a new decision, then the taxpayer may appeal against that decision and the same process follows.
It is important to remember that a conclusion that a decision is not unreasonable is not the same as a conclusion that it is correct. There can be circumstances where different people could reasonably reach different conclusions. The mere fact that we might have reached a different conclusion is not enough for us to declare that a conclusion reached by [UKBF] should be set aside.
The second limitation in our role follows from the fact that Parliament has decreed that it is for the magistrates court or the High Court to decide upon whether or not goods are legally forfeit. The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (‘CEMA’) sets out the required procedure: if the subject disputes the legality of the seizure he can require [UKBF] to bring proceedings (unhappily they are called condemnation proceedings) in the magistrates court to determine the legality of the seizure. If the magistrates court decides that the goods are properly forfeit then the tribunal cannot overturn that decision or take a different view. Further we must proceed on the basis that any finding of fact which was necessary for the magistrates court to have come to this decision is to be taken as having been determined by the magistrates and, before us, is therefore to be treated as proved.
If the subject does not require condemnation proceedings to be taken in the magistrates court, he can effectively concedes the legality of the seizure. That is because Schedule 3 CEMA provides: ‘If on the expiration of the [one month period for giving notice that something is asserted not to be liable to forfeiture] no such notice has been given to the commissioners, or if, in the case of any such notice given, any requirement of paragraph 4 above is not complied with, the thing in question shall be deemed to have been duly condemned as forfeit.’
9. The effect of this deeming is that any facts which would have been necessary to the conclusion that the goods are forfeit must also be assumed to have been proved. It would be an abuse of process to permit such conclusions to be reopened in this (see para [71(7)] HMRC v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 824: ‘Deeming something to be the case carries with it any fact that forms part of that conclusion’) . .
There is one other oddity about this procedure. We are required to determine whether or not the [UKBF’s] decision was ‘unreasonable’; normally such an exercise is performed by looking at the evidence before the decision maker and considering whether he took into account all relevant matters, included none that were irrelevant, made no mistake of law, and came to a decision to which a reasonable tribunal could have come. But we are a fact finding tribunal, and in Gora and Others v Customs and Excise Commissioners [2003] EWCA Civ 525 Pill LJ approved an approach under which the tribunal should decide the primary facts and then decide whether, in the light of the tribunal’s findings, the decision on restoration was in that sense reasonable. Thus we may find that a decision is ‘unreasonable’ even if the officer had been, by reference to what was before him, perfectly reasonable in all senses.’

Judges:

Hellier TJ

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 134 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Balaz v Director of Border Revenue FTTTx 5-Nov-2013
FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – Appeal against decision not to restore vehicle seized on entry into the UK – Whether the decision could reasonably have been reached – Yes – Whether exceptional hardship – No – Appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472352

Edwards Beers and Minerals Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 22 Feb 2013

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – Movement guarantee – Excise goods under duty suspension arrangement – Goods stolen in course of a movement – whether risks inherent in the movement were covered by approved guarantee – Appeal dismissed – Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 137 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472347

Caithness Creels Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Feb 2013

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTIES – End Use Relief – refusal to grant authorisation for end use relief for goods equipping ships – whether goods in ‘a finished state’ or ‘finished components for further shipwork assembly’ – Yes – extent of Tribunal jurisdiction – whether ancillary matter and jurisdiction restricted – No – Appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 93 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472337

Firma Leon Van Parys Nv v Kingdom Of Belgium: ECFI 19 Mar 2013

ECFI Customs union – Imports of bananas from Ecuador – Post-clearance recovery of import duties – Request for remission of import duties – Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Error by the customs authorities – Obvious negligence on the part of the interested party

Citations:

T-324/10, [2013] EUECJ T-324/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471904

HM Revenue and Customs v First Stop Wholesale Ltd and Another: CA 12 Mar 2013

‘Appeals . . against orders . . arising out of the detention . . by HMRC of large quantities of alcohol from the warehouse and other premises of First Stop, the respondent to the first two appeals and the appellant in the third. At the time the alcohol in this case was detained . . HMRC gave as the grounds for their detention that they were ‘detained and removed from premises pending evidence of duty status’ and were ‘goods detained and removed pending duty status’.
Held: The court allowed the Commissioners’ appeal against the first two judgments. Beatson LJ accepted that the judge’s view that the power to detain under section 139(1) must not only exist, but must be exercised for the purpose intended by Parliament, gained powerful support from general principles of public law, but concluded that it was inconsistent with the judgments of the majority of the court in the first judgment in the Eastenders case. The court also considered that it followed from the first judgment in the Eastenders case that there was no duty to give reasons for the detention of goods under section 139(1). In their view, the effect of the Eastenders decision was that if the goods were in fact ‘liable to forfeiture’, detention for a reasonable time was lawful under section 139(1) irrespective of any reason that might have been given. The appeal against Singh J’s second judgment, relating to section 144(2), was allowed on the ground that the judge’s decision was inconsistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in its second judgment in the Eastenders case

Judges:

Jackson, Lewison, Beatson LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 183

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – First Stop Wholesale Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 27-Mar-2012
The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s decisions to seize and detain alcoholic drinks from his business premises.
Held: Goods could not lawfully be detained under section 139(1) for the purpose of ascertaining whether the power . .
See Also – First Stop Wholesale Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 16-Jul-2012
The applicant challenged the court’s refusal to pay its costs after a finding that the seizure of goods by the respondent had been unlawful. The defendant argued that section 144 of the 1979 Act protected it against such an order.
Held: . .
Appeal from – First Stop Wholesale Ltd R (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 5-Oct-2012
Claim for judicial review of various seizure notices issued by the defendants. The question was whether a statement in the notices that ‘no evidence of UK duty payment has been provided’ was a sufficient statement of the grounds for seizing the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 11-Jun-2014
Alcoholic drinks had been seized by the respondents pending further enquiries with a view to a possible forfeiture, then held and returned but only under court order. The company had complained that the detention of the goods was unlawful. The . .
Cited – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash And Carry Plc And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Nov-2013
Statement of Facts – The company’s goods had been detained by Customs and Excise. A court later ordered their return, but found the detention to have been with reasonable cause. The Revenue had successfully argued that costs could not be awarded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471583

Gabor Fekete v Nemzeti Ado- Es Vamhivatal Kozep-Dunantuli Regionalis . .: ECJ 7 Mar 2013

ECJ Community Customs Code – Article 137 – Regulation implementing the Customs Code – Article 561(2) – Conditions for total relief from import duties – Importation into a Member State of a vehicle whose owner is established in a third country – Private use of the vehicle authorised by the owner otherwise than by an employment contract concluded with the user – No relief

Judges:

E Jarasiunas P

Citations:

C-182/12, [2013] EUECJ C-182/12

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471537

Scandic Distilleries Sa v Directia Generala De Administrare A Marilor Contribuabili: ECJ 31 Jan 2013

ECJ Opinion – Directive 92/12/EEC – Excise duty on products for consumption in another Member State – Refusal to reimburse duty paid in the first Member State – Compatibility with Union law

Judges:

Shapston AG

Citations:

C-663/11, [2013] EUECJ C-663/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 92/12/EEC

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.470794

Hecta Viticol (Judgment): ECJ 30 Apr 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directives 92/83 / EEC and 92/84 / EEC – Rate of excise duty on wine and non-foamy fermented drinks, other than wine or beer – Differentiated rates of excise duty – Principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations

Citations:

C-184/19, [2020] EUECJ C-184/19, ECLI: EU:C:2020:337

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.660125

Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission (Dumping – Imports of Tartaric Acid Originating In China – Judgment): ECFI 16 Dec 2020

Dumping – Imports of tartaric acid originating in China – Extension of a definitive anti-dumping duty – Determination of the normal value – Protocol of Accession of China to the WTO – Analogue country methodology – Article 2(7) and Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Vulnerability of the Union industry – Likelihood of recurrence of injury – Rights of the defence – Obligation to state reasons

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2020:605, T-541/18, [2020] EUECJ T-541/18

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 11 November 2022; Ref: scu.660703

GFT Retail Uk Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Aug 2012

EXCISE DUTY – ‘Spirit gels’ with significant alcohol content imported into UK from Sweden – Whether chargeable to excise duty – Yes – Whether exempt from excise duty under Article 27 of Directive 92/83/EEC – No – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 481 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.466097

5Th Avenue Products Trading (Customs Union – Transaction Value of Imported Goods – Concept of ‘Condition of Sale’ – Judgment): ECJ 19 Nov 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Community Customs Code – Article 29(1) and (3)(a) – Article 32(1)(c) and (5)(b) – Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Article 157(2) – Customs valuation – Transaction value of imported goods – Concept of ‘condition of sale’ – Payment in return for the granting of an exclusive distribution right

Citations:

C-775/19, [2020] EUECJ C-775/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:948

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.660639

Jimcaale v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty and Customs Duty – Civil Evasion Penalties): FTTTx 3 Feb 2020

EXCISE DUTY AND CUSTOMS DUTY – civil evasion penalties – s25 Finance Act 2003 and s8 Finance Act 1994 – late appeal admitted – hearing in absence of appellant – whether seeking to evade duty – yes – whether dishonest conduct – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – whether proportionate – yes – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT B1 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.649167

Enajah v Revenue and Customs (Customs and Excise – Restoration of Seized Goods): FTTTx 28 Feb 2020

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE – Restoration of seized goods – s139 Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 – whether the Respondents’ decision not to restore was reasonable – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 118 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.649158

Williamson v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Appeals : Other): FTTTx 3 Feb 2020

EXCISE DUTY – application to strike out appeal against assessment on grounds of no jurisdiction – goods deemed forfeit – no appeal against quantum – appeal struck out – appeal against wrongdoing penalty – no reasonable excuse – no special circumstances – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 67 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.649197

Lockey v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 5 Feb 2020

Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – no – reduction to penalties increased – otherwise appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 77 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.649171

Southern v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 5 Feb 2020

Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – no – insufficient reduction given for co-operation – appeal dismissed subject to reduction in penalties

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 78 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.649192

Ghazanafar v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Civil Penalty (See Also Excise Hydrocarbon Oil [Duty]) : Evasion): FTTTx 30 Oct 2019

EXCISE AND CUSTOMS DUTY – importation of tobacco products – appeal against penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – whether amount of penalties correct – no – penalty amount amended – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 660 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.644028

Central Medical Supplies Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Customs Duty – Binding Tariff Informations): FTTTx 29 Oct 2019

CUSTOMS DUTY – Binding Tariff Informations – classification – fluid and blanket warming cabinets used in hospitals – classified as medical furniture under CN heading 9402 – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 651 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.644023

Friendly Green Giant Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Customs Duty – Anti Dumping Duty): FTTTx 30 Sep 2019

CUSTOMS DUTY – Anti Dumping Duty – Countervailing Duty – Import VAT – Importation of Solar Panels from China – Binding Tariff Information – Customs Code – ADD and CVD Regulations – Classification to commodity code 85013100 81 for 50% of imported panels which exceeded 100 watts in output, attracting ADD and CVD – Classification to commodity code 85013100 73 for the 50% of panels which were 50 watts or less in output, not attracting ADD nor CVD – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 608 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.643997

Skillbond Direct Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Aug 2012

Customs Duty – Import of product from Liechtenstein – Supplier’s invoice indicated that the nil preferential rate of duty was appropriate to the goods – Invoice constituting the ‘proof of origin’ – Failure by the forwarding agent to indicate on the ‘simplified’ electronic filing details submitted to HMRC that preference was available such that duty was in fact paid – four month period for which the proof of origin remained valid – whether the entry of the goods for customs purposes (albeit incorrectly) enabled it to be said that the proof of origin had been submitted within the four-month period – Whether a repayment claim could be made under Article 236 of the Customs Code, or whether the liberty of HMRC to amend incorrect declarations under Article 78, possibly coupled with a claim under Article 236 nevertheless enabled the Appellant to recover duty unnecessarily paid in the periods more than four months prior to the actual late submission of the proofs of origin – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 488 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466128

Bio Power (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Apr 2012

Excise duty – fuel duty – Hydrocarbon Oils Duties Act 1979 s 6A – fuel substitutes – pounds 11,044 assessment and pounds 250 penalty imposed in respect of unpaid duty and failure to produce records – Appellant alleging it sold cleaned, filtered, polished waste vegetable oil and not fuel – whether there had been a ‘setting aside for chargeable use’ of the product – consideration of meaning of ‘setting aside’ – held in this case that addition of Dipentene to the product with the stated aim of enhancing its Cetane value amounted to such setting aside – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 316 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes – Other, Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.462651