Category: Customs and Excise

Manchester Candle Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 31 Jan 2012

Anti-Dumping Duty – candles imported from China by Appellant – goods dispatched prior to imposition of ADD but imported into UK following its imposition – goods liable to ADD – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 94 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451938

Prolab Nutrition Europe Ltd v The Commissioners for Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Nov 2009

CUSTOMS DUTY – customs value – whether payments a condition of sale of imported goods – whether royalties or licence fees – whether buyer free to obtain such goods from other suppliers

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 326 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.409119

World Cargo Logistics Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Mar 2014

CUSTOMS DUTY – claim for refund of import duty paid as result of error when goods wrongly declared as imported for home use when they should have been declared as eligible for inward processing relief – claim for repayment received more than 3 months after date of original declaration and therefore received out of time – appellant contended claim for repayment lost in post – appellant failed to make repayment claim in accordance with procedures for invalidating an incorrect customs declaration – whether repayment claim could be accepted out of time because appellant could show it had a duly substantiated exceptional case – no – Article 237 of Council Regulation 2913/92 – Article 251 of Council Regulation 2453/93 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 295 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.525314

SHS International Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Feb 2012

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTIES – tariff classification – post-clearance demand note in sum of andpound;427,903.36 and VAT of andpound;70,028.26 – amino acid premixes imported from USA – whether to be classified as medicaments (Chapter 30) or food preparations (Chapter 21) – product to be classified under Chapter 30 as medicaments.

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 134 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise, VAT

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451989

Spot Technology Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Dec 2009

CUSTOMS DUTY- Rear view mirror reversing system – classification – where falls within tariff duty suspension as ‘suitable for incorporation into goods or chapters 84-90 and 94’? No as already in Chapter 70 which is more specific – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 362 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.409174

Godrej Industries Ltd v Council of The European Union: ECFI 6 Sep 2013

ECJ Dumping – Imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia – Adjustment for currency conversion claimed – Burden of proof – Injury – Definitive anti-dumping duty

Citations:

T-6/12, [2013] EUECJ T-6/12

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.515165

EP Barrus Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Dec 2011

Binding Tariff Informations – appeal against the classification by HMRC of the Appellants’ imported utility vehicles as motor vehicles for the transport of goods – the Appellants claimed that the vehicles were dumpers or alternatively tractors – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 864 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450899

Queenswood Natural Foods Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Nov 2011

Customs duty – whether the Appellant had ’empowered’ a third party to act either as its direct or indirect representative in dealings with the Customs authorities – if so, whether the Appellant could sustain the various limbs of the defence against liability for the duty provided for by Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation 2913/92 – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 767 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450874

Sheftz v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Nov 2009

VAT – Goods imported into the UK – Postal packages – Whether packages coming from Germany to be treated as imported into the UK from outside the EU – Section 15(1) VATA : yes if customs duty would be payable on their removal to the UK
Customs Duty – Postal packages arriving in the UK from Germany – Whether community goods on arrival in the UK – Held on the facts the goods had been imported into the EU in Germany under customs control and removed to the UK where they had been released: Customs duty would thus be payable on their arrival in the UK

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 316 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.409126

Garbacka v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Nov 2009

EXCISE DUTY – restoration of goods – cigarettes and tobacco – appeal against HMRC review – although ‘guideline’ amounts not exceeded goods were not for own use and had been held for a commercial purpose – review decision reasonable – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 295 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.409104

Cycle Citi Corporation Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Aug 2009

CUSTOMS DUTY AND VAT – cycle parts imported for Appellant – Appellant’s private customs warehouse destroyed by fire whilst goods in transit – goods transferred to a third party and its own customs warehouse by Appellant’s agents without reference to Appellant or to HMRC – third party went into liquidation without paying duty and VAT due – post clearance demand issued to Appellant for duty and VAT – whether Appellant liable for duty and VAT – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 205 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.409021

Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld: ECJ 18 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff – Reimbursement of import duties – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs Code) – Article 241, first paragraph, first indent – Obligation of a Member State to provide for the payment of default interest even where no action has been brought before the national courts

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:19, [2017] EUECJ C-365/15, [2017] All ER (D) 55, EU:C:2017:19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Littlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.573264

M Sat Cable Ad v Nachalnik Na Mitnicheski Punkt – Varna Zapad Pri Mitnitsa Varna: ECJ 22 Nov 2012

ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Apparatus capable of receiving television signals and incorporating a modem for gaining access to the internet and having a function of interactive information exchange

Judges:

U Lohmus

Citations:

[2012] EUECJ C-320/11, C-320/11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.466001

Lietuvos Gelezinkeliai v Vilniaus teritorine muitine: ECJ 19 Jul 2012

ECJ Relief from customs duties and VAT exemptions on imports of goods – Fuel contained in the standard tanks of land motor vehicles – Notion of ‘motorised road vehicle’ – Locomotives – Road transport and transport by rail – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of neutrality

Judges:

Bonichot, P

Citations:

C-250/11, [2012] EUECJ C-250/11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise, VAT

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.463238

Receveur principal des douanes de Roissy Sud and others v Societe Rohm and Haas And Others: ECJ 19 Jul 2012

ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Polishing pads intended exclusively for semiconductor wafer-polishing machines – Tariff headings 3919 and 8466 (or 8486) – Definition of ‘parts’ or ‘accessories’

Judges:

A. Prechal, P

Citations:

C-336/11, [2012] EUECJ C-336/11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.463247

Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 20 Jan 2012

The Court considered the lawfulness of the exercise of the power claimed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise (HMRC) to detain goods temporarily for the purpose of investigating their status.

Judges:

Mummery, Elias, Davis LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 15, [2012] 1 WLR 2067, [2012] WLR(D) 6, [2012] STC 817

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 139(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs Admn 4-Nov-2010
Applications for judicial review in relation to alcoholic goods detained by the Defendants on grounds of a suspicion that duty may not have been paid in respect of them.
Sales J said: ‘In my view, there is a clear reason why Parliament wished . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 29-Dec-2010
FTTTx Excise Duty – warehouse – application for registration as an owner of goods under Warehousekeepers and Owners of Goods Regulations 1999 (‘WOWGR’) – whether decision of HMRC could reasonably have been . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v South Western Magistrates’ Court Admn 22-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions by the magistrates first to issue search warrants, and then to refuse to disclose the information on which it had been based.
Held: The documentation now having been disclosed the second part of . .

Cited by:

See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 27-Mar-2012
FTTTx Procedure – costs – application for costs out of time – whether discretion to entertain an application should be exercised – Rule 5 (3) (a) Tribunal Rules 2009 – whether direction should be made to apply . .
See Also – Barnes v Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others CCC 4-Apr-2012
The respondent had had a receivership order made after ex parte restraint orders were made. The orders were set aside as unlawful, but the receiver now sought his very substantial costs from the respondent’s assets. . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA 22-May-2012
The appellants had succeeded in resisting proceedings commenced by the respondents for the seizure of goods. The respondent now argued that costs should not follow the event, asserting a statutory bar. The appellant additionally argued that any such . .
See Also – Crown Prosecution Service v The Eastenders Group and Another CACD 23-Nov-2012
‘application by the CPS for permission to appeal against . . orders made . . in the Central Criminal Court on 8 May 2012. I use the expression ‘in form’ because as will appear there are issues as to the jurisdiction of the court. The case raises . .
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 . .
See Also – 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, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450423

Taylor and Lodge v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Aug 2009

EXCISE GOODS – seizure of cloth woven from imported vicuna yarn and cashmere on basis that no import licence obtained for vicuna – application for retrospective import licence – refused by HMRC – whether refusal reasonable – no – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 228 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.409038

Sas Prodotti Alimentari Folci v Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato: ECJ 16 Oct 1980

ECJ Common customs tariff – scheme of generalized preferences in favour of developing countries – cut mushrooms coming under sub-heading 07.04 B – exclusion (regulations nos 3055/74 and 3011/75 of the council, annex A)
Tariff heading 07.04 ‘ex b. Other’ set out in annex a to regulations (eec) no 3055/74 and (eec) no 3011/75 of the council establishing in respect of certain products falling within chapters 1 to 24 of the common customs tariff a scheme of generalized preferences in favour of developing countries for the years 1975 and 1976 must be interpreted as meaning that the reduced rate does not apply to cut or sliced mushrooms even if all the parts are present.

Citations:

R-824/79, [1980] EUECJ R-824/79

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.214949

Scarratt v The Director of The UK Border Agency: FTTTx 14 Oct 2011

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – non-restoration of tobacco – evidence of own use of excise goods – not admitted – abuse of process – was the non-restoration proportionate – yes – did the Appellant suffer exceptional hardship – no – was the decision reasonable – yes – Appeal Dismissed.

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 666 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449626

Amoena (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Oct 2011

CUSTOMS DUTY – Whether Mastectomy bra should be classified to commodity code 6212 1090 00 as a clothing article – whether proper to code 9021 1010 00 as an orthopaedic device – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 675 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At FTTTx – Amoena (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 12-Aug-2013
UTTC Customs duty – classification – whether mastectomy bra a brassiere under CN 6212 or an orthopaedic device etc under CN 9021 ‘ mastectomy bra an orthopaedic device under CN 9021 10 10 by virtue of Note 6 to . .
At FTTTx – Amoena (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 29-Jan-2015
Appeal as to the appropriate classification, and hence level of customs duty, for a mastectomy bra. . .
At FTTTx – Amoena (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jul-2016
The court considered the proper classification under customs codes for a mastectomy bra. The First Tier Tribunal had found no evidence that it had an medical purpose beyond the containment of the breast from.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449593

Chambers, Regina v: CACD 17 Oct 2008

The court found that a customs prosecution for evasion of duty by excess tobacco imports was incorrectly founded, after failing to acknowledge a change in the 1992 Regulations brought in in 2001. Also, a day labourer who had merely assisted in unloading contraband tobacco did not obtain a benefit by way of a pecuniary advantage in the form of the evasion of excise duty since he was not himself under a liability for the payment of that duty.
Toulson LJ said: ‘On the hearing of the appeal Mr Cammerman accepted, in our judgment correctly, that the appellant would only have obtained a benefit by way of a pecuniary advantage in the form of the evasion of excise duty if he was himself under a liability for the payment of that duty which he dishonestly evaded. To help somebody else to evade the payment of duty payable by that other person, within intent to defraud, is no less criminal, but in confiscation proceedings the focus is on the benefit obtained by the relevant offender. An offender may derive other benefits from helping a person who is under a liability for the payment of duty to avoid that liability, eg by way of payment for the accessory’s services, but that is another matter. In order to decide whether the offender has obtained a benefit in the form of the evasion of a liability, it is necessary to determine whether the offender had a liability which he avoided. In the present case that turns on whether the appellant was liable for the payment of excise duty on the relevant goods under the relevant Regulations.’

Judges:

Toulson LJ, Griffith Williams, J, Brodericj HHJ Rec Winchester

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Crim 2467

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Khan; Regina v Lockett CACD 12-Mar-2009
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders made on conviction for dealing with goods with intent to defraud the CandE of payable duty namely in bringing in excess numbers of cigarettes.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In many cases the . .
Cited – White and Others v Regina CACD 5-May-2010
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders made after a finding that they had been involved (separately) in the smuggling of tobacco, suggesting a conflict between the 1992 Regulations and the Directive.
Held: The appeals variously . .
Cited – Mackle, Regina v SC 29-Jan-2014
Several defendants appealed against confiscation orders made against them on convictions for avoiding customs and excise duty by re-importing cigarettes originally intended for export. They had accepted the orders being made by consent, but now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Customs and Excise, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.277390

Haseeb Mini Supermarket Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Sep 2009

Excise duty – restoration – vehicle seized for being used for smuggling – third party owner – whether owner innocent of and blameless for the smuggling – yes – whether decision not to offer vehicle for restoration reasonable – no – whether third party owner had taken reasonable steps to prevent the vehicle being used for smuggling – no – appeal allowed and further review directed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 222 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.409049

Omar v Revenue and Customs: Excs 2 Feb 2006

RESTORATION – Appellant’s Luton Van and 1000 kg of hand rolling tobacco properly forfeited – van in yard containing 500 gms of hand rolling tobacco from the same source improperly seized – Appellant unaware of presence of tobacco – appeal allowed – case to be reconsidered

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT-Excise E00938

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.272018

Dharmesh Sangani Ltd v Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 20 May 2019

Customs Duty – Restoration – Gold Jewellery Under-Declared – jewellery seized as liable to forfeiture – restoration refused – whether decision not to restore was one that could reasonably have been arrived at – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 318 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.637890

Jagla v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Appeals : Jurisdiction): FTTTx 3 Oct 2017

EXCISE DUTY – 8,000 cigarettes brought in from another Member State – Excise assessment – Excise wrongdoing penalty
Application to strike-out the appeal against the excise assessment – Issues relating to personal use – Jones and Race applied – Tribunal has no jurisdiction – Rule 8 – Appeal against the excise assessment struck-out
Excise wrongdoing penalty – Appeal against the excise wrongdoing penalty stayed on terms

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 730 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.598783

Saupiquet v Commission (Customs Union) French Text: ECFI 24 Nov 2011

ECJ Customs duty – Repayment of import duties – Canned tuna originating in Thailand – Tariff quota – Opening Date – Sunday – Exhaustion of quota – Article 239 of the Community Customs Code – Articles 308a to 308c of Regulation ( EEC) No 2454/93 – Regulation (EC) No 975/2003

Citations:

T-131/10, [2011] EUECJ T-131/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.449369

Truebell Plc v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Jun 2011

FTTTx Preliminary hearing to decide whether or not it is open to the Tribunal to make a finding inconsistent with that reached by the EC Commission concerning the waiver or repayment of customs duty and secondly to decide which provisions govern the determination of origin for the products in question – Tribunal found that it is not open to the Tribunal to make a finding inconsistent with that reached by the EC Commission and that the origin of the products in question is governed by the non-preferential rules

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 370 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443149

Bradgate Containers Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 May 2011

Customs duty and import VAT – inward processing relief – failure to respect time limits for re-export – whether ‘obvious negligence’ or ‘special situation’ – correct customs debtor – entry details – Articles 59, 118, 204 and 239 of Regulation 2913/92 and Articles 199, 200, 205, 222-224, 859, 860, 899 and 905 of Regulation 2454/93 – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 308 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise, VAT

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443019

Jones v Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 10 May 2011

Excise duty – tobacco and cigarettes – whether open to importer to raise legality of seizure after condemnation proceedings determined against him – no – whether decision to refuse restoration of goods reasonable – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 307 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443053

Pressuretech Transport Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Jan 2011

EXCISE DUTY – gas for use as road fuel – return not submitted by due date – duty not paid by due date – penalty imposed – reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 74 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442828

Pacific World And FDD International v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: ECJ 28 Jul 2011

ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Moulded plastic false nail sets – Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1417/2007 – Other articles of plastics (heading 3926) – Manicure or pedicure preparations (heading 3304) – Manicure or pedicure sets and instruments (heading 8214)

Judges:

D. Svaby, President

Citations:

C-215/10, [2011] EUECJ C-215/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 1417/2007

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442298

Da Costa and Co (a Firm) and Collins v Thames Magistrates Court and H M Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 25 Jan 2002

The claimant sought to challenge search warrants issued by the respondents. The warrants were criticised as being too widely drawn, and in breach of the 1984 Act. Criticism was also made of the implementation of the searches, in the use of excess numbers of officers, and the taking of images of hard disks, thus acquiring privileged information about other clients of the accountant claimants.
Held: The imaging of the disks was less intrusive, and no different in principal from the seizure of a ledger book. The officers also questioned staff members using a pre-prepared questionnaire. The use of that should have been raised with the judge issuing the warrant. However no remedy was to be granted save for another admittedly unlawful search.
The Commissioners’ power to seize ‘documents’ when entering with a warrant under paragraph 10(3)(b) of Schedule 11 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 could extend to the physical removal of computers. ‘Documents’ were defined in section 96(1) of that Act as ‘anything in which information is recorded’, a very similar definition to that in section 114(2) of the Finance Act 2008. The court accepted a submission that: ‘A computer hard disk is a single storage entity which falls within the definition of a ‘document’ in section 96(1) of the 1994 Act because it is something ‘in which information of any kind is recorded’.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, and Mrs Justice Hallett

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 40 (Admin), [2002] STC 267, [2003] BVC 3, [2002] BTC 5605, [2002] STI 112, [2002] Crim LR 504

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Vallue Added Tax Act 1994 72, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15(6)(b

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – H, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue Admn 23-Oct-2002
The appellant sought judicial review of the seizure by the respondents of computers found on its premises in the course of executing warrants under the Act, even though the computers might contain other matters not relevant to any investigation.
Cited – Glenn and Co (Essex) Ltd), Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 18-Jun-2010
The company objected to the search of its offices and removal by the defendant of its computers, the officers having entered without any warrant purporting to use powers under the 1989 Act.
Held: The request for judicial review failed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Customs and Excise

Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.167465

Visnapuu v Kihlakunnansyyttaja: ECJ 12 Nov 2015

Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Articles 34 TFEU and 110 TFEU – Directive 94/62/EC – Articles 1(1), 7 and 15 – Distance selling and transport of alcoholic beverages from another Member State – Excise duty on certain beverage packaging – Exemption where packaging is integrated into a deposit and return system – Articles 34 TFEU, 36 TFEU and 37 TFEU – Requirement of a licence for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages – Monopoly on the retail sale of alcoholic beverages – Justification – Protection of health

Judges:

T. von Danwitz, P

Citations:

C-198/14, [2015] EUECJ C-198/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:751

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 94/62/EC 1 7 15, TFEU 34

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.554663

Zollamt Linz Wels v Laki DOOEL: ECJ 16 Jun 2011

ECJ Community Customs Code – Regulation implementing the Customs Code – Articles 555(1)(c) and 558(1) – Vehicle which has entered the customs territory under the temporary importation procedure with total relief from import duties – Vehicle used for internal traffic – Unlawful use – Incurring of a customs debt – National authorities competent to levy customs duties.

Citations:

C-351/10, [2011] EUECJ C-351/10

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441201

Magistrates and Town Council of The City of Glasgow v Messrs Murdoch, Warren, and Co: HL 9 Jul 1783

Paton Statute – Impost Duty – Evasion.- The Magistrates of Glasgow are, by statute, entitled to a duty upon all ales and beer brought into Glasgow, from all the breweries in and about Glasgow, for consumption. Sometime after the passing of the act, parties erected a brewery in Anderston, which they conceived beyond the bounds of the act. The Magistrates, however, insisted on payment of their duty; Thereafter the brewers resorted to an agreement with Monro in Glasgow, to buy all their ales on the brewery. By this means he was the medium of still supplying the former customers of the brewers. Held this an evasion of the act, and that the brewers were still liable.

Citations:

[1783] UKHL 2 – Paton – 615, (1783) 2 Paton 615

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Customs and Excise

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.562104

Hunova-Trans KFT v HMRC: UTTC 10 May 2011

EXCISE DUTIES – restoration – seizure of vehicle used for smuggling – refusal to restore – appeal against refusal dismissed by First-tier Tribunal – whether decision of the First-tier Tribunal was perverse – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKUT 194 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440825

Stefaniak v Revenue and Customs: Excs 20 Mar 2008

EXCISE DUTY – restoration of vehicle used for attempted smuggling of 80,000 cigarettes – numerous previous trips by the same vehicle and another car and on two occasions the occupants were leaving the UK carrying large sums of cash – whether non-restoration reasonable – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT-Excise E01101

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.272179

Heuschen and Schrouff Oriental Foods v Commission: ECJ 30 Nov 2006

CJEU Customs Union – Rice paper from Vietnam – Remission of import duties – Fairness clause – Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Error on the part of the customs authorities – Concept of manifest negligence – Principle d treatment – Principle of good administration – Principle of proportionality

Citations:

[2006] EUECJ T-382/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.246790

Friedrich Binder Gmbh and C Kg v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall: ECJ 12 Jul 1989

ECJ A trader is not entitled under Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79 to the waiver of the post-clearance recovery of import duties if the error made by the customs authorities from which he benefited was due to the fact that those authorities, instead of applying the Community provisions relating to the customs tariff published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, referred to a national tariff manual which wrongly incorporated an anticipated reduction in duty proposed by the Commission but rejected by the Council, since it was an error which the trader could reasonably have detected within the meaning of that regulation.
Community provisions relating to the customs tariff constitute, from the date of their publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities, the sole relevant positive law, of which all are deemed to be aware . A tariff manual drawn up by national authorities constitutes no more than a handbook for customs clearance; it can have no more than indicative character and in no case lead to the calling in question of the primacy of Community law . Moreover, an error in relation to the rate of duty can be detected by an attentive trader from a reading of the Official Journal of the European Communities, in which the relevant provisions are published.
Furthermore, a commercial trader whose activities consist, essentially, of import-export operations cannot derive a legitimate expectation as to the applicable rate of duty merely from a Commission proposal incorporated in a national tariff manual, since it is not unreasonable to expect him to consult the relevant Official Journals .

Citations:

R-161/88, [1989] EUECJ R-161/88, [1988] ECR 2415

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – It’s A Wrap (UK) Ltd v Gula and Another CA 11-May-2006
The company was said to have paid dividends unlawfully, in that the directors who were the shareholders had paid themselves dividends knowing that the company had not earned enough to pay them.
Held: Where shareholders had knowledge of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.215716

MIS v Hauptzollamt Munchen: ECJ 9 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Subheading 6211 3310 00 0 – Aprons – Anti-radiation protective coats

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2016:424, [2016] EUECJ C-288/15

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.565622

Marquis Energy v Council: ECFI 9 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Dumping – Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Action for annulment – Direct concern – Admissibility – Countrywide anti-dumping duty – Individual treatment – Sampling

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2016:343, [2016] EUECJ T-277/13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.565620

Coleman v Revenue and Customs: Excs 19 Mar 2008

Excs Excise Duties: Importation of Cigars – Cigars ordered from Spain by UK resident via internet – goods delivered to purchaser for the purpose of making a gift to his father – goods seized no indicator of gift on parcel – whether offer of restoration reasonable – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT-Excise E01099

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.272170

Grapevine Storage Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs: Excs 19 Mar 2008

Excs EXCISE – Refusal of application to approve a place of security for the deposit of excise goods – Deemed decision made after expiry of 45 days – Whether appeal against initial decision or review decision – Both officers failed to disclose concerns about another bonded warehouse – Whether those concerns influenced decision – Decision purportedly taken on basis lack of commercial viability – Both officers made mistakes in calculations – Whether decision reasonable – s.92(1) Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 – S.16(4)(c) Finance Act – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT-Excise E01100

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 92(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.272171

Whittalls Wines Ltd and European Food Brokers Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 28 Aug 2019

EXCISE DUTY/PROCEDURE – appeals against revocations of approvals relating to duty-paid and duty-suspended alcohol – application to add further grounds of appeal – principles applied in determining such an application considered – application refused.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 260 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.643790

Xerox Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 19 Nov 2015

ICO CUSTOMS DUTY – engineered solid ‘ink sticks’ – whether classifiable as ‘printing ink . . other inks, whether or not concentrated or solid’ under CN heading 3215 or as ‘parts’ of printers under CN heading 8443 – General Rules of Interpretation considered – held, applying GRI 3(a) that CN heading 3215 provides the more specific description – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2015] UKUT 631 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.558961

Conseil General De La Vienne v Directeur general des douanes et droits indirects: ECJ 22 Jun 2006

ECJ (Customs Union) Post-clearance recovery of import duties – Remission of import duties – Conditions – Article 871 of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code – Scope of the obligation to submit the case to the Commission – Failure on the part of a person liable for payment acting in good faith to declare additional royalties which should have been incorporated in the customs value of imported goods.

Citations:

C-419/04, [2006] EUECJ C-419/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:419, [2006] ECR I-5645

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.243005

Greenalls Management Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 26 Jun 2003

The appellant operated an approved storage facility, holding alcoholic drinks. Drinks were to be exported, and were released on that basis. They were later diverted and sold within the UK market, evading the appropriate duty. The company appealed a finding that it had itself to pay the duty.
Held: Chargeability is a matter of domestic law. The basic principle of English law is that a person is not to be subject to a tax other than by clear words. The company was innocent of any involvement in misdoing, and no words fixed it with payment. The commissioners allowed the goods to be moved without the appropriate guarantee having been obtained. The company should not suffer for their fault.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Carnwath, And Sir Christopher Staughton

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 896, Times 02-Jul-2003, Gazette 28-Aug-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2609

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 92, Excise Duty Points (Duty Suspended Movements of Excise Goods) Regulations 2001 3 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Distinguished – Regina v Hayward CACD 24-Jun-1998
Where a transaction would normally allow suspension of payment of duty, the duty became payable immediately if the documents had been falsified. Offence was committed irrespective of where the goods had eventually been sold. A failure to comply with . .
Cited – G van de Water v Staatssecretaris van Financien ECJ 5-Apr-2001
(Judgment) Article 6 (1) of the Directive was designed to establish the point in time at which the excise duty becomes actually chargeable, but not to determine the person from whom the duty should be claimed. Any production, processing, holding or . .
Cited – Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 1) HL 3-Mar-1993
Questions on pregnancy dismissals included unavailability at required time. The correct comparison under the Act of 1975 was between the pregnant woman and: ‘a hypothetical man who would also be unavailable at the critical time. The relevant . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Greenalls Management Ltd v Customs and Excise HL 12-May-2005
Volumes of vodka were transferred from a secure warehouse to a carrier for export. They were diverted, and not exported and the Customs sought the unpaid duty from the warehouse. The Directive provided that duty was payable on the ‘release for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.184069

Revenue and Customs v Munir: UTTC 13 Sep 2019

PROCEDURE – excise duty assessment – application to strike out – fact of conviction for being knowingly concerned in fraudulent evasion of duty – s11 Civil Evidence Act 1968 -weight to be attached to conviction – whether FTT erred in law in its approach to the evidence – appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 280 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.643791

Aurubis Balgaria AD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna (Customs Union): ECJ 31 Mar 2011

ECJ Customs Code – Customs duties – Customs debt on importation – Interest on arrears – Period for the collection of interest on arrears – Compensatory interest.

Citations:

C-546/09, [2011] EUECJ C-546/09

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.431629

Commission v Portugal C-23/10: ECJ 17 Mar 2011

ECJ State Failure – Introduction for free circulation of fresh bananas – Weight said does not match the actual weight – Duty of customs authorities to verify the declared weight – Community Customs Code – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Articles 68 ff – Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Article 290a – Annex 38b – EU own resources – Loss of revenue – Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 – Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 – Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-23/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430708

Dawson’s (Wales) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 4 Oct 2019

EXCISE DUTY – assessment on wholesaler in possession of non-duty paid excise goods – whether legislation implementing article 7(2)(b) Directive 2008/118/EC proportionate – whether the FTT has jurisdiction to consider unreasonableness of assessment – meaning of ‘holding’ excise goods – Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010 reg 6.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 296 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.643793

Valsts ienemumu dienests v Stretinskis: ECJ 21 Jan 2016

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union – Community Customs Code – Article 29(1)(d) – Determination of the customs value – Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Article 143(1)(h) – Definition of ‘related persons’ for the purposes of determining the customs value – Kinship relationship between the buyer, a natural person, and the director of the company which sold the goods)

Citations:

C-430/14, [2016] EUECJ C-430/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:43

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.559490

Marishipping And Transport v Marishipping and Transport BV (Customs Union): ECJ 17 Feb 2011

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Common Customs Tariff – Customs duties – Relief – Pharmaceutical substances – Composition – Restrictions.

Citations:

C-11/10, [2011] EUECJ C-11/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430214

Snackwell Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Nov 2013

FTTTx Excise Duty – Importation of flavoured ciders from Lithuania – flavoured ciders ranked as ‘made-wine’ rather than ‘cider’ for excise duty purposes, so attracting duty at the rate of andpound;107.36 per Hectolitre rather than andpound;37.68 per Hectolitre – whether the Appellant had any legitimate ground for escaping the liability for the additional duty from andpound;37.68 to andpound;107.36 per Hectolitre when he had innocently but wrongly declared the importations as cider and HMRC had failed to notice that the flavoured ciders had been wrongly categorised – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 661 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.518629

Hedley’s Humpers Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Nov 2013

FTTTx Seizure by border agency- application to appeal for review out of time- Finance Act 1994 s14A- ground to make application by third party – unreasonable delay- appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 684 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1994 14A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.518614

Dawes and Another v UK Border Agency: FTTTx 9 Sep 2011

FTTTx Excise duty – non-restoration of seized goods – application to strike out appeal on basis that no appealable decision yet issued – held that since no review decision issued, appeal must be premature – appeal struck out – however UKBA now required to issue formal review of decision, which may lead to renewed appeal – any application to strike out appeal as ‘doomed’ in the light of HMRC v Jones and Jones is premature.

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 590 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.449548

Philips C-446/09: ECJ 3 Feb 2011

ECJ (Customs Union) Goods placed under the external transit procedure – Intellectual property rights – Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 and Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 – Treatment of goods in transit as if they were goods produced in the territory of the Union (‘production fiction’) – Conditions governing action by the customs authorities in cases where goods in transit are counterfeit or pirated – Suspected infringement of an intellectual property right.

Citations:

C-446/09, [2011] EUECJ C-446/09 – O, [2012] EUECJ C-446/09

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428502

Philips C-495/09: ECJ 3 Feb 2011

ECJ (Customs Union) Goods placed under the external transit procedure – Intellectual property rights – Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 and Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 – Treatment of goods in transit as if they were goods produced in the territory of the Union (‘production fiction’) – Conditions governing action by the customs authorities in cases where goods in transit are counterfeit or pirated – Suspected infringement of an intellectual property right.

Citations:

C-495/09, [2011] EUECJ C-495/09, [2011] EUECJ C-495/09 – O

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 3295/94

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428503

Martin v Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 14 Dec 2010

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – restoration of car – 15 kilos of hand-rolling tobacco, 1,200 cigarettes and 2,050 cigars between three people – whether reasonable not to restore – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 4 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 152

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lindsay v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 20-Feb-2002
The applicant was stopped at Customs carrying cigarettes over the quantity set for personal use. His car was seized, and Customs refused to return it. The cigarettes were for his own use and for sale to family members. He claimed the seizure was an . .
Cited – Gascoyne v Customs and Excise and Another CA 28-Jul-2004
The Commissioners had found what they considered to be an excess of dutiable goods brought into the country by the tax payer, and had forfeited the car. The court considered the effect of the Gora case.
Held: The difficult statements in Gora . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428213

Lecson Elektromobile GmbH v Hauptzollamt Dortmund: ECJ 22 Dec 2010

ECJ (Customs Union) Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Section XVII – Transport equipment – Chapter 87 – ‘Vehicles other than railway or tramway rolling stock, and parts and accessories thereof’ – Headings 8703 and 8713 – Three or four-wheeled electric vehicles designed for the transport of one person, reaching a maximum speed of 6 to 15 km/h and having a separate, adjustable steering column, known as ‘electric mobility scooters’.

Citations:

C-12/10, [2010] EUECJ C-12/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427707

Premis Medical BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, Kantoor Laan op Zuid (Common Customs Tariff): ECJ 22 Dec 2010

ECJ Regulation (EC) No 729/2004 – Classification of the product ‘walker-rollator’ in the Combined Nomenclature – Heading 9021 – Heading 8716 – Corrigendum – Validity.

Citations:

C-273/09, [2010] EUECJ C-273/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 729/2004

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427719

Asociacion de Transporte Internacional por Carretera v Administracion General del Estado: ECJ 22 Dec 2010

ECJ TIR Convention – Community Customs Code – Transport carried out under cover of a TIR carnet – Guaranteeing association – Irregular unloading – Determination of the place of the offence – Recovery of import duties.

Citations:

C-488/09, [2010] EUECJ C-488/09

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427665

Tyagi (T/A Standards Trading) v Home Office: FTTTx 4 Jun 2014

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – Appeal against decision, upheld on review, not to restore goods seized on entry into the UK – Whether goods chewing tobacco, snuff or snus – Whether decision could reasonably have been reached – If not whether decision would inevitably have been the same – John Dee Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1995] STC 941 applied – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 550 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.526955

Redmond v UK Border Agency: FTTTx 7 Sep 2010

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY- Goods deemed condemned – appellant did not apply for the case to be heard by the Magistrates’ Court as he had been advised he would have to pay the costs of andpound;1700 immediately – goods therefore deemed condemned Tribunal no jurisdiction to hear argument as to own use – application on grounds of hardship for return of vehicle – appellant able to obtain another vehicle – case dismissed

Judges:

Porter J

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 420 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.426592