FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs: SC 29 Jan 2020

This appeal concerns the meaning and effect of the phrase ‘Customs Debt’ in article 221(4) of the former Customs Code of the EU, contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. Customs duties may be due under ‘post-clearance demands’ and the Court now considered the time limits for such demands. The tax payer imported garlic, saying it was from Cambodia and exempt, but the respondent said they were from China and subject to duty. The taxpayer now said the demand was issued outside a three year time limit.

Judges:

Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin

Citations:

[2020] UKSC 1, [2020] STC 363, [2020] 2 All ER 161, [2020] 1 WLR 757, [2020] WLR(D) 55, UKSC 2018/0218

Links:

Bailii, SC Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 Oct 14 am Video, SC 2019 Oct 14 pm Video

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At FTTTxFMX Food Merchants Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 29-Nov-2013
FTTTx Customs duty – import of Chinese garlic, falsely declared as Cambodian in origin – late issue of post-clearance demand note for unpaid duty – whether the customs debt was the result of an act which, at the . .
At UTTCRevenue and Customs v FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd UTTC 10-Dec-2015
Customs Duty – import of Chinese garlic falsely declared as Cambodian origin – Customs Code Art 221 – customs debt resulting from a criminal act – post clearance demand issued after expiry of the three year period – no express provisions in UK law . .
Appeal fromFMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 30-Oct-2018
Post-clearance demand for customs duty almost seven years after the taxpayer had imported garlic into the United Kingdom, which had been falsely declared to be of a certain origin, and just under four years after the customs became aware of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, European

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.646807

Commission v Ireland: ECJ 12 Jun 1990

ECJ In regard to exemptions from turnover tax and excise duty granted in respect of goods contained in travellers’ personal luggage, Member States retain only the restricted power conferred on them by Directive 69/169, as subsequently extended and amended . Since no provision is made in that directive for any derogation relating to the duration of journeys and the exemptions must be granted as soon as the traveller in question has had the opportunity to make purchases in another Member State, the application of those exemptions cannot be limited by a Member State to goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers arriving at its borders after a period of 48 hours outside its territory.

Citations:

C-158/88, [1990] EUECJ C-158/88

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.134889

Lefebvre Frere and Soeur v Commission: ECJ 14 Feb 1989

A Commission decision, adopted pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 115 of the Treaty, addressed to a Member State and authorizing that State in future to exclude from Community treatment for a specified period bananas originating in certain non-member countries and released into free circulation in the other Member States, is, with regard to all banana importers, a measure of general application which applies to situations determined objectively and has legal effects with regard to categories of persons referred to in a general and abstract manner.
It is not therefore of individual concern, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, to a banana-importing undertaking, even if that undertaking had been prohibited on several occasions by the authorities of the Member State concerned from importing bananas and had complained of its difficulties to the national courts and the Commission.
Firstly, no application for an import licence lodged by that undertaking was still pending when the decision was adopted and, secondly, a measure does not cease to be a regulation because it is possible to determine the number or even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at any given time as long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation.

Citations:

C-206/87, [1989] EUECJ C-206/87

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture, Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.134664

SC Nicktrans Srl v Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 25 Apr 2015

Excise Duty – restoration – Customs Excise and Management Act 1979 sections 88 and 139 – adaptation of vehicle for purpose of concealment of goods – seizure and confiscation of vehicle – refusal of restoration – Romanian owner denied knowledge of adaptation – s 16 Finance Act 1994 – whether the review officer had taken into account irrelevant considerations and disregarded relevant considerations in reaching her decision – yes – whether refusal reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances – no – appeal allowed – further review directed under s 16(4)(b) FA 1994

Citations:

[2015] UKFTT 177 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs Excise and Management Act 1979 88 139

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.547387

Revenue and Customs v Perfect (Excise Duty): UTTC 8 Dec 2017

EXCISE DUTY – persons with no actual or constructive knowledge of unpaid duty – meaning of ‘making the delivery of’ and ‘holding’ goods in Article 33(3) EU Council Directive 2008/118/EC and reg 13(2) Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010 – liability for penalty under paragraph 4 Schedule 41 Finance Act 2008.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 476 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At UTTCCRevenue and Customs v Perfect CA 15-Mar-2022
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, European

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.665574

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A: CA 22 Jul 2002

The Customs appealed an order allowing a judge in divorce ancillary relief proceedings to make an order transferring the matrimonial home and two life policies in such a way as would defeat their attempt to enforce recovery under the 1994 Act.
Held: The customs had not established that the 1994 had any statutory priority. Both Acts gave discretion to the judge, and the decisions will vary from situation to situation, and it was not axiomatic that one Act took precedence over the other. In appropriate cases, collusion between spouses could be dealt with after the event by the Customs establishing absence of full disclosure to the court making the order. The primary task of a court is to find facts and identify the crucial legal points and to advance reasons for deciding them in a particular way, rather than to engage in academic discussion.

Judges:

Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Judge and Mr Justice Wall

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2002, [2003] 2 All ER 736, [2003] Fam 55

Statutes:

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24, Drug Trafficking Act 1994 29

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AffirmedAhmad v Ahmad CA 21-Jul-1998
. .

Cited by:

CitedParker v Parker ChD 24-Jul-2003
Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable . .
CitedGibson v Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office CA 12-Jun-2008
The claimant’s husband had been made subject to a criminal confiscation order in the sum of pounds 5.5 million. She now sought to appeal an action against life policies in which she claimed a 50% interest.
Held: Despite the finding that she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Customs and Excise

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.174392

Develop Dr Eisbein v Hautpzollamt Stuttgart-West: ECJ 16 Jun 1994

ECJ Whilst the customs tariff does indeed in certain cases contain references to manufacturing processes of goods, the preference is, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, to have recourse to criteria for classification based on the objective characteristics of products, as defined in the wording of the headings and the notes to the sections or chapters which can be ascertained on the occasion of customs clearance. Consequently, the manufacturing processes of a product are decisive only when the tariff heading expressly so provides.
Consequently, the second sentence of Rule 2(a) of the Rules for the Interpretation of the Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in Part I, Section I, A of the Annex to Regulation No 950/68 on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1/72, which, without defining the assembly operation, provides that for tariff classification purposes, an article imported unassembled or disassembled must be regarded as a complete article, must be interpreted as meaning that an article is to be considered to be imported unassembled or disassembled where the component parts, that is the parts which may be identified as components intended to make up the finished product, are all presented for customs clearance at the same time and no account is to be taken in that regard of the assembly technique or the complexity of the assembly method.
It is not possible to rely as against that interpretation on an Explanatory Note to the Nomenclature of the Customs Cooperation Council because those notes do not have legally binding force and must be disregarded if their content is not in accordance with the actual provisions of the Customs Cooperation Council and the meaning of those provisions would be altered if that note were taken into account.

Citations:

C-35/93, [1994] EUECJ C-35/93, [1994] ECR I-2655

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedSony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.161065

Oryzomyli Kavallas OEE and others v Commission of the European Communities: ECJ 16 Jul 1984

Citations:

C-160/84, [1984] EUECJ C-160/84R

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See AlsoOryzomyli Kavallas OEE and others v Commission of the European Communities ECJ 24-Oct-1984
. .
See AlsoOryzomyli Kavallas OEE and others v Commission of the European Communities ECJ 15-May-1986
Remission of import duties – General equitable provision in Article 13 of Council Regulation No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133913

Van Gend and Loos v Commission: ECJ 13 Nov 1984

ECJ 1. Recognition of a case of force majeure presupposes that the external cause relied upon has irresistible and inevitable consequences to the point of making it objectively impossible for the persons concerned to fulfil their obligations.
2. A customs agent, by the very nature of his functions, renders himself liable both for the payment of import duty and for the validity of the documents which he presents to the customs authorities. Being furnished with certificates of origin which are invalid, even though issued by the customs authorities of the countries named in them, is one of the professional risks which he runs and cannot constitute a special circumstance within the meaning of article 13 of council regulation no 1430/79 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties.

Citations:

C-98/83, [1984] EUECJ C-98/83

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See AlsoVan Gend En Loos v Administratie Der Belastingen ECJ 5-Feb-1963
LMA The Dutch customs authorities had introduced an import charge in breach of Art.12 [Art.25] EC. This Article prohibits MS from introducing between themselves any new customs duties on imports or exports or any . .

Cited by:

See AlsoVan Gend and Loos Nv v Inspecteur Der Invoerrechten En Accijnzen, A Enschede ECJ 7-Mar-1985
ECJ Common customs tariff – tariff headings – ‘sails’ within the meaning of heading 62.04 – sails for sailboards imported separately from the boards – included
The words ‘sails’ in tariff heading 62.04 of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133645

Beko Plc (Formerly Beko (UK) Ltd) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Jan 2014

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTY – anti-dumping duty – import from Turkey of colour TVs of Korean origin – whether entry in the accounts precluded by Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code – whether failure to enter amount of duty legally due a result of an error by the customs authorities – whether error could not have been reasonably detected by appellant – whether duty should be remitted under Article 239 – whether there was a ‘special situation’ – whether gross negligence

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 60 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.521665

Mahmood v Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 7 Feb 2012

EXCISE DUTY – RESTORATION OF EXCISE GOODS – the Appellant failed to declare 32,000 cigarettes imported from Pakistan – the duty free allowance was 200 – was the decision not to restore the cigarettes reasonable? – Yes – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 105 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.451976

Airsoft Armoury Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Feb 2012

FTTTx Customs Duty – classification – Combined Nomenclature – airsoft guns classified by HMRC under heading 9304 – whether importer’s claimed classification as ‘toy weapons’ under heading 9503 appropriate – held, no – HMRC’s classification upheld – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 145 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.451947

Criminal proceedings against Giulio et Adriano Grosoli: ECJ 12 Dec 1973

ECJ The community institutions alone have power to determine the economic use to which community tariff quotas must be put and, consequently, to lay down how they are to be administered. To this end they may provide access to the quota for any user, or themselves decide to what use it must be put, or, again, leave member states free to use it as they see fit in their own interests. Under this last alternative, the grant to the states of this freedom requires a declared intention to this effect on the part of the institutions of the community and the absence of any direction as to the use which is to be made of a quota must be interpreted as freedom for all interested to have access to it. The provisions of regulation no 92/68 and regulation no 110/69 on the delegation of administrative arrangements to the member states must be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of any direction by the council as to use, the reference in these regulations to the ‘administrative’ provisions of member states cannot be regarded as going outside the confines of the technical and procedural rules designed to ensure conformity with the general terms of the quota and equality of treatment for those entitled to make use of it. These provisions do not give states authority to lay down rules governing the use to which their allotted share is put.

Citations:

C-131/73, R-131/73, [1973] EUECJ R-131/73

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.132129

Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Judgment): ECJ 1 Jul 1969

Europa 1. Customs duties – elimination – purpose (EEC treaty, articles 9, 12) 2. Customs duties – elimination – charges having equivalent effect – concept – identity in the treaty and in the regulations – national taxation and charges having equivalent effect – distinction (EEC treaty, articles 9, 12, 95) 3. Customs duties – elimination – creation of new charges prohibited – absolute nature of such prohibition (EEC treaty, articles 9, 12). 1. Customs duties are prohibited independently of any consideration of the purpose for which they were introduced and the destination of the revenue obtained therefrom. 2. (A) any pecuniary charge, however small and whatever designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods when they cross a frontier, and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect within the meaning of articles 9, 12, 13 and 16 of the treaty, even if it is not imposed for the benefit of the state, is not discriminatory or protective in effect or if the product on which the charge is imposed is not in competition with any domestic product. (B) the regulations relating to the common organization of the agricultural markets are not intended to confer on the concept of a charge having equivalent effect a scope different from that which it has within the framework of the treaty itself, especially as, when those regulations take account of the particular conditions for establishing a common market in agricultural products, they pursue the same objectives as articles 9 to 13 of the treaty which they implement. 3. (A) the prohibition of new customs duties or charges having equivalent effect, linked to the principle of the free movement of goods, constitutes a fundamental rule which, without prejudice to the other provisions of the treaty, does not permit of any exceptions. (B) it follows from articles 95 et seq. That the concept of a charge having equivalent effect does not include taxation which is imposed in the same way within a state on imported products and similar domestic products, or which falls, in the absence of comparable domestic products, within the framework of taxation of this nature within the limits laid down by the treaty. The rendering of specific service may in certain cases warrant the payment of a free in proportion to the service actually rendered.

Citations:

C-24/68, [1969] EUECJ C-24/68

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131974

Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic: ECJ 10 Dec 1968

ECJ 1. Obligations of member states – failure to fulfil – action by the commission before the court of justice – bringing the action – timing – discretion of the commission (EEC treaty, article 169) 2. Free movement of goods – goods – concept – article possessing artistic or historic value (EEC treaty, article 9) 3. Free movement of goods – articles possessing artistic or historic value – charges on exports – charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty (EEC treaty, article 16) 4. Free movement of goods – customs duties and quantitative restrictions – nature of each – difference – prohibitions and restrictions for the protection of national treasures – special nature – strict construction (EEC treaty, articles 16 and 36) 5. Free movement of goods – prohibitions and restrictions for the protection of national treasures – limits to be observed by member states regarding the object and nature of the means adopted – incompatibility with the treaty of a charge on the export of articles of artistic or historic value (EEC treaty, article 36) 1. It is for the commission, under article 169 of the treaty, to judge at what time it shall bring an action before the court; and the considerations which determine its choice of time cannot affect the admissibility of the action, which follows only objective rules. 2. By goods, within the meaning of article 9 of the EEC treaty, there must be understood products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions. The rules of the common market apply to articles possessing artistic or historic value subject only to the exceptions expressly provided by the treaty. 3. Any charge which, by altering the price of an article exported, has the same restrictive effect on the free circulation of that article as a customs duty is deemed to be a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty within the meaning of article 16 of the EEC treaty. A tax levied on the exportation of articles possessing artistic or historic value falls within the prohibition contained in article 16 by reason of the fact that export trade in the goods in question is hindered by the pecuniary burden which it imposes on the price of the exported articles. 4. The prohibitions or restrictions on imports and exports referred to in article 36 of the EEC treaty are by nature clearly distinguished from customs duties and assimilated charges whereby the economic conditions of importation or exportation are affected without restricting the freedom of decision of those involved in commercial transactions. Because such measures constitute an exception to the fundamental principle of the elimination of all obstacles to the free movement of goods between member states, they must be strictly construed. 5. The prohibitions and restrictions referred to in article 36 of the EEC treaty cannot justify the retention of measures, such as customs duties or charges having equivalent effect, which fall outside the scope of the prohibitions referred to in the chapter relating to the elimination of quantitative restrictions between member states. In order to avail themselves of article 36, member states must observe the limitations imposed by that provision both as regards the objective to be obtained and as regards the nature of the means used to attain it. The levy of a tax on the exportation of goods possessing artistic or historic value is incompatible with the provisions of the treaty.

Citations:

C-7/68, [1968] EUECJ C-7/68

Links:

Bailii

European, Commercial, Customs and Excise

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131870

The Polo/Lauren Co LP v PT Dwidua Langgeng Pratama International Freight Forwarders Case: ECJ 14 Apr 2000

Council regulations empowered customs officers of member states to seize goods suspected of being counterfeit or pirated and in breach of Trade Mark and other laws This applied even to goods which were merely seized in transit through a member state, from a non-EU source to a non-EU destination. The validity of the regulation was not capable of doubt, and no factor had been identified which could challenge its validity. The wording of the regulation expressly envisaged such action.

Citations:

Times 14-Apr-2000, C-383/98, [2000] EUECJ C-383/98

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedNokia Corporation v Revenue and Customs ChD 27-Jul-2009
Nokia sought judicial review of a decision of the Commissioners to release a consignment of goods which it said were infringing counterfeits of its own models. The Commissioners said that in the absence of evidence that they were intended for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Customs and Excise, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89840

Fox v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 3 Jul 2002

The claimant had been stopped by customs. He had imported various items which it was alleged exceeded the amounts appropriate for personal use. The goods had been mixed with those of his travelling companion. At trial he sought to challenge the fact that the Customs had treated his and his companion’s goods together.
Held: The provision allowing forfeiture of any goods found with contraband did not mean that a claimant could not bring evidence to challenge the assertions made by Customs and Excise. To hold to the contrary would infringe the claimant’s property rights.

Judges:

Mr Justice Lightman

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-2002, Gazette 12-Sep-2002

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 141(1)(b), European Convention on Human Rights Sch 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Magistrates, Human Rights

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.174440

Rewe Zentralfinanz v Landwirtschaftskammer Westphalen-Lippe: ECJ 11 Oct 1973

ECJ Customs duties – charges having an effect equivalent to – meaning – phyto-sanitary examination – charges – imposition – prohibition (EEC Treaty, article 13 (2)) Pecuniary charges, whatever their amount, imposed for reasons of phyto-sanitary examination of products when they cross the frontier, which are determined according to criteria of their own, which criteria are not comparable with those for determining the pecuniary charges attaching to similar domestic products, are deemed charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties. The activity of the administration of the state intended to maintain a phyto-sanitary system imposed in the general interest cannot be regarded as a service rendered to the importer such as to justify the imposition of a pecuniary charge.

Citations:

C-39/73, [1976] ECR 1989

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedPreston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS and Others; Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc HL 26-Feb-1998
‘Employment’ in context of a sex discrimination claim referred to a current employment contract even in context of there having been a series of repeated contracts of employment. The question was referred to the European Court of Justice. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.132278

Regina v Customs and Excise Commissioners, Ex Parte EMU Tabac Sarl and Others (Imperial Tobacco Ltd, Intervener): ECJ 9 Apr 1998

Excise duty is payable on cigarettes imported as if personal imports but by use of agent in Luxembourg organising he imports as a commercial enterprise.

Citations:

Times 09-Apr-1998, C-296/95, [1998] EUECJ C-296/95

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88432

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Cresta Holidays Ltd and Others: ChD 5 Apr 2001

Travel operators sold insurance on behalf of insurance companies who paid on Insurance Premium Tax. The level of tax was raised, but the increase was later found to be unlawful state aid. The operators sought a refund of the tax overpaid from the Commissioners. Such a claim could be made only under one of two provisions. One related to claims before payment, and the second to restitution. Since the claimants had not themselves paid the tax, there was no restitution, and the claim failed.

Citations:

Gazette 05-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 215

Links:

Bailii

Insurance, Torts – Other, Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79376

Orzechowski v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Aug 2013

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – RESTORATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE – Appellant owner of a vehicle used for the commercial importation of large quantities of cigarettes – Appellant had a history of being involved in commercial importation – Appellant took no steps to prevent his vehicle from being used in smuggling -Was the non-restoration of the vehicle proportionate to the Appellants’ contravention? – Yes – Did the non-restoration create exceptional hardship? – No – Was the decision not to restore the vehicle reasonable? – Yes – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 450 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.515221

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 arrived at – jurisdiction of Tribunal – appropriate remedy under section 16 (4) Finance Act 1994 – appeal allowed – directions to Commissioners

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 25 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Warehousekeepers and Owners of Goods Regulations 1999, Finance Act 1994 16(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoEastenders 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 . .

Cited by:

See AlsoEastenders 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 . .
See AlsoEastenders 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. . .
See AlsoEastenders 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 AlsoBarnes 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 AlsoEastenders 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 AlsoCrown 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 AlsoEastenders 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 AlsoBarnes (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 . .
At FTTTxEastenders 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

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.428209

Churchill v Walton: CA 1967

In a criminal conspiracy to evade fuel duties, the fact that the defendant had first obtained counsel’s opinion was no defence.

Judges:

Buckley LJ

Citations:

[1967] 2 AC 224

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBelmont Finance Corporation Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2) 1980
It had been alleged that there had been a conspiracy involving the company giving unlawful financial assistance for the purchase of its own shares.
Held: Dishonesty is not a necessary ingredient of liability in an allegation of a ‘knowing . .
CitedCriterion Properties Plc v Stratford UK Properties and others CA 18-Dec-2002
The parties came together in a limited partnership to develop property. The appeal was against a refusal to grant summary judgment on a claim that one party had been induced to enter the contract by a fraudulent misrepresentation.
Held: In . .
Appeal fromRegina v Churchill HL 2-Jan-1967
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the common law offence of conspiracy to commit a statutory offence. The statutory offence was an offence of strict liability.
Held: The conspirator was not guilty of the offence of conspiracy . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Crime

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.194962

Invicta Foods Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Jan 2014

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTY- classification – nomenclature – imported prepared chicken – whether HMRC decision to revoke a Binding Tariff Information provided to appellant was unreasonable – the correct classification of the processed chicken – whether appellant entitled to repayments of duty – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 70 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.521705

Henry Diaper and Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Jan 2014

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTY – failure to register as a registered consignor – two movements of goods from port to warehouse – appellant applied retrospectively for registration ‘unprompted’ on first movement – aware of position on second movement – penalty confirmed on second movement only – case allowed in part

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 45 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.521701

HM Revenue and Customs v Dawkin: ChD 2008

David Richards J reviewed the authorities and stated the test which has been applied in the tribunals and courts since Gascoyne: ‘The issue is whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in its consideration of the question of abuse of process. The decision as to whether there is or is not an abuse of process requires the Tribunal to consider and give appropriate weight, one way or the other, to all relevant factors and to disregard irrelevant factors. Its decision must be one capable of being reached by a reasonable tribunal having regard to the relevant factors. The decision is not in my view strictly an exercise of discretion. Either it is, or it is not, an abuse of process for the grounds for seizure to be investigated by the Tribunal, but that is a question of judgment to be made on a consideration of the relevant factors. The grounds on which the Tribunal’s decision can be challenged on appeal are therefore effectively the same as for a challenge to an exercise of discretion. I accept the test put forward by Mr Puzey for HMRC in a subsequent written submission: has the Tribunal, having been properly advised as to the law, arrived at a reasonable decision which takes account of all relevant matters and leaves out of account all irrelevant matters?’

Judges:

David Richards J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC (Ch) 1972

Citing:

ExplainedGascoyne 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 . .
Appeal fromDawkin v Revenue and Customs VDT 2-Apr-2007
VDT EXCISE GOODS – Procedure – Appellant appealed against both seizure and restoration – Review decision on restoration made before appeal against seizure withdrawn – Whether Appellant able to contest facts . .

Cited by:

CitedRevenue and Customs v Jones and Another CA 18-Jul-2011
HMRC appealed against an order for the return to the owner of goods seized under the 1979 Act. The respondents imported tobacco and alcohol which was seized. They said it had been for personal use. HMRC now said that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.441949

William Paul, and Christopher Clithero, Esqrs v Sir John Shaw, Bart: PC 29 Jan 1710

Prisage is an ancient duty in specie on goods imported, and may be granted away by the crown ; but goods chargeable with this duty are not thereby exempted from the payment of other duties.

Citations:

[1710] EngR 34, (1710) 8 Bro PC 288, (1710) 3 ER 588

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.391764

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Ray: ChD 14 Jun 2000

The decision to refuse a retrospective licence for the importation of antique ivory, was one for the Department of Environment Transport and the Regions, and not one for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. An appeal against a refusal could not therefore lie to the VAT Tribunal, even though they had been seized by the Commissioners.

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2000, Gazette 22-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Commission Regulation EC/939/97 (OJ 1997 LI40/9) Art 8(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Administrative, Customs and Excise

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79395

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Brunt (William John): QBD 25 Nov 1998

A prosecutor has been given the right of appeal against a magistrates decision whether as to finding or sentence on offence of fraudulent evasion of excise duty. Crown Court has right to hear appeal.

Citations:

Times 25-Nov-1998

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 147(3)

Customs and Excise

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79322

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Darfish Ltd: QBD 28 Mar 2000

The question of whether waste had been ‘disposed’ of for landfill tax, was wider than simply discarding or depositing. It could include any waste disposal or removal process, and was not limited to the moment at which the waste was deposited. A subsidiary company had bought waste and then deposited it at a landfill site owned by the defendants. The subsidiary claimed it had not intended at the time of the deposit to be disposing of it as waste. The transfer of title and price did not settle the issue of the intentions of the person disposing of the material.

Citations:

Times 28-Mar-2000, Gazette 14-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Finance Act 1996 64(1)

Customs and Excise, Taxes – Other

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79378

Epson Telford Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners: 2000

G1 cartridges for inkjet printers should be classified as ink and liable to payment of duty.

Citations:

MAN/99/7040

Cited by:

CitedHM Revenue and Customs v Epson Telford Ltd ChD 4-May-2007
The parties disputed whether inkjet printer cartridges were to be classsified on import as parts of printers, and free of duty, or as ink and subject to duty.
Held: ‘I can see no reason why the advances in design and technology incorporated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.251668

Regina (on the application of Deluni Mobile Limited) v Commissioners for Customs and Excise: 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1030

Cited by:

CitedUK Tradecorp Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioners for Customs and Excise Admn 10-Nov-2004
The trader had traded in zero-rated goods, leading to a net reclaim of input tax. Having submitted a claim, it sought repayment, and interest on the sums withheld.
Held: No duty fell upon the commissioners until they had accepted the claim to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.220139

Regina v Neal, Hood: CACD 28 Nov 2003

The defendants appealed sentence for having been involved in the large scale importation of cigarettes evading customs duty.
Held: The judge had paid proper attention to Dosanjh. Having regard also to Czyzewski, the sentences were within the guidelines and the appeal was refused.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Mr Justice Cresswell Mr Justice Jack

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Crim 3449

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(2)

Citing:

CitedRegina v Newton CACD 1982
Where there is a plea of guilty but there remains a conflict between the prosecution and defence as to the facts, the trial judge should approach the task of sentencing in one of three ways: a plea of not guilty can be entered to enable the jury to . .
CitedRegina v Tolera CACD 7-Apr-1998
A defendant asking to be sentenced on a factual basis other than the prosecution sought, should first put the basis in writing. Where the differences might affect sentence then a Newton hearing would be appropriate. Where a defendant’s account, as . .
CitedRegina v Dosanjh CACD 1-May-1998
In cases involving repeated, and continuing abuse of the personal import allowances system, courts should pay less attention to mitigating factors. The standards for prison terms for different values and the court gave giuidance as to when . .
CitedRegina v Czyzewski; Regina v Bryan; Regina v Mitchell; Regina v Diafi; Regina v Ward CACD 16-Jul-2003
The court set down detailed guidelines for sentencing for smuggling, but stated they were not to be treated as a straitjacket.
Held: The principle factors will be the level of duty evaded, the sophistication of methods used, the defendant’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Customs and Excise

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188397

Irving v Wilson And Another: 22 Nov 1791

If a Revenue officer seize goods as forfeited, which are not liable to seizure, and take money of the owner to release them, the latter may recover back the money in action for money had and received. In such an action a month’s notice need not be given under the 23 G. 3, c. 70, s. 30.
The action was brought for the recovery of money had and received by customs officers. The officers had stopped a cart containing goods which required a permit, without which they were liable to forfeiture. The carrier did not have a permit, but told the officers that the goods formed part of a larger consignment, and that a permit for the entire consignment was with the remainder of the consignment, some miles behind. The officers waited some time, but the remainder of the consignment did not appear. The officers then seized the goods. When the remainder of the consignment eventually arrived, and the permit was produced, those goods also were seized. The officers then refused to restore the goods until a payment had been made by the owner.
Held: The action succeeded.
Ashurst J noted that ‘the goods were not liable to seizure’, but also stated that ‘the defendants acted right in stopping the goods at first; but when the permit came up, there was no pretence to detain them’.
Lord Kenyon CJ distinguished between the initial detention and the subsequent seizure, stating that ‘whatever ground of probability there was for stopping the first cart, yet after the matter was cleared up, there was no pretence for making a seizure’.

Judges:

Lord Kenyon CJ, Ashurst J

Citations:

[1791] EngR 1492, (1791) 4 TR 485, (1791) 100 ER 1132

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

CitedEastenders 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

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.363007

Regina v Lord Chancellor ex parte the Law Society (1): QBD 4 May 1993

The introduction of a Standard Criminal Legal Aid fees regime was within the Lord Chancellor’s proper range of discretion, even without consultation with the Law Society.
The meaning of ‘carried entering UK’ can include clothing being worn, but caution to be used by the courts not to extend the meaning unnecessarily.

Citations:

Independent 04-May-1993, Ind Summary 20-Mar-1995, Times 05-May-1993

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 78(2), Legal Aid Act 1988 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Lord Chancellor ex parte Law Society CA 11-Aug-1993
Lord Chancellor is free to impose a fee scheme if it accords with the words of the Act. The standard fees regulations for magistrates Courts works are within the Lord Chancellor’s powers. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Customs and Excise, Legal Aid, Costs, Criminal Practice

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87220

British Steel Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 12 May 1999

Where oil had been burned in a process not for the purpose of creating heat but for some other function within a technical process, it was wrong to designate it as the burning of fuel, or as heating fuel. Where the effect produced heat as a secondary purpose it could be a taxable purpose, but where the heat was purely incidental it was not and hydrocarbon oil duty had been wrongly imposed.

Citations:

Times 12-May-1999

Statutes:

Hydrocarbon Oil Duty Act 1979 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.78633

Regina v Simmons: 1988

(Supreme Court of Canada) A contraband search based on reasonable suspicion of the presence of smuggled material is an exception to the usual requirements for searches imposed by section 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Dickson CJ said: ‘People do not expect to be able to cross international borders free from scrutiny . . Consequently, travellers seeking to cross national boundaries fully expect to be subject to a screening process. This process will typically require the production of proper identification and travel documentation and involve a search process . . ‘

Judges:

Dickson CJ

Citations:

[1988] 2 RCS 495

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedBeghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Police, Human Rights

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.590394

John Friedrich Krohn (gmbh and co Kg) v Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung: ECJ 12 Dec 1985

Europa 1. Measures adopted by the institutions – regulations – application by analogy – conditions (commission regulations Nos 2029/82 and 2655/82) 2. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – cereals – import certificates – opportunity offered by regulation no 2655/82 to importers of products falling within subheading 07.06 a of the common customs tariff originating in non-member countries other than Thailand to have licences cancelled – extension to importation of the same products originating in Thailand covered by regulation no 2029/82 – identical conditions concerning time-limits and other procedural requirements (commission regulations Nos 2029/82 and 2655/82, art. 3 (6))

  1. The scope of a regulation is normally defined by its own terms and it may not in principle be extended to situations other than those which it envisaged. The position may be different in certain exceptional cases. Thus, traders are entitled to rely on an application by analogy of a regulation which would not normally be applicable to them if they can show that the rules applicable to their case, on the one hand, are very similar to those which it is sought to have applied by analogy and, on the other hand, contain an omission which is incompatible with a general principle of community law and which can be remedied by application by analogy of those other rules.
  2. Article 3 (6) of commission regulation no 2655/82, laying down rules for implementing the import arrangements for 1982 for products falling within subheading 07.06 a of the common customs tariff originating in third countries other than Thailand must be interpreted as applying to the case of importers of products falling within the said tariff subheading and originating in Thailand as provided for by commission regulation no 2029/82. If that were not so, importers of the said products originating in Thailand, who, until the adoption of regulation no 2029/82, were subject to legal rules corresponding very closely to those governing importers of the same products originating in other non-member countries and who were therefore likely to benefit, on the same basis as the latter, from measures intended to protect legitimate expectation, would be placed in a situation which was contrary to the principle in community law of equal treatment of traders in comparable situations. Article 3 (6) of regulation no 2655/82 is to be applied to the importation of products falling within subheading 07.06 a of the common customs tariff and originating in Thailand subject to the time-limits and other procedural requirements therein laid down.

Citations:

C-165/84

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.133920

Regina v Whitehead: CACD 1982

An order for consent by the Commissioners to allow proceedings was not required where the accused person had already been detained for an offence under the Custom and Excise Acts. Detention for conspiracy to evade the prohibition imposed by the 1971 Act was detention for an offence for which the appellant was liable to be detained under the Customs and Excise Acts and no consent was required for the institution of the conspiracy proceedings.

Citations:

[1982] 3 WLR 543, [1982] QB 1272, [1982] 3 All ER 96, (1982) 75 Cr App R 389

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Act 1952 281

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedRegina v Keyes and Others CACD 10-Mar-2000
It was not necessary for the Commissioners themselves to authorise by order proceedings for conspiracy to commit a non-summary customs and excise offence, namely to evade the prohibition on importation of a controlled drug. The Criminal Law Act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Crime

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.195042

Regina v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Ex Parte Bosworth Beverages Ltd: QBD 24 Apr 2000

If a party is not satisfied with a decision made by the commissioners exercising their powers under the Regulations, the proper remedy is to follow the statutory procedures available. The commissioners had behaved unsympathetically, but the procedure was clear. The particular questions raised need a specialist tribunal well used to the issues arising rather than a generalist court of law.

Citations:

Times 24-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Excise Warehousing (etc) Regulations 1988 No 809

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.85192

Holsworthy Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Dec 2018

Excise Duty Hydrocarbon Oil – (See Also Excise Restoration of Vehicle) : Civil Penalty – Return under regulation 9 of SI 2002/2057 – whether submitted after due date – whether penalty validly imposed – whether failure to submit return on time – whether s 7 Interpretation Act 1978 applies -whether reasonable excuse – appeal upheld.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 728 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes – Other, Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.632451

Garrett v Arthur Churchill (Glass) Ltd: QBD 1969

The respondent agreed to sell a significant antique glass vase to a purchaser in the US. The export would require an export licence. The purchaser instructed the defendant to hand the goblet to a third party who would export it illegally. The defendant appealed a conviction under the Act.
Held: A conviction required a positive answer to one question, namely whether the defendant was knowingly concerned in the exportation of goods with intent to evade the prohibition. The magistrates had failed to do this and the case was remitted. S290 did not transfer to the defendant the burden of proof as to establishing the requisite knowledge and intent.

Citations:

[1969] 2 All ER 1141, [1970] 1 QB 92, [1969] 3 WLR 6, [1969] 133 JP 509, [1969] 113 Sol Jo 381

Statutes:

Customs & Excise Act 1952 56(2) 290(2)

Customs and Excise

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188841

Jacobsohn v Blake and Compton: 13 Jan 1843

Custom-house officers took possession of goods landed by the plaintiff for the purpose of examination and detained them upon a misapprehension that they were prohibited and liable to forfeiture. In an action for trespass, the defence was that, there having been no seizure by the officers, the action of trespass could not be maintained. The jury were directed that the goods having been legally in the possession of the defendants, and there having been no seizure by them, the action of trespass could not be maintained. That direction was upheld in the Court of Common Pleas.
Held: In order to entitle the plaintiff to maintain such an action [of trespass] there must have been an actual seizure of the plaintiff’s goods. There was no evidence of any act of trespass. There was no seizure whatever by the defendants. The goods were landed and taken possession of by the defendants in the discharge of their duty, for the purpose of their being examined. There was no evidence of any seizure or of any other act amounting to a trespass. There was no trespass in the first instance, or anything that could be called a seizure. The goods were taken by the plaintiff’s agent to the proper place for examination of them by the defendants in the regular discharge of their duty as custom-house officers. Upon their examination, all that the defendants did was, to detain them, till it could be ascertained whether or not they were liable to forfeiture. This is not an act of trespass.
Tindal CJ said: ‘[T]he defendants merely took possession of the goods, in the execution of their duty as custom-house officers, for the purpose of examination. When the goods were examined certain marks were found upon them, which induced the defendants to think they were prohibited; and they said they must detain them; and then, on a subsequent application on the part of the plaintiff for the delivery of the goods, the answer was that they were detained and would be prosecuted as seizures. It appears, therefore, that the defendants originally detained the goods under a real and honest doubt that they were subject to forfeiture: whether that doubt was well grounded, is not now the question. . . There has been no abuse of authority on their part. The goods remained, during the whole time of the examination, in the same custody in which they were, in the first instance, legally detained.’
Coltman J said: ‘The defendants were custom-house officers acting under an authority given them by law. It was their duty to examine the goods in question, in order to ascertain to what duty they were liable, or whether or not they were subject to forfeiture. If the goods had been afterwards detained by them for a time more than reasonable for the examination, that might have been an abuse of their authority so as to render them liable in another form of action. But it appears to me there is no ground for saying they did more than detain the goods for a reasonable time, in order that the question as to the liability of the goods to forfeiture might be submitted to the proper authorities.’

Judges:

Tindal CJ, Erskine J, Cresswell J

Citations:

(1844) 6 Man and G 919, 13 LJ CP 89, [1843] EngR 175, (1844) 6 Man and G 919, (1843) 134 ER 1164

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

CitedGora 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 . .
CitedEastenders 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, Torts – Other

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.181001

Markus and Walsh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas: ECJ 15 Oct 1969

Europa Agriculture – processed products not covered by the treaty – trade arrangements – sugar confectionery and food preparations containing cocoa – customs duty bound under GATT – may include the additional duty which the community has reserved the right to charge (regulation no 160/66/eec of the council, article 16). By ‘ customs duty…Bound under GATT ‘ and in respect of tariff headings nos 17.04-c and 18.06-b appearing in schedule xl of annex b to the protocol to the general agreement on customs tariffs and trade embodying the results of the 1960-61 tariff conference, the first paragraph of article 16 of regulation no 160/66/eec of the council includes not only the 27% duty provided for by the aforementioned provisions of that protocol, but also the ‘ additional duty on sugar ‘ mentioned in footnote (a) to the said headings.

Citations:

C-14/69

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.131997

Regina v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex Parte Mortimer and Another: CA 12 Mar 1998

Customs officers making an inference from importation had an accompanying duty to warn the suspect of the consequences of interview and to allow a rebuttal opportunity.

Citations:

Times 12-Mar-1998, Gazette 29-Apr-1998

Statutes:

Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 (1992 No 3155) 5(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.86418

Pegasus Birds Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 10 Feb 2000

The company were said to have kept inadequate VAT Records. The parties disputed the sums due or evaded, and an assessment was only finally issued in 1997, at which point the taxpayer said that the assessment was out of time under section 73(6)(b).
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal failed. The limit of one year imposed upon the raising of an assessment by the commissioners was intended to protect the taxpayer, and not to penalise the commissioners. Accordingly it was appropriate to allow an assessment raised after the time limit, but where the information which made the assessment appropriate had been discovered by the commissioners later.
Whether or not and when the information on which the late assessment was issued was a matter for the opinion of the Commissioner founded on the facts. In this case the Commissioner’s conclusion was not one that no reasonable commissioner could have reached.

Judges:

Aldous LJ

Citations:

Times 10-Feb-2000, [2000] STC 91

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 73(6)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromPegasus Birds Ltd v H M Customs and Excise Admn 27-Nov-1998
The Excise Commissioners eventually issued an assessment to VAT in 1997 for 1993 after commencing their investigations in 1993.
Held: Section 73 did not operate as a full bar to the Commissioners making an assessment after the one year where . .
See AlsoPegasus Birds Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 22-Oct-1997
The taxpayer asserted that the Commissioner’s assessment to VAT were out of time and had not been made to the inspector’s ‘best judgment’. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoPegasus Birds Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 7-Jun-2002
The Tribunal was asked whether an assessment to VAT notified to the Respondent Company, Pegasus Birds Limited and contained in a formal notice of assessment was made to best judgment.
Held: It was not. The Respondent’s appeal succeeded. . .
See AlsoCommissioners of H M Customs and Excise v Pegasus Birds Limited ChD 7-Nov-2003
The Commissioners appealed from a decision of the Vat and Duties Tribunal . .
CitedPegasus Birds Ltd v Commissioners of HM Customs and Excise CA 27-Jul-2004
The taxpayer complained that the assessment imposed by the Commissioners was wholly unreasonable, and void. The tribunal had found the assessment wholly unreasonable, but the High Court had allowed the Commissioners’ appeal.
Held: There was no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Customs and Excise

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.84640

Robinson v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 28 Apr 2000

Customs offered a reward for information, but the offer was clearly not a certainty, and there had been no intention to create a contractual or legal relationship. The informant had been clearly told that the decision as to the award would not be made by the officer, but by his superior in that officer’s discretion, and therefore no legal binding offer to make payment had been made.

Citations:

Times 28-Apr-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Administrative, Contract, Customs and Excise

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88824

Conegate Ltd v HM Customs and Excise: 1987

Even though the terms of paragraph 6 of schedule 3 to CEMA appear to give the court in forfeiture proceedings no choice but to condemn the goods if they are ‘liable to forfeiture’ under the Act, the court must refuse to do this if to do so would be in breach of the applicant’s rights under Community law.

Citations:

[1987] QB 254

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 Sch3 Para 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Forbes (Giles) HL 20-Jul-2001
The defendant had been convicted of evading a prohibition on importing articles of an obscene or indecent nature. He had been unaware of whether the articles were indecent images of children, or otherwise obscene images. Since the provisions which . .
CitedCommissioners of Customs and Excise v Newbury Admn 3-Mar-2003
The commissioner appealed a finding that a car and other goods they had forfeited should be returned. The owner said that matters had been imported for personal use under the directive.
Held: The directive had direct effect and precedence over . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, European

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.180852

AGOSI v The United Kingdom: ECHR 24 Oct 1986

Krugerrand coins were seized by the Commissioners and the claimant was unsuccessful in obtaining their restoration under what is now section 152(b) of the 1979 Act. It was argued that the request for restoration of the coins amounted to a determination of a criminal charge. Having noted that criminal charges under domestic law had been brought against the smugglers but not against AGOSI, the Court concluded the fact that measures consequential upon an act for which third parties were prosecuted affected in an adverse manner the property rights of AGOSI did not of itself lead to the conclusion that, during the course of the procedures complained of, any ‘criminal charge’ for the purposes of Article 6, could be considered as having been brought against the applicant company. The condemnation and restoration proceedings are sufficient to comply with Convention rights.

Citations:

9118/80, (1986) 9 EHRR 1, Series A no. 108

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 152(b), European Convetion on Human Rights 6

Cited by:

CitedGascoyne v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 21-Feb-2003
The applicant challenged the respondent’s policy on restoration of vehicles confiscated on being found to be used for commercial smuggling. Vehicles would only be returned exceptionally. The applicant had written to the respondents who considered . .
CitedGora 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 . .
CitedJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
CitedRecovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales) SC 9-Feb-2015
The court was asked whether the Bill was within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. The Bill purported to impose NHS charges on those from whom asbestos related damages were recovered.
Held: The Bill fell outside the legislative competence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Customs and Excise

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.164964

Karia v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 18 Jul 2018

The claimant had been searched on arrival at Southampton. Nothing untoward was found. He challenged the refusal of the officer to say why he had been selected to be searched.
Held: His appeal failed. The Act gave the officer the power he exercised without having to provide justification.

Judges:

Arden, Irwin LJJ

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1673, [2018] WLR(D) 458

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620469

Profit Europe NV v Belgian state: ECJ 12 Jul 2018

Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Customs Union and the Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Subheadings 7307 11 10, 7307 19 10 and 7307 19 90 – Molded cast-iron pipe fittings spheroidal graphite

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:564, [2018] EUECJ C-397/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620037

Crafty Leopard Brewing Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Jul 2018

Excise Warehouse : Approval – Alcohol Warehouse Registration Scheme – appeal against refusal of application for registration – whether HMRC could have reasonably concluded that the Appellant was not – fit and proper – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 365 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619369

The Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association v Revenue and Customs Commissioners and another (Government of Gibraltar intervening): ECJ 13 Jun 2017

ECJ Status of Gibraltar – Freedom To Provide Services – Purely Internal Situation – Inadmissibility : Judgment

Citations:

[2017] WLR(D) 166, [2018] 1 CMLR 362, ECLI:EU:C:2017:449, [2017] EUECJ C-591/15, [2017] 4 WLR 67, [2017] 4 WLR 167

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

CitedDepartment of Health and Social Security v Barr and Montrose Holdings (Judgment) ECJ 3-Jul-1991
Europa It follows from Article 1(3) of the Treaty of Accession 1972 in conjunction with Article 158 of the Act of Accession that the jurisdiction in preliminary ruling proceedings conferred on the Court by . .

Cited by:

CitedRoutier and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 16-Oct-2019
A Jersey Charity created under a will of a Jersey resident was transfer to the UK, and reregistered with the UK Charity Commission. The Revenue sought to apply Inheritance Tax.
Held: Jersey was to be considered a third country for the purpose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Constitutional, Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.588272

Jersey Produce Marketing Organisation (New Accessions): ECJ 8 Nov 2005

Europa Legislation on the export of potatoes from Jersey to the United Kingdom – 1972 Act of Accession – Protocol No 3 on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man – Regulation No 706/73 – Articles 23 EC, 25 EC and 29 EC – Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties – Measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions

Citations:

C-293/02, [2005] EUECJ C-293/02, [2005] ECR I-9543, [2006] All ER (EC) 1126, ECLI:EU:C:2005:664, [2006] 1 CMLR 29

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedRoutier and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 16-Oct-2019
A Jersey Charity created under a will of a Jersey resident was transfer to the UK, and reregistered with the UK Charity Commission. The Revenue sought to apply Inheritance Tax.
Held: Jersey was to be considered a third country for the purpose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 April 2022; Ref: scu.234686

Distillerie Bonollo and Others v Council: ECFI 3 May 2018

Dumping – Imports of Tartaric Acid Originating In China – Judgment – Dumping – Imports of tartaric acid originating in China – Modification of the definitive anti-dumping duty – Partial interim review – Action for annulment – Direct and individual concern – Admissibility – Determination of the normal value – Constructed normal value – Change in methodology – Individual treatment – Article 2(7)(a) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(7)(a) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) – Temporal adjustment of effects of annulment

Citations:

T-431/12, [2018] EUECJ T-431/12

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609506

Asia Leader International (Cambodia) v Commission: ECFI 19 Apr 2018

ECJ Dumping – Imports of Bicycles Consigned From Cambodia, Pakistan and The Philippines – Judgment (Extracts) – Dumping – Imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines – Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China – Regulation (EU) 2015/776 – Circumvention – Transhipment – Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036)

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:196, [2018] EUECJ T-462/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609048

Regina v Peter John Brown and Others: CACD 27 Jul 2001

The defendants appealed convictions for conspiracy. There had been a large, admitted, conspiracy to cheat the revenue by mis-selling bonded tobacco etc. They criticised the judge’s direction on the extent of involvement required to be found part of a conspiracy. They argued that some express intention had to be shown. That argument failed. Other people involved, had been used by the Customs to co-operate in gaining further evidence, and the existence of that involvement had been withheld from the defence with the consent of the judge. That procedure had been proper.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mantell, Mr Justice Rougier, Mr Justice Grigson

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1771

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Scott 1979
. .
CitedRegina v Martin and White CACD 8-Dec-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Crime

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.159906

Texas Instruments v Hauptzollamt Munchen-Mitte (Judgment): ECJ 14 Nov 1985

Common customs tariff – alteration or suspension of import duties – powers of the council – limits (eec treaty, art. 28; council regulation no 2841/79) although article 28 of the EEC treaty, which concerns autonomous alterations or suspensions of common customs tariff duties, leaves the council considerable discretion, it is for the court to ascertain whether or not the manner in which the council has carried out the duties thereby entrusted to it constitutes a misuse of power or gives rise to discrimination.

Citations:

C-227/84

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.133967

Stinnes AG v Hauptzollamt Kassel: ECJ 12 Dec 1985

Europa European Communities ‘ own resources – post-clearance recovery of import or export duties – article 8 of regulation no 1697/79 – a given action for recovery – meaning – combining of several separate actions for recovery -permissibility – conditions (Council Regulation no 1697/79, art. 8). The term ‘a given action for recovery’ in article 8 of council regulation no 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import or export duties must be interpreted as referring to each individual import or export transaction. That interpretation does not preclude the practice of combining several separate actions for recovery in a single recovery order provided that the amount concerned in each action exceeds the amount specified in the first paragraph of the aforesaid article 8.

Citations:

C-214/84

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.133957

SA Ancienne Maison Marcel Bauche and SARL Francois Delquignies v Administration Francaise des Douanes: ECJ 15 Feb 1978

Europa Agriculture – common organization of the markets – sugar – export to non- member countries – assignment of licences – substitution of product – deflection of trade – application of monetary compensatory amounts – commission regulation no 101/77 – validity – Measure adopted by an institution – amendment of an earlier provision – situations arising under the latter – future effects – application of the amending rule.

Citations:

C-96/77

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132656

Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v NV Indiamex et Association de fait De Belder: ECJ 13 Dec 1973

Europa In answering the question as to the application of charges having equivalent effect in trade with third countries, account must be taken both of the requirements resulting from the establishment of the common customs tariff, and of those resulting from a common commercial policy, within the meaning of articles 110 to 116 of the treaty, which, according to article 3 (b) of the treaty, regulates trade arrangements with third countries. The definition of the uniform principles upon which the common commercial policy is based involves, as does the common tariff itself, the elimination of national disparities, whether in the field of taxation or of commerce, affecting trade with third countries. It is for the commission or the council to evaluate these requirements in each case both as regards the establishment of the common customs tariff and the adoption of the common commercial policy. The member states may not, subsequent to the establishment of the common customs tariff, introduce, in a unilateral manner, new charges on goods imported directly from third countries or raise the level of those in existence at that time. As regards charges already in existence, prior evaluation by the community authorities is necessary in order to establish their incompatibility with the treaty and the obligation to eliminate them. It follows that such charges may only be considered to be incompatible with community law pursuant to provisions adopted by the community.

Citations:

C-37/73

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132277

Arend van de Poll KG v Hauptzollamt Trier (Judgment): ECJ 14 Dec 1972

Europa 1. Common customs tariff – tariff classification – heading 23.07 -interpretation (regulations nos 19/62 and 55/62) 2. Common customs tariff – tariff classification – criteria – application -jurisdiction of the national court
1. Heading 23.07 of the common customs tariff, to which reference is made in article 1 (d) of and the annex to regulation no 19 of 4 April 1962 and in article 12 of regulation no 55 of 30 June 1962 must be interpreted as meaning that it is concerned exclusively with cereal-based animal food preparations which are specifically intended for use as forage, provided that they are not, at the same time, fit for human consumption. 2. Practical considerations arising in individual cases from the application of criteria laid down by the common customs tariff are a matter for the national courts.
In case 38/72 reference to the court under article 177 of the EEC treaty by the finanzgericht rheinland-pfalz (finance court of the rhineland-palatinate) for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between arend van de poll kg, having its registered office in cologne, and hauptzollamt trier (head customs office, trier)
on the interpretation of article 1 (d) of and of the annex to regulation no 19 of the council of 4 April 1962 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the market in cereals, of article 12 of regulation no 55 of the council of 30 June 1962 on the system governing processed cereal products and of regulation no 178/64 of the commission of 12 November 1964 on the amount of and conditions governing premiums on denaturing of wheat and rye,
1 by order of 3 may 1972, registered at the court of 28 June 1972, the finanzgericht rheinland-pfalz (finance court of the rhineland – palatinate) referred, in pursuance of article 177 of the EEC treaty, a number of questions on the interpretation of heading 23.07 of the common customs tariff – in the version in force at the time when the event occurred -referred to in article 1 (d) of and the annex to regulation no 19 of the council of 4 April 1962 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the market in cereals (jo 1962, p. 933) and article 12 of regulation no 55 of the council of 30 June 1962 on the system governing processed cereal products (jo 1962, p. 1583). It is clear from the order making the reference that these questions were put in the context of a dispute concerning the classification, with a view to the application of intra-community levies, of a product composed mainly of common wheat, mixed with barley and oats and containing a small additional amount of cod liver oil. 2 according to the plaintiff in the main action this product falls under heading 23.07 (‘ preparations of a kind used in animal feeding ‘), whereas the customs administration, the defendant in the main action, claims that it should be classified under heading 10.01 of the customs tariff (‘ wheat and meslin ‘). 3 the essential purpose of the questions put to the court is to ascertain : – whether, provided that the correct proportions are used, such a mixture of itself constitutes a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding, within the meaning of heading 23.07 (questions 1 and 2); if not – whether such a ‘ preparation ‘ is obtained when the product contains, in addition to a mixture of cereals, other ingredients which may be considered as animal food materials (questions 3 and 4); if not – whether a mixture of cereals such as that in question in the present dispute may be considered to be a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding where a denaturing agent has been added in sufficient quantity, either to the mixture as a whole or to its principal ingredient, and if cod liver oil or fish oil can be used for this purpose (questions 5 and 8). 4 the terms of heading 23.07, with which this dispute is concerned, read as follows in the annex to regulation no 19 : ‘ animal food preparations including sweetened forage; other preparations used in animal feeding (additives etc.): b. Containing cereals or containing products covered by the present regulation ‘. This heading, in the context of the customs tariff, constitutes a specific category, relating not to random combinations of cereals, with or without the addition of other substances, but to forage produced for use in animal feeding. 5 this explanation is supported by the explanatory notes to the Brussels nomenclature relating to heading 23.07, in which it is stated that ‘ this heading excludes :… (B) simple mixtures of cereal grains… (C) preparations which, when account is taken, in particular, of the nature, purity and proportions of the components, the hygiene requirements complied with during manufacture and, where appropriate, the indications given on the packaging or any other information concerning their use, can be used indifferently for feeding animals or as human food ‘. These notes permit two distinct criteria to be deduced : first, from the particular use to which the product is to be put as forage and, secondly, from the impossibility of using the same product for human consumption. 6 in particular, it appears from the above that the addition of a denaturing agent to a mixture of cereals does not bring the product within the classification of heading 23.07 if, on the other hand, the product is not capable of being used specifically as forage for cattle. 7 practical considerations arising in individual cases from the application of criteria laid down by the customs tariff are a matter for the national courts. That is true, in fact, of all matters concerning the composition of cereal mixtures and the proportions of different cereals used, the nature and proportion of other additional nutrients and the nature of and method of applying the products used to render foods unfit for human consumption. 8 accordingly, in reply to the questions referred, heading 23.07 must be interpreted as meaning that it is concerned exclusively with cereal-based animal food preparations which are specifically intended for use as forage, provided that they are not, at the same time, fit for human consumption.

Citations:

C-38/72

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132096

Gervais-Danone AG v Hauptzollamt Munchen-Schwanthalerstrasse: ECJ 15 Dec 1971

Europa Common customs tariff – description of goods – interpretation – absence of community provisions – authority of explanatory notes and classification opinions of the convention on the Brussels nomenclature. Common customs tariff – description of goods – classification of a product under tariff heading 21.07 – regulation no 241/70 of the commission – legislative nature – no retroactive effect. Common customs tariff – description of goods – classification of a product under tariff heading 21.04 – criteria – discretion of the national court (regulation no 950/68 of the council). Common customs tariff – entry into force – no effect on the binding customs tariff notices within the meaning of article 23 of the German Zollgesetz (regulation no 950/68 of the council, article 1)

Citations:

C-77/71

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.132052

Firma Milch-, Fett- und Eierkontor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Saarbrucken (Judgment): ECJ 4 Apr 1968

Europa 1. Policy of the EEC – common rules – tax provisions – cumulative multi-stage tax – average rates for imported products within the meaning of the first paragraph of article 97 – no individual rights 2. Policy of the EEC – common rules – tax provisions – cumulative multi-stage tax – average rates for imported products or groups of imported products – establishment by member states – validity (EEC treaty, article 97) 3. Customs duties and internal taxation – joint applicability to the same case of provisions relating thereto – impossibility of such joint application (EEC treaty, articles 12, 13 and 95) 4. Policy of the EEC – common rules – tax provisions – taxation intended to put national products and imported products in a comparable tax position – nature of internal taxation (EEC treaty, article 95). 1. Cf. Paragraph 4, summary, case 28/67. (1968) ECR 143. The first paragraph of article 97, which applies where member states operating a turnover tax according to a cumulative multi-stage tax system have actually exercised the right therein granted to them, does not, in the present state of community law, create individual rights which national courts must protect. It is therefore not for national courts to appraise whether average rates established by member states conform to the principles of article 95. */ 667j0028 /*. 2. Cf. Paragraph 5, summary, case 28/67. (1968) ECR 143. In states which have exercised the power made available to them by article 97, rates are considered as ‘average rates’ if they are established as such by the states in question, without prejudice to the operation of the second paragraph of that article. */ 667j0028 /*. 3. Cf. Paragraph 4, summary, case 57/65, (1966) ECR 205. Articles 12 and 13, on the one hand, and article 95 on the other cannot be applied jointly to one and the same case. */ 665j0057 /*. 4. A tax which is levied within the framework of turnover tax legislation and is designed to place all categories of products both domestic and imported in a comparable tax situation constitutes ‘ internal taxation ‘ within the meaning of article 95.

Citations:

C-25/67

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131854

Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the EEC (Judgment): ECJ 16 Jun 1966

Europa Customs duties – charges having equivalent effect – concept (EEC treaty, article 13) Customs duties – charges having equivalent effect – elimination – obligations of member states – nature (EEC treaty, article 13) Customs duties – charges having equivalent effect – elimination – time-table – detailed rules of progression – powers of the commission (EEC treaty, articles 13 and 14) European economic community – legal system of the community – community institution – failure to fulfil its obligations – member state – retaliatory measures – prohibition

Citations:

C-52/65

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.131812

Regina v Keyes and Others: CACD 10 Mar 2000

It was not necessary for the Commissioners themselves to authorise by order proceedings for conspiracy to commit a non-summary customs and excise offence, namely to evade the prohibition on importation of a controlled drug. The Criminal Law Act could not be used to reinstate that requirement because just they had not been charged with the substantive offence. The statutory provisions of the Acts, when read together, suggested that such consent would not be required.

Judges:

Pill LJ, Crane J, Sir Charles McCullough

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-2000, Gazette 06-Apr-2000, (2000) Crim LR 571, (2000) 2 CAR 181

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(2)(b) 145(1) 145(6), Criminal Law Act 1977 4(3)

Citing:

AppliedRegina v Whitehead CACD 1982
An order for consent by the Commissioners to allow proceedings was not required where the accused person had already been detained for an offence under the Custom and Excise Acts. Detention for conspiracy to evade the prohibition imposed by the 1971 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85347

Regina v Forbes (Giles): CACD 4 Apr 2000

A person who set out to import pornographic videos, and received packages which hid their true content, was guilty of importing the content, as indecent photographs of children, even if that had not been what was expected. If he knows he is evading a prohibition against importation, he is responsible for what is imported.

Citations:

Times 04-Apr-2000, Gazette 05-May-2000

Statutes:

Customs Consolidation Act 1876, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979

Customs and Excise, Crime

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85261

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 that, therefore, the reversal of the burden of proof was a breach of their right to a fair trial.
Held: The Act was clear that these were civil proceedings, and the consequences and associations of the proceedings did not have the characteristics of criminal proceedings, and therefore the reversal of the burden of proof was appropriate. The court considered whether forfeiture proceedings are criminal. Full weight must be given to the consequence of goods being forfeited, but reference also made to the fact that the legislation categorises the proceedings as civil, and that none of the usual consequences of a criminal conviction follow from condemnation and forfeiture proceedings. There is no conviction or finding of guilt. Under domestic law the person concerned is not treated as having a conviction. The person concerned is not subject to any other penalty, apart from the consequences of the forfeiture and loss of the goods.

Judges:

Lord Woolf CJ

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jun-2001, Times 12-Jun-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 1673

Statutes:

Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 (1992 No 3155), Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 3, European Convention on Human Rights 6.1

Cited by:

CitedRegina (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 . .
CitedGora 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.

Human Rights, Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80901

CC and C Ltd v Revenue and Customs: CA 19 Dec 2014

This appeal arises in the context of the regime which permits wholesale trading in alcoholic drinks and other dutiable goods which are held in, or moved between, excise warehouses without giving rise to an ‘excise duty point’ and thus attracting liability for excise duty.
Held: (i) The High Court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction maintaining registration pending appeal to the FTT, which has been revoked by HMRC, when a parallel challenge to that decision is made in judicial review proceedings.
(ii) The jurisdiction should not be exercised simply on the basis that the person concerned has a pending appeal with a realistic chance of success.
(iii) If the decision is challenged only on the basis that HMRC could not reasonably have come to it, the case falls within section 16 of the Finance Act 1994 and the court should not intervene.
(iv) If the challenge to the decision is on some other ground outside the statutory regime the court may entertain judicial review or grant interim relief.
(v) A definition of the additional element needed is elusive but would include ‘abuse of power’, ‘impropriety’ and ‘unfairness’ as envisaged in Harley Development Inc v Comr of Inland Revenue [1996] 1 WLR 727.
Underhill LJ said: ‘where the challenge to the decision is not simply that it is unreasonable but that it is unlawful on some other ground, then the case falls outside the statutory regime and there is nothing objectionable in the court entertaining a claim for judicial review or, where appropriate, granting interim relief in connection with that claim. A precise definition of that additional element may be elusive and is unnecessary for present purposes. The authorities cited in the Harley Development case refer to ‘abuse of power’, ‘impropriety’ and ‘unfairness’. [Counsel for HMRC] referred to cases where HMRC had behaved ‘capriciously’ or ‘outrageously’ or in bad faith. Those terms sufficiently indicate the territory that we are in, but I would sound a note of caution about ‘capricious’ and ‘unfair’. A decision is sometimes referred to rhetorically as ‘capricious’ where all that is meant is that it is one which could not reasonably have been reached; but in this context that is not enough, since a challenge on that basis falls within the statutory regime. As for ‘unfair’, I am not convinced that any allegation of procedural unfairness, however closely connected with the substantive unreasonableness alleged, will always be sufficient to justify the intervention of the court: [counsel for HMRC] submitted that cases of unfairness would fall within the statutory regime to the extent that the unfairness impugned the reasonableness of the decision. As I have noted above, the types of unfairness contemplated in [R v Inland Revenue Comrs, Ex p Preston [1985] AC 835] -which is the source of the use of the term in the Harley Development case – were of a fairly fundamental character. But since procedural unfairness is not relied on in this case I need not consider the point further.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Underhill

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 1653, [2014] WLR(D) 557, [2015] 1 WLR 4043

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedABC Ltd and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA 7-Jul-2017
Temporary approval pending appeal was preferred
The company challenged refusal of fit and proper approval for registration as wholesaler of duty paid alcohol.
Held: The appeals were allowed in part. HMRC, having once concluded that the applicant was not fit and proper was not free to . .
CitedOWD Ltd (T/A Birmingham Cash and Carry) and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 19-Jun-2019
The wholesalers sought approval from the respondent for the wholesale supply of duty-paid alcohol. Approval was refused, but the parties sought a means of allowing a temporary approval pending determination by the FTT. The two questions considered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.540335

Medtronic GmbH v Finanzamt Neuss: ECJ 12 Apr 2018

Free Movement of Goods – Tariff Classification – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Subheadings 9021 10 10, 9021 10 90 and 9021 90 90 – Spinal fixation systems – Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1214/2014

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:247, [2018] EUECJ C-227/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608641

Administration Des Douanes and Droits Indirects and Franceagrimer: ECJ 12 Apr 2018

Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Principle of retroactive application of the softer criminal law – Article 49 (1), third sentence, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Export refunds – Specific export refunds for certain types of meat boned cattle – Specific export refunds obtained by means of maneuvers or misrepresentation as to the nature of the goods exported – Goods which did not fall within the scope of Union rules on special refunds for export at the time of misrepresentation, but which have been included in the scope of this regulation later, as a result of a change in the regulation

Citations:

ECLI: EU: C: 2018: 240, [2018] EUECJ C-115/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608626

Petrotel-Lukoil and Georgescu v Ministerul Economiei: ECJ 1 Mar 2018

Free Movement of Goods – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties – Article 30 TFEU – Internal taxation – Article 110 TFEU – Charge applied to exported petroleum products – Charge not passed on to the consumer – Tax burden for the taxpayer – Reimbursement of the sums paid by the taxpayer

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:139, [2018] EUECJ C-76/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606018

Sharya UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Feb 2018

Customs Duty and IMPORT VAT – Inward processing procedure – failure to submit bills of discharge within 6 months time limit – 40 post-clearance demand notes issued – some notes returned undelivered and reissued – all notes later reissued – request for review turned down as out of time – application to make late appeals to Tribunal – Denton and Data Select applied – appeals against demand notes reissued for first time were not out of time for appeal to the Tribunal – appeals against demand notes reissued after being returned undelivered were out of time – application in relation to those notes upheld.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 72 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605750

Transport Ciezarowy JJ Plotka v The Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 28 Feb 2018

Excise Duty Restoration of Vehicle (See Also Excise Appeal) : Dismissed On Facts – application for the restoration of a vehicle forfeited because it was being used for the transportation of goods on which duty had not been paid – was the offer by the Respondents to restore the vehicle in return for a fee of pounds 8,325.00 unreasonable – Yes – Direction for a further review

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 102 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605754

Lithuanian Beer Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duties): UTTC 14 Jun 2017

UTTC EXCISE DUTIES – whether assessment made within time limit – FA 1994 s 12 – when necessary facts came to the respondents’ knowledge – whether FTT’s findings of fact open to it – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 245 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1994 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.587999