Inseto (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Customs Duty : Classification – Nomenclature): FTTTx 20 Apr 2016

CUSTOMS DUTIES – specialised aluminium wire used in manufacture of semiconductors, printed circuits and similar devices – whether within CN heading 7605 (aluminium wire) or 8541 (diodes, transistors etc) – appeal against BTI in heading 7605 – whether BTI correct – yes – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 268 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562859

Graphic Controls Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Customs Duty : Classification – Nomenclature): FTTTx 19 Apr 2016

Customs Duty – Combined Nomenclature -Binding Tariff Information -cardiotocography belts -correct classification -objective characterisation – relevance of intended purpose -part or accessory – held – objective characterisation as textile -intended purpose not inherent-not part or accessory-appeal dismissed.

[2016] UKFTT 259 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562857

Kajatrans v Director of Border Revenue (Excise Duty Restoration of Vehicle (See Also Excise Appeal) : Commercial Vehicle): FTTTx 7 Apr 2016

CUSTOMS DUTY – restoration application – carrier contracted to transport car mats-load consisted of raw tobacco-carrier and driver not complicit in smuggling attempt-restoration agreed for a fee-whether fee should be charged-amount of fee

[2016] UKFTT 238 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562860

Repertoire Culinaire Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 26 Feb 2016

UTTC Excise Duty – exemption under art 27(1) of Directive 982/83/EEC – whether conditional refund system for importing manufacturers in s 4 FA 1995 adequately implemented the exemption – held: on the facts the appellant importers had a directly effective right to exemption which was not given effect by s4 and which could not be given effect by excising the conditions from s4 – the charge to excise duty should be read as subject to that right – appeal allowed.

[2016] UKUT 104 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562424

X BV v Staatssecretaris van Financien (Recouvrement De Droits Additionnels A L’Importation): ECJ 11 Mar 2020

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff – Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 – Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 – Importation of frozen poultry meat originating in Brazil – Post-clearance recovery of additional import duties – Verification mechanism – Method of calculating additional duties

C-160/18, [2020] EUECJ C-160/18, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 190, [2019] EUECJ C-160/18_O
Bailii, Bailii
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.654954

Portmeirion Group UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: ECJ 17 Mar 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Dumping – Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 – Validity – Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in China – Product concerned – Product under consideration – Obligation to state reasons

[2016] EUECJ C-232/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:180
Bailii
Regulation (EU) No 412/201
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561962

ADM Hamburg v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt: ECJ 7 Apr 2016

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff – Community Customs Code – Tariff Preferences – Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Article 74(1) – Products originating from a beneficiary country – Transport – Consignments composed of a mixture of crude palm kernel oil originating in several countries benefiting from the same preferential treatment

C-294/14, [2016] EUECJ C-294/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:210
Bailii
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561970

Pilats v The Director of Border Revenue (Excise Duty Restoration of Vehicle (See Also Excise Appeal) : Proportionality): FTTTx 18 Mar 2016

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – seizure and condemnation of imported cigarettes and vehicle – cigarettes and vehicle deemed condemned as forfeit – request for restoration of vehicle and cigarettes refused – duty assessed and penalties imposed – no appeal against assessment for duty and penalty – appeal against refusal to restore the vehicle and the cigarettes – whether decision to refuse restoration reasonable – whether exceptional circumstances justifying restoration – no – whether refusal to restore disproportionate in light of seizure of cigarettes vehicle and assessment to duty and penalty – no – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 193 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561920

Vad And Van Aert v Belgische Staat: ECJ 10 Mar 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Interpretation – General Rules – Rule 3(b) – Definition of ‘goods put up in sets for retail sale’ – Separate packages

C-499/14, [2016] EUECJ C-499/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:155
Bailii
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560970

Matalan Retail Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Dec 2013

Customs Duty – Whether matching brassieres and briefs, imported in separate boxes, but generally presented together for customs purposes, and designed principally to be marketed together as matching items, were ‘Brassiere – in a set made up for retail sale containing a brassiere and a pair of briefs’ – Appeal dismissed

[2013] UKFTT 728 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.519633

Kam Leisurewear Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Nov 2011

FTTTX IMPORT DUTY- two post-clearance demands in the sums of andpound;74,361.48 and andpound;2,684.56 respectively- GPS certificates of origins form As either invalid or forgeries -yes- Singapore bills of Lading not substantiated documentation for purposes of the direct transport rule -yes- appeal dismissed -observations on whether ‘ remission of duty’ requested under Article 239 allowable – special situation – yes- no obvious negligence-no.

[2011] UKFTT 726 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.449662

Desai v The Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 24 Nov 2010

Seizure of and refusal to restore Appellant’s vehicle – commercial importation of tobacco – purchase made by Appellant’s passenger – Appellant’s assertion he was not complicit in the purchase – proportionality – hardship – appeal dismissed

[2010] UKFTT 595 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.567536

Jordan v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Restoration of Vehicle (See Also Excise Appeal) : Proportionality): FTTTx 17 Feb 2016

FTTTx EXCISE – Restoration of Vehicle – Seizure of appellant’s commercial vehicle – Whether decision not to restore the vehicle was reasonable – No -Appeal allowed – Further review directed

[2016] UKFTT 104 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560227

Jacques Armand International Ltd v Home Office Director of Border Revenue (Excise Duty Restoration of Goods (See Also Excise Appeal) : New Review On Facts): FTTTx 11 Feb 2016

FTTTx EXCISE – seizure of plants – failure to hold CITES import notification form – refusal to restore – was the decision taken unreasonably? – yes – was the decision disproportionate – yes – appeal allowed and directions given.

[2016] UKFTT 95 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560226

Littler v The Director of Border Revenue (Excise Duty Restoration of Goods (See Also Excise Appeal) : Other): FTTTx 15 Feb 2016

FTTTx EXCISE – refusal to restore knives – appeal against the refusal of a request to carry out a late statutory review – Section 14A of the Finance Act 1994 – 55 days late – alleged non-receipt of the decision – finding of fact that the decision had been received – appeal dismissed

[2016] UKFTT 94 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560228

European Brand Trading Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 16 Feb 2016

‘Where excise duty should have been paid on imported goods, but has not been, those goods are liable to forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (‘the 1979 Act’). Where goods are liable to forfeiture HMRC has power to seize or detain them. Once goods have been seized or detained, the owner of the goods has one month to challenge the seizure on the ground that the goods seized are not liable to forfeiture. If no challenge is made then at the end of the month the goods are deemed to have been duly condemned as forfeited. If a challenge is made in time, then HMRC must take proceedings for condemnation in the magistrates’ court or the High Court. If the court finds that the goods were liable to forfeiture it must condemn them to be forfeited. Running alongside these provisions HMRC has a discretionary power to restore to the owner anything ‘forfeited or seized’ under the provisions of the 1979 Act. Where HMRC have decided not to restore the owner of the goods can ask for a review of the decision under the Finance Act 1994 (‘the 1994 Act’) and, if dissatisfied with the review appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (‘the FTT’).
The question on this appeal is whether after goods (a) are deemed to have been duly condemned or (b) have been condemned by the magistrates, an officer of HMRC exercising that discretionary power can or should investigate a claim that the goods were not liable to forfeiture after all. ‘

Sir Terence Etherton Ch, Lewison, Ryder LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 90
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559986

Crystals Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Customs Duty : Classification – Nomenclature): FTTTx 15 Jan 2016

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTY – Post-Clearance Demand Note – Combined Nomenclature, Chapters 39 and 90; classification of UV eyewear, protective eye shields; whether goods should be classified as spectacles; goggles and the like; yes; appeal allowed

[2016] UKFTT 29 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559888

Berel And Others (Customs Union): ECJ 17 Feb 2011

ECJ Community Customs Code – Articles 213, 233 and 239 – Joint and several liability of several debtors for the same customs debt – Remission of import duties – Extinction of the customs debt – No possibility for a jointly and severally liable debtor to rely on a remission granted to another debtor

[2011] EUECJ C-78/10
Bailii
European
Citing:
OpinionBerel And Others (Customs Union) ECJ 16-Dec-2010
Opinion – Customs Union – Distribution of import duties – Representation – Solidarity – Possibility of relying on the delivery of a customs debt granted to a joint debtor . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559693

Drax Power Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Hm Treasury and Others: Admn 10 Feb 2016

The claimant sought to challenge the removal of the exemption for renewable source electricity from the Climate Change Levy.
Held: Review was refused. The court rejected the Respondents’ submission that EU law has no application to the RSE Exemption at all and that therefore the claim must fail because at the national level legitimate expectations cannot be raised against a sovereign Parliament. The amendments to para. 19 of Schedule 6 to the FA 2000 are within the scope of EU law. The EU law principle of legal certainty, and its corollary the protection of legitimate expectations, require that the application of rules of law must be foreseeable by those subject to them, and that a breach of the EU law principle of foreseeability would also be a breach of domestic law on account of the European Communities Act 1972.
The Judge rejected the Claimants’ case that the legal test as to whether there had been a breach of the EU law principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations in the present case is reducible to the question whether a prudent and circumspect economic operator could have foreseen the possibility of a without notice withdrawal of the RSE Exemption in all the circumstances.
It was not possible to reconcile the various strands of ECJ jurisprudence and the Claimants could not succeed unless they established to his satisfaction that the Respondents promoted a legitimate expectation of there being no withdrawal of the RSE Exemption without a two year time limit (for which the Judge understood the Claimants to be contending), or equivalent fiscal benefit in lieu.
What was required was an express assurance by the Government that any withdrawal of the RSE Exemption would be coupled with the specific two year lead time, or that that might irresistibly be inferred from what Government had said and done such that the giving of such an assurance might be implied; in other words, the giving of something tantamount to an express assurance.
A prudent and circumspect operator should not have inferred that the RSE Exemption would not be removed without a two-year lead time. The Respondents had not created any legitimate expectation on the part of the Claimants to the effect that the RSE Exemption would not be withdrawn without providing a lead time of two-years, or equivalent value.

Jay J
[2016] EWHC 228 (Admin)
Bailii
European Communities Act 1972
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromInfinis Energy Holdings Ltd v HM Treasury and Another CA 21-Oct-2016
No breach of EU Legitimate Expectation
The appellant challenged rejection of its request for judicial review of a decision to remove financial support for its creation pf renewable energy.
Held: The appal failed. Althought eth claimant would indeed be severely affected, it had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Constitutional, Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559744

C and J Clark International: ECJ 4 Feb 2016

ECJ (Judgment) References for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Dumping – Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam – Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 – WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement – Regulation (EC) No 384/96 – Article 2(7) – Determination of dumping – Imports from non-market economy countries – Claims for market economy treatment – Time limit – Article 9(5) and (6) – Claims for individual treatment – Article 17 – Sampling – Article 3(1), (5) and (6), Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) – Cooperation of the Union industry – Article 3(2) and (7) – Determination of injury – Other known factors – Community Customs Code – Article 236(1) and (2) – Repayment of duties not legally owed – Time limit – Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure – Invalidity of a regulation which imposed anti-dumping duties)

C-659/13, [2016] EUECJ C-659/13, ECLI:EU:C:2016:74
Bailii
European

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.559532

BP Europa: ECJ 28 Jan 2016

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – General arrangements for excise duty – Directive 2008/118/EC – Occurrence of an irregularity during a movement of excise goods – Movement of goods under a duty suspension arrangement – Goods missing on delivery – Levying of excise duty in the absence of proof of destruction or loss of the goods)

C-64/15, [2016] EUECJ C-64/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:62
Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.559456

SG Equipment Leasing v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 29 Dec 2015

FTTTx (Excise Duty Restoration of Goods (See Also Excise Appeal) : New Review On Facts) Excise duty. Restoration of forfeited goods. Can the Reviewing Officer give reasons different from the original decision maker for upholding the original decision – no.

[2015] UKFTT 677 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.558268

Derrick v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 1972

The Court was concerned with the seizure of 35mm cinematograph films on the ground that they were ‘indecent or obscene articles’ for the purposes of the 1876 Act. The prohibited articles were defined by the relevant section: ‘Indecent or obscene prints, paintings, photographs, books, cards, lithographic or other engravings, or any other indecent or obscene articles.’ Lord Widgery CJ with whom Ashforth and Griffiths JJ agreed, observed that the section was a ‘very important means of preventing indecent films from ever reaching the country’. In that context His Lordship held that the film fell within the phrase ‘any other indecent or obscene articles’. His Lordship added: ‘It follows that any article which is indecent may be forfeited under this procedure, and had it been necessary, I would certainly have been prepared to hold that these films are photographs despite the limitations upon their use to which I have already referred.’

Lord Widgery CJ Ashforth and Griffiths JJ
[1972] 1 All ER 993, [1972] 2 QB 28, [1972] 2 WLR 359
Customs Consolidation Act 1876
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.188824

Perfect v Revenue and Customs: FTTTX 7 Dec 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty – Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010, reg 13 – Finance Act 2008, Sch 41 – assessment and penalty in respect of seized goods – whether the appellant driver of the vehicle was ‘making the delivery of’ or ‘holding’ the goods and therefore liable for the assessment – No – appeal allowed

[2015] UKFTT 639 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557186

Sidhom v The Director of Border Revenue (Excise Duty Restoration of Goods (See Also Excise Appeal): FTTTX 11 Dec 2015

FTTTX EXCISE D seizure of two ivory figurines D imported without the required permits D CITES D restoration refused D whether or not the refusal was reasonable D failure to take into account delayed receipt of the notice of seizure D failure to consider proportionality D appeal allowed

[2015] UKFTT 664 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557189

Amber Services Europe Ltd and Another v The Director of Border Revenue: Admn 16 Dec 2015

Two appeals by way of case stated from decisions of 12 May 2015 of District Judge Barron, sitting in the Magistrates Court at Dover, whereby the judge found that certain goods (raw tobacco) were liable to forfeiture and ordered them to be condemned as forfeited, pursuant to the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

McCombe, Ouseley JJ
[2015] EWHC 3665 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557139

Cooneen Watts and Stone Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 16 Dec 2015

‘The issues in the case concern the correct treatment and classification for customs purposes of certain specialised military clothing imported by the appellants (respondents before the Upper Tribunal) from the People’s Republic of China. The clothing was designed for the protection of troops in combat. The appellants claim to be entitled to relief from import duty in respect of it.’

Laws, Elias LJJ, Russell J
[2015] EWCA Civ 1261, [2015] WLR(D) 533
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557079

TSI GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen: ECJ 10 Dec 2015

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Sub-heading 9027 10 10 – Ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers – Handheld particle counters

C Toader, P
C-183/15, [2015] EUECJ C-183/15, ECLI:EU:C:2015:808
Bailii
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557040

Viamar – Elliniki Aftokiniton kai Genikon Epicheiriseon AE v Elliniko Dimosio: ECJ 17 Dec 2015

(Judgment) References for a preliminary ruling – Free movement of goods – Tax provisions – Internal taxation – Customs duties of a fiscal nature – Charges having equivalent effect – Formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers – Article 30 TFEU – Article 110 TFEU – Directive 92/12/EEC – Article 3(3) – Directive 2008/118/EC – Article 1(3) – Not implemented in domestic law – Direct effect – Levying of a tax on motor vehicles at the time of their import into the territory of a Member State -Tax linked to registration and potential putting into circulation of the vehicle – Refusal to refund the tax where the vehicle is not registered

C-402/14, [2015] EUECJ C-402/14
Bailii
TFEU 30 110, Directive 92/12/EEC 3(3), Directive 2008/118/EC 1(3)
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557043

Kyocera Mita Europe v Commission: ECJ 10 Dec 2015

(Judgment) Appeal – Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff – Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 – Actions for annulment – Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures – Release of goods and communication of the amount of the duties – Use of simplified procedures or data-processing techniques

ECLI:EU:C:2015:805, [2015] EUECJ C-553/14
Bailii
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.557016

Clougher Valley Fuels Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Nov 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty Hydrocarbon Oil – (See Also Excise Restoration of Vehicle) : Other – EXCISE DUTY – Registered dealer in controlled oil – CEMA 1979 s100G -Hydrocarbon Oil (Registered Dealers in Controlled Oil Regulations) 2002 – Revenue Traders (Accounts and Records) Regulations 1992 – removal of approval – whether reasonable – yes – Appeal not allowed

[2015] UKFTT 592 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556403

Oryzomyli Kavallas OEE and others v Commission of the European Communities: ECJ 24 Oct 1984

[1984] EUECJ C-160/84R
Bailii
Citing:
See AlsoOryzomyli Kavallas OEE and others v Commission of the European Communities ECJ 16-Jul-1984
. .

Cited by:
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: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554213

Oryzomyli 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.

[1986] EUECJ C-160/84
Bailii
Citing:
See AlsoOryzomyli Kavallas OEE and others v Commission of the European Communities ECJ 16-Jul-1984
. .
See AlsoOryzomyli Kavallas OEE and others v Commission of the European Communities ECJ 24-Oct-1984
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.554214

Reed v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Civil Penalty (See Also Excise Hydrocarbon Oil [Duty]) : Evasion): FTTTx 19 Dec 2018

EXCISE DUTY and CUSTOMS DUTY- civil evasion penalties – s 8 of FA 1994 and s 25 of FA 2003 – dutiable goods abandoned and not taken down the green channel – whether engagement in conduct for evading excise duty – the fact at issue regarding ownership of dutiable goods – the test of dishonesty after Ivey and Genting – whether any penalty reduction due – appeal dismissed

[2018] UKFTT 749 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.632470

Hupeden v Council And Commission: ECFI 23 Sep 2015

ECJ Judgment – Non-contractual liability – Dumping – Imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China – Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 declared invalid by the Court – Loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the Regulation – Action for damages – Exhaustion of domestic remedies – Admissibility – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals – Article 2, paragraph 7 a) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 [now Article 2, paragraph 7 a) of Regulation (EC) No. 1225/2009] – Duty of care – Causation

T-206/14, [2015] EUECJ T-206/14, ECLI: EU:T:2015:672
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552747

HJS Developments Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Sep 2015

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – restoration of goods – wine held by a supermarket chain without payment of excise duty – review decision refusing restoration set aside by tribunal on appeal – second review decision refusing restoration – whether second review ought to have been conducted on basis of the first tribunal’s findings of fact – application to strike out part of HMRC’s statement of case

[2015] UKFTT 465 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552712

Hamill v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Sep 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty – importation of tobacco products – Appellant convicted of intentional evasion of excise duty and VAT – appeal against assessment – Appeal listed for a pre-trial Review – interim cross application to strike out – whether any reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case succeeding – No – appeal struck out.

[2015] UKFTT 459 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.552711

Jigsaw Wholesale Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Apr 2010

FTTTx Excise Duty – whether duty chargeable – whether excise duty point established within UK – whether liability under guarantee established – whether amount of liability limited by the amount of the guarantee – whether the revocation of the Appellants WOWGR licence was reasonable or should be reconsidered.

[2010] UKFTT 156 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.422187

Canon Europa v Commission: ECJ 10 Dec 2015

(Judgment) Appeal – Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff – Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 – Actions for annulment – Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures – Release of goods and communication of the amount of the duties – Use of simplified procedures or data-processing techniques

C-552/14, [2015] EUECJ C-552/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:804
Bailii
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.556992

Bricmate AB v Tullverket: ECJ 10 Sep 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commercial policy – Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China – Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 – Validity – Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 – Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 17 and 20(1) – Determination of the injury and of the causal link – Errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment – Obligation to exercise due care – Examination of the evidence sent by a sampled importer – Obligation to state reasons – Rights of the defence

M Ilesic P
C-569/13, [2015] EUECJ C-569/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:572
Bailii
Regulation (EU) No 917/2011, Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
European

Commercial, Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.552169

Iqbal v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Other): FTTTx 25 Aug 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty – importation of tobacco products – evasion of duty – appeal against assessment – whether dishonesty – cross application to strike out – no reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case succeeding – appeal struck out

[2015] UKFTT 429 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551998

Ayre v Revenue and Customs and Another (Excise Duty Appeals : Practice and Procedure): FTTTx 25 Aug 2015

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – Excise assessment and excise wrongdoing penalty applied in relation to goods seized from the appellant – Application to strike-out, on both mandatory and discretionary basis – Rule 8(2)(a) – Want of jurisdiction – HMRC v Nicholas Race [2014] UKUT 0331 (TCC) considered – Assessment arguably ‘otherwise deficient – Rule 8(3)(c) – ‘Reasonable prospect of success’ – Triable issues of fact and law identified – Application dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 426 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.552000

Lane v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 26 Aug 2015

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – assessments for duty and penalties in relation to excise goods seized from the appellant – jurisdiction of the tribunal-Jones, Race, Swain v Hillman and Three Rivers considered – application to strike out appeals – application granted in respect of the duty appeal – application rejected in respect of the penalty appeal – directions given

[2015] UKFTT 423 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551999

Brobot Petroleum Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Excise Warehouse : Duty Deferment): FTTTx 25 Aug 2015

FTTTx EXCISE DUTIES – application by motor fuel retailer for approval for duty deferment – retailer required duty deferment account number to be able to negotiate duty deferment supply agreement with suppliers – application refused by HMRC as retailer did not own fuel in a tax warehouse nor were there arrangements for it to purchase such fuel – refusal upheld on review – was refusal of application reasonable – no – further review ordered – regulations 4 and 9 of the Excise Duties (Deferred Payment) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/3152)

[2015] UKFTT 427 (TC)
Bailii
Excise Duties (Deferred Payment) Regulations 1992
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551995

Weatherill v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Aug 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty Restoration of Vehicle (See Also Excise Appeal) : Conditions – Excise Duty – Hydrocarbon Oil Duty – forfeiture of truck with red diesel in tank – whether decision to restore subject to payment of amount representing civil penalties was unreasonable- whether penalties under section 13 HODA would have been exigible – whether someone other than owner in possession

[2015] UKFTT 384 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551559

N’Diaye v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Aug 2015

FTTTx Customs Duty : CUSTOMS DUTY – VAT – EXCISE DUTY – civil evasion penalties – whether the civil or criminal standard of proof applies – consideration of the case law – held, the civil standard applied – whether FA 2008, s 8 continues to apply to excise penalties – the test for dishonesty in civil cases – whether appellant dishonest – held, yes – error in HMRC demand notice – excise duty penalty incorrectly increased – statutory deeming rule as applied to import VAT penalty – whether import VAT penalty deemed to be a customs duty penalty – whether Tribunal has the jurisdiction to increase the customs duty penalty – held, yes – exercise of Tribunal discretion – appeal dismissed and penalty amount upheld

[2015] UKFTT 380 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551547

Goldie and Another v The Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 14 Aug 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty Restoration of Goods (See Also Excise Appeal) : Own Use – EXCISE DUTY – alcohol brought into UK by courier for owner – alcohol seized – condemnation proceedings not started – restoration for a fee.
Held: (1) the issue of ‘own use’ was open to the tribunal – Jones distinguished, (2) the alcohol was for own use but was liable to duty and legally seized; the(3) the officer’s written decision on review was unreasonable, but (4) it appeared that the decision actually made was different from the written one, and that actual decision was not unreasonable. Directions made.

[2015] UKFTT 402 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551539

Zsig Sports Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Customs Duty : Classification – Nomenclature): FTTTx 27 Jul 2015

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTY – classification – ‘mini-tennis rackets’ whether classifiable as ‘lawn-tennis rackets’ under code 9506.5100 or ‘other tennis rackets’ under code 9506.5900 – held on the evidence that mini-tennis was a game in its own right and not a miniature version of lawn-tennis and that the objective characteristics and properties of the mini-tennis rackets in issue were not those of lawn-tennis rackets – application of GRI 3(a) indicated that the correct classification was 9506.5900 – appeal allowed

[2015] UKFTT 368 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551527

Saddiq v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 29 Jul 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty – hand-rolling tobacco – seizure as UK duty unpaid – whether assessment out-of-time – No – Section 12(1A) FA 1994 – Appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 374 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPegasus 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551525

Atom Supplies Ltd (T/A Masters of Malt) v Revenue and Customs (Excise Warehouse : Approval): FTTTx 31 Jul 2015

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – application for approval of ‘general storage and distribution warehouse’ – level of premises guarantee – requirement for minimum premises guarantee for new applicants of andpound;250,000 – whether unreasonable – no- appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 388 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551517

Ahmed v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Civil Penalty (See Also Excise Hydrocarbon Oil [Duty]) : Evasion): FTTTx 23 Jul 2015

FTTTx Customs duty and Excise duty – civil evasion penalty – importation of cigarettes without declaration or payment of duty – Finance Act 2003 s 25 and Finance Act 1994 s 8 – whether appellant guilty of dishonest evasion – held burden of proof not discharged – appeal allowed

[2015] UKFTT 372 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Taxes – Other

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551516

Murray v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Appeals : Jurisdiction): FTTTx 24 Jul 2015

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – assessment to excise duty following the seizure of goods on their being brought into the UK from an EU Member State – whether the appeal should be struck out following Jones and Another v HMRC and Nicholas Race v HMRC – HMRC’s application for strike-out refused and Directions given to enable the appellant to amend his grounds of appeal if so advised

[2015] UKFTT 371 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551523

Fleming v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Appeals : Jurisdiction): FTTTx 22 Jul 2015

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – assessment to excise duty and a non-deliberate wrongdoing penalty following the seizure of goods on their being brought into the UK from an EU Member State – whether the appeal should be struck out following Jones and Another v HMRC and Nicholas Race v HMRC – HMRC’s application for strike-out refused and Directions given to enable the appellant to amend his grounds of appeal if so advised

[2015] UKFTT 362 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550633

Belcher v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 17 Jul 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty – importation of tobacco products – evasion of duty – appeal against assessment – whether dishonesty – cross application to strike out – no reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case succeeding – appeal struck out

[2015] UKFTT 360 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550630

Ahmed v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Civil Penalty (See Also Excise Hydrocarbon Oil [Duty]) : Evasion): FTTTx 21 Jul 2015

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – tobacco products seized – deemed forfeiture – duty and penalty appealed – hardship application – procedural non-compliance – Rule 8(3)(c) of Tribunal Rules – no prospect of appeal succeeding – special circumstances for penalty reduction – no – strike out application granted

[2015] UKFTT 365 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550628

Staniszewski v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Appeals : Jurisdiction): FTTTx 17 Jul 2015

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – assessment to excise duty and a non-deliberate wrongdoing penalty following the seizure of goods on their being brought into the UK from an EU Member State – whether the appeal should be struck out following Jones and Another v HMRC and Nicholas Race v HMRC – HMRC’s application for strike-out refused and Directions given to enable the appellant to amend his grounds of appeal if so advised

[2015] UKFTT 349 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v Race UTTC 15-Jul-2014
UTTC EXCISE DUTY – assessment in relation to excise goods seized from respondent – appeal from refusal to strike out statutory appeal – appeal allowed in part – ground of appeal struck out in part – application . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550572

Hasbro European Trading Bv v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Jul 2015

FTTTx Customs Duty : Classification – Nomenclature – CUSTOMS DUTIES – classification – Combined Nomenclature- whether ‘Beyblades’ should be classified as ‘articles for . . table or parlour games’ within Heading 9504 or as ‘other toys’ within Heading 9503- GIR 3 tie-breaker -appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 340 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550561

Mcpeake v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Jul 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty – Beer : Assessment – Excise Duty – Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010, reg 13 – Finance Act 2008, Sch 41 – assessment and penalty in respect of seized goods – whether the Appellant driver of the vehicle was ‘holding’ the goods and therefore liable for the assessment – yes – appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 356 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550566

Hutchinson v Revenue and Customers: FTTTx 15 Jul 2015

Excise Duty Civil Penalty (See Also Excise Hydrocarbon Oil [Duty]) : Reasonable Excuse – Excise Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against assessment – – cross application to strike out – whether any reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case succeeding – no – whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the assessment – no – appeal struck out.

[2015] UKFTT 355 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Taxes – Other

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550562

Snell v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Jul 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling – Excise duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against assessment – cross application to strike out – whether any reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case succeeding – no – whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the assessment – no – appeal struck out

[2015] UKFTT 350 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550571

Vital Nut Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 Jul 2015

FTTTX CUSTOMS DUTY – Combined Nomenclature – Preserved diced papaya classified under heading 2006 as ‘preserved by sugar’ – Whether it should have been classified under residual heading 2008 – Insufficient evidence adduced by appellant to displace burden of proof – Appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 338 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550302

Thompson v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Jul 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty Suspension : Excise Duty Suspension – EXCISE DUTY – diversion – goods leaving duty suspension arrangements – Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992 – whether appellant as haulier caused goods to reach excise duty point – joint and several liability – procedure – whether stay of proceedings prevented a fair hearing or amounted to an abuse of process – appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 336 (TC)
Bailii
Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550301

SIR Fabrics Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Jun 2015

FTTTx Customs Duty – imports of cotton goods classified as duty free ‘cotton combed or carded’- whether the goods should have been correctly classified as ‘knitted or crocheted fabrics’ subject to 8% customs duty – yes – whether Appellant entitled to a waiver of customs duty under Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 because of an error on the part of the customs authorities which could not reasonably have been detected by the Appellant – no – appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 319 (TC)
Bailii
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 220(2)(b)
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550286

Layton v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Jul 2015

FTTTX Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling – Excise Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against assessment – – cross application to strike out – whether any reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case succeeding – no – whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the assessment – no – appeal struck out.

[2015] UKFTT 333 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550299

Euro Wines (C and C) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Jul 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty Appeals : Human Rights – EXCISE DUTY – penalty – Sch 41 FA 2008 – handling of goods subject to unpaid duty – human rights – Article 6 ECHR – whether criminal charge – maximum penalty rate 30 per cent – held, no – equality of arms – burden of proof – s 154 CEMA 1979 – no basis for Tribunal to disregard legislation – whether penalty decision ultra vires – held, conditions for penalty fulfilled – whether reasonable excuse – no – absence of reduction for special circumstances – whether power to interfere – no – whether penalty an unlawful interference with property rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR – no – appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 331 (TC)
Bailii
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 154, Finance Act 2008, European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Human Rights

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550295

Worx Food and Beverage Bv v The Director for Border Revenue: FTTTx 2 Jun 2015

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – whether appellant had the right to bring an appeal – seizure of goods – refusal to restore – decision based on alleged failure to prove ownership of the goods – whether unreasonable – held, no – appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 253 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549557