Category: Customs and Excise

Moorgate Mercantile Co v Finch and Read: CA 1962

Confiscation of Car used for smuggling

The hirer of a car on hire purchase lent the car to the second defendant who used it to smuggle watches. He was caught and the car was forfeited by Customs. The court held that the second defendant had converted the car because what he had done would in all probability have resulted in the owners being deprived of it. He was to be taken to have intended the likely consequences of his conduct.

[1962] 1 QB 701
England and Wales

Torts – Other, Customs and Excise

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.182759

Volkorezs v Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 18 Jun 2012

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY -Restoration of seized vehicle -whether appellant suffered exceptional hardship through vehicle not being restored due to medical and other reasons- Whether refusal to restore was a decision UKBA could not reasonably have arrived at- No – Appeal dismissed

Swami Raghavan
[2012] UKFTT 410 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.462826

Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others: CA 11 Apr 2003

The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and proportionate.
Held: The present procedure does not involve the criminal courts and the absence of any criminal sanction, even modest, is a factor. The procedure by way of an application to restore goods can be described as determination of a criminal charge. The concepts of seizure and detention had long been distinguished in English law: ‘where liability to forfeiture has been determined by a court in condemnation proceedings, ‘there is no further room for fact finding by the Tribunal’ and it has no jurisdiction . . ‘Jurisdiction to decide whether any thing forfeited is to be restored under section 152(b) is with the Tribunal. The jurisdiction in condemnation proceedings is, by virtue of Schedule 3, with the courts. If the deeming provision in paragraph 5 of the Schedule operates, the thing in question shall be deemed to have been duly condemned as forfeited. The effect of this deeming provision is to provide that the thing is to be treated as forfeited.

Pill, Chadwick, Longmore LJJ
[2003] EWCA Civ 525, Times 23-Apr-2003, [2004] QB 93
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 Sch3 para5, Human Rights Act 1998 Sch 1 Pt I art 6(1) Pt II, art 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v International Transport Roth Gmbh and others CA 22-Feb-2002
The Appellant had introduced a system of fining lorry drivers returning to the UK with illegal immigrants hiding away in their trucks. The rules had been found to be in breach of European law and an interference with their human rights. The . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Air Canada v The United Kingdom ECHR 5-May-1995
Hudoc No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 6-1
An aeroplane was seized as liable to forfeiture pursuant to section 141(1) of the 1979 Act. It was restored on payment of a penalty of andpound;50,000. . .
Cited – Lauko v Slovakia ECHR 2-Sep-1998
The applicant was fined under the domestic Minor Offences Act for accusing his neighbours, without justification, of causing a nuisance. The government relied on the modesty of the punishment capable of being imposed and the fact that the offence . .
Cited – AP MP and TP v Switzerland ECHR 29-Aug-1997
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-2; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Fines were imposed . .
Cited – Butler v United Kingdom ECHR 27-Jun-2002
A substantial confiscation order was made with respect to money seized from the applicant on the ground that customs officers believed the money was directly or indirectly the proceeds of drugs trafficking and/or was intended for use in drug . .
Cited – Goldsmith and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise QBD 7-Jun-2001
The applicants were stopped after bringing into the country 26 kilos of tobacco, without declaring it. The customs applied for an order condemning the tobacco. The applicants argued that the proceedings were, in effect, criminal proceedings, and . .
Cited – Regina (Mudie and Another) v Dover Magistrates’ Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2003
The applicants wished to challenge the confiscation of their goods by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise on their return to Dover. They appealed the refusal of Legal Aid.
Held: The Convention guaranteed the right to legal assistance for . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Venn and Others QBD 11-Dec-2001
The concept of forfeiture in the Act was dependent upon the seizure of goods. The Act also made a distinction between the initial detention of goods and formal seizure. The six months time limit under the Magistrates Courts Act was calculated from . .

Cited by:
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Dickinson ChD 15-Oct-2003
The applicant had returned to England with a quantity of goods which the Customs and Excise deemed were not for his personal use. His car was seized, but ordered to be restored by the VAT and Duties Tribunal.
Held: There was now a two track . .
Obiter – Gascoyne v Customs and Excise and Another CA 28-Jul-2004
The Commissioners had found what they considered to be an excess of dutiable goods brought into the country by the tax payer, and had forfeited the car. The court considered the effect of the Gora case.
Held: The difficult statements in Gora . .
Cited – Golobiewska v Commissioners of Customs and excise CA 6-May-2005
The owner of a motor vehicle which had been seized by Customs applied to have it restored.
Held: the 1994 Act placed the burden on the applicant to establish that she was entitled to the return of her car, but the standard of proof was the . .
Cited – Checkprice (UK) Ltd (In Administration) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 31-Mar-2010
The claimant sought damages having been forced into liquidation after the defendant, it said, wrongfully seized its alcohol goods. Sales J had already held that the reasonable time had expired.
Held: Considering a claim for conversion of the . .
Cited – Revenue 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 . .
Cited – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs Admn 4-Nov-2010
Applications for judicial review in relation to alcoholic goods detained by the Defendants on grounds of a suspicion that duty may not have been paid in respect of them.
Sales J said: ‘In my view, there is a clear reason why Parliament wished . .
Cited – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 11-Jun-2014
Alcoholic drinks had been seized by the respondents pending further enquiries with a view to a possible forfeiture, then held and returned but only under court order. The company had complained that the detention of the goods was unlawful. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Crime, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.180739

Eurogate Distribution Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt: ECJ 6 Sep 2012

eurogateECJ2012

ECJ Community Customs Code – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Article 204(1)(a) – Customs warehousing procedure – Customs debt incurred through non-fulfilment of an obligation – Delayed entry in stock records of information concerning the removal of goods from a customs warehouse)

K Lenaerts P
C-28/11, [2012] EUECJ C-28/11
Bailii
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.464429

European Commission v French Republic: ECJ 19 Dec 2012

ECJ (Opinion) Action for failure to fulfil obligations – Directive 92/12/EEC – Articles 8 and 9 – Products subject to excise duty – Tobacco products acquired in one Member State and transported to another – Criteria for determining the limits applicable to the transport of products subject to excise duty – Free movement of goods – Article 34 TFEU – Relationship between the fundamental freedoms and secondary legislation – Consecutive reliance on secondary legislation and a fundamental freedom

Cruz Villalon AG
C-216/11, [2012] EUECJ C-216/11
Bailii
Directive 92/12/EEC
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.468766

Regina v Khan; Regina v Lockett: CACD 12 Mar 2009

The defendants appealed against confiscation orders made on conviction for dealing with goods with intent to defraud the CandE of payable duty namely in bringing in excess numbers of cigarettes.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In many cases the Customs and Excise had prosecuted on a basis which was invalidated by the alteration of the 1992 regulations by the 2001 Regulations. The confiscation orders were quashed.

Lord Justice Hughes, Vice-President, Mr Justice King and Judge Gordon
Times 26-Apr-2009
Tobacco Products Regulations 2001 (SI 2001 No 1712) 13, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(1)(b), Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 3135) 5, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Chambers, Regina v CACD 17-Oct-2008
The court found that a customs prosecution for evasion of duty by excess tobacco imports was incorrectly founded, after failing to acknowledge a change in the 1992 Regulations brought in in 2001. Also, a day labourer who had merely assisted in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.341216

Wiese v The UK Border Agency: Admn 29 Jun 2012

The claimant challenged a decision to seize a sustantial sum of cash being carried by him whilst passing through London City Airport. In the magistrates court, the claimant had objected to the reliance on parts of a customs officer’s statement which he said was argument, and not fact.
Held: The case had been a simple request to the ourt to infer that the money was being laundered. The challenge succeeded. The explanation given, that the claimant had been seeking to avoid South African exchange controls, was sufficient in these particular circumstances, to displace the simple inference that the money represented the proceeds of crime, and indeed, in this case it was the more likely explanation.

Underhill J
[2012] EWHC 2549 (Admin)
Bailii
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 294
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Muneka v Customs and Excise Admn 2-Feb-2005
The Albanian claimant was found at Heathrow Airport with a ticket to Tirana and with over andpound;20,000 in cash in his baggage. The district judge held that the cash had been obtained through unlawful conduct and that it was therefore recoverable . .
Cited – Director of Assets Recovery Agency and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Green and others Admn 16-Dec-2005
The defendant challenged the making of civil orders for recovery of what were alleged to be the proceeds of crime. They complained that no specific offence had been made out. The court was asked, as a preliminary issue: ‘Whether a claim for civil . .
Cited – Assets Recovery Agency v Szepietowski and others CA 24-Jul-2007
The defendant had had set aside an interim order for assets recovery. The director appealed against a finding by the court below that he did not have ‘a good arguable case’, justifying an interim recovery order.
Held: The appeal succeeded. On . .
Cited – Director of Assets Recovery Agency and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Green and others Admn 16-Dec-2005
The defendant challenged the making of civil orders for recovery of what were alleged to be the proceeds of crime. They complained that no specific offence had been made out. The court was asked, as a preliminary issue: ‘Whether a claim for civil . .
Cited – Olupitan and Another v Director of the Assets Recovery Agency CA 22-Feb-2008
The claimant challenged seizure of cash he was carrying. The court had concluded from its volume that it represented the proceeds of crime.
Held: Carnwath LJ said: ‘I agree with Sullivan J (in Green) that the Director need not allege the . .
Cited – Angus v United Kingdom Border Agency Admn 11-Mar-2011
The appellant appealed by case stated against an order for forfeiture of andpound;40,000 cash seized by the respondent on her entering the UK. The Crown Court, on appeal from the Magistrates Court, had found that that cash ‘may well have been’ the . .
Cited – Perinpanathan, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2010
The appellant’s daughter had been stopped entering the country with andpound;150,000 in cash. The police sought an order for its forfeiture, suspecting a link with terrorism. The magistrates found no evidence of such, and declined to make the order, . .
Cited – NW and Others, Regina v CACD 23-Jan-2008
The prosecutor appealed from a terminal ruling, acceding to a submission of no case to answer advanced on behalf of all four defendants.
Proof to the criminal standard can be discharged by circumstantial evidence and then by inference: ‘No . .
Cited – Anwoir and Others, Regina v CACD 27-Jun-2008
In attempting to prove that property represented the proceeds of crime, two paths were open to the prosecution. It could do so either by evidence that it derived from conduct of a specific kind or kinds and that conduct of that kind or those kinds . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Criminal Practice

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.464544

Yates v The Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 9 May 2011

EXCISE DUTY – Restoration appeal – whether refusal to restore a valuable vehicle was disproportionate in circumstances where the vehicle’s owner (the Appellant) had not himself attempted to import excise goods illegally – this had been done by his passenger (his stepson) – the vehicle’s value was about 10 times the duty sought to be evaded – the Appellant had misled the Officer at the time of the importation in a misguided attempt to protect his passenger – the Appellant knew at the time of the attempted importation that he was facilitating his passenger’s attempt at smuggling – held the refusal to restore was not unreasonable and the sanction suffered by the Appellant was not disproportionate – Lindsay v CandE Commissioners [2002] EWCA Civ 607 followed – appeal dismissed

[2011] UKFTT 299 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.443083

Duggan v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Mar 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty – alcohol, vehicle and trailer seized – instructions received from unknown person by mobile telephone – appellant made two cross-channel return trips in quick succession – trailer swaps – appellant could not contest seizure – Regulation 13(2) making delivery or holding

[2015] UKFTT 125 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.544576

Moser Baer India v Council (Commercial Policy): ECJ 2 Oct 2008

Europa Appeal Subsidies Imports of recordable CDs from India Article 8(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports Anti-competitive behaviour affecting all manufacturers Other factors Causation Calculation of injury elimination level ‘Lesser duty’ rule.

C-535/06, [2008] EUECJ C-535/06 – O, [2009] EUECJ C-535/06
Bailii, Bailii
European

Customs and Excise, Commercial

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.276780

Wnek v Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 17 Oct 2013

FTTTx Excise duty – claim to contest legality of seizure – para4 Sch 3 CEMA 1979 – whether requirement to give name of UK solicitor to act in the case of a person not in the UK compatible with Article 21 of TFEU – held: no.
Excise duty – s 1(1) Tobacco Products Duty Act -whether dried loose leaf tobacco a ‘tobacco product’- held: no
Excise duty – reasonableness of decision not to restore – decision unreasonable- Director of Border Revenue directed to remake decision on the basis that the goods were not liable to duty.

Hellier J
[2013] UKFTT 575 (TC)
Bailii
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 sch 3
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.517750

Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs: HL 12 Mar 2008

The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations contained the entire regime.
Held: Criminal conduct at common law or by statute can constitute unlawful means in an unlawful means conspiracy. The protection of the Bill of Rights is available to everyone. Fraudsters and cheats are as much entitled to be protected against the levying of taxes without the authority of Parliament as anyone else. The function of an action of damages is to provide a remedy for interests that are recognised by the law as entitled to protection
‘The statute makes no provision for the recovery of VAT from someone who is not a taxable person within the meaning of section 3. There is, it may be said, a gap in the statute. But this does not mean that the Commissioners have suffered a loss for which they can sue in damages. All that can be said is that payment was made to Alldech which ought not to have been made. It is an amount that can be recovered as a debt due to the Crown from Alldech. It does not change its character as a debt due to the Crown because, when it is sought to be recovered from someone else, it is described as damages. ‘
Lord Scott said: ‘there is, in my opinion, nothing whatever in the Bill of Rights point. It is true that Total are not taxable under the statutory VAT scheme in respect of any of the pleaded transactions, but the claim against Total is not a claim for tax. It is a claim for damages, for loss, caused by the fraudulent conspiracy.’

Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2008] UKHL 19, [2008] BPIR 699, [2008] 2 WLR 711, [2008] STI 938, [2008] 1 AC 1174, [2008] STC 644, [2008] BVC 340, [2008] BTC 5216
Bailii, HL
Value Added Tax Act 1994 1(1) 7, Bill of Rights 1688 4
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Total Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 31-Jan-2007
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
Cited – Gosling v Veley 1850
Wilde CJ said: ‘The rule of law that no pecuniary burden can be imposed upon the subjects of this country, by whatever name it may be called, whether tax, due, rate, or toll, except under clear and distinct legal authority, established by those who . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd CA 1921
The Food Controller had been given power under the Defence of the Realm Acts to regulate milk sales. In granting the dairy a licence to buy milk in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset, the Food Controller required the Dairy to pay 2d. per imperial . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd HL 1922
The House heard an appeal by the Attorney-General against a finding that an imposition of duty on milk sales was unlawful.
Held: The appeal failed. The levy was unlawful. Lord Buckmaster said: ‘Neither of those two enactments enabled the Food . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Hambrook 1956
The Revenue claimed for loss resulting from its being deprived of the services of a taxing officer due to a vehicle accident.
Held: The action was dismissed. An action for that kind of loss did not lie where its relationship was with an . .
Cited – Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
Cited – Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) HL 1-Apr-1981
No General Liability in Tort for Wrongful Acts
The plaintiff had previously constructed an oil supply pipeline from Beira to Mozambique. After Rhodesia declared unilateral independence, it became a criminal offence to supply to Rhodesia without a licence. The plaintiff ceased supply as required, . .
Cited – Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) CA 6-Mar-1981
Lonrho had supplied oil to Southern Rhodesia. It gave up this profitable business when the UK imposed sanctions on that country. It claimed that Shell had conspired unlawfully to break the sanctions, thereby prolonging the illegal regime in Southern . .
Cited – Marrinan v Vibart CA 1962
The court considered an action in the form an attempt to circumvent the immunity of a witness at civil law by alleging a conspiracy.
Held: The claim was rejected. The court considered the basis of the immunity from action given to witnesses. . .
Cited – Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company Limited v Veitch HL 15-Dec-1941
The plaintiffs sought an interdict against the respondents, a dockers’ union, who sought to impose an embargo on their tweeds as they passed through the port of Stornoway.
Held: A trade embargo was not tortious because the predominant purpose . .
Cited – Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch SCS 1940
Lord Justice Clerk Aitchison said: ‘When the end of a combination is not a crime or a tort in the accepted sense, and the means are not in the accepted sense criminal or tortious – cases which give rise to no difficulty – the question always is – . .
Cited – Allen v Flood HL 14-Dec-1898
Tort of Malicicious Inducement not Committed
Mr Flood had in the course of his duties as a trade union official told the employers of some ironworkers that the ironworkers would go on strike, unless the employers ceased employing some woodworkers, who the ironworkers believed had worked on . .
Cited – Sorrell v Smith HL 1925
Torts of Conspiracy by Unlawful Means
The plaintiff had struck the first blow in a commercial battle between the parties, and the defendant then defended himself, whereupon the plaintiff sued him.
Lord Cave quoted the French saying: ‘cet animal est tres mechant; quand on . .
Cited – Hargreaves v Bretherton 1959
The Plaintiff pleaded that the First Defendant police officer had falsely and maliciously and without justification or excuse committed perjury at the Plaintiff’s trial on charges of criminal offences and that as a result the Plaintiff had been . .
Cited – Quinn v Leathem HL 5-Aug-1901
Unlawful Means Conspiracy has two forms
Quinn was treasurer of a Belfast butchers’ association. Leathem, who traded as a butcher, employed some non-union men, although when the union made difficulties he asked for them to be admitted to the union, and offered to pay their dues. The union . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .
Cited – Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA 1967
Sham requires common intent to create other result
The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
Cited – Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain . .
Cited – Mogul Steamship Company Limited v McGregor Gow and Co QBD 10-Aug-1885
Ship owners formed themselves into an association to protect their trading interests which then caused damage to rival ship owners. The plaintiffs complained about being kept out of the conference of shipowners trading between China and London.
Cited – Yukong Lines Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation and Others (No 2) QBD 23-Sep-1997
Repudiation by charterer: Funds were transferred by a charterer’s ‘alter ego’ to another company controlled by him with intent to defeat owner’s claim – whether ‘alter ego’ acting as undisclosed principal of charterer – whether permissible to pierce . .
Cited – Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here
The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were . .
Cited – Regina v Clarence CCCR 20-Nov-1888
The defendant knew that he had gonorrhea. He had intercourse with his wife, and infected her. She would not have consented had she known. He appealed his convictions for assault and causing grievous bodily harm.
Held: ‘The question in this . .
Cited – Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd HL 1949
The Act required the occupier of a licensed racetrack to take all steps necessary to secure that, so long as a totalisator was being lawfully operated on the track, there was available for bookmakers space on the track where they could conveniently . .
Cited – Rookes v Barnard (No 1) HL 21-Jan-1964
The court set down the conditions for the award of exemplary damages. There are two categories. The first is where there has been oppressive or arbitrary conduct by a defendant. Cases in the second category are those in which the defendant’s conduct . .
Cited – Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Gardner CA 1968
The Federation of Retail Newsagents decided to boycott the Daily Mirror for a week to persuade its publishers to pay higher margins, and advised them accordingly. The publishers sought an injunction saying the Federation was procuring a breach of . .
Doubted – Michaels and Michaels v Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd, etc ChD 19-Apr-2000
The respondents sought to strike out the claim for conspiracy and failure to comply with the Act. The respondent was landlord of premises occupied by the claimants. They had served a notice under the Act of their intention to sell.
Held: The . .
Cited – Surzur Overseas Ltd v Koros and others CA 25-Feb-1999
A defendant to a worldwide Mareva injunction had failed to give full disclosure of all his assets in an affidavit filed with the court. False evidence as to sale of the assets in question was later manufactured and placed before the court. The . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Goldblatt 1972
In a winding up case, the Commissioners can if necessary proceed against a receiver for misfeasance. . .
Cited – Ex parte Island Records CA 1978
An injunction is available to any person who can show that a private right or interest has been interfered with by a criminal act. . .
Cited – RCA Corporation v Pollard CA 1982
The illegal activities of bootleggers who had made unauthorised recordings of concerts, diminished the profitability of contracts granting to the plaintiffs the exclusive right to exploit recordings by Elvis Presley.
Held: The defendant’s . .
Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
Cited – Oren, Tiny Love Limited v Red Box Toy Factory Limited, Red Box Toy (UK) Limited, Index Limited, Martin Yaffe International Limited, Argos Distributors Limited PatC 1-Feb-1999
One plaintiff was the exclusive licensee of a registered design. The defendant sold articles alleged to infringe the design right. The registered owner had a statutory right to sue for infringement. But the question was whether the licensee could . .
Cited – Regina v Mavji CACD 1987
The court considered the offence of cheating the public revenue.
Held: Cheating might include any form of fraudulent conduct which resulted in diverting money from the revenue and depriving the revenue of money to which it was entitled. . .
Cited – Metall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc CA 1990
There was a complicated commercial dispute involving allegations of conspiracy. A claim by the plaintiffs for inducing or procuring a breach of contract would have been statute-barred in New York.
Held: Slade LJ said: ‘The judge’s approach to . .
Cited – Rex v Bainbridge 1782
. .
Cited – Regina v Hudson 1956
To avoid the payment of tax by positive false representations constitutes a fraud on the Crown and a fraud on the public. It is a common law offence and is indictable as such. . .
Cited – Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners (2) HL 20-Jul-1992
The society had set out to assert that regulations were unlawful in creating a double taxation. It paid money on account of the tax demanded. It won and recovered the sums paid, but the revenue refused to pay any interest accrued on the sums paid. . .
Cited – Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another HL 25-Oct-2006
The tax payer had overpaid Advance Corporation Tax under an error of law. It sought repayment. The revenue contended that the claim was time barred.
Held: The claim was in restitution, and the limitation period began to run from the date when . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Attorney General v Federation of Technological Industries and Others ECJ 11-May-2006
ECJ (Taxation) C-197/03 Sixth VAT Directive – Articles 21(3) and 22(8) – National measures to combat fraud – Joint and several liability for the payment of VAT – Provision of security for VAT payable by another . .
Cited – Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .
Cited – Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The . .
Cited – Johnson v Unisys Ltd HL 23-Mar-2001
The claimant contended for a common law remedy covering the same ground as the statutory right available to him under the Employment Rights Act 1996 through the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The statutory system for compensation for unfair . .
Cited – Shiloh Spinners Ltd v Harding HL 13-Dec-1972
A right of re-entry had been reserved in the lease on the assignment (and not on the initial grant) of a term of years in order to reinforce covenants (to support, fence and repair) which were taken for the benefit of other retained land of the . .
Cited – MacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd HL 15-Feb-2001
The fact that a payment of interest was made only to create a tax advantage did not prevent its being properly claimed. Interest was paid for the purposes of setting it against tax, when the debt was discharged. A company with substantial losses had . .

Cited by:
Cited – Child Poverty Action Group, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Work and Pensions CA 14-Oct-2009
CPAG appealed against a refusal of a declaration that the respondent could use only the 1992 Act to recover overpayment of benefits where there had been neither misrepresentation nor non-disclosure.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the court . .
Cited – Digicel (St Lucia) Ltd and Others v Cable and Wireless Plc and Others ChD 15-Apr-2010
The claimants alleged breaches of legislation by members of the group of companies named as defendants giving rise to claims in conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. In effect they had been denied the opportunity to make interconnections with . .
Cited – Mobilx Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs; Blue Sphere Global Ltd v Same and similar CA 12-May-2010
Each company sought repayment of input VAT. HMRC refused, saying that the transactions were the end-product of a fraud on it, and that even if the taxpayer did not know that a fraud was involved, it should have been aware that one was and acted . .
Cited – The Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 8-Dec-2010
The Action Group had obtained a declaration that, where an overpayment of benefits had arisen due to a miscalculation by the officers of the Department, any process of recovering the overpayment must be by the Act, and that the Department could not . .
Applied – The Racing Partnership Ltd and Others v Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Ltd and Others ChD 8-May-2019
Actions concerning the alleged infringement of the claimants’ rights in respect of data relating to horseracing. The claimant had provided horse race betting odds (Betting shows) to race course owners. A rival company had provided similar data to . .
Cited – The Racing Partnership Ltd and Others v Sports Information Services Ltd CA 9-Oct-2020
The court looked at the limitations: (1) the legal protection of sports data and other information which is not subject to traditional intellectual property rights; (2) the scope of an action under the equitable doctrine of breach of confidence or . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov SC 21-Mar-2018
A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Torts – Other, Customs and Excise, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.266167

McAllister (T/A Pallet Recycling Services) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Jun 2014

FTTTx CUSTOMS and EXCISE DUTIES – Hydrocarbon Oils – Vehicles legally seized for using rebated heavy oil as a road fuel and putting same in a road vehicle – whether contamination of DERV (Diesel Fuel for road use) by faulty supply line – no – whether unmitigated restoration fee disproportionate – no – Appeal dismissed.

Ruthven Gemmells TJ
[2014] UKFTT 629 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.533702

Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council: ECFI 20 May 2015

ECJ Judgment – Dumping – Imports of oxalic acid originating in India and China – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Community industry – Determination of injury – Article 9(4), Article 14(1) and Article 20(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 – Obligation to state reasons – Right to make representations – Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009

M.E. Martins Ribeiro (Rapporteur), P
T-310/12, [2015] EUECJ T-310/12, ECLI:EU:T:2015:295
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.547054

Varma, Regina v: SC 10 Oct 2012

The defendant had been convicted of offences under the 1979 Act, but then conditionally discharged. He had appealed against a confiscation order. The prosecutor now appealed against an order quashing the confiscation.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The answer lay in the important distinction between situations where the court was exercising a discretion, and where they were acting under a duty imposed upon them. The 2000 Act preserved the court’s powers to impose several forms of ancillary orders on granting a discharge, but the list did not include confiscation orders, but the power, if it existed must be derived from the 2002 Act. That Act had preconditions, but created no bar against a confiscation order, and indeed imposed a duty in that behalf. The question remained as to whether section 12 of the 2000 Act prevents the Court making such an order. The court in Clarke had held that ‘there is a general principle or rule of law that no punitive order may be made in conjunction with an absolute or conditional discharge unless (a) it is listed in section 12(7) of the 2000 Act’ However: ‘ the fact that there is no reference to a confiscation order in section 12(7) of the 2000 Act does not lead to the conclusion that Parliament intended that such an order could not stand with an absolute or conditional discharge.’
Lord Clarke said: ‘on the true construction of the 2002 Act is that the court remains under a duty to proceed under section 6 and, subject to the express terms of the section, must make an order. In the case in which the section 6 proceedings take place before the defendant is sentenced . . I can see no basis upon which it could be submitted to the court that no confiscation order should be made because it would be appropriate to give the defendant an absolute or conditional discharge. ‘
Lord Phillips added: ‘ Where the Customs seize goods that a defendant is seeking to bring into the country without paying duty it would be open to them to confiscate the goods, to prosecute the defendant and to exact the duty payable on them. It is, however, their practice, where they prosecute in such circumstances, not to seek to exact payment of the duty but to initiate confiscation proceedings in the amount of the duty payable instead. That is what they did in the case of Mr Varma. This practice may well be convenient, but I doubt whether it is legitimate.’

Lord Phillips, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson, Lord Reed
[2012] UKSC 42, UKSC 2010/0156, [2012] WLR (D) 270, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 89, [2013] 1 All ER 129, [2013] Crim LR 166, [2013] 2 Costs LO 224, [2013] 1 Cr App R 8, [2012] 3 WLR 776, [2013] 1 AC 463
Bailii, SC Summary, SC, Bailii Summary, WLRD
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(2)(a), Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 12, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 6 13 14 15
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hockey, Regina v CACD 12-Jun-2007
Where, as in common practice, the court proceeds to sentence before the confiscation proceedings under section 6 are held, the duty of the court to proceed under section 6 remains alive. . .
Appeal from – Regina v Magro CACD 8-Jul-2010
Each defendant appealed against confiscation orders made when the sentence imposed was an absolute or conditional discharge. They said that Clarke made such orders unlawful.
Held: The decision in Clarke was a difficult limitation on the . .
Criticised – Clarke v Regina CACD 12-Jun-2009
The defendant had pleaded guilty to concealing criminal property. He was conditionally discharged but also made subject to a confiscation order. He appealed saying that one could not be made if only a conditional discharge was imposed.
Held: . .
Cited – Taylor and another v Saycell KBD 1950
The respondents had been convicted by the magistrates of using a vehicle without insurance. They were fined and disqualified from holding a licence for 12 months. The Crown Court quashed their fines and disqualifications and substituted conditional . .
Cited – Dennis v Tame QBD 1954
The defendant had been given a conditional discharge, which had the effect under section 12(2) of avoiding disqualification. The prosecutor appealed by case stated.
Held: The conditional discharge was set aside. The Divisional Court had said . .
Cited – Regina v Smith (David Cadnam) HL 13-Dec-2001
Smith had bought a motor vessel, The Vertine, with andpound;55,000 provided by his co-defendant, John Marriott. In the words of the judge when imposing sentence, the respondent allowed himself to be used as Marriott’s ship owner and captain. The . .

Cited by:
Cited – Harvey, Regina v SC 16-Dec-2015
Police had discovered quantities of stolen goods at the appellant’s business premises. He was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and confiscation order made. He now appealed from the inclusion in that order of sums of VAT which had already been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.464769

Marwaha v UK Border Revenue Agency (Cash and Compensation Team): Admn 2 Nov 2017

Flower Arrangers’ poppy straws not controlled

The court was asked whether the definition of poppy straw in the 1971 Act applied to poppy head and poppy heads and stalks imported by the Appellant for use in flower arrangements.
Held: On the correct interpretation of the statutory definition of poppy straw the two consignments in issue did not comprise poppy straw because the relevant poppies had not been mown and so the relevant poppy heads (with and without stalks) were not parts of the poppy after mowing. Rather, they had been harvested or picked with care in a way that preserved those heads for use for ornamental or decorative purpose, including floristry.

Charles J
[2017] EWHC 2321 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 727
Bailii, WLRD
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Crime

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.599411

Sia Kurcums Metal v Valsts Ienemumu Dienests: ECJ 15 Nov 2012

ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – ‘Taifun’ composite cables manufactured in Russia, made of polypropylene and steel thread – Corrugated clips with rounded tips connected by means of a pin – Anti-dumping duties on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey

L Bay Larsen
C-558/11, [2012] EUECJ C-558/11
Bailii
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.466010

Massey v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Nov 2014

Excise Duty – tobacco imports – whether for private use – condemnation not contested – whether appeal competent – No – Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, Schedule 3 para 5 – Rule 8(2)(a) and (3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 – Strike-out application granted

[2014] UKFTT 1043 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.539426

Muniz v Commission: ECJ 18 Dec 2008

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to a meeting of the Working Group of the ‘Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature Section (Mechanical/Miscellaneous)’ of the Customs Code Committee – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process

[2008] EUECJ T-144/05
Bailii
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.666508

Evroetil v Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’: ECJ 21 Dec 2011

evroetilECJ2012

ECJ Directive 2003/30/EC – Article 2(2)(a) – Concept of bioethanol – Product obtained from biomass, undenatured and with an ethyl alcohol content of over 98.5% – Relevance of actual use as a biofuel – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Combined Nomenclature – Tariff classification of bioethanol for the purpose of collecting excise duties – Directive 2003/96/EC – Energy products – Directive 92/83/EEC – First indent of Article 20 and Article 27(1)(a) and (b) – Concept of ethyl alcohol – Exemption from the harmonised duty – Denaturing)

C-503/10, [2011] EUECJ C-503/10
Bailii
Directive 2003/30/EC 2(2)(a), Directive 92/83/EEC

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.452815

Zorkova v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Feb 2014

FTTTX PROCEDURE – application to strike out appeal against a refusal to restore a vehicle – appeal out of time – test in Data Select applied – application granted and proceedings struck out

Peter Kempster J
[2014] UKFTT 196 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Dominic O’Flaherty v HMRC UTTC 4-Apr-2013
UTTC Procedure – appeal out of time – whether First-tier Tribunal applied the correct approach in considering whether appellant had a reasonable excuse – discretion at large – all relevant factors and . .
Cited – Data Select v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 1-Jun-2012
UTLC VALUE ADDED TAX – application to First-tier Tribunal for extension of time to appeal under section 83G(1) and (6) of Value Added Tax Act 1994 – legal test to be applied to application for extension of time – . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.521814

X v Staatssecretaris Van Financien (Judgment): ECJ 27 Apr 2016

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common Customs Tariff – Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 – Article 3 – Relief from import duties – Personal property – Transfer of residence from a third country to a Member State – Definition of ‘normal place of residence’ – Impossible to have at the same time a normal place of residence in a Member State and in a third country – Criteria for determining the normal place of residence

C-528/14, [2016] EUECJ C-528/14
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 3

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.563106

Hewlett-Packard Europe Bv v Inspecteur Van De Belastingdienst: ECJ 17 Jan 2013

hpe_ivdbECJ2013

ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Tariff classification – Multifunctional printers combining a laser printing module and a scanning module, with a copying function – CN code 8443 31 91 – Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008

Mengozzi AG
C-361/11, [2013] EUECJ C-361/11
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.470203

Metro Cash and Carry Danmark Aps v Skatteministeriet: ECJ 18 Jul 2013

ECJ Excise duty – Directive 92/12/EEC – Articles 7 to 9 – Directive 2008/118/EC – Articles 32 to 34 – Intra-Community movement of products subject to excise – Regulation (EEC) No 3649/92 – Articles 1 and 4 – Simplified accompanying document – Copy 1 – ‘Cash and carry’ business – Products released for consumption in a Member State and held for commercial purposes in another Member State or products acquired by private individuals for their own use and transported by them – Spirits – No obligation on the supplier to check

Jarasiunas P
C-315/12, [2013] EUECJ C-315/12
Bailii
Directive 92/12/EEC 7 8 9, Directive 2008/118/EC 32 33 34, Regulation (EEC) No 3649/92 1 4
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.513414

Revenue 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 grant the original appeal was limited, and that the decision was out of its jurisdiction since the goods and vehicle were, after the withdrawal of their notice of claim, deemed to have been duly condemned and forfeited.
Held: HMRC’s appeal succeeded.
Mummery LJ said: ‘the FTT had no power to re-open and re-determine the question whether or not the seized goods had been legally imported for the respondents’ personal use; that question was already the subject of a valid and binding deemed determination under the 1979 Act; the deeming was the consequence of the respondents’ own decision to withdraw their notice of claim contesting the condemnation and forfeiture of the goods and the car in the courts; the FTT only had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a review decision made by HMRC on the deemed basis of the unchallenged process of forfeiture and condemnation; and the appellate jurisdiction of the FTT was confined to the correctness or otherwise of the discretionary review decision not to restore the seized goods and car.’
‘On the question of Convention compliance, there is no problem with either the condemnation procedure and the restoration procedure. Both procedures are available to the owner of the goods when they are seized. Both are clear in their terms. If the owner wishes to challenge the condemnation of the goods as forfeit, the notice of claim court hearing procedure is available: if he simply wishes to challenge the refusal to restore the goods, the appeal tribunal hearing procedure is available.’

Mummery, Moore-Bick, Jackson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 824, [2012] 2 WLR 544, [2011] STC 2206, [2012] Ch 414, [2012] 1 All ER 470
Bailii
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, European Convention on Human Rights 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others CA 11-Apr-2003
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and . .
Appeal from – HM Revenue and Customs v Lawrence and Joan Jones UTTC 15-Jan-2010
UTTC EXCISE DUTY – RESTORATION OF EXCISE GOODS AND VEHICLE – Jurisdiction of Tribunal – Deemed forfeiture – Did the Tribunal err in law in accepting jurisdiction on lawfulness of seizure and or underlying facts . .
At FTTTx – Jones v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 18-Jun-2009
FTTTx EXCISE GOODS RESTORATION – VEHICLE RESTORATION – own use? – yes – appeal allowed. . .
Cited – Gascoyne v Customs and Excise and Another CA 28-Jul-2004
The Commissioners had found what they considered to be an excess of dutiable goods brought into the country by the tax payer, and had forfeited the car. The court considered the effect of the Gora case.
Held: The difficult statements in Gora . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Customs and Excise v Weller ChD 23-Feb-2006
A statutory rationalisation of the procedure governing the forfeiture of goods by HMRC was urgently required as the present system is so confusing to the public and pregnant with the possibility of substantial injustice. . .
Cited – Customs and Excise v Smith ChD 9-Nov-2005
Lewison J cited the case of Gascoyne saying that it was clear that ‘in the run-of-the-mill case where there has been a failure to give a paragraph 3 notice invoking the condemnation proceedings, the deeming provision will indeed operate against the . .

Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Revenue 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, Human Rights

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.441888

Van 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 charges having an equivalent effect’. Van Gend challenged the action of the Dutch authorities before an administrative tribunal. The tribunal, in a reference under Art.177 [Art.234] EC, asked the question ‘whether the Art.12 [Art.25] EC had an internal effect . . in other words, whether the nationals of MS may, on the basis of the Article in question, enforce rights which the judge should protect’. The Dutch authorities argued that the obligations in Art.12EC were addressed to MS and intended to govern rights and obligations between States. Such obligations were not normally enforceable at the suit of individuals (i.e. not directly effective).
Held: ‘the Treaty is more than an agreement creating only mutual obligations between the contracting parties . . Community law . . not only imposes obligations on individuals but also confers on them legal rights’
‘If the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. ‘If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.’ and ‘The wording of Article 12 contains a clear and unconditional prohibition which is not a positive but a negative obligation. This obligation, moreover, is not qualified by any reservation on the part of the states which would make its implementation conditional upon a positive legislative measure enacted under national law. The very nature of this prohibition makes it ideally adapted to produce direct effects in the legal relationship between Member States and their subjects.’
ECJ 1. In order to confer jurisdiction on the court to give a preliminary ruling it is necessary only that the question raised should clearly be concerned with the interpretation of the treaty.
2. The considerations which may have led a national court to its choice of questions as well as the relevance which it attributes to such questions in the context of a case before it are excluded from review by the court when hearing an application for a preliminary ruling.
3. The European Economic Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only the member states but also their nationals.
Independently of the legislation of member states, community law not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the community.
4. The fact that articles 169 and 170 of the EEC Treaty enable the commission and the member states to bring before the court a state which has not fulfilled its obligations does not deprive individuals of the right to plead the same obligations, should the occasion arise, before a national court.
5. According to the spirit, the general scheme and the wording of the EEC Treaty, article 12 must be interpreted as producing direct effects and creating individual rights which national courts must protect.
6. It follows from the wording and the general scheme of article 12 of the treaty that, in order to ascertain whether customs duties and charges having equivalent effect have been increased contrary to the prohibition contained in the said article, regard must be had to the customs duties and charges actually applied by member states at the date of the entry into force of the treaty.
7. Where, after the entry into force of the treaty, the same product is charged with a higher rate of duty, irrespective of whether this increase arises from an actual increase of the rate of customs duty or from a rearrangement of the tariff resulting in the classification of the product under a more highly taxed heading, such increase is illegal under article 12 of the EEC Treaty.

C-26/62, [1963] ECR 1, [1963] EUECJ R-26/62, (1963) 2 CMLR 128
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex Parte International Trader’s Ferry Limited HL 2-Apr-1998
Chief Constable has a Wide Discretion on Resources
Protesters sought to prevent the appellant’s lawful trade exporting live animals. The police provided assistance, but then restricted it, pleading lack of resources. The appellants complained that this infringed their freedom of exports under . .
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Van 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 . .
Cited – HP Bulmer Ltd and Another v J Bollinger Sa and others CA 22-May-1974
Necessity for Reference to ECJ
Lord Denning said that the test for whether a question should be referred to the European Court of Justice is one of necessity, not desirability or convenience. There are cases where the point, if decided one way, would shorten the trial greatly. . .
Cited – Miller and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting The European Union SC 24-Jan-2017
Parliament’s Approval if statute rights affected
In a referendum, the people had voted to leave the European Union. That would require a notice to the Union under Article 50 TEU. The Secretary of State appealed against an order requiring Parliamentary approval before issuing the notice, he saying . .
Cited – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc ChD 4-Oct-2017
EC has sole jurisdiction over old cartels
Several claimants alleged that the defendant airway had been part of a cartel which had overcharged for freight services. The court now heard arguments about whether it had jurisdition to deal with claims which preceded the measures which had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.131662

Revenue 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 remitted

Warren J P
[2014] UKUT 331 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Revenue 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.534524

Phil Holden Fasteners Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Sep 2013

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTIES – Anti-Dumping Duty – goods ordered before announcement of Commission investigation but imported after announcement – incorrect commodity code on entry advice – art 239 EU Customs Code (Council Regulation 2913/92) – whether retrospective or unfair – whether a ‘special situation’ within art 239 – appeal dismissed

[2013] UKFTT 474 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.515561

Martland v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs (Tax): UTTC 1 Jun 2018

Exercise of Discretion to hear Late Appeals

Excise Duty – assessment to duty and wrongdoing penalty – application for permission to make late appeal – test to be applied – appeal dismissed
The tribunal discussed the jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal to allow an appeal to be made after the statutory time limit: ‘In deciding whether or not to permit a late appeal, the FTT is exercising a discretion specifically and directly conferred on it by statute to permit an appeal to come into existence at all. It is not exercising some case management discretion in the conduct of an extant appeal. . . it is not appropriate to regard the exercise of the discretion as involving a direct application of Rule 2 of the FTT Rules (Rule 2 being concerned with ‘dealing with a case fairly and justly’ in relation to the various procedural matters identified in it – i.e. once proceedings have been properly commenced before the FTT). Nor, it will be noted, does Rule 20 apply to such matters (merely requiring that a late notice of appeal must contain a request for permission pursuant to the relevant enactment, and stating that the appeal must not be admitted unless permission is granted). That said, as will become apparent below, the principle embodied in the overriding objective is a broad one, and one which applies just as much to the exercise of a judicial discretion of the type involved in this appeal as it does to the exercise of such a discretion in relation to more routine procedural matters.’

[2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Romasave (Property Services) Ltd v Revenue and Customs UTTC 27-May-2015
Existence of Discretion to hear late Appeal
VAT – whether assessments were duly notified to the taxpayer – VATA 1994, s 73(2), s 83G and s 98 – Interpretation Act, s 7 – Companies Act 2006, s 1139(1) – whether notification of assessment invalidated by error on the face of the notice of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Moss, Executor of David Owen (Deceased) v Revenue and Customs (Whether To Give Permission for Late Appeal To Be Made To HMRC – Martland – Inheritance Tax) FTTTx 11-Nov-2019
PROCEDURE – whether to give permission for late appeal to be made to HMRC – Martland – Inheritance Tax . .
Cited – Swallow v Revenue and Customs (Late Appeal – Martland Considered) FTTTx 23-Jan-2020
LATE APPEAL – Martland considered – length of delay is serious and significant – no good reason for delay – in all the circumstances fairness and justice do not support an extension of time — application refused . .
Cited – Murgasanu v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 10-Oct-2020
INCOME TAX – permission to make late appeal – finding of fact that appellant had not filed the return on paper within the time limit – relevant case law on late appeals considered and applied – permission refused . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.617298

Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners: HL 26 Jun 1973

Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist

The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their patents.
Held: Disclosure should be ordered. If someone, even innocently became involved in tortious acts committed by third parties, he became under a duty assist in discovery of the identity of the third party wrongdoers. How the information was acquired was not relevant. Duties of confidence owed by taxation authorities could be overborne if necessary.
Lord Reid said: ‘So discovery to find the identity of a wrongdoer is available against anyone against whom the plaintiff has a cause of action in relation to the same wrong. It is not available against a person who has no other connection with the wrong than that he was a spectator or has some document relating to it in his possession. But the respondents are in an intermediate position. Their conduct was entirely innocent; it was in execution of their statutory duty. But without certain action on their part the infringements could never have been committed. Does this involvement in the matter make a difference?’ to which he answered ‘Yes’.
Referring to the authorities, he said: ‘They seem to me to point to a very reasonable principle that if through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrongdoing he may incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers. I do not think that it matters whether he became so mixed up by voluntary action on his part or because it was his duty to do what he did. It may be that if this causes him expense the person seeking the information ought to reimburse him. But justice requires that he should co-operate in righting the wrong if he unwittingly facilitated its perpetration.
I am the more inclined to reach this result because it is clear that if the person mixed up in the affair has to any extent incurred any liability to the person wronged, he must make full disclosure even though the person wronged has no intention of proceeding against him. It would I think be quite illogical to make his obligation to disclose the identity of the real offenders depend on whether or not he has himself incurred some minor liability. I would therefore hold that the respondents must disclose the information now sought unless there is some consideration of public policy which prevents that.’
Lord Kilbrandon: ‘There is no suggestion that in so doing he is pretending to exercise any right of relief against the discoverers.
In my opinion, accordingly, the respondents, in consequence of the relationship in which they stand, arising out of their statutory functions, to the goods imported, can properly be ordered by the court to disclose to the appellants the names of persons whom the appellants bona fide believe to be infringing these rights, this being their only practicable source of information as to whom they should sue, subject to any special right of exception which the respondents may qualify in respect of their position as a department of state. It has to be conceded that there is no direct precedent for the granting of such an application in the precise circumstances of this case, but such an exercise of the power of the court seems to be well within broad principles authoritatively laid down. That exercise will always be subject to judicial discretion, and it may well be that the reason for the limitation in practice on what may be a wider power to order discovery, to any case in which the defendant has been ‘mixed up with the transaction’, to use Lord Romilly’s words, or ‘stands in some relation’ to the goods, within the meaning of the decision in Post v Toledo, Cincinnati and St Louis Railroad Co (1887) 11 NERep 540, is that that is the way in which judicial discretion ought to be exercised.’
Viscount Dilhorne referred to the antiquity of the mere witness rule and considered the principle of whether disclosure could be ordered in the case before him: ‘discovery can be granted against a person who is not a mere witness to discover, the fact of some wrongdoing being established, who was responsible for it. The ‘mere witness’ rule has lost a great deal of its importance since the Common Law Procedure Act removed the bar to persons interested giving evidence, but it still has significance. Someone involved in the transaction is not a mere witness. If he could be sued, even though there be no intention of suing him, he is not a mere witness . . Are the respondents to be regarded as so involved in this case? I think the answer is yes.’

Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Cross of Chelsea and Lord Kilbrandon
[1974] AC 133, [1973] 3 WLR 164, [1973] 2 All ER 943, [1973] UKHL 6, [1974] RPC 101, [1973] FSR 365
lip, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Post v Toledo, Cincinnati and St Louis Railroad Co 1887
Powers of discovery where third party is involved in some way in the matters underlying the issue. . .
Applied – Orr v Diaper 1876
The plaintiff had a cause of action against the defendant and sought discovery of the name of a third party known to the defendant so that that third party could be joined in. ‘In this case the Plaintiffs do not know, and cannot discover, who the . .
Applied – Upmann v Elkan CA 5-Jun-1871
The defendant freight forwarding agent was innocently in possession of consignments of counterfeit cigars in transit to Germany through a London dock. The action was not for discovery, but for an order restraining the forwarder from releasing the . .
At First Instance – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners ChD 1972
The court considered an application for an order that the other party identify third party wrong-doers. . .
Appeal from (reversed) – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 2-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs sought discovery of the names of patent infringers from the defendant third party, submitting that by analogy with trade mark and passing-off cases, the Customs could be ordered to give discovery of the names.
Held: Buckley LJ . .

Cited by:
Cited – Camelot Group plc v Centaur Communications Limited CA 23-Oct-1997
An order for a journalist to disclose the name of an employee disclosing his employer’s information, may be made where there was a need to identify a disloyal employee. Here drafts of accounts had been released to embarrass the company. The . .
Cited – Totalise Plc v The Motley Fool Limited and Interative Investor Limited (2) CA 19-Dec-2001
The respondent operated a web site which contained a chat room. Defamatory remarks were made by a third party through the chat room, and the claimant sought details of the identity of the poster. The respondent refused to do so without a court . .
Cited – Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc and Others ChD 6-Feb-2002
Where an innocent party had been joined in an action in order to ensure proper discovery, he should be excused from the action once he had complied with the discovery required. It would be wrong to continue his involvement against an unsupported . .
Cited – Financial Times Ltd and others v Interbrew SA CA 8-Mar-2002
The appellants appealed against orders for delivery up of papers belonging to the claimant. The paper was a market sensitive report which had been stolen and doctored before being handed to the appellant.
Held: The Ashworth Hospital case . .
Applied – Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Limited HL 27-Jun-2002
Order for Journalist to Disclose Sources
The newspaper published details of the medical records of Ian Brady, a prisoner and patient of the applicant. The applicant sought an order requiring the defendant newspaper to disclose the identity of the source of material which appeared to have . .
Cited – Arsenal Football Club plc and Others v Elte Sports Distribution Ltd ChD 10-Dec-2002
The claimant alleged that the respondent had unlawfully made use of photographs of its footballers in a calendar. The respondent asked the court to strike out the claim as merely speculative, and the claimant sought pre-action disclosure.
Cited – British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd HL 7-May-1980
The defendant had broadcast a TV programme using material confidential to the plaintiff, who now sought disclosure of the identity of the presumed thief.
Held: (Lord Salmon dissenting) The courts have never recognised a public interest right . .
Followed – Loose v Williamson 1978
. .
Followed – RCA Corporation v Reddingtons Rare Records 1974
Interlocutory relief on the basis of the Norwich Pharmacal principle could be ordered, for example, on motion. . .
Cited – British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd CA 7-May-1980
Lord Denning MR said that the Norwich Pharmacal case opened ‘a new chapter in our law’ and ‘Mr Irvine suggested this was limited to cases where the injured person desired to sue the wrongdoer. I see no reason why it should be so limited. The same . .
Cited – P v T Limited 1997
The jurisdiction under Norwich Pharmacal is not confined to circumstances where there has been tortious wrongdoing and is now available where there has been contractual wrongdoing. . .
Cited – Carlton Film Distributors Ltd v VCI Plc 2003
. .
Cited – Mitsui and Co Ltd v Nexen Petroleum UK Ltd ChD 29-Apr-2005
Mitsui sought disclosure of documents from a third party under the rules in Norwich Pharmacal.
Held: Such relief was available ‘where the claimant requires the disclosure of crucial information in order to be able to bring its claim or where . .
Cited – CHC Software Care v Hopkins and Wood 1993
The jurisdiction to require discovery of documents from a third party is not restricted to seeking information from an innocent third party. The third party may himself be one of the wrongdoers. . .
Cited – Aoot Kalmneft v Denton Wilde Sapte (A Firm) Merc 29-Oct-2001
The court ordered relief by way of disclosure against a third party: ‘In Norwich Pharmacal the information required was the identity of the wrongdoer (the applicant knew what wrong had been done but not who had done it) but I see no reason why the . .
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd QBD 7-Feb-2006
The trust, operators of Ashworth Secure Hospital sought from the defendant journalist disclosure of the name of their employee who had revealed to the defendant matters about the holding of Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, and in particular medical . .
Cited – Microsoft Corporation v Ling and others ChD 3-Jul-2006
The claimant sought damages against the respondent for various infringements in sales of unlicensed products, and also additional damages. The defendant argued that Microsoft’s licensing arrangements acted anti-competively.
Held: ‘the . .
Cited – Hughes v Carratu International Plc QBD 19-Jul-2006
The claimant wished to bring an action against the defendant enquiry agent, saying that it had obtained unlawful access to details of his bank accounts, and now sought disclosure of documents. The defendant denied wrongdoing, and said it had . .
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd CA 21-Feb-2007
The defendant journalist had published confidential material obtained from the claimant’s secure hospital at Ashworth. The hospital now appealed against the refusal of an order for him to to disclose his source.
Held: The appeal failed. Given . .
Cited – Dobson and Dobson v North Tyneside Health Authority and Newcastle Health Authority CA 26-Jun-1996
A post mortem had been carried out by the defendants. The claimants, her grandmother and child sought damages after it was discovered that not all body parts had been returned for burial, some being retained instead for medical research. They now . .
Cited – Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Ltd and others v Hargreaves QBD 18-Oct-2007
The defendant operated a web forum in which posters posted defamatory messages about the claimants. The claimants sought an order disclosing the contact details of the members of the forum. The owner of the forum said he had undertaken not to . .
Cited – Smith v ADVFN Plc QBD 13-Mar-2008
Order re case management application. The claimant said he had been defamed on an internet forum run by the defendants, and sought orders for disclosure of the identities of the posters to the website. The operator said that special software might . .
Cited – Smith v ADVFN Plc CA 15-Apr-2008
The claimant complained of defamation on internet bulletin boards. He made an application to require the forum operator to disclose IP addresses and other information about posters under a Norwich Pharmacal order. Further applications were made for . .
Cited – Smith v ADVFN Plc and others QBD 25-Jul-2008
The claimant had brought multiple actions in defamation against anonymous posters on an online forum. The claimant sought to lift the stay which had been imposed because of the number of actions. The claimant had not yet paid outstanding costs . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
Cited – Banker’s Trust v Shapira CA 1980
Enforcement through innocent third party bank
Two forged cheques, each for USD500,000, had been presented by two men and as a result USD1,000,000 had been transferred to accounts in their names. The plaintiff sought to trace assets through the banks involved.
Held: The court approved the . .
Cited – Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim and On (No.5) 1992
The rule in Norwich Pharmacal does not provide a general right of discovery. Hoffman J cited Lord Reid in Norwich Pharmacal and said: ‘The reference to ‘full information’ has sometimes led to an assumption that any person who has become mixed up in . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
Cited – Financial Times Ltd and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2009
The claimants said that an order that they deliver up documents leaked to them regarding a possible takeover violated their right to freedom of expression. They complained that such disclosure might lead to the identification of journalistic . .
Cited – United Company Rusal Plc and Others v HSBC Bank Plc and Others QBD 1-Mar-2011
The claimants sought an order for discovery here from a third party of documents required to support proposed litigation in Russia.
Held: Tugendhat J said: ‘the court [has] to be as satisfied as it can be, having regard to the limitations . .
Cited – The Rugby Football Union v Viagogo Ltd QBD 30-Mar-2011
The claimant objected to the resale through the defendant of tickets to matches held at the Twickenham Stadium. The tickets contained terms disallowing resales at prices over the face value. They sought orders for the disclosure of the names of the . .
Cited – The President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Bank of Scotland International PC 27-Feb-2006
(Guernsey) Lord Bingham said: ‘Norwich Pharmacal relief exists to assist those who have been wronged but do not know by whom. If they have straight forward and available means of finding out, then it will not be reasonable to achieve that end by . .
Cited – Media Cat Ltd v Adams and Others PCC 18-Apr-2011
The claimants had begun copyright infringement cases. Having been refused a request to be allowed to withdraw the cases as an abuse, their solicitors now faced an application for a wasted costs order.
Held: The court only has jurisdiction to . .
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Admn 20-Apr-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of legislative provisions requiring Internet Service Providers to become involved in regulation of copyright infringements by its subscribers. They asserted that the Act and proposed Order were contrary to . .
Cited – The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd SC 21-Nov-2012
The Union challenged the right of the respondent to resell tickets to international rugby matches. The tickets were subject to a condition rendering it void on any resale at above face value. They said that the respondent had advertised tickets in . .
Cited – Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others ChD 12-Jul-2013
The claimants sought disclosure by the police of information relating to the phone hacking activities said to have been conducted by journalists engaged by the first defendant newspaper. They were wanting to make claims against the respondent, but . .
Cited – Cartier International Ag and Others v British Telecommunications Plc and Another SC 13-Jun-2018
The respondent ISP companies had been injuncted to stop the transmission of websites which infringed the trade mark rights of the claimants. The ISPs now appealed from the element of the order that they pay the claimants’ costs of implementing the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Information, Customs and Excise

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.174124

Directeur General Des Douanes Et Droits Indirects v Harry Winston Sarl: ECJ 11 Jul 2013

dgddedi_hwsECJ072013

ECJ Community Customs Code – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Article 206 – Incurrence of a customs debt – Theft of goods placed under customs warehousing arrangements – Notion of ‘irretrievable loss of goods as a result of force majeure’- Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 71 – Value added tax – Chargeable event – Chargeability of tax

R. Silva de Lapuerta, P
C-273/12, [2013] EUECJ C-273/12
Bailii
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 206, Directive 2006/112/EC 71

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.512337

Matalan Retail Ltd v Revenue and Customs: ChD 5 Aug 2009

The taxpayer imported swimwear for sale. The respondent had incorrectly indicated that such swimwear had one classification. The claimant sought to prevent the respondent reclassifying the goods, saying that they had made given binding tariff information. It depended on the proportion of rubber in the suits. The respondent viewed the calculation differently.
Held: the commissioners were not prevented by estoppel or abuse from retaining the monetary difference between the correct higher rates paid and the sums which would have been due under the original lower classification.
The Binding Tariff Information system could only apply to goods of the precise description applied. It could not apply to different but similar lines: ‘A Regulation is legislative in character and of general application. A BTI is specific to an individual and can only be relied upon by the holder in respect of goods corresponding in every respect with those described in it. Regulation 651/2007 does not contain the limiting provisions as to its application specified by the Code in respect of BTIs.’ A tribunal’s decision on a rate of tax for one year is not binding for subsequent years, but where a court has settled an issue of fact as between parties, they are estopped from later arguing inconsistently. A tribunal determining a rate of applicable tax is not so bound.

Christopher Clarke J
[2009] EWHC 2046 (Ch), Times 21-Oct-2009, [2010] Bus LR D25, [2009] STC 2638
Bailii
Council Regulation 2913/92
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Vtech Electronics (UK) Plc v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 29-Jan-2003
. .
Cited – Krings GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nurnberg ECJ 4-Mar-2004
Europa Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Tariff heading – Preparation with a basis of extract of tea. . .
Cited – Caffoor v Columbo Income Tax Commissioner PC 1961
Taxation and rating decisions are sui generis. Lord Radcliffe said: ‘The critical thing is that the dispute which alone can be determined by any decision given in the course of these proceedings is limited to one subject only, the amount of the . .
Cited – Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd v Broken Hill Municipal Council PC 10-Nov-1925
A decision of the High Court of Australia on the construction of a section of a statute dealing with rating value did not estop the parties from relitigating the issue on a subsequent year’s assessment. . .
Cited – Society of Medical Officers of Health v Hope HL 1960
A local valuation court had decided in 1951 that the Society’s land was exempt from rates under section 1 of the 1843 Act. The exemption was conditional on certain facts relating to the Society and its purpose in occupying the building. In 1956 the . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v DFS Furniture Company Plc CA 6-Dec-2002
. .
Cited – Specialist Group International Ltd v Deakin and Another CA 23-May-2001
Law upon res judicata – action estoppel and issue estoppel and the underlying policy interest whereby there is finality in litigation and litigants are not vexed twice on the same matter.
(May LJ) ‘the authorities taken as a whole tend to . .
Cited – Hoysted v Federal Taxation Commissioner PC 1926
An implied decision of the High Court on the true construction of a will estopped the parties from contending for a different construction relating to a later year’s assessment. . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – In re Vandervell’s Trusts (No 1); Vandervell Trustees Limited v White and Others HL 15-Jul-1970
Practice – Parties – Joinder – Proceedings between subjects raising issues material to income tax – Joinder of Commissioners of Inland Revenue – Income Tax Act 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2, c.10), ss. 52 and 64 ; Income Tax Management Act . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Taxes Management, Estoppel, European

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.371884

Revenue and Customs v Ag Villodre Sl: UTTC 7 Apr 2016

UTTC Customs duty – Customs Community Code, Arts. 5, 221 – import of garlic declared to be of Indian origin – HMRC contended that garlic was of Chinese origin resulting in higher duty payable – post clearance demand for import duty – whether communicated to importer – whether posting letter sufficient communication if letter not received – whether communication to customs clearance agent sufficient – whether time limit for communication of 3 years pursuant to Art. 221(3) – whether arguable that HMRC could rely on Art. 221(4) of Community Customs Code to override time limit where alleged criminal act – permission to HMRC to amend pleading

[2016] UKUT 166 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.562435

Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another: SC 8 May 2014

Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver

‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as management receiver of the assets of a group of companies referred to as Eastenders on the application of CPS. The order was made under section 48 of the 2002 Act but was quashed on appeal.’
Held: The Receiver’s appeal against the refusal of the court to order payment by CPS succeeded.
At common law, a receiver was entitled to his costs from the estate under receivership, howver the issue here was as to whether the order was proportionate in this case under A1P1. The taking of property without compensation is, in general, a disproportionate interference with A1. In this case the company was not a defendant, and nor were the assets those of the defendant.
The Receiver having acted under appointent of and by agreement with the CPS, they were responsible.

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2014] UKSC 26, [2014] WLR(D) 194, [2014] 2 WLR 1269, UKSC 2013/0006
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary, SC
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, European Convention on Human Rights P1 A1
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs Admn 4-Nov-2010
Applications for judicial review in relation to alcoholic goods detained by the Defendants on grounds of a suspicion that duty may not have been paid in respect of them.
Sales J said: ‘In my view, there is a clear reason why Parliament wished . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 29-Dec-2010
FTTTx Excise Duty – warehouse – application for registration as an owner of goods under Warehousekeepers and Owners of Goods Regulations 1999 (‘WOWGR’) – whether decision of HMRC could reasonably have been . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v South Western Magistrates’ Court Admn 22-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions by the magistrates first to issue search warrants, and then to refuse to disclose the information on which it had been based.
Held: The documentation now having been disclosed the second part of . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 20-Jan-2012
The Court considered the lawfulness of the exercise of the power claimed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise (HMRC) to detain goods temporarily for the purpose of investigating their status. . .
See also – First Stop Wholesale Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 27-Mar-2012
The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s decisions to seize and detain alcoholic drinks from his business premises.
Held: Goods could not lawfully be detained under section 139(1) for the purpose of ascertaining whether the power . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 27-Mar-2012
FTTTx Procedure – costs – application for costs out of time – whether discretion to entertain an application should be exercised – Rule 5 (3) (a) Tribunal Rules 2009 – whether direction should be made to apply . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA 22-May-2012
The appellants had succeeded in resisting proceedings commenced by the respondents for the seizure of goods. The respondent now argued that costs should not follow the event, asserting a statutory bar. The appellant additionally argued that any such . .
See Also – First Stop Wholesale Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 16-Jul-2012
The applicant challenged the court’s refusal to pay its costs after a finding that the seizure of goods by the respondent had been unlawful. The defendant argued that section 144 of the 1979 Act protected it against such an order.
Held: . .
See Also – First Stop Wholesale Ltd R (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 5-Oct-2012
Claim for judicial review of various seizure notices issued by the defendants. The question was whether a statement in the notices that ‘no evidence of UK duty payment has been provided’ was a sufficient statement of the grounds for seizing the . .
See Also – Crown Prosecution Service v The Eastenders Group and Another CACD 23-Nov-2012
‘application by the CPS for permission to appeal against . . orders made . . in the Central Criminal Court on 8 May 2012. I use the expression ‘in form’ because as will appear there are issues as to the jurisdiction of the court. The case raises . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v First Stop Wholesale Ltd and Another CA 12-Mar-2013
‘Appeals . . against orders . . arising out of the detention . . by HMRC of large quantities of alcohol from the warehouse and other premises of First Stop, the respondent to the first two appeals and the appellant in the third. At the time the . .
Cited – Capewell v Commissioners for HM Customs and Excise and Sinclair CA 2-Dec-2004
The court approved guidelines for the appointment and remuneration of a receiver appointed under the 1988 Act. . .
Cited – Capewell v Revenue and Customs and Another HL 31-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed against an order regarding the remuneration of a receiver appointed to administer a restraint order placed on the assets of the defendant under the 1988 Act on the basis of an allegation that the defendant had been involved in . .
Cited – Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd HL 15-Jun-1942
A contract for the supply by the respondents of special machinery to be manufactured by them was treated as an ordinary contract for the sale of goods. It began valid, but suffered frustration by the outbreak of war.
Held: Lord Wright restated . .
Cited – Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 23-Sep-1982
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
(Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years.
Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct . .
Cited – James and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
Cited – Raimondo v Italy ECHR 22-Feb-1994
The applicant was arrested and placed under house arrest on charges relating to his association with the Mafia. As an interim measure some of his property was seized. The proceedings ended in his acquittal. He claimed that the seizure of his . .
Cited – Benham v United Kingdom ECHR 8-Feb-1995
Legal Aid was wrongfully refused where a tax or fine defaulter was liable to imprisonment, and the lack of a proper means enquiry, made imprisonment of poll tax defaulter unlawful. A poll tax defaulter had been wrongly committed to prison by . .
Cited – In Re Andrews CA 25-Feb-1999
The defendant and his son had been charged with offences relating to their joint business, and restraint orders were made. The son was convicted, but the defendant was acquitted and awarded his costs out of central funds. The taxing officer held . .
Cited – Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd 6-Dec-2001
High Court of Australia – Rothmans were licensed to act as wholesalers of tobacco products under a New South Wales statute. They sold products to retailers for a price including licence fees, which were in reality a form of indirect taxation, . .
Cited – Hughes and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise etc CA 20-May-2002
N was charged with VAT fraud. He was the joint owner of a company with his brother T each holding 50% of the shares. T was never charged. A restraint and receivership order was made against N, preventing the company from dealing in any way with its . .
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v Compton, Comptons of Brighton Limited, Coyne, Compton CA 27-Nov-2002
Appeal against refusal of restraint order.
Held: It is enough that on the documents a good arguable case arises for treating the relevant assets as the realisable property of the defendant.
Lord Justice Simon Brown said: ‘All that I . .
Cited – Frizen v Russia ECHR 24-Mar-2005
Violation of P1-1. A confiscation order made by a Russian criminal court was unlawful and involved a violation of the applicant’s rights under A1P1. The husband was convicted of fraud. She was not herself charged with any criminal offence. After his . .
Cited – Stanford International Bank Ltd, Re CA 25-Feb-2010
Hughes LJ said: ‘it is essential that the duty of candour laid upon any applicant for an order without notice is fully understood and complied with. It is not limited to a duty not to misrepresent. It consists in a duty to consider what any other . .
Cited – Sinclair In her Capacity As the Former Receiver v Glatt Executors of Estate of Glatt and Glatt and Glatt CA 13-Mar-2009
The court considered the recovery of expenses by a receiver appointed to administer assets of money launderer. The receiver sought to exercise a lien over assets held for the prisoner by the prison to recover the costs of the receivership after the . .

Cited by:
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 11-Jun-2014
Alcoholic drinks had been seized by the respondents pending further enquiries with a view to a possible forfeiture, then held and returned but only under court order. The company had complained that the detention of the goods was unlawful. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Costs, Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.524663

Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: SC 11 Jun 2014

Alcoholic drinks had been seized by the respondents pending further enquiries with a view to a possible forfeiture, then held and returned but only under court order. The company had complained that the detention of the goods was unlawful. The Revenue appealed against an order upholding that complaint.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Section 139 allowed only for seizure of goods actually liable to forfeiture, but the appellants had a general ancillary power to detain goods in order to examine them and conduct an investigation to discover whether they were in fact liable to forfeiture. ‘ The right to seize or detain property under section 139(1) is dependent on that property actually being liable to forfeiture under one of the various forfeiture provisions of the Act. This turns on the objectively ascertained facts, and not on the beliefs or suspicions of the Commissioners or their officers, however reasonable. ‘
When Parliament created the power to detain goods liable to forfeiture, it did not by implication abolish the power of detention which had previously been held to arise by necessary implication from statutory powers of examination.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath
[2014] 4 All ER 1, [2014] WLR(D) 262, [2014] UKSC 34, [2015] 1 AC 1101, (2014) 178 JP 314, [2014] 2 Cr App R 26, [2014] STC 1741, [2014] 2 WLR 1580, [2014] BVC 30, UKSC 2012/0163
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 139(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs Admn 4-Nov-2010
Applications for judicial review in relation to alcoholic goods detained by the Defendants on grounds of a suspicion that duty may not have been paid in respect of them.
Sales J said: ‘In my view, there is a clear reason why Parliament wished . .
At FTTTx – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 29-Dec-2010
FTTTx Excise Duty – warehouse – application for registration as an owner of goods under Warehousekeepers and Owners of Goods Regulations 1999 (‘WOWGR’) – whether decision of HMRC could reasonably have been . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v South Western Magistrates’ Court Admn 22-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions by the magistrates first to issue search warrants, and then to refuse to disclose the information on which it had been based.
Held: The documentation now having been disclosed the second part of . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 20-Jan-2012
The Court considered the lawfulness of the exercise of the power claimed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise (HMRC) to detain goods temporarily for the purpose of investigating their status. . .
See Also – First Stop Wholesale Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 27-Mar-2012
The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s decisions to seize and detain alcoholic drinks from his business premises.
Held: Goods could not lawfully be detained under section 139(1) for the purpose of ascertaining whether the power . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 27-Mar-2012
FTTTx Procedure – costs – application for costs out of time – whether discretion to entertain an application should be exercised – Rule 5 (3) (a) Tribunal Rules 2009 – whether direction should be made to apply . .
Appeal from – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA 22-May-2012
The appellants had succeeded in resisting proceedings commenced by the respondents for the seizure of goods. The respondent now argued that costs should not follow the event, asserting a statutory bar. The appellant additionally argued that any such . .
See Also – First Stop Wholesale Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 16-Jul-2012
The applicant challenged the court’s refusal to pay its costs after a finding that the seizure of goods by the respondent had been unlawful. The defendant argued that section 144 of the 1979 Act protected it against such an order.
Held: . .
See Also – First Stop Wholesale Ltd R (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 5-Oct-2012
Claim for judicial review of various seizure notices issued by the defendants. The question was whether a statement in the notices that ‘no evidence of UK duty payment has been provided’ was a sufficient statement of the grounds for seizing the . .
See Also – Crown Prosecution Service v The Eastenders Group and Another CACD 23-Nov-2012
‘application by the CPS for permission to appeal against . . orders made . . in the Central Criminal Court on 8 May 2012. I use the expression ‘in form’ because as will appear there are issues as to the jurisdiction of the court. The case raises . .
Appeal from – HM Revenue and Customs v First Stop Wholesale Ltd and Another CA 12-Mar-2013
‘Appeals . . against orders . . arising out of the detention . . by HMRC of large quantities of alcohol from the warehouse and other premises of First Stop, the respondent to the first two appeals and the appellant in the third. At the time the . .
See Also – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
Cited – D O Ferguson and Associates v M Sohl CA 1992
A building contract was repudiated by the builders at a time when the works had been partly completed. The contract price was approximately andpound;32,000. At the time when the builders abandoned the site they had been paid over andpound;26,000 and . .
Cited – Sharma and Another v Simposh Ltd CA 23-Nov-2011
The parties created an oral (and therefore void) contract for a development, the claimants paid a deposit, expressed to be non-refundable, and the defendant builders completed the building work. The buyers backed out. The developer now appealed . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others CA 11-Apr-2003
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and . .
Cited – The Six Carpenters’ Case 1610
Resolved – 1. When an entry, authority, or licence, is given to any one by the law, and he abuses it, he shall be a trespasser ab initio: but not where the entry, authority, or licence, is given by the party. 2. An act of omission cannot make a . .
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.526417

HMRC v Europlus Trading Ltd FTC/38/2012: UTTC 1 Mar 2013

UTTC Excise Duty – reclaim of excise duty on exportation of beer – appeal from the FTT’s decision that HMRC had breached European law and the supplier’s human rights by undertaking extended verification of its claim for drawback of excise duty on beer warehoused for export – the effect of the FTT’s finding that the supplier had failed to satisfy the duty paid drawback condition by demonstrating that excise duty had previously been paid on the beer and had not been refunded – whether the supplier had legitimate expectations that HMRC would not undertake such extended verification in the light of HMRC’s existing policy – whether HMRC had changed its policy without notice to suppliers – whether the FTT had jurisdiction to consider the arguments on legitimate expectation and the European law points, or whether such claims were beyond the jurisdiction of the FTT under sections 14 and 16 of the Finance Act 1994.

[2013] UKUT 108 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.509178

Smouha v The Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 14 Apr 2015

FTTTx EXCISE – seizure of crocodile skin handbag – failure to obtain CITES import permit – Appellant advised by AHVLA that goods fell within Appendix 1 of CITES – retrospective permit applied for but refused – forfeiture of handbag – Border Force refusal to restore upheld on review – handbag in fact within Appendix II of CITES – further application for retrospective permit – further refusal by AHVLA – Border Force review decision confirmed – whether discretion fettered – held, yes – whether refusal to restore Wednesbury unreasonable – held, yes because of failure to take into account all relevant factors – whether decision proportionate under EU law and the Convention – held, no – appeal allowed and Directions given

[2015] UKFTT 147 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Animals

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.546591

TNT (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Jan 2011

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTY – importation of goods and their entry by the Appellant under the simplified inward processing relief procedure (SIPR) – declarations contained inaccurate information and there was a failure to comply with all the obligations relating to the entry of the goods under the SIPR – a customs debt on importation incurred pursuant to article 204(1) of the Community Customs Code Regulation 2913/92/EEC – a finding that the inaccurate information included in the declarations resulted from an attempted fraud by a person or persons unknown importing the goods and using the Appellant’s services to make the declarations – whether the Appellant was the debtor in relation to that customs debt – the circumstances to be considered in identifying the debtor in accordance with article 204(3) included the circumstance that the Appellant stated that it was acting in the name of or on behalf of another person without being empowered to do so – in consequence the Appellant was to be deemed to have acted in its own name and on its own behalf pursuant to article 5(4) – therefore the Appellant was the person who was required, according to the circumstances, to fulfil the relevant obligations and to comply with the relevant conditions and was the debtor in relation to the customs debt pursuant to article 204(3) – appeal dismissed

John Walters QC
[2011] UKFTT 38 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.442841

Oliver Jestel v Hauptzollamt Aachen: ECJ 17 Nov 2011

ojestel_HAECJ22012

ECJ Community Customs Code – Second indent of Article 202(3) – Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods – Meaning of ‘debtor’ – Participation in unlawful introduction – Person acting as intermediary in conclusion of contracts of sale relating to goods introduced unlawfully

J.N. Cunha Rodrigues P
[2011] EUECJ C-454/10, C-454/10
Bailii
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
Citing:
Opinion – Oliver Jestel v Hauptzollamt Aachen ECJ 14-Jul-2011
ECJ (Opinion) Customs union – Community Customs Code – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Birth of the customs debt – unlawful introduction of goods into the customs territory of the Union – Article 202 – Definition . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.470471

Infinis 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 taken no particular decision based upon any representation from te respondent which might have created a proper expectation. There had been no breach of European law principle of law as to forseeability, certainty of legitimate expectation.

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lloyd Jones, Sales LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1030, [2016] WLR(D) 549, [2017] QB 1221, [2016] STI 2777, [2017] STC 414, [2017] 2 CMLR 12, [2017] 2 WLR 194
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.570364

Race v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Sep 2013

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – assessment in relation to excise goods seized from the appellant – jurisdiction of the tribunal – Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Jones and Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 824 considered – application to strike out appeal – application refused

[2013] UKFTT 489 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.516304

Greenalls Management Ltd v Customs and Excise: HL 12 May 2005

Volumes of vodka were transferred from a secure warehouse to a carrier for export. They were diverted, and not exported and the Customs sought the unpaid duty from the warehouse. The Directive provided that duty was payable on the ‘release for consumption’ which in turn included ‘any departure, including irregular departure, from a suspension arrangement.’ The goods became dutiable but payment was suspended during transit to a port. Customs said that the alcohol became dutiable once they were diverted.
Held: The Regulations clearly provided for the warehouse keeper to be the person liable for the duty. It was not possible to read into the Regulations an implication of the duty becoming payable only when goods were released to consumers from the warehouse. Appeal allowed. Lord Walker Of Gestingthorpe: If Parliament is to impose fiscal liabilities which might be regarded as draconian it should do so in terms which, fairly construed, are reasonably clear. The 1992 Regulations are remarkably obscure. However the warehousekeeper, though apparently innocent of blame had to pay the tax.

Lord Nicholls Of Birkenhead Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Hope Of Craighead Lord Walker Of Gestingthorpe
[2005] UKHL 34, Times 16-May-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 1754
Bailii, House of Lords
Council Directive (92/12/EEC) of 25 February 1992, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 1, The Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/3135) 4
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – G van de Water v Staatssecretaris van Financien ECJ 5-Apr-2001
(Judgment) Article 6 (1) of the Directive was designed to establish the point in time at which the excise duty becomes actually chargeable, but not to determine the person from whom the duty should be claimed. Any production, processing, holding or . .
Appeal from – Greenalls Management Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 26-Jun-2003
The appellant operated an approved storage facility, holding alcoholic drinks. Drinks were to be exported, and were released on that basis. They were later diverted and sold within the UK market, evading the appropriate duty. The company appealed a . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anglo German Breweries Limited ChD 29-Nov-2002
The respondents appealed against imposition of assessments for the diversion of alcohol products from bonded warehouses without payment of duties. Pretence had been made of deliveries abroad, but the goods were later diverted. The company was . .
Cited – Commissioners of Inland Revenue v McGuckian HL 21-May-1997
Steps which had been inserted into a commercial transaction, but which had no purpose other than the saving of tax are to be disregarded when assessing the tax effect of the scheme. The modern approach to statutory construction is to have regard to . .
Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
Cited – Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (1) ECJ 5-Oct-2004
pfeiffer_deutchesrotesreuzECJ102004
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arbeitsgericht Lorrach – Germany. Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v First Choice Holidays Plc CA 29-Jul-2004
The VAT to be paid by tour organisers on package holidays was to calculated upon the sum charged to the consumer, not the discounted sum charged to the travel agent. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.224854

Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v Commission: ECFI 23 Apr 2018

ECJ Dumping – Imports of Steel Products Originating In China and Taiwan – Judgment – Dumping – Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in China and Taiwan – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 – Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) – Normal value – Selection of the appropriate third country – Adjustments – Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation 2016/1036) – Calculation of the dumping margin – Adjustments – Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Regulation 2016/1036) – Injury – Causal link

ECLI:EU:T:2018:209, [2018] EUECJ T-675/15
Bailii
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.609328

Lyons and Another v The United Kingdom Border Agency: FTTTx 4 Aug 2010

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – traveller’s exemption – tobacco seized on entry to UK – seizure challenged but challenge withdrawn and condemnation proceedings determined against appellants – restoration refused – only reason advanced for restoration that goods for own use – appeal dismissed.

[2010] UKFTT 362 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.422357

Repertoire Culinaire Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Apr 2013

FTTTx EXCISE DUTIES – Cooking wine and cooking cognac – appeal against refusal to restore goods seized for non-payment of excise duty on importation from France – new appeal against assessment to duty of goods in stock – whether the goods were exempt from excise duty under art. 27(1) of Directive 92/83/EEC – whether s.4FA 1995 adequately implements art. 27(1)(f) of the Directive – reference to the Court of Justice of the EU – consideration of the implementation of its Judgment – whether HMRC had shown concrete, objective and verifiable evidence that the goods had been subject to an incorrect application of the Directive by the French authorities – held that they had – whether the UK’s system under s.4 FA 1995 of refund of duty paid on proof of qualifying use in the manufacture of foodstuffs was a legitimate implementation of the Directive – held that it was – held that duty was payable under the assessments – new appeal dismissed – held that the reasons given for refusal to restore the seized goods were flawed in that they did not refer to the possibility that duty paid could be refunded to the Appellant on proof of appropriate use of the goods in the manufacture of foodstuffs – original appeal allowed and a further review directed under s.16(4) FA 1994
[2013] UKFTT 278 (TC)
Bailii

Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.503567

Global Foods Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Oct 2009

Excise Duty – Seizure of alcohol from trader – whether we should consider facts relevant to whether duty had been paid when the Appellant had not brought condemnation proceedings before the Magistrates’ Court – facts relevant to duty payment – facts relevant to mitigation, the reasonableness of the decision and of four earlier reviews and consideration of proportionality – Further Review ordered
[2009] UKFTT 256 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.409074

Tomtom International Bv v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Jan 2012

FTTTx Customs Duty – Binding Tariff Information – appeal against the classification of imported traffic message channel receivers by HMRC as ‘other radio-broadcast receivers not capable of operating without an external source of power, of a kind used in motor vehicles’- the Appellant claimed that the receivers should be classified as ‘Other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data’- appeal allowed
[2012] UKFTT 71 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.450838

Szczepanski v The Home Office: FTTTx 5 Feb 2014

FTTTX PROCEDURE – application to make appeal out of time – decision of Home Office not to restore seized lorry tractor unit upheld on review – appellant had 30 days in which to appeal under s 16(1) Finance Act 1994 – notice of appeal made out of time – appellant claimed delays occasioned by postal delay, difficulties of translating correspondence and an invitation to provide further evidence – whether tribunal should give permission for appeal to be made – yes – application allowed
[2014] UKFTT 162 (TC)
Bailii
Finance Act 1994 16(1)
England and Wales

Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.521807

Severstal v Commission (Dumping – Imports of Certain Cold-Rolled Flat Steel Products Originating In China and Russia – Judgment): ECFI 22 Sep 2021

Dumping – Imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in China and Russia – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) – Use of facts available – Article 2(3), (4), (9), (10) and (12) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(3), (4), (9), (10) and (12) of Regulation 2016/1036) – Calculation of the normal value, the export price and the dumping margin – Article 3(2) and (5) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(2) and (5) of Regulation 2016/1036) – Determination of the existence of injury – Article 3(7) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(7) of Regulation 2016/1036) – Causal link – Article 2(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation 2016/1036) – Injury elimination – Rights of the defence – Principle of good administration – Proportionality – Manifest errors of assessment
T-753/16, [2021] EUECJ T-753/16, ECLI:EU:T:2021:612
Bailii
European

Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.668274

Rajeswary v Revenue and Customs (Appeal – Refusing To Restore Vehicle Seized): FTTTx 2 Mar 2021

Appeal against decision under section 152(b) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 refusing to restore vehicle seized under section 139(1) of that act as being liable to forfeiture under section 141(1)(a) of the act. Failure to supply underlying written policy for exercise of the section 152(b) power. Tribunal’s jurisdiction under section 16(4) of the Finance Act 1994. Section 16(6)(a) of the Finance Act 1994. Legal burden versus evidential burden. Consideration of Gora v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2003] EWCA Civ 525 and of Golobiewska v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2005] EWCA Civ 607. Next decision will not inevitably be the same on remittal-John Dee Limited v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1995] EWCA Civ 62. Allowed and remitted.
[2021] UKFTT 206 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 October 2021; Ref: scu.663670

Nlmk v Commission (Dumping – Imports of Certain Cold-Rolled Flat Steel Products Originating In China and Russia – Judgment): ECFI 22 Sep 2021

Dumping – Imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products originating in China and Russia – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) – Use of facts available – Article 3(2) and (5) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(2) and (5) of Regulation 2016/1036) – Determination of injury – Article 3(7) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(7) of Regulation 2016/1036) – Causal link – Article 2(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation 2016/1036) – Elimination of injury – Rights of the defence – Equality of arms – Principle of good administration – Obligation to state reasons – Proportionality – Manifest errors of assessment
T-752/16, [2021] EUECJ T-752/16, ECLI:EU:T:2021:611
Bailii
European

Updated: 25 October 2021; Ref: scu.668273

Visockas v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty – Assessment To Excise Duty and Wrongdoing Penalty In Respect of Cigarettes Seized At Airport): FTTTx 2 Apr 2020

EXCISE DUTY – Assessment to excise duty and wrongdoing penalty in respect of cigarettes seized at airport – whether assessments invalidated by breach of appellant’s right to an interpreter in criminal proceedings in accordance with Article 2 of EU Directive 2010/64 and/or right to information about the accusation in accordance with Article 6 of EU Directive 2012/13 – jurisdiction of Tribunal to consider whether the cigarettes were for personal use – appeal dismissed.
[2021] UKFTT 168 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 October 2021; Ref: scu.663648

Ash and Another v Customs and Excise: Excs 6 Jul 2005

EXCISE DUTY – RESTORATION OF EXCISE GOODS AND MOTOR VEHICLE – two Appellants – jurisdiction – Gascoyne and Gora considered – no abuse of process – facts found on the importation – review officers placed too much weight on specific facts to the exclusion of other relevant facts – one review officer erred in matters of law – non-restoration unreasonably arrived at – appeals allowed
[2005] UKVAT-Excise E00890
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.271968

E Rider Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Excise – Seizure of Electric Bicycles and Window Tint Film): FTTTx 9 Jun 2021

Refusal of request for restoration – whether or not refusal to restore unreasonable – yes, because proportionality was not properly considered as regards the availability of a lesser sanction – whether or not proportionate – no – appeal allowed and directions given
[2021] UKFTT 209 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 October 2021; Ref: scu.663753

Odinas v Revenue and Customs (Excise – Duty Assessment): FTTTx 31 Aug 2021

Duty assessment – application to strike out appeal for lack of jurisdiction – appeal against assessment struck out – penalty assessment – whether disclosure prompted – yes – whether deliberate – interaction with deeming provisions considered – appeal allowed in part
[2021] UKFTT 303 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 18 October 2021; Ref: scu.667908

Avramov v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duties – Import of 14,800 Cigarettes From Bulgaria): FTTTx 18 May 2021

EXCISE DUTIES – import of 14,800 cigarettes from Bulgaria – duty assessed and penalty imposed – Appellant claimed ‘own use’ but had not challenged legality of seizure and gave evidence that he was buying for others – Appellant did not speak English and had not been provided with an interpreter when stopped at airport – assessment upheld but penalty reduced to allow full mitigation – appeal allowed in part
[2021] UKFTT 161 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 18 October 2021; Ref: scu.663711

Geffrey Martyn, Ebenezer Fernie, And Jonathan Duncan v David M’Cullock, And Henry Arlott Mansell: PC 11 Feb 1837

The island of Herm being one of the dependences of Guernsey is, for the purposes of local taxation, part and parcel thereof.
By several successive orders in Council the states of Guernsey were empowered to raise a duty of one shilling per gallon on all spiritous liquors retailed and consumed in the island, the produce of which was to be applied, in the construction and repair of coast defences, harbours, roads etc. By an ordinance of the Royal Court, the States prohibited the importation of spirits into the islands of Sark, Herm and Jethou.
Held: that such prohibition was within the meaning and authority of the Orders in Council (though not originally enforced) and that the object to which the tax was to be applied, formed no ground of exemption to the inhabitants of Herm.
[1837] EngR 502, (1837) 1 Moo PC 309, (1837) 12 ER 831
Commonlii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.313619

Txt International Bv (In Bankruptcy) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Jan 2014

FTTTx Excise transit procedure – Customs duties – VAT – call on guarantee – diversion from legitimate route- Article 203 and 233 of Community Customs Code – procedural irregularities- held – Article 233 applicable – procedural irregularities no impact on whether customs debt due – appeal dismissed
[2014] UKFTT 158 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 October 2021; Ref: scu.521755

Belgravia Trading Co Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Dec 2013

FTTTx PROCEDURE – Other – customs duty appeals on imports of garlic – appellants’ application to exclude evidence containing multiple hearsay contained within report of European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) under Rule 15(2)(b)(iii) of the Tribunal Rules – whether Tribunal should exclude on grounds unfair – no – Tribunal to assess weight at substantive hearing – whether Tribunal under European law obligation to take into account findings of OLAF report – no – HMRC’s objection to appellants’ extension of time application for appellants’ service of list of documents – scope of earlier Tribunal decision granting permission to appeal on limited grounds considered -appellants not precluded from relying on documents relating to origin of garlic for purposes of time bar issue – extension of time granted
Swami Raghavan J
[2014] UKFTT 31 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 October 2021; Ref: scu.519554

Regina v Shivpuri: HL 15 May 1986

The defendant had been accused of attempting to import controlled drugs, but the substances actually found were not in fact a controlled drug, though he had believed and intended them to be. He appealed saying that he should not be conviced of an attempt where the a completion of the intended act would not have een a crime.
Held: His appeal failed. The actus reus of the offence of attempt required an act which was more than merely preparatory to the commission of offence and which the defendant did with the intention of committing an offence, notwithstanding that the commission of the actual offence was on the true facts impossible. He really intended to evade the prohibition on the importation of drugs; his mistake was merely as to the content of the packages. The court could depart from its earlier decision in Anderton despite its being so recent. The distinction previously drawn between ‘objectively innocent’ acts and others could not be sustained.
Lord Bridge said: ‘It follows from this, applying the reasoning in R v Courtie that each of the three distinct offences has different ingredients and, leaving aside considerations of impossibility arising under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, part of the actus reus of the offence which must be proved in each case is the importation, actual or attempted, of goods which were in fact of the appropriate category to sustain the offence charged. So far the argument seems to be irrefutable and is not challenged by the Crown.’ and ‘It is the next step in the argument which is the critical one. If each of the three offences involves proof of a different element as part of the actus reus, that is importation of the appropriate category of prohibited goods, it follows, so it is submitted, that ‘knowingly’ wherever it appears in section 170(1) and (2) of the Act of 1979 connotes a corresponding mens rea, that is, knowledge of the importation of goods in the appropriate category. I recognise the force of this submission. The point may be put in the form of a rhetorical question. Can it be supposed that Parliament intended that the mens rea appropriate to an offence carrying a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment should equally be sufficient to sustain a conviction for an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment?’ He explained the history of the 1971 Act: ‘The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 repealed the earlier legislation and enacted a new and comprehensive code intended, one may reasonably suppose, to arm the courts with all the criminal sanctions they would need to counter the growing drugs problem.
Section 8 brought together a number of offences capable of being committed by the occupier or manager of premises and somewhat broadened their scope. ‘
Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone L.C., Lord Elwyn-Jones, Lord Scarman, Lord Bridge of Harwich and Lord Mackay of Clashfern
[1986] 2 WLR 988, [1986] UKHL 2, [1986] 1 All ER 334, [1987] AC 1
Bailii, lip
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(1)(b), Criminal Attempts Act 1981 1, Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Hennessey (Timothy) CACD 1978
The court considered the obligations of the prosecution on disclosure. The courts must: ‘keep in mind that those who prepare and conduct prosecutions owe a duty to the courts to ensure that all relevant evidence of help to an accused is either led . .
Cited – Regina v Hyam HL 1974
The defendant had burnt down the house of her rival in love, thereby killing her children. The judge directed the jury to convict the defendant of murder if she knew that it was highly probable that her act would cause death or serious bodily harm. . .
Cited – Haughton v Smith, On Appeal From Regina v Smith (Roger) HL 21-Nov-1973
The defendant appealed against his conviction for attempting to handle stolen goods. They were to be delivered to him in a van, but the meat was intercepted and recovered by the police. The defendant argued that he should not be convicted of . .
Cited – Regina v Courtie HL 1984
The House considered how to frame an indictment in a case of buggery where the prescribed punishment differed depending on the particular factual ingredients.
Held: Lord Diplock said: ‘Where it is provided by a statute that an accused person’s . .
Cited – Regina v Hussain CACD 1969
The only mens rea necessary for proof of any offence of importing drugs was the knowledge that the goods were subject to a prohibition on importation. The accused must know ‘that what is on foot is the evasion of a prohibition against importation . .
Overruled – Anderton v Ryan HL 9-May-1985
The defendant was found in possession of a video recorder. She refused to name the source, but admitted that she believed it to be stolen. After it became clear that there was no evidence that it was in fact stolen, she was convicted of attempting . .
Applied – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Bett CACD 12-Oct-1998
A conviction under section 8(b) for permitting premises to be used for the supply of controlled drugs was correct without evidence of knowledge of the particular drug supplied even though particular drugs were named in the indictments. The section . .
Cited – Salmon and Moore v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 13-Nov-1998
The court considered the burden of proof placed on the prosecution under s28 of the 1971 Act.
Held: ‘Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 28 are both designed to come into play at a stage when the Crown have proved all that they need to prove in . .
Cited – I v Director of Public Prosecutions etc HL 8-Mar-2001
A group of youths carried petrol bombs in public, anticipating a confrontation with another group. They did not brandish them or actually threaten anybody. On dispersal by the police the bombs were dropped. On being charged with affray it was held . .
Cited – Regina v Gulbir Rana Singh CACD 18-Dec-2003
The defendant appealed conviction on three counts of conspiracy to launder money. The prosecution said that he and his co-accused engaged in money laundering between June 1999 and March 2000. Each count alleged that he and his co-conspirators . .
Cited – Harmer v Regina CACD 21-Jan-2005
The appellant and a co-defendant were charged with conspiracy to launder property which they had reasonable grounds to suspect was the proceeds of drug trafficking or other criminal conduct. The prosecution accepted that they could not establish . .
Cited – James, Regina v; Regina v Karimi CACD 25-Jan-2006
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, saying that the court had not properly guided the jury on provocation. The court was faced with apparently conflicting decision of the House of Lords (Smith) and the Privy Council (Holley).
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.178043

Hughes and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise etc: CA 20 May 2002

N was charged with VAT fraud. He was the joint owner of a company with his brother T each holding 50% of the shares. T was never charged. A restraint and receivership order was made against N, preventing the company from dealing in any way with its assets. N was acquitted but the assets of the company were used to meet the receiver’s costs and expenses. In each case the Commissioners had been appointed receivers of the applicant’s assets pending a decision in parallel criminal proceedings on a confiscation order. The final orders were not made, and the Commissioners appealed orders denying them their costs from the assets they had realised.
Held: Save as provided otherwise, statutory receivers were to be treated precisely as their common-law counterparts. The regime of restraint and receivership orders was not contrary to the applicants’ human rights. Acquitted defendants are not, save exceptionally, entitled to compensation for being deprived of their liberty while on remand, and it was no more unfair that they should be uncompensated for any adverse effects that restraint and receivership orders might have had upon their assets.
The introduction of CPR 69.7 had made a significant change in law and practice for receivers as regards remuneration.
Simon Brown LJ said: ‘I entirely accept that an acquitted (or indeed unconvicted) defendant must for these purposes be treated as an innocent person . . I cannot accept, however, that for this reason it must be regarded as disproportionate, still less arbitrary (another contention advanced by the respondents), to leave the defendant, against whom restraint and receivership orders have been made, uncompensated for such loss as they may have caused him – unless, of course, by establishing ‘some serious fault’ on the prosecutor’s part he can bring himself within the strict requirements of section 89.
It is common ground that acquitted defendants are not, save in the most exceptional circumstances, entitled to compensation for being deprived of their liberty whilst on remand or indeed for any other heads of loss suffered through being prosecuted. In my judgment it is no more unfair, disproportionate or arbitrary that they should be uncompensated too for any adverse effects that restraint and receivership orders may have had upon their assets.’
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Laws and Lady Justice Arden
[2003] 1 WLR 177, Times 31-May-2002, Gazette 27-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 670, [2002] 4 All ER 633
Bailii
Supreme Court Act 1981 31, Criminal Justice Act 1988 Part VI, European Convention on Human Rights First Protocol, Civil Procedure Rules 69.7
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In re X (Restraint Order: Payment out) QBD 22-Apr-2004
A restraint order had been made in respect of the defendant’s assets pending trial. Application was made to release a sum to pay the defendant’s company debts.
Held: A payment could be made only where the the realisable value of the property . .
Cited – Capewell v Commissioners for HM Customs and Excise and Sinclair CA 2-Dec-2004
The court approved guidelines for the appointment and remuneration of a receiver appointed under the 1988 Act. . .
Cited – Capewell v Customs and Excise and Another (No 2) CA 29-Jul-2005
The Commissioners had been appointed as receiver of the claimant’s assets. The receivership was later discharged, but should have been discharged earlier, the court had the power not only to calculate the level of remuneration but also who should be . .
Cited – Capewell v Revenue and Customs and Another HL 31-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed against an order regarding the remuneration of a receiver appointed to administer a restraint order placed on the assets of the defendant under the 1988 Act on the basis of an allegation that the defendant had been involved in . .
Cited – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.172232

Kostova v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty : Assessment for Duty and Penalty): FTTTx 17 Apr 2020

EXCISE DUTY – assessment for duty and penalty in relation to excise goods seized from the appellant – Jones and Race considered – goods deemed to be for commercial use – appeal against assessment dismissed – Appellant’s belief that the goods were for own use – reasonable excuse – appeal against penalty allowed
[2020] UKFTT 192 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.651578

Harp Wines and Spirits Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty – Appeal v HMRC’s Decision To Refuse Approval for Registration As A Wholesaler of Alcohol): FTTTx 26 May 2021

Excise duty – appeal against HMRC’s decision to refuse approval for registration as a wholesaler of alcohol on the basis that they were not satisfied that the appellant was a fit and proper person – Section 88C(2) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 192 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.663725

Hammonds of Knutsford Plc, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 20 Apr 2016

EXCISE DUTY – claims for ‘drawback’ – EU Directive 92/12/EEC, arts 7, 22 – EU Directive 2008/118/EC, arts 9, 33 – Excise Duty (Drawback) Regulations 1995, regs 7, 8 – whether refusal of claims as a consequence of Claimant having failed to make goods available for inspection for not less than two business days following notice of intenti
[2016] UKUT 195 (TCC)
Bailii
EU Directive 92/12/EEC
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.567343

TC Kirton Plant Hire Ltd v Revenue and Customs: Excs 30 Jul 2008

VDT EXCISE DUTY RED DIESEL – assessment re two vehicles – only one dipped – issues whether undipped vehicle could be assessed and whether methodology for calculation of duty correct – High Court decision in Thomas Corneill followed – reduction in mileage for one vehicle accepted by Customs – subject thereto appeal dismissed.
[2008] UKVAT-Excise E01130
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.273037

Cifaldi v Revenue and Customs (Penalty : Dishonest Evasion of Import Vat and Excise Duty On Tobacco): FTTTx 28 Apr 2020

Penalty – dishonest evasion of import VAT and Excise Duty on tobacco products imported from the Canary Islands – whether the latter penalty imposed within any applicable time limit – whether appropriate mitigation applied – appeal allowed in part
[2020] UKFTT 202 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 September 2021; Ref: scu.651569

Xerox Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Jan 2014

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTY – engineered solid ‘ink sticks’ whether classifiable as ‘printing ink . . whether or not concentrated or solid’ under CN heading 3215 or as ‘parts’ or ‘accessories’ of printers under CN heading 8443 – General Rules of Interpretation considered – held, applying GRI 3(a) that CN heading 3215 provides the more specific description – appeal dismissed
[2014] UKFTT 83 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.521767

Panorama Cash and Carry Ltd (T/A Booze Direct) v Revenue and Customs: ChD 15 Jul 2020

The defendant (HMRC) has applied to strike out this claim under CPR 3.4(2) on the ground that the particulars of claim do not show reasonable grounds for bringing the claim or, in the alternative, under CPR 24.2 that the court should enter judgment for HMRC on the claim on the basis that the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding at a trial and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should be disposed of at a trial.
Chief Master Marsh
[2020] EWHC 1808 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.652764

Chaudhry v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: Admn 17 Jul 2007

The commissioners had served a notice on the taxpayer requiring him to pay security for his tax liabiities. He appealed out of time against the finding, and was prosecuted for having continued to trade without providing the security. He appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. The legislation made no provision for suspension of the requirement not to trade. A leaflet from the commissioners might have created a legitimate expectation that the trader could continue pending a proper appeal, but no such expectation was created where, as here, the appeal was lodged out of time.
Sedley LJ, Nelson J
Times 02-Aug-2007, [2007] EWHC 1805 (Admin)
Bailii
Value Added Tax Act 1994 72(11), Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 171(4)
England and Wales

Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.258526