Category: Customs and Excise

HM Revenue and Customs, Regina (on the Application of) v Raymond Machell QC and others: Admn 21 Nov 2005

The claimant had had goods taken and destroyed by Revenue and Customs, which had been found to be wrongfully condemned. They had been awarded the market value of the goods at UK prices, though they had been bought in France.
Held: The market value was the cost in the country of purchase.
Stanley Burnton J
[2005] EWHC 2593 (Admin), Times 30-Nov-2005, [2006] 1 WLR 609
Bailii
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Nat Bell Liquors Ltd PC 7-Apr-1922
(Alberta) Lord Sumner said: ‘Long before Jervis’s Acts statutes had been passed which created an inferior court, and declared its decisions to be ‘final’ and ‘without appeal’, and again and again the Court of the King’s Bench had held that the . .
Cited – Regina v Medical Appeal Tribunal ex parte Gilmore; Re Gilmore’s Application CA 25-Feb-1957
The claimant had received two injuries resulting in his total blindness. He sought an order of certiorari against the respondent who had found only a 20% disability. The tribunal responded that its decision, under the Act was final.
Held: In . .
Cited – J and E Hall Ltd v Barclay 1937
The company had erected and tested two experimental davits for the appellant. They were then taken down and left unused for many years. The parties disputed the account. The company claimed also for damages for detinue or conversion of the davits . .
Cited – Caxton Publishing v Sutherland Publishing HL 1939
The normal measure of damages in conversion is the market value of the goods converted at the date of conversion.
Mere possession is not a conversion. Some act interfering with the true ownrs right must be shown. . .
Cited – Liesbosch Dredger (Owners of) v Owners of SS Edison, The Liesbosch HL 28-Feb-1933
The ship Edison fouled the moorings of the Liesbosch resulting in the total loss of the dredger when it sank. It had been engaged on work in the harbour under contract with the harbour board. All the owners’ liquid resources were engaged in the . .
Cited – Building and Civil Engineering Holidays Scheme Management Ltd v Post Office CA 1966
A question arose as to whether the stamps the Post Office lost, which if they had been stolen would have been sold in the thieves’ market, had a ‘market value’ within the meaning of the section.
Held: The buyer, the seller and the market . .

Cited by:
Cited – Islam, Regina v HL 10-Jun-2009
The defendant appealed against a confiscation order saying that it should not have been set at values which reflected the black market value of the drugs he had imported.
Held: The appeal failed. The court could take account of the illegal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.235202

Europlus Trading Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Sep 2011

Excise Duty – reclaim of excise duty on exportation of beer – whether the Appellant had satisfied the condition of demonstrating that the beer that it had exported had been ‘eligible beer’, namely beer in respect of which duty had been paid and not previously refunded – whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a legitimate expectations argument – whether the Tribunal could and should consider whether the way in which HMRC was applying the drawback Regulations breached any principle of European law – whether the manner of applying the drawback Regulations offended the European principle of the free movement of goods – whether the conduct of HMRC breached the Appellant’s human rights – Appeal allowed
[2011] UKFTT 635 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.449552

Bioforce v Oberfinanzdirektion Munchen: ECJ 15 May 1997

Europa The Common Customs Tariff is to be interpreted as meaning that Echinacea purpurea extract-based drops should be classified under heading 3004. The curative or prophylactic properties of that product as well as the way in which it is packaged, dispensed and marketed are in themselves such as to cause it to be regarded as a product possessing the characteristic properties of a medicament. In the Member States in which it is marketed the product in question is, moreover, authorized to be put on the market as a medicament or, at the very least, has been the subject of an application for authorization to that end. Furthermore, however great the alcohol content of the product in question it does not alter its nature, since the alcohol acts as an adjuvant, preservative and vehicle for that product.
C-405/95, [1997] EUECJ C-405/95
Bailii
European

Updated: 30 August 2021; Ref: scu.161752

Solarworld v Brandoni Solare and Solaria Energia Y Medio Ambiente: ECJ 9 Nov 2017

Subsidies : Judgment – Appeal – Subsidies – Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 – Article 2 – Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from China – Definitive countervailing duty – Exemption of imports covered by an accepted undertaking – Severability
C-205/16, [2017] EUECJ C-205/16
Bailii
European

Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.599687

Salabiaku v France: ECHR 7 Oct 1988

A Zairese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, went through the green customs channel and was detained. The trunk contained cannabis. He was charged with two offences, a criminal offence of illegally importing narcotics and a ‘customs offence’ of smuggling prohibited goods. At trial and on appeal he was acquitted of the former but convicted of smuggling, an offence relating to any act of smuggling or undeclared import: a person in possession of contraband goods ‘shall be deemed liable for the offence’. The accused may exculpate himself by establishing force majeure resulting ‘from an event responsibility for which is not attributable to him and which it was absolutely impossible for him to avoid’. The ‘almost irrebutable presumption’ . . was said to be incompatible with article 6.
Held: Contracting States may apply the criminal law to an act where it is not carried out in the normal exercise of one of the rights protected under the Convention, and accordingly, to define the constituent elements in the resulting offence. Contracting States may penalise a simple or objective fact as such, irrespective of whether it results from criminal intent or from negligence. Examples of such offences may be found in the laws of the Contracting States. However, the Applicant was not convicted for mere possession of unlawfully imported prohibited goods. Article 392(1) of the Customs Code does not appear under the heading ‘classification of customs offences’ but under that of ‘criminal liability’. Under this provision a conclusion is drawn from a simple fact, which in itself does not necessarily constitute a petty or a more serious offence, that the ‘criminal liability’ for the unlawful importation of the goods, whether they are prohibited or not, or the failure to declare them, lies with the person in whose possession they are found. It infers therefrom a legal presumption on the basis of which (the French Courts) found the Applicant guilty of smuggling prohibited goods . . This shift from the idea of accountability in criminal law to the notion of guilt shows the very relative nature of such a distinction. It raises a question with regard to Article 6.2 of the Convention. The Convention does not prohibit presumptions of fact in principle, but does require certain limits as regards criminal law. If 6.2 merely laid down a guarantee to be respected by the courts in the conduct of legal proceedings, its requirements would in practice overlap with the duty of impartiality imposed in paragraph 1. Above all, the national legislature would be free to strip the trial court of any genuine power of assessment and deprive the presumption of innocence of its substance, if the words ‘according to law’ were construed exclusively with reference of domestic law. Such a situation could not be reconciled with the object and purpose of Article 6, which, by protecting the right to a fair trial and in particular the right to be presumed innocent, is intended to enshrine the fundamental principle of the rule of law. Article 6.2 does not therefore regard presumptions of fact or of law provided for in the criminal law with indifference. It requires States to confine them within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence
R Ryssdal P
(1988) 13 EHRR 379, 10519/83, [1988] ECHR 19
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6.2
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Drummond v Regina CACD 7-Mar-2002
The appellant had been convicted of causing death by careless driving with excess alcohol. He said that he had taken alcohol after stopping driving but before being tested. He challenged the weight of the burden of proof ascribed by the statute. The . .
Cited – Regina v Muhamad CACD 19-Jul-2002
The appellant had been convicted of an offence under the section in that as a bankrupt, he ‘in the two years before the petition, materially contributed to, or increased the extent of, his insolvency by gambling or by rash and hazardous . .
Cited – Regina v Johnstone HL 22-May-2003
The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act . .
Cited – Lynch v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 8-Nov-2001
The defendant challenged a conviction for having a locked bladed article in his possession in a public place, on the basis that it placed on him a burden of proof contrary to the convention.
Held: Salabiaku permits a reverse onus but requires . .
Cited – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Attorney General v Malta 10-Dec-1991
The applcant challenged a provision which imposed criminal liability on a director of a body which had committed a criminal offence ‘unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to . .
Cited – Regina v G CACD 12-Apr-2006
The defendant pleaded guilty to the rape of a twelve year old girl on the agreed basis that he had believed her to be 15, but had been advised that given her age, his belief was immaterial. He now appealed saying that the presumption infringed his . .
Cited – Regina v G (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant was fifteen. He was convicted of statutory rape of a 13 year old girl, believing her to be 15. He appealed saying that as an offence of strict liability he had been denied a right to a fair trial, and also that the offence charged was . .
Cited – Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission v Gibbons; Same v Karoonian CA 30-Oct-2012
Non-resident parents in each case appealed against suspended orders of imprisonment for non-payment of child support. They argued that the procedures used were indistinguishable from those held to be human rights non-compliant in Mubarak.
Cited – AB v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 5-Apr-2017
This appeal is concerned with a challenge to the legality of legislation of the Scottish Parliament which deprives a person, A, who is accused of sexual activity with an under-aged person, B, of the defence that he or she reasonably believed that B . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.165029

Holz Geenen v Oberfinanzdirektion Munchen: ECJ 28 Mar 2000

Europa Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Classification in the combined nomenclature – Regulation (EC) No 1509/97 – Rectangular wood blocks used in the construction of window frames.
‘It is settled case law that, in the interests of legal certainty and for ease of verification, the decisive criteria for the classification of goods for Customs purposes is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN. The [two categories of explanatory notes] may be an important aid to the interpretation of the scope of the various tariff headings but do not have legally binding force.’
C-309/98, [2000] ECR I-1975, [2000] EUECJ C-309/98
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Epson Telford Ltd ChD 4-May-2007
The parties disputed whether inkjet printer cartridges were to be classsified on import as parts of printers, and free of duty, or as ink and subject to duty.
Held: ‘I can see no reason why the advances in design and technology incorporated . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.162476

Malinowski v Revenue and Customs: Excs 7 Apr 2008

Excs EXCISE DUTY – seizure of cigarettes and vehicle – Appellant claimed that the vehicle belonged to him and that he was unaware of the conduct of the driver – refusal to restore the vehicle – Appellant appealed under Finance Act 1994 s 16(4) – Appellant decided at the hearing not to pursue his appeal – appeal dismissed
[2008] UKVAT-Excise E01105
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.272182

Gascoyne v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 21 Feb 2003

The applicant challenged the respondent’s policy on restoration of vehicles confiscated on being found to be used for commercial smuggling. Vehicles would only be returned exceptionally. The applicant had written to the respondents who considered and refused his request for restoration. He then requested a review under the Finance Act, and appealed the redecision against him to the VAT and Duties Tribunal.
Held: The original letter was out of time as a notice of claim which would have required proceedings to be taken for condemnation. Even so, there was no particular time limit for the respondents to begin condemnation proceedings, and therefore the standard six months’ limit applied to applications in the Magistrates Court. It was not an abuse for the respondents to utilise the alternate procedure through the High Court which had no such time limit. The policy of not restoring vehicles used for commercial smuggling had been considered obiter in Lindsay, and found not unlawful. The tribunal’s decision to treat the hearing as a review of the respondent’s decision was a sufficient remedy.
Neuberger J
Times 28-Mar-2003, Gazette 24-Apr-2003, [2003] Ch 292
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 3 139 1141, Finance Act 1979 15, European Convention on Human Rights, Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lindsay v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 20-Feb-2002
The applicant was stopped at Customs carrying cigarettes over the quantity set for personal use. His car was seized, and Customs refused to return it. The cigarettes were for his own use and for sale to family members. He claimed the seizure was an . .
Cited – Allgemiene Gold- und Silberscheideanstalt v United Kingdom ECHR 1986
The court considered arrangements for challenging the impounding of a motor vehicle.
Held: The fact that a smuggler had recourse to the courts, even though the decision could only successfully be challenged if it was one which a publich . .
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 . .
Appealed to – 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 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 . .
Appeal from – Gascoyne v Customs and Excise and Another CA 28-Jul-2004
The Commissioners had found what they considered to be an excess of dutiable goods brought into the country by the tax payer, and had forfeited the car. The court considered the effect of the Gora case.
Held: The difficult statements in Gora . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.180313

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Alzitrans SL: ChD 29 Jan 2003

The Commissioners had seized a lorry which had been carrying goods on which duty had not been paid. The respondent asked them to review their decision under section 14. They failed to give their determination and under section 15, were deemed to have upheld their decision. The respondent then appealed to the tribunal, but the commissioners relied upon different grounds at the tribunal.
Held: The commissioners were not to be deemed to have upheld their initial decision on the same grounds, and were not prevented from presenting additional or different grounds. However, once requested for the grounds of the deemed decision, they were under a duty then to give their reasons. This was necessary to allow the respondent to consider whether to appeal. The decision to seize was disproportionate, but the tribunal had acted beyond its powers in ordering restoration. Case remitted.
The issue was whether the Commissioners were correct to revoke the BTI. Commissioners commonly adopted new legal arguments in the course of an appeal to the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal said, ‘we do not consider that the revocation decision is invalid because the Commissioners put forward different reasons, in the light of the annulment of the Regulation for the classification being wrong, as they had always contended’
Times 10-Feb-2003, [2003] EWHC 75 (Ch)
Finance Act 1994 14 15
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Newbury Admn 3-Mar-2003
The commissioner appealed a finding that a car and other goods they had forfeited should be returned. The owner said that matters had been imported for personal use under the directive.
Held: The directive had direct effect and precedence over . .
Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.179027

Belkin Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Jul 2021

CUSTOMS DUTIES – combined nomenclature – four products: two wireless charging pads, a USB charger and a cable adapter used with iPhones – held that: wireless charging pad with USB cable and 4-port USB charger should both be classified to 8504 40 30 as static converters used with telecoms apparatus etc – wireless charging pad with AC adapter should be classified to 8504 40 90 (static converter – other) (applying general rule of interpretation 3) – cable adapter should be classified to 8544 42 90 (cables – other) – appeal allowed in part
[2021] UKFTT 249 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 August 2021; Ref: scu.666590

Metherma GmbH and Co KG v Hauptzollamt Dusseldorf: ECJ 27 Nov 2008

Europa Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Tariff classification – Headings 8101 and 8102 – Shattering and breaking-up of bars of tungsten or molybdenum ‘obtained simply by sintering’ Unwrought tungsten and molybdenum, including bars obtained simply by sintering Waste and scrap.
C-403/07, [2008] EUECJ C-403/07
Bailii
European

Updated: 17 August 2021; Ref: scu.278367

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 circulation outside a suspension arrangement gives rise to the chargeability of the excise duty. In those circumstances, once it is established before the national court that such a product has departed from a suspension arrangement without the excise duty having been paid, it is clear that the holding of the product in question constitutes release for consumption within the meaning of Article 6 (1) of the Directive and that the duty has become chargeable.
C-325/99, [2001] EUECJ C-325/99, [2001] ECR I-2729.
Bailii
Council Directive 92/12/EEC 6(1)
European
Cited by:
Cited – 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 – Greenalls Management Ltd v Customs and Excise HL 12-May-2005
Volumes of vodka were transferred from a secure warehouse to a carrier for export. They were diverted, and not exported and the Customs sought the unpaid duty from the warehouse. The Directive provided that duty was payable on the ‘release for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 August 2021; Ref: scu.162771

Paltank Ltd v Revenue and Customs:: UTTC 3 Jul 2020

EXCISE DUTY – failure to provide necessary documentation for movement of tankers containing alcohol under duty suspension rules – wrongdoing penalties raised against person arranging the movement – whether penalties properly imposed -interpretation and scope of relevant regulations – whether reasonable excuse – appeal dismissed.
[2020] UKUT 211 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.652568

Balevbio (Common Customs Tariff – Goods Made of Different Materials – Judgment): ECJ 3 Jun 2021

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common customs tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Goods made of different materials – Plant fibres – Melamine resin – Headings 3924 and 4419 – Goods described as ‘bamboo beakers’
C-76/20, [2021] EUECJ C-76/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:441
Bailii
European

Updated: 12 August 2021; Ref: scu.664247

JAS Jet Air Service France SARL v Commission: ECJ 21 May 2015

ECJ Judgment – Appeal – Customs Union and the Common Customs Tariff – Community Customs Code – Article 239 – Implementing Regulations of the Customs Code – Article 905 – denim trousers import from the United States – Import duties – Decision declaring unwarranted surrender of these rights – Lack of ‘special situation
Rodin P
C-53/14, [2015] EUECJ C-53/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:330
Bailii
European

Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.547040

Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover: ECJ 17 Sep 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tariff and statistical nomenclature – Classification of goods – Amino acid mixes used for the preparation of foodstuffs for infants and young children allergic to cow’s milk proteins – Classification under tariff headings 2106 ‘food preparations’ or 3003 ‘medicinal products’
C-344/14, [2015] EUECJ C-344/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:615
Bailii
European

Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.552674

Gheorghitha Puiu v Revenue and Customs (Exciseduty – Hmrc v Jones and Hmrc v Race Applied): FTTTx 9 Jul 2021

Excise duty – HMRC v Jones and HMRC v Race applied- goods deemed to be for commercial use – appeal against assessment dismissed – penalties for deliberate behaviour – application of HMRC v Tooth- not deliberate wrongdoing – Appellant had the goods for own use – reasonable excuse – appeal against penalty allowed
[2021] UKFTT 255 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 01 August 2021; Ref: scu.666238

Christopher v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Jul 2021

EXCISE DUTY – tobacco products seized – no challenge to seizure – appeal against Customs and Excise Civil Evasion Penalty (CEP19/0668) – whether dishonest behaviour – yes – Ivey v Genting applied – whether penalty correctly applied – yes – appeal dismissed
[2021] UKFTT 258 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 31 July 2021; Ref: scu.666237

Lindsay v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 20 Feb 2002

The applicant was stopped at Customs carrying cigarettes over the quantity set for personal use. His car was seized, and Customs refused to return it. The cigarettes were for his own use and for sale to family members. He claimed the seizure was an interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property.
Held: The policy, adopted as a blanket policy, was disproportionate. It made no distinction between professional smugglers and others. There had been no proper attempt to strike a balance between the public interest and private rights, and there was no proportionality as required. The tenor of the letter implementing the policy made it plain that restoration should only be ordered in exceptional circumstances, and that message was reinforced by the example given: ‘a first time technical offence where a minimal amount of tobacco has been brought back for a relative’s consumption with payment at cost.’ The policy was unlawful.
The value of the car did not have to be taken into account on impounding for a commercial import.
Lord Phillips MR said: ‘ . . Under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention such deprivation will only be justified if it is in the public interest. More specifically, the deprivation can be justified if it is ‘to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties’. The action taken must, however, strike a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the public interest. There must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued . . I would accept [counsel’s] submission that one must consider the individual case to ensure that the penalty imposed is fair. However strong the public interest, it cannot justify subjecting an individual to an interference with his fundamental rights that is unconscionable.’
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Carnwath
Times 27-Feb-2002, [2002] 1 WLR 1766, [2002] EWCA Civ 267
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 152
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 18-Dec-1984
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
An interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. This balance is . .
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 by:
Cited – Gascoyne v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 21-Feb-2003
The applicant challenged the respondent’s policy on restoration of vehicles confiscated on being found to be used for commercial smuggling. Vehicles would only be returned exceptionally. The applicant had written to the respondents who considered . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Newbury Admn 3-Mar-2003
The commissioner appealed a finding that a car and other goods they had forfeited should be returned. The owner said that matters had been imported for personal use under the directive.
Held: The directive had direct effect and precedence over . .
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 . .
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 – Martin v Director of Border Revenue FTTTx 14-Dec-2010
FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – restoration of car – 15 kilos of hand-rolling tobacco, 1,200 cigarettes and 2,050 cigars between three people – whether reasonable not to restore – yes – appeal dismissed . .
Cited – JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.167666

Denley v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 25 Aug 2017

Excise Duties
[2017] UKUT 340 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.595593

Nu Air Compressors And Tools v Commission: ECFI 18 Nov 2015

ECJ Judgment – Dumping – Imports of certain compressors originating in China – Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid – Determination of the export price – Deduction of anti-dumping duties – Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment
ECLI:EU:T:2015:867, T-76/12, [2015] EUECJ T-76/12
Bailii
European

Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.554866

Brookes v Revenue and Customs: Excs 27 Sep 2006

Excise Duty – Father and son importing excise goods – restoration of motor vehicle and goods – previous Tribunal decision making findings of fact and ordering re-review – reasonableness of Commissioners’ decision – Appellant’s claim for compensation for economic loss – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction – no – appeal dismissed
[2006] UKVAT-Excise E00992
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 26 July 2021; Ref: scu.272065

Berel And Others (Customs Union): ECJ 16 Dec 2010

Opinion – Customs Union – Distribution of import duties – Representation – Solidarity – Possibility of relying on the delivery of a customs debt granted to a joint debtor
V Trstenjak AG
C-78/10, [2010] EUECJ C-78/10
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Opinion – Berel And Others (Customs Union) ECJ 17-Feb-2011
ECJ Community Customs Code – Articles 213, 233 and 239 – Joint and several liability of several debtors for the same customs debt – Remission of import duties – Extinction of the customs debt – No possibility for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.427667

Hayman Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 May 2021

Export of Vodka Under Suspension –

Export of vodka under suspension – consignment never arrived at destination – application of Article 10 Council Directive 2008/118/EC and Regulations 80 and 81 Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010 – whether guarantor liable for movement irregularity – yes
[2021] UKFTT 195 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.663726

Yieh United Steel v Commission (Dumping – Imports of Stainless Steel Cold-Rolled Flat Products Originating In China and Taiwan – Judgment): ECFI 3 Dec 2019

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(3) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(3) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) – Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation 2016/1036) – Calculation of the normal value – Calculation of the production cost – Sales of the like product intended for consumption on the domestic market of the exporting country
ECLI:EU:T:2019:831, [2019] EUECJ T-607/15
Bailii
European

Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.665541

Amoena (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: SC 13 Jul 2016

The court considered the proper classification under customs codes for a mastectomy bra. The First Tier Tribunal had found no evidence that it had an medical purpose beyond the containment of the breast from.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
The issue was as to the classification of the bra. The intended use of the product may constitute an objective criterion in relation to tariff classification if it is inherent in the product and is capable of assessment on the basis of the products objective characteristics. The Court of Appeal’s conclusion was consistent with the ordinary understanding of orthopaedics and the Advocate General’s opinion in the Uroplasty case. With respect to ‘orthopaedic appliances’ the reference in explanatory note 6 to appliances ‘supporting or holding parts of the body following an illness, operation or injury’ does not encompass appliances supporting artificial body parts such as an artificial breast form.
Lord Carnwath did not consider the bra to be a ‘part’ either of the breast form on its own, or of a ‘whole’ consisting of the breast form and bra together, as it is marketed as an entirely separate product [44]. However, on a natural reading of the guidance, the bra is an ‘accessory’ because it enables the breast form to perform its function, by holding it in place, and thus performs ‘a particular service relative to (its) main function’.
Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge
[2016] UKSC 41, [2016] 1 WLR 2904, [2016] WLR(D) 386, [2016] STC 1884, [2016] 4 All ER 705, UKSC 2015/0046
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTx – Amoena (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 21-Oct-2011
CUSTOMS DUTY – Whether Mastectomy bra should be classified to commodity code 6212 1090 00 as a clothing article – whether proper to code 9021 1010 00 as an orthopaedic device – appeal dismissed . .
At UTTC – Amoena (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs UTTC 12-Aug-2013
UTTC Customs duty – classification – whether mastectomy bra a brassiere under CN 6212 or an orthopaedic device etc under CN 9021 ‘ mastectomy bra an orthopaedic device under CN 9021 10 10 by virtue of Note 6 to . .
At CA – Amoena (UK) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 29-Jan-2015
Appeal as to the appropriate classification, and hence level of customs duty, for a mastectomy bra. . .
Cited – Turbon International GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz ECJ 7-Feb-2002
ECJ Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1734/96, must be interpreted as meaning that an ink-cartridge without . .
Cited – Lohmann v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz ECJ 7-Nov-2002
(Judgment) Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Classification in the Combined Nomenclature of wrist orthoses, lumbar support belts, elbow supports and knee supports – Note 1(b) to Chapter 90 of the Combined Nomenclature . .
Cited – Uroplasty BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst-Douanedistrict Rotterdam ECJ 13-Jul-2006
Europa (Common Customs Tariff) Tariff classification – Sterile flakes of polydimethilsiloxane – Silicone elastomer – Meaning of ‘primary form’ – Medicament – Packaging – Meaning of ‘appliance implanted in the . .
Cited – Turbon International v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz ECJ 26-Oct-2006
Europa Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Classification in the Combined Nomenclature of ink cartridges compatible with Epson Stylus Color printers – Inks (heading 3215) – Parts and accessories of machines . .
Cited – Unomedical A/S v Skatteministeriet (Customs Union) ECJ 16-Jun-2011
ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Plastic dialysis drainage bags intended exclusively for use with dialysers (artificial kidneys) – Plastic urine drainage bags intended . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Aimia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd SC 13-Mar-2013
The company managed a card loyalty scheme for retailers. The Revenue appealed against a decision that the company could reclaim VAT input tax on the goods purchased on the customers redeeming their points. The ECJ had decided that the service . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.566878

Lane Fouracres Associates v HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 11 Feb 2014

UTLC CUSTOMS DUTY – Community Customs Code – Generalised system of preferences – whether relevant time limit for repayment of duties not legally owed is three years – Article 236(2) Council Regulation 2913/92/EEC – no – proof of origin of goods must be submitted within ten months of issue – Article 90(b) Commission Regulation 2454/93
Herrington, Sadler TJJ
[2014] UKUT 67 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.521231

HM Revenue and Customs v Cooneen Watts and Stone Limited: UTTC 24 Jan 2014

UTTC CUSTOMS DUTY – relief for military end use – classification of goods imported for military end use – Combined Nomenclature – objective characteristics of clothing with infra red reflectance properties – Council Regulation 150/2003 – whether certificate of MoD pursuant to that regulation is conclusive as to the availability of relief – entitlement to remission of duties – articles 236 and 239 of the Customs Code
[2014] UKUT 31 (TCC)
Bailii
Council Regulation 150/2003
England and Wales

Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.521228

HM Revenue and Customs v Marco Trading Company Ltd: UTTC 16 Sep 2013

UTTC CUSTOMS DUTY- post clearance demands – whether goods eligible for reduced rate of duty under Generalised System of Preferences-whether sufficient evidence to conclude that direct transport rule satisfied-no-whether substantiating documents produced – no – whether duty may be remitted-whether a special situation existed – no – Article 78 Commission Regulation (EEC)2454/93, Article 239 Council regulation 2913/92/EEC – appeal allowed
[2013] UKUT 450 (TCC)
Bailii
Council Regulation 2913/92/EEC, Commission Regulation (EEC)2454/93
England and Wales

Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.521015

HM Revenue and Customs v Tomtom International Bv: UTTC 11 Oct 2013

UTTC CUSTOMS DUTIES – tariff classification – replacement mounting for sat-nav device – whether BTI correct – whether mounting proper to heading 3926 (articles of plastics), 8302 (miscellaneous articles of base metal), 8529 (parts for certain devices), 8708 (parts and accessories of motor vehicles) – classification to 8302 correct – appeal determined accordingly.
[2013] UKUT 498 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.521020

M v Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen, Schonherr: ECJ 5 Feb 2015

ECJ (Judgment) – Request for a preliminary ruling – Drug precursors – Monitoring of trade between the Member States – Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 – Monitoring of trade between the European Union and third countries – Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 – Trade in medicinal products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine – Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ – Composition – Exclusion of all medicinal products or only those containing scheduled substances and the composition of which does allow those substances to be readily extracted – Directive 2001/83/EC – Definition of ‘medicinal product’
T von Danwitz, P
ECLI:EU:C:2015:59, [2015] EUECJ C-627/13
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 , Regulation (EC) No 111/2005, Directive 2001/83/EC
European

Updated: 15 July 2021; Ref: scu.542291

Coyle Trading As Coyle Transport v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Appeals : Time To Appeal): FTTTx 28 Jan 2019

PROCEDURE – Excise duty assessment – Notice of Assessment – Identity of addressee – Application of s 114 Taxes Management Act 1970 – Application to make a late appeal – Martland considered and applied – Application dismissed
[2019] UKFTT 60 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.635673

Build-A-Bear Workshop UK Holdings Limited v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 29 Mar 2021

CUSTOMS DUTIES – classification of accessories for use with dolls and toys under Chapter 95 of the Combined Nomenclature – application of Note 3 to Chapter 95 – meaning of ‘suitable for use’ and ‘principally’ in Note 3 – effect of Note 3 on scope of subheading 9503 00 29 (parts and accessories of dolls) – application of General Rule of Interpretation 3 – scope of subheading 9503 00 70 (sets) – burden of proof in customs matters
[2021] UKUT 67 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.662806

Munir v Revenue and Customs: CA 26 May 2021

How the First-tier Tribunal may treat a conviction which is said to prove that an appellant was either holding or involved in holding excise goods on which no duty had been paid for the purposes of the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010?
Lord Justice Edis
[2021] EWCA Civ 799
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 June 2021; Ref: scu.662793

Lennon v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Other): FTTTx 26 Sep 2018

Excise duty – transhipment between two places in Republic of Ireland – stopped in Northern Ireland – acquitted by District Judge of criminal offence – HMRC failed to disprove appellant’s claim of what happened in District Judge’s court – res judicata – appeal allowed
[2018] UKFTT 562 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 June 2021; Ref: scu.632308

Billingham v Customs and Excise: Excs 25 Mar 2004

EXCISE DUTY – restoration of seized excise goods and conditional restoration of motor vehicle – whether the goods were for personal or commercial use – commercial use but selling at above cost price to family and cost price to friends – Appellant knew what he was doing wrong – the non-restoration and conditional restoration proportionate to the Appellant’s contravention – yes – did the conditional restoration of the vehicle create exceptional hardship – no – was the decision not to restore the excise goods and offer conditional restoration of the vehicle reasonable – yes – appeal dismissed
References: [2004] UKVAT-Excise E00686
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.271732

HM Revenue and Customs v Photron Europe Ltd: UTTC 30 Jul 2012

CUSTOMS DUTIES – tariff classification under Combined Nomenclature – high speed camera – whether ‘digital camera’ under subheading 8525 80 30 or ‘video camera recorders – only able to record sound and images taken by the television camera’ under subheading 8525 80 91 – camera properly classified as ‘digital camera – appeal dismissed.
References: [2012] UKUT 275 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.466682

Mansouri v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 25 Nov 2015

FTTTx Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against penalties – cross application to strike out – whether dishonesty – yes – whether any reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case succeeding – no – appeal struck out.
References: [2015] UKFTT 585 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556194

LVTC Ltd v Border Revenue: FTTTx 12 Nov 2015

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – restoration – goods deemed condemned – requirement to show proof of ownership – invoices provided, but no evidence of payment – no further information supplied – decision not to restore, confirmed on review – whether review should have been confined to question of ownership – held, no – whether decision unreasonable – held, no – appeal dismissed
References: [2015] UKFTT 544 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556192

Koronkiewicz v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Appeals : Jurisdiction): FTTTx 20 Nov 2015

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – assessment to excise duty and wrongdoing penalty following the seizure of goods – whether the appeal should be reinstated under rule 17 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 following withdrawal by the appellant – jurisdiction of the tribunal following Nicholas Race v HMRC – application refused
References: [2015] UKFTT 579 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556191

Wipox Sp Zoo v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Oct 2015

Excise Duty Appeals : Time To Appeal – Refusal of late request to carry out review of decision not to restore seized goods – Whether decision should be upheld – No – Application allowed and review directed – Section 14A Finance Act 1994
References: [2015] UKFTT 501 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556179

Martin v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Oct 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty Civil Penalty (See Also Excise Hydrocarbon Oil Duty) : Assessment – Excise Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against civil evasion penalty – cross application to strike out – no reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case succeeding – appeal struck out.
References: [2015] UKFTT 541 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556163

Measor v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Oct 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling – Excise Duty – importation of tobacco products – goods confiscated – no challenge – deemed forfeiture – appeal against assessment – late application for hardship – financial information not provided – cross application to strike out – no reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case succeeding – appeal struck out.
References: [2015] UKFTT 542 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556164

Entezam v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 Oct 2015

FTTTx Excise Duty Civil Penalty (See Also Excise Hydrocarbon Oil – Duty) : Evasion – EXCISE DUTY – penalties – Finance Act 1994, section 8 and Finance Act 2003, section 25 – importing cigarettes without payment of duty – dishonestly seeking to evade duty – appeal dismissed
References: [2015] UKFTT 513 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556150

Boston Ltd v Director of Border Revenue (Excise Duty Restoration of Goods (See Also Excise Appeal) : Dismissed On Facts): FTTTx 28 Oct 2015

FTTTx RESTORATION – Seizure of goods in absence of export licence – Refusal to restore goods upheld on review – Whether decision reasonable and proportionate – Yes – Appeal dismissed
References: [2015] UKFTT 534 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556141

Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main v Duval GmbH and Co KG: ECJ 26 Nov 2015

Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union and Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Position 9025 – Concept of ‘thermometer’- Indicators of exposure to a predetermined target temperature to be used on one occasion only
References: C-44/15, [2015] EUECJ C-44/15, ECLI:EU:C:2015:783
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556126

Revenue and Customs v Brobot Petroleum Ltd; UTTC 21 Jul 2016

References: [2016] UKUT 330 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Ratio: EXCISE DUTY – duty deferment – approval pursuant to Excise Duty (Deferred Payment) Regulations 1992 – HMRC refusing approval – FTT finding that refusal was unreasonable – whether FTT entitled to come to that conclusion – appeal allowed
Statutes: Excise Duty (Deferred Payment) Regulations 1992
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 18-Nov-16
Ref: 570409

Davidson v Revenue and Customs; Excs 25 Jul 2008

References: [2008] UKVAT-Excise E01127
Links: Bailii
Ratio: VDT EXCISE – seizure of vehicle and goods – whether seizure challenged – restoration refused – whether appeal against non-restoration of vehicle – whether decision not to restore goods proportionate – whether appellant entitled to raise issue of own use – whether abuse of process – No
JURISDICTION – Whether criminal charge – Whether Magna Carta and Bill of Rights 1689 applicable – Whether Appellant denied right to a fair trial – Gora considered – Appeal dismissed.
Statutes: Finance Act 1994 14(3), Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 1(1), Excise Goods, Beer and Tobacco Products (Amendment) Regulations 2002, Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 Sch 36, Beer Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/1228) 15, Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992 4, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 49(1), European Convention on Human Rights 6
This case cites:

  • Cited – Bowles v Bank of England KBD ([1913] 1 Ch 57, [1913] 82 LJ Ch 124, [1913] 108 LT 95, [1913] 29 TLR 42, [1913] 57 Sol Jo 43, [1913] 6 Tax Cas 136)
    The House of Commons Ways and means committee resolved to assent to the imposition of income tax at the required rate for the next year.
    Held: Such a resolution was inadequate to authorise the Crown to levy the tax by its deduction from the . .
  • Cited – Weller v Revenue & Customs VDT (Bailii, [2008] UKVAT-Excise E01110, [2008] V & DR 221)
    VDT EXCISE – RESTORATION – payment when restoration not possible – amount of payment – goods purchased on cross-channel ferry – ferry operator used simplified scheme under Article 7(9), EU Council Directive 92/12 . .
  • Cited – Gascoyne v Customs and Excise and Another CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1162, [2005] 2 WLR 222, [2005] Ch 215)
    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 – Commissioners of Customs & Excise v Dickinson ChD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 2358 (Ch), Times 03-Dec-03, Gazette 22-Jan-04, [2004] 1 WLR 1160, [2003] All ER (D) 315)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 14-Sep-16
Ref: 273034

Dickinson v Customs and Excise; Excs 20 Feb 2003

References: [2003] UKVAT-Excise E00387
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Appeal under s.16 FA 1994 – Stopping vehicle and seizing it and tobacco – Whether stopping lawful – Whether seizure lawful – Hoverspeed (Administrative Court) – Whether adjournment should be granted – Intimidatory behaviour – Full compensation
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Commissioners of Customs & Excise v Dickinson ChD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 2358 (Ch), Times 03-Dec-03, Gazette 22-Jan-04, [2004] 1 WLR 1160, [2003] All ER (D) 315)
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 08-Sep-16
Ref: 271480

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

References: [2016] UKUT 195 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Ratio: 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
Statutes: EU Directive 92/12/EEC

Last Update: 30-Jul-16
Ref: 567343

Keown Midlands Ltd v Revenue and Customs; Excs 8 Dec 2005

References: [2005] UKVAT-Excise E00932
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Excs EXCISE DUTY – restoration of trailer – Appellant no involvement and no responsibility for unlawful importation of alcohol – Appellant’s previous offence not relevant to circumstances of the appeal – Respondents failed to apply their mind to the individual circumstances and the issue of proportionality – was the decision not to restore the seized trailer reasonable – no – appeal allowed

Last Update: 23-Jul-16
Ref: 272011

Hacon v Customs and Excise; Excs 10 Jul 2002

References: [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00374
Links: Bailii
Excs Ratio EXCISE DUTY – Restoration of vehicle – Tobacco – Partner of Appellant imported tobacco concealed in cases of beer – Importer alleged that he had stolen the beer and did not know tobacco was there – Review officer ignored importer’s account – Review officer failed to review facts – Whether decision reasonable – FA 1994 ss 15(1), 16(4) – Appeal allowed

Last Update: 28-May-16
Ref: 271456

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

References: [2016] UKUT 166 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Ratio 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

Last Update: 21-Apr-16
Ref: 562435

McKarnon v Revenue and Customs; Excs 30 Sep 2005

References: [2005] UKVAT-Excise E00919
Links: Bailii
Excs Ratio EXCISE DUTIES – interception of vehicle – driven by Appellant’s husband vehicle found to contain 80,000 cigarettes in respect of which duty had not been paid – seizure of vehicle – request by Appellant for restoration – application of restoration policy – whether Appellant sole owner of vehicle – whether vehicle jointly owned – Appellant without involvement in any offence – Appellant an innocent party – Whether reasonable not to restore vehicle – Whether decision not to restore based upon correct findings as to ownership of the vehicle – Appeal allowed

Last Update: 06-Apr-16
Ref: 271995

Bell v Revenue and Customs; Excs 26 Jul 2005

References: [2005] UKVAT-Excise E00898, [2005] UKVAT-Excise E00898_1
Links: Bailii, Bailii
VDT Ratio RESTORATION – third trip abroad – stopped at Dover Eastern Docks – goods within the guidelines – purchased for the Appellant and his family – Appellant seriously depressed after death of father – encouraged to go abroad to buy the goods by aunt – refusal to restore cigarettes and spirits reasonable – appeal dismissed

Last Update: 21-Mar-16
Ref: 271969

Butters v Revenue and Customs; Excs 6 Jun 2005

References: [2005] UKVAT-Excise E00888
Links: Bailii
EXCS Ratio EXCISE DUTIES – Seizure of excise goods at Hull ferry port – no condemnation proceedings and goods deemed to be forfeit – whether issue of importation of goods for own use can be raised by Appellant before tribunal – yes – whether decision on review to refuse restoration reasonable – no – case remitted by tribunal for further review – appeal allowed
Last Update: 12-Mar-16 Ref: 271964

Dalziel v Revenue and Customs; Excs 5 Jul 2006

References: [2006] UKVAT-Excise E00967
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE DUTY RESTORATION OF GOODS – other – condemnation proceedings before magistrates concluding that cigarettes properly forfeited as held for commercial purpose – allegations before tribunal of falsehood, gross exaggeration and lack of independence on part of reviewing officer – allegations held to be without foundation – appeal dismissed
Last Update: 18-Feb-16 Ref: 272049

Xerox Ltd v Revenue and Customs; UTTC 19 Nov 2015

References: [2015] UKUT 631 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
ICO CUSTOMS DUTY – engineered solid ‘ink sticks’ – whether classifiable as ‘printing ink … other inks, whether or not concentrated or solid’ under CN heading 3215 or as ‘parts’ of printers under CN heading 8443 – General Rules of Interpretation considered – held, applying GRI 3(a) that CN heading 3215 provides the more specific description – appeal dismissed
Last Update: 16-Feb-16 Ref: 558961

Stanton Shipping and Trading Ltd v Revenue and Customs; Excs 3 Oct 2006

References: [2006] UKVAT-Excise E00995
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE DUTY – Assessments on Appellant warehouse keeper made under s. 12 FA 1994 following irregular departures from suspension arrangements – art. 6 Excise Directive 92/12/EEC; regs. 4(2) and 5(4) Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and REDS) Regulations SI 1992/3135 – whether unlawful conduct of the Commissioners causative of the irregular departures – held not — whether Appellant properly liable – held yes – no Community law principle required the assessments to be quashed – Greenalls Management Limited v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2005] UKHL 34 followed – appeal dismissed
Last Update: 12-Feb-16 Ref: 272078

Wellings v Customs and Excise; Excs 13 Apr 2005

References: [2005] UKVAT-Excise E00876
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE DUTIES – Seizure of car and goods at Coquelles – no condemnation proceedings and goods and car deemed to be forfeit – whether issue of importation of goods for own use can be raised by Appellant before tribunal – yes – whether decision on review to refuse restoration reasonable – no – case remitted by tribunal for further review – appeal allowed
Last Update: 12-Feb-16 Ref: 271956

Malinowski v Revenue and Customs; Excs 7 Apr 2008

References: [2008] UKVAT-Excise E01105
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE DUTY – seizure of cigarettes and vehicle – Appellant claimed that the vehicle belonged to him and that he was unaware of the conduct of the driver – refusal to restore the vehicle – Appellant appealed under Finance Act 1994 s 16(4) – Appellant decided at the hearing not to pursue his appeal – appeal dismissed
Last Update: 02-Feb-16 Ref: 272182

Perfect v Revenue and Customs; FTTTX 7 Dec 2015

References: [2015] UKFTT 639 (TC)
Links: Bailii
FTTTx Excise Duty – Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010, reg 13 – Finance Act 2008, Sch 41 – assessment and penalty in respect of seized goods – whether the appellant driver of the vehicle was ‘making the delivery of’ or ‘holding’ the goods and therefore liable for the assessment – No – appeal allowed
Last Update: 26-Dec-15 Ref: 557186

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

References: [2015] UKFTT 664 (TC)
Links: Bailii
FTTTX EXCISE D seizure of two ivory figurines D imported without the required permits D CITES D restoration refused D whether or not the refusal was reasonable D failure to take into account delayed receipt of the notice of seizure D failure to consider proportionality D appeal allowed
Last Update: 23-Dec-15 Ref: 557189

Billingham v Customs and Excise; Excs 25 Mar 2004

References: [2004] UKVAT-Excise E00686
Links: Bailii
EXCISE DUTY – restoration of seized excise goods and conditional restoration of motor vehicle – whether the goods were for personal or commercial use – commercial use but selling at above cost price to family and cost price to friends – Appellant knew what he was doing wrong – the non-restoration and conditional restoration proportionate to the Appellant’s contravention – yes – did the conditional restoration of the vehicle create exceptional hardship – no – was the decision not to restore the excise goods and offer conditional restoration of the vehicle reasonable – yes – appeal dismissed
Last Update: 29-Nov-15 Ref: 271732

Reynolds v Customs and Excise; Excs 27 May 2004

References: [2004] UKVAT-Excise E00724
Links: Bailii
EXCS EXCISE DUTIES – Importation of 25 kg of hand rolling tobacco by driver of vehicle – importation of 13 kg tobacco and 13000 cigarettes by his 2 passengers – forfeiture of vehicle and goods – whether review decision not to restore vehicle and goods was reasonable – appeal dismissed
Last Update: 29-Nov-15 Ref: 271807

Ahmed v Customs and Excise; Excs 25 Mar 2004

References: [2004] UKVAT-Excise E00687
Links: Bailii
RESTORATION- Son took commercial vehicle to Calais for the day – purchased 265.5 kg hand rolling tobacco, 800 cigarettes, 480 litres beer, 315 litres wine and 3.7 litres spirits – commercial purchase not in dispute – car offered for restoration on payment of £5,346.88 – Appellant unwilling to pay – unaware of son’s activities – third party car – appeal dismissed
Last Update: 29-Nov-15 Ref: 271727

Jacobsohn v Blake and Compton; 13 Jan 1843

References: (1844) 6 Man and G 919, 13 LJ CP 89, [1843] EngR 175, (1844) 6 Man & G 919, (1843) 134 ER 1164
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Tindal CJ, Erskine J, Cresswell J
Custom-house officers took possession of goods landed by the plaintiff for the purpose of examination and detained them upon a misapprehension that they were prohibited and liable to forfeiture. In an action for trespass, the defence was that, there having been no seizure by the officers, the action of trespass could not be maintained. The jury were directed that the goods having been legally in the possession of the defendants, and there having been no seizure by them, the action of trespass could not be maintained. That direction was upheld in the Court of Common Pleas.
Held: In order to entitle the plaintiff to maintain such an action [of trespass] there must have been an actual seizure of the plaintiff’s goods. There was no evidence of any act of trespass. There was no seizure whatever by the defendants. The goods were landed and taken possession of by the defendants in the discharge of their duty, for the purpose of their being examined. There was no evidence of any seizure or of any other act amounting to a trespass. There was no trespass in the first instance, or anything that could be called a seizure. The goods were taken by the plaintiff’s agent to the proper place for examination of them by the defendants in the regular discharge of their duty as custom-house officers. Upon their examination, all that the defendants did was, to detain them, till it could be ascertained whether or not they were liable to forfeiture. This is not an act of trespass.
Tindal CJ said: ‘[T]he defendants merely took possession of the goods, in the execution of their duty as custom-house officers, for the purpose of examination. When the goods were examined certain marks were found upon them, which induced the defendants to think they were prohibited; and they said they must detain them; and then, on a subsequent application on the part of the plaintiff for the delivery of the goods, the answer was that they were detained and would be prosecuted as seizures. It appears, therefore, that the defendants originally detained the goods under a real and honest doubt that they were subject to forfeiture: whether that doubt was well grounded, is not now the question. . . There has been no abuse of authority on their part. The goods remained, during the whole time of the examination, in the same custody in which they were, in the first instance, legally detained.’
Coltman J said: ‘The defendants were custom-house officers acting under an authority given them by law. It was their duty to examine the goods in question, in order to ascertain to what duty they were liable, or whether or not they were subject to forfeiture. If the goods had been afterwards detained by them for a time more than reasonable for the examination, that might have been an abuse of their authority so as to render them liable in another form of action. But it appears to me there is no ground for saying they did more than detain the goods for a reasonable time, in order that the question as to the liability of the goods to forfeiture might be submitted to the proper authorities.’
This case is cited by:

Irving v Wilson And Another; 22 Nov 1791

References: [1791] EngR 1492, (1791) 4 TR 485, (1791) 100 ER 1132
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Kenyon CJ, Ashurst J
If a Reveriue officer seize goods as forfeited, which are not liable to seizure, and take money of the owner to release them, the latter may recover back the money in action for money had and received. In such an action a month’s notice need not be given under the 23 G. 3, c. 70, s. 30.
The action was brought for the recovery of money had and received by customs officers. The officers had stopped a cart containing goods which required a permit, without which they were liable to forfeiture. The carrier did not have a permit, but told the officers that the goods formed part of a larger consignment, and that a permit for the entire consignment was with the remainder of the consignment, some miles behind. The officers waited some time, but the remainder of the consignment did not appear. The officers then seized the goods. When the remainder of the consignment eventually arrived, and the permit was produced, those goods also were seized. The officers then refused to restore the goods until a payment had been made by the owner.
Held: The action succeeded.
Ashurst J noted that ‘the goods were not liable to seizure’, but also stated that ‘the defendants acted right in stopping the goods at first; but when the permit came up, there was no pretence to detain them’.
Lord Kenyon CJ distinguished between the initial detention and the subsequent seizure, stating that ‘whatever ground of probability there was for stopping the first cart, yet after the matter was cleared up, there was no pretence for making a seizure’.
This case is cited by: