Photron Europe Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 May 2011

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 – repayment claim by Appellant – claim by Appellant that binding tariff information wrongly classified goods – camera properly classified as ‘digital camera’ – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 334 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.443069

Bio Power (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Apr 2012

Excise duty – fuel duty – Hydrocarbon Oils Duties Act 1979 s 6A – fuel substitutes – pounds 11,044 assessment and pounds 250 penalty imposed in respect of unpaid duty and failure to produce records – Appellant alleging it sold cleaned, filtered, polished waste vegetable oil and not fuel – whether there had been a ‘setting aside for chargeable use’ of the product – consideration of meaning of ‘setting aside’ – held in this case that addition of Dipentene to the product with the stated aim of enhancing its Cetane value amounted to such setting aside – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 316 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes – Other, Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.462651

Chabo v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen (Common Customs Tariff): ECJ 24 Jun 2010

Europa Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 – Common Customs Tariff – Tariff specific – Canned mushrooms of the genus Agaricus (mushrooms) – Proportionality – Extent of control in the presence of a broad discretion – Objectives Agricultural Policy – Objectives of Trade Policy – Necessity – WTO – Agreement on Agriculture – Article 4 – Fees – Illegality of variable levies.

Citations:

C-213/09, [2010] EUECJ C-213/09

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.420175

Lagura Vermogensverwaltung Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen: ECJ 8 Nov 2012

ECJ Community customs code – Article 220(2)(b) – Post-clearance recovery of import duties – Legitimate expectations – Impossibility of verifying the accuracy of a certificate of origin – Notion of ‘certificate based on an incorrect account of the facts provided by the exporter’ – Burden of proof – Scheme of generalised tariff preferences

Citations:

C-438/11, [2012] EUECJ C-438/11

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.466000

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 goods as ‘liable to forfeiture’
Held: It was.

Judges:

Singh J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2975 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 144(2)

Citing:

See AlsoFirst 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 AlsoFirst 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: . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromHM 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 AlsoEastenders Cash And Carry Plc And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Nov-2013
Statement of Facts – The company’s goods had been detained by Customs and Excise. A court later ordered their return, but found the detention to have been with reasonable cause. The Revenue had successfully argued that costs could not be awarded . .
See AlsoBarnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
See AlsoEastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 11-Jun-2014
Alcoholic drinks had been seized by the respondents pending further enquiries with a view to a possible forfeiture, then held and returned but only under court order. The company had complained that the detention of the goods was unlawful. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465665

Mackle and Others, Regina v: CANI 16 Oct 2007

The defendants appealed against confiscation orders made on sentencing for conspiracy to import cigarettes so as to evade customs duty.
Held: Girvan LJ identified the two principal issues as (i) whether the appellants had consented to the making of the consent orders on an incorrect legal basis (and that therefore the trial judges had likewise wrongly made the orders); and (ii) whether the orders having been made on consent, the appellants were in any event bound by them.

Judges:

Kerr LCJ, Campbell LJ and Girvan LJ

Citations:

[2007] NICA 37, [2008] NI 183

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

Appeal fromMackle, Regina v SC 29-Jan-2014
Several defendants appealed against confiscation orders made against them on convictions for avoiding customs and excise duty by re-importing cigarettes originally intended for export. They had accepted the orders being made by consent, but now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Criminal Sentencing, Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.261668

Dohler Neuenkirchen Gmbh v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg: ECJ 6 Sep 2012

ECJ Community Customs Code – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Article 204(1)(a) – Inward processing procedure – System of suspension – Incurrence of a customs debt – Non-fulfilment of an obligation to supply the bill of discharge within the prescribed period

Judges:

Lenaerts P

Citations:

C-262/10, [2012] EUECJ C-262/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.464427

Ali v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 17 Feb 2020

Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 96 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.649164

Szabala v Director of Border Revenue (Restoration of Vehicle – Whether All Relevant Facts Considered and Irrelevant Facts Excluded): FTTTx 29 Oct 2019

RESTORATION OF VEHICLE – Whether all relevant facts considered and irrelevant facts excluded – No – Whether inevitable that same decision would be reached on further review – No – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 654 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.644040

A-Dec Dental UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Apr 2014

Customs duty – TARIC classification code for specialist lamp used for dentistry – whether proper to code 9018 49 90 00 (‘Other instruments and appliances, used in dental sciences/other/other’ under the heading ‘Instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences . . ‘) or to code 9405 40 99 90 (‘Other electric lamps and lighting fittings/other/of other materials/other/other’ under the heading ‘Lamps and lighting fittings . . not elsewhere specified or included . . ‘) – held the former – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 351 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.525315

Butlers Ship Stores Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2012

EXCISE DUTY – disappearance of goods; excise duty point; tax warehouse; assessment on consignor; carrier and owner of goods; validity of assessments; joint and several liability; abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances; force majeure; whether supervening principles of European Law of proportionality and/or legal certainty rendered assessments invalid; Council Directive 92/12/EEC, Arts. 13, 14, 15 and 20; validity of Regulation 7 of the Excise Duty Points (Duty Suspended Movements of Excise Goods) Regulations 2001

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 371 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Excise Duty Points (Duty Suspended Movements of Excise Goods) Regulations 2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462782

Dennett v Director of Border Revenue and Another: FTTTx 14 Jun 2012

EXCISE DUTY – Vehicle seized and condemned as liable to forfeiture under CMA – restoration appeal – Tribunal confined to considering the reasonableness of UKBA’s decision to refuse restoration following HMRC v Jones and Jones – whether exceptional circumstances existed which rendered that decision unreasonable – held there were none – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 395 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462794

Fernando v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2012

EXCISE DUTY – Restoration appeal – excise goods (alcohol) purchased from a cash and carry in the UK and found in a vehicle transporting them within the UK – whether the decision not to offer the vehicle for restoration was unreasonable – held on the facts it was not – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 394 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462797

Logistika Peklaj As v UK Border Agency: FTTTx 25 May 2012

FTTTx Excise duties – Restoration – Reasonableness of decision to not to restore used vehicle and trailer seized in the course of smuggling tobacco into the UK – Second seizure within a short period after a similar incident — In both cases driver responsible and haulier not complicit – UKBA’s decision based on conclusion that haulier’s standard of care was inadequate – Whether decision reasonable in all the circumstances – No – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 355 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462746

Gateway Shipping Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 May 2012

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTY – Hardship – Duty or security pending appeal – Post-Clearance demand- Appellant the declarant – Joint and several liability for debt – Appellant’s Customer successful in appeal against demand by HMRC – Whether payment by Appellant to HMRC would cause irreparable damage or serious economic damage – Relevance of dividends paid to controlling shareholders – Relevance of Tribunal decision in favour of customer – FA 1994 s.16(3) – Community Customs Code (Reg (EEC) 92/2913) Act 244 – Appeals entertained

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 328 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462739

Blue Machinery (Advanced Technologies) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 31 May 2012

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTY – classification – Combined Nomenclature – ‘Two-Ram Baler’ – whether objective characteristics were ‘other packing or wrapping machinery’ within heading 8422 40 – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 363 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462728

GB Seed Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 May 2012

FTTTz Customs Duty – Post clearance demand notice – Whether waiver of notice – No – Whether correct customs information provided – No – Whether importer liable to pay import duty and for accuracy of presented documents – Yes – Burden of proof not discharged – Appeal Dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 343 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462740

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 Rule 29 of the VAT Tribunal Rules 1986 – Atlantic Electronics considered – alternatively whether order for costs should be made under Rule 10 Tribunal Rules 2009 – whether Respondents acting unreasonably

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 219 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoEastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs Admn 4-Nov-2010
Applications for judicial review in relation to alcoholic goods detained by the Defendants on grounds of a suspicion that duty may not have been paid in respect of them.
Sales J said: ‘In my view, there is a clear reason why Parliament wished . .
See AlsoEastenders 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 AlsoEastenders Cash and Carry Plc v South Western Magistrates’ Court Admn 22-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions by the magistrates first to issue search warrants, and then to refuse to disclose the information on which it had been based.
Held: The documentation now having been disclosed the second part of . .
See AlsoEastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 20-Jan-2012
The Court considered the lawfulness of the exercise of the power claimed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise (HMRC) to detain goods temporarily for the purpose of investigating their status. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoBarnes v Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others CCC 4-Apr-2012
The respondent had had a receivership order made after ex parte restraint orders were made. The orders were set aside as unlawful, but the receiver now sought his very substantial costs from the respondent’s assets. . .
Appeal fromEastenders 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 AlsoEastenders Cash And Carry Plc And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Nov-2013
Statement of Facts – The company’s goods had been detained by Customs and Excise. A court later ordered their return, but found the detention to have been with reasonable cause. The Revenue had successfully argued that costs could not be awarded . .
See AlsoBarnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
See AlsoEastenders 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

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462607

Cozens v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 29 Mar 2012

FTTTx HARDSHIP – Excise Duty- Appellant unable to account for substantial credits and debits to his bank account – Respondents contending that without adequate explanation hardship claim should be disallowed – not required – must look at financial position of Appellant at the time claim is considered – Appellant’s assets insignificant in the context of the amount of duty assessed – hardship found

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 228 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462604

B and S Global Transit Center v Staatssecretaris van Financien: ECJ 29 Oct 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Community Customs Code – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Articles 203 and 204 – External Community transit procedure – Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Articles 365, 366 and 859 – Incurrence of a customs debt – Whether or not goods are unlawfully removed from customs supervision – Non-fulfilment of an obligation – Failure to end the transit procedure – Removal of the goods from the customs territory of the European Union

Citations:

C-319/14, [2015] EUECJ C-319/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.554128

Civad v Receveur des douanes de Roubaix: ECJ 14 Jun 2012

ECJ Community Customs Code – Article 236(2) – Repayment of duties not legally owed – Time-limit – Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 – Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan – Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 – Repayment of anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to a regulation subsequently declared invalid – Concept of ‘force majeure’ – Time at which the obligation to repay import duties arises

Judges:

Lenaerts P

Citations:

[2012] EUECJ C-533/10, C-533/10

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

OpinionCivad v Receveur des douanes de Roubaix ECJ 14-Jun-2012
ECJ Opinion – Community Customs Code – Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties – Repayment of duties paid under a regulation subsequently declared invalid – Force majeure – Point at which the obligation of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.460901

Biofrescos v Commission: ECFI 18 Jun 2012

ECFI Customs Union – frozen prawns from Indonesia – Certificates of Origin invalid – Post-clearance recovery of import duties – Application for remission of import duties – Article 220, paragraph 2, b), and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92

Judges:

Kanninen P

Citations:

T-159/09, [2012] EUECJ T-159/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460558

Alpha State Apparels Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Customs Duty – Whether Buying Commission Paid To Intermediary): FTTTx 21 Aug 2019

Customs Duty – whether buying commission paid to intermediary – no reliable evidence that intermediary acting as buying agent – director’s genuine belief insufficient – burden of proof not discharged – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 644 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.643988

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 bar would operate to infringe its human rights.

Judges:

Mummery, Elias, David LJJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 689, [2012] CP Rep 38, [2012] STI 2593, [2012] STC 2036, [2012] WLR(D) 159, [2012] 1 WLR 2912

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoEastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs Admn 4-Nov-2010
Applications for judicial review in relation to alcoholic goods detained by the Defendants on grounds of a suspicion that duty may not have been paid in respect of them.
Sales J said: ‘In my view, there is a clear reason why Parliament wished . .
See AlsoEastenders 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 AlsoEastenders Cash and Carry Plc v South Western Magistrates’ Court Admn 22-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions by the magistrates first to issue search warrants, and then to refuse to disclose the information on which it had been based.
Held: The documentation now having been disclosed the second part of . .
See AlsoEastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 20-Jan-2012
The Court considered the lawfulness of the exercise of the power claimed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise (HMRC) to detain goods temporarily for the purpose of investigating their status. . .
Appeal fromEastenders 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 . .

Cited by:

See AlsoEastenders Cash And Carry Plc And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Nov-2013
Statement of Facts – The company’s goods had been detained by Customs and Excise. A court later ordered their return, but found the detention to have been with reasonable cause. The Revenue had successfully argued that costs could not be awarded . .
See AlsoBarnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
Appeal fromEastenders 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

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.459681

Rolls Royce Plc v Revenue and Customs (Customs Duty – Inward Processing Relief): FTTTx 6 Jun 2019

CUSTOMS DUTY – inward processing relief – whether movement to another member state before re-export chargeable event under Art 203 CCC – held not – whether failures to keep proper records and file bill of discharge on time chargeable event under Art 204 CCC – held yes – whether relief afforded by Art 859 CCIP – held no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 420 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.641250

HM Customs and Excise v Hare and Others: CA 16 Feb 1996

The defendants were suspected of substantial frauds by evading excise duty on alcohol. They now appealed against the appointment of a receiver.

Judges:

Ros, Aldous LJJ, Sir Iain Glidewell

Citations:

[1996] EWCA Civ 1351, [1996] 2 BCLC 500, [1996] 2 All ER 391

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.471878

Regina (Hoverspeed Limited and others) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 10 Dec 2002

Passengers leaving a ferry had been stopped by Customs. The vehicle was searched and a quantity of alcohol and tobacco found, which they believed not to be for personal consumption. The car and imports had been forfeited. The court had said that the methods used to select vehicles to be searched were unlawful.
Held: It was appropriate for Customs to use statistical profiles to select vehicles to be stopped. Such methods were capable of being reasonable grounds for suspicion. A blanket approach was unjustified, but selecting particular individuals for investigation where they fitted certain identified patterns could be justified. A seizure of the offending articles following an unjustified stop need not be unlawful, and someone aggrieved by a seizure should take advantage of the framework of remedies available to him. Goods acquired ‘for his own use’ was not restricted to the personal individual use by that individual, but could include, for example, someone stocking up for a party, or acquiring them as gifts for a friend or relative. Use outside the range of such personal use was deemed to be commercial use.

Judges:

The Master of The Rolls, Lord Justice Latham, Lord Justice Mance

Citations:

Times 16-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1804, [2003] 2 All ER 553, [2003] QB 1041, [2003] STC 1273, [2003] 2 WLR 950

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 163 163A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHoverspeed Limited, Alan Charles Andrews, Pauline Andrews, Lynne Andrews, George Wilkinson v Commissioners of Customs and Excise QBD 31-Jul-2002
The applicants operated ferries between Britain and France. Their customers were being stopped by Customs and Excise, and they sought to challenge the validity of the Order and non specific ways of selecting vehicles to be stopped.
Held: The . .
CitedEntick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .

Cited by:

CitedCommissioners of Customs and Excise v Newbury Admn 3-Mar-2003
The commissioner appealed a finding that a car and other goods they had forfeited should be returned. The owner said that matters had been imported for personal use under the directive.
Held: The directive had direct effect and precedence over . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Crime

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.178454

DHL Logistics (Slovakia) (Judgment): ECJ 30 Apr 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined nomenclature – Subheading 8525 80 91 – Digital cameras – Camcorders – Digital video camera capable of capturing and recording still images and video sequences with a resolution of less than 800 x 600 pixels ‘quality’

Citations:

C-810/18, [2020] EUECJ C-810/18, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 336

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.660116

Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals v Commission (Dumping – Imports of Certain Seamless Pipes and Tubes of Stainless Steel Originating In China – Judgment): ECFI 15 Oct 2020

Dumping – Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in China – Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty – Rights of the defence – Calculation of the dumping margin – Analogue country – Injury – Causal link)

Citations:

T-307/18, [2020] EUECJ T-307/18, ECLI:EU:T:2020:487

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial, Customs and Excise

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.660635

Bick and Another v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty – Assessments for Duty and Penalties): FTTTx 3 Jun 2019

EXCISE DUTY – assessments for duty and penalties in relation to excise goods seized from the appellants – Jones and Race considered – goods deemed to be for commercial use – assessments in time – appeals against assessments dismissed – appeals against quantum of penalties allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 353 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.638525

Ilumitronica v Chefe da Divisao de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direccao das Alfandegas de Lisboa: ECJ 14 Nov 2002

(Judgment) EEC-Turkey Association Agreement – Importation of television sets from Turkey – Determination of the person liable for the customs debt – Post-clearance recovery of customs duties

Citations:

C-251/00, [2002] EUECJ C-251/00, [2002] ECR I-10433

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.178252

Regina v Okafor: CACD 10 Nov 1993

The appellant, a Nigerian national, arrived at Gatwick Airport from Nigeria with a single item of luggage, namely a suit carrier. He was asked a number of questions, in particular whether he had packed the luggage himself and whether everything in it belonged to him, following which his luggage was searched. Packages of cocaine were discovered in his luggage but he was not arrested or informed of what had been found, the officer wishing him to be released in order to see whether he would lead customs officers to anybody else involved in the importation. He agreed to undergo a body search. Whilst this was in progress (and other officers being deployed by way of surveillance) he was asked various questions and gave various answers without being cautioned or advised of his entitlement to have legal advice before being interviewed. Objection was taken at trial to the admission in evidence of the conversation during the body search.
Held: Customs officers are subject to the PACE Code of Practice for Detention etc in the same as are the police, and must issue a formal caution before questioning a suspect. ‘We have come to the conclusion that the learned judge ought to have excluded this conversation. There were clear breaches of the rules and breaches which were of significance in the context of this case. Therefore we conclude, because it seems that this matter has been ventilated by Mr Issard-Davies with a view to future conduct by the Customs and Excise, that where a Customs Officer has reason to suspect that an offence has been committed, he must either avoid asking questions in relation to the offence, or he must follow the provisions of the Code and administer a caution. In the circumstances of the present case it would have been an option for the Customs Officer to talk about anything other than the case whilst conducting the search, and to have allowed the suspect to go into the concourse and then ask him questions only when he was ultimately arrested. In that way the object of trying to catch others who might be waiting to meet the suspect could have been pursued.’

Judges:

Lord Taylor CJ

Citations:

Gazette 24-Nov-1993, Ind Summary 22-Nov-1993, Times 10-Nov-1993, (1994) 99 Cr App Rep 97, [1994] 3 All ER 741

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code C s66

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Sewa Singh Gill and Paramjit Singh Gill CACD 31-Jul-2003
The appellants sought to challenge their convictions for cheating the Inland Revenue. They were accused of having hidden assets and income from the revenue. The appellants objected to the use at trial of material obtained in a ‘Hansard’ interview. . .
CitedRegina v Dianne Senior and Samantha Senior CA 4-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed convictions for being involved in the illegal importation of cocaine, saying that questioning at the airport before a caution was administered was unlawful. By the time they were asked about the cases, the customs officers . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87490

Auto-Kit International Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Customs Duty – Civil Evasion Penalty – Inaccuracies In Customs Declarations): FTTTx 14 Aug 2019

CUSTOMS DUTY-Civil evasion penalty-Inaccuracies in customs declarations leading to an under-declaration of duty-Whether the Appellant’s conduct involved dishonesty (s 25 FA 2003)

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 534 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641307

JCM Europe (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Customs Duty – Tariff Classification of Bank Note Validator): FTTTx 27 Aug 2019

CUSTOMS DUTY – tariff classification of bank note validator PRO-RC – whether Commission Implementing Regulation EU 2016/1750 arguably gives incorrect classification – whether referral to the CJEU should be made to determine the validity of the Regulation – yes – referral to be made

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 547 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise, European

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641329

Clark v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Excise Duty – Hand Rolling Tobacco): FTTTx 25 Jul 2019

EXCISE DUTY – hand rolling tobacco – s.12(1A) Finance Act 1994 and Schedule 41 to Finance Act 2008 – strike out application – illiteracy – appellant unable to read – Jones and Race considered – deeming of commercial use – the temporal effect of the deeming rule – no reasonable excuse – no special circumstances – appeal against assessment struck out – penalty upheld – article 8 First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Order 2008 – Judge’s casting vote

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 479 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641264

Glover and Glover v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 1 Jul 2019

Excise Duty – importation of tobacco and alcohol products – no challenge to seizure – goods deemed lawfully seized – conjoined application for permission to appeal against assessments and penalties – objection to application by HMRC and cross application to strike out on the basis that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and appeal no reasonable prospect of succeeding – appeal struck out

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 426 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641275

Dartswift International Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty -Requirement for Goods To Be Placed Under A Duty Suspension): FTTTx 14 Nov 2018

EXCISE DUTY -requirement for goods to be placed under a duty suspension arrangement immediately on importation – circumstances in which duty point arose – liability to penalty – whether conduct deliberate – reasonable excuse – special circumstances

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 668 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632388

Murray v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Appeals : Jurisdiction): FTTTx 19 Oct 2018

EXCISE DUTY – application to strike out – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction over the substantive appeal with grounds as amended – arguments on the points of ‘consumption’ and ‘proportionality’ after Marcin Staniszewski – whether reasonable prospect of success

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 622 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632358

Cyproveg Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (Customs Duty : Origin, Certificates of): FTTTx 18 Sep 2018

CUSTOMS DUTY – Importation of garlic – shipped to United Kingdom from Sri Lanka – Whether garlic originated in China or India – Whether Article 220 criteria met for waiver of any customs debt – Whether entitlement for repayment or remission of duty – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 538 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632293

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 important questions as to the right of a receiver, appointed by the Crown Court under s.48(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (‘POCA’) following the making of a restraint order under s.41(1), to recover his costs and expenses in circumstances where this court later quashes his appointment, concluding that there had been insufficient grounds upon which to treat the assets in respect of which he had been appointed as ‘realisable property’ within the meaning of POCA s.83. ‘

Judges:

Laws, Mitting, Edwards-Stuart JJ

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Crim 2436, [2013] 1 WLR 1494, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 235, [2013] 2 All ER 437, [2012] WLR(D) 346, [2013] 1 Cr App R 24, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 235

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 48(2) 83

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoEastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs Admn 4-Nov-2010
Applications for judicial review in relation to alcoholic goods detained by the Defendants on grounds of a suspicion that duty may not have been paid in respect of them.
Sales J said: ‘In my view, there is a clear reason why Parliament wished . .
See AlsoEastenders 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 AlsoEastenders Cash and Carry Plc v South Western Magistrates’ Court Admn 22-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions by the magistrates first to issue search warrants, and then to refuse to disclose the information on which it had been based.
Held: The documentation now having been disclosed the second part of . .
See AlsoEastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 20-Jan-2012
The Court considered the lawfulness of the exercise of the power claimed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise (HMRC) to detain goods temporarily for the purpose of investigating their status. . .
Appeal fromBarnes v Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others CCC 4-Apr-2012
The respondent had had a receivership order made after ex parte restraint orders were made. The orders were set aside as unlawful, but the receiver now sought his very substantial costs from the respondent’s assets. . .

Cited by:

CitedEastenders Cash And Carry Plc And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Nov-2013
Statement of Facts – The company’s goods had been detained by Customs and Excise. A court later ordered their return, but found the detention to have been with reasonable cause. The Revenue had successfully argued that costs could not be awarded . .
See AlsoBarnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
See AlsoEastenders 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

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.466267

Cirko v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Excise Duty – Seizure of Cigarettes): FTTTx 26 Jul 2019

EXCISE DUTY – seizure of cigarettes – whether assessment of excise duty and penalty notified in time – yes – whether assessment and penalty properly imposed – yes – whether reasonable excuse or special circumstances – no

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 482 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.641262

J C Harness and Co and DDS Supplies Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty – Penalties for Dealing In Non-Duty Paid Excise Goods): FTTTx 24 Apr 2019

EXCISE DUTY – penalties for dealing in non-duty paid excise goods – time-limits – General Transport SpA applied – no causal link between duty point assessed and appellants’ penalised behaviour so time-limit running 12 months from ascertainment of tax – tax ascertained when earlier duty point assessed – preliminary issue decided in favour of appellants

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 272 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.637849

X (Customs Union): ECJ 10 Nov 2011

Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Tariff classification – Boneless chicken meat, frozen and impregnated with salt – Validity and interpretation of Regulations (EC) Nos 535/94, 1832/2002, 1871/2003, 2344/2003 and 1810/2004 – Additional Note 7 to Chapter 2 of the Combined Nomenclature – Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body – Legal effects

Citations:

C-319/10, [2011] EUECJ C-319/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.448358

Michalska v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Civil Penalty): FTTTx 4 Mar 2019

EXCISE DUTY – Cigarettes brought to UK from Poland – Seized at UK airport – Subsequent assessment to excise duty and penalties – jurisdiction of Tribunal – ‘consumption’ and ‘proportionality’ issues – hardship – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 173 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.635765

Customs and Excise v D’Souza and others: CA 7 Jun 2001

Renewed application for leave to appeal. Property had been made subject to an award in favour of the claimant after a substantial fraud on them. The defendants wished to say the property was held on trust.
Held: The defendants had been able to produce their evidence at the first hearing. They had not done so and it should not know be admitted, and the judge had been entitled to be sceptical about the evidence provided..

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 901

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.201120

Asda Stores Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 May 2012

FTTTx IMPORT DUTY – customs value – clothing imported together with hangers etc -hangers supplied to overseas supplier of clothing by separate overseas hanger supplier nominated by UK importer – price for hangers paid by overseas clothing supplier to overseas hanger supplier fixed by UK importer, who required clothing supplier to use nominated supplier of hangers – price of hangers recharged without mark-up to UK importer as part of invoice price of goods as imported – customs value of imported goods initially declared by UK importer on total price charged to it – sum subsequently repaid to UK importer by overseas hanger supplier equal to difference between price nominated by UK importer and lower value agreed between UK importer and hanger supplier – whether customs value of imported goods should be reduced to take account of amount so repaid – Articles 29 and 32 of EU Customs Code (Regulation 2913/92/EC) considered – held yes – whether excess duty paid should be repaid under Article 78 – held yes – appeal allowed

Judges:

Poole, Herrington JJ, Law FCA

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 351 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation 2913/92/EC 29 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedHauptzollamt Itzehoe v HJ Repenning Gmbh ECJ 12-Jun-1986
ECJ Article 3(1) of Council Regulation No 1224/80 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes must be interpreted as meaning that where goods bought free of defects are damaged before being released for free . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromHMRC v Asda Stores Ltd UTTC 8-May-2013
UTTC IMPORT DUTY – customs value – Articles 29 and 32 of Community Customs Code (Regulation 2913/92). . .
At FTTTxAsda Stores Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 27-Mar-2014
The appellant imported clothing manufactured outside the EU, along with hangers supplied by a third party. The manufacturers were re-imbursed the cost of acquiring the hangers, but the appellants had agreed an inflated price with the hanger . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, European

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.462726

Nokia Corporation v Revenue and Customs: ChD 27 Jul 2009

Nokia sought judicial review of a decision of the Commissioners to release a consignment of goods which it said were infringing counterfeits of its own models. The Commissioners said that in the absence of evidence that they were intended for distribution within the EU, it had no power to detain them. The goods were agreed to be fake, but no evidence of the identities of the people involved had beeen established.
Held: Case law established that it was for the mark owner to establish that the goods would be districuted as required: ‘infringement of registered trade mark requires goods to be placed on the market and that goods in transit and subject to suspensive customs procedures do not, without more, satisfy this requirement.’
The Directive had not intended to extend the powers of mark owners in the way suggested. ‘in order for products bearing trade marks to be counterfeit goods within the meaning of the Counterfeit Goods Regulation they must in fact infringe someone’s trade marks in the territory in question. ‘

Judges:

Kitchin J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1903 (Ch), [2009] ETMR 59, (2009) 32(8) IPD 32054

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation 1383/03, The Goods Infringing Intellectual Property Rights (Customs) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/1473), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, Council Directive 89/104

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedThe Polo/Lauren Co LP v PT Dwidua Langgeng Pratama International Freight Forwarders Case ECJ 14-Apr-2000
Council regulations empowered customs officers of member states to seize goods suspected of being counterfeit or pirated and in breach of Trade Mark and other laws This applied even to goods which were merely seized in transit through a member . .
CitedMontex Holdings v Diesel (Free Movement Of Goods) ECJ 9-Nov-2006
Montex sold jeans in Ireland where the mark Diesel was not protected. The jeans were made by the manufacture of pieces in Ireland (including pieces with the mark on), exporting them under a customs seal procedure to Poland where they were made up . .
CitedRioglass and Transremar (Judgment) ECJ 23-Oct-2003
Motor car windows bearing the trade marks of a number of French motor car makers were lawfully made in Spain. Under a customs suspensive procedure they were being exported outside the EU to Poland. French Customs seized them whilst in transit in . .
CitedClass International v Colgate Palmolive ECJ 18-Oct-2005
ECJ Trade marks – Directive 89/104/EEC – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Rights conferred by the trade mark – Use of the mark in the course of trade – Importation of original goods into the Community – Goods placed . .
CitedEli Lilly and Company and Another v 8PM Chemist Ltd CA 5-Feb-2008
The defendant appealed against an order refusing summary relied against a claim for trade mark infringement. The claimant’s drugs were sold internationally, but outside the EU, being sourced in Turkey, and distributed eventually through the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Customs and Excise, European

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.368643

Sian Wholesale v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Apr 2019

Customs Duty : Origin, Certificates of – – rules of origin under Pan Euro Mediterranean Convention – evidence of origin of soap bars exported to Albania – was decision of HMRC reasonably arrived at – s16 Finance Act 1994

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 266 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.637870

Toomey v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Apr 2019

Excise Duty Tobacco : Appellant Intercepted At Airport on arrival from Bulgaria with 11,200 cigarettes – cigarettes seized and no appeal against seizure – assessment to duty and penalties raised on appellant – appeal on basis that cigarettes for personal use and that he intended to take them to Ireland (where he lived) – whether Tribunal could make findings about personal use – no, Jones and Race apply – whether Tribunal could find facts about intention to take goods to Ireland – held yes: a finding that the appellant was not holding the goods in order to deliver or use them in the United Kingdom was open to the Tribunal and not a deemed fact determined against the appellant as a result of the goods being deemed to have been ‘duly condemned’ – finding that appellant intended to take goods to Ireland and therefore regulation 13 SI 2010/593 did not apply – assessment upheld because regulation 19 of 2010 regulations applied instead – penalty assessment upheld – appeals dismissed.

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 256 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.637873

Talati v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Apr 2019

Excise Duty Civil Penalty (See Also Excise Hydrocarbon Oil [Duty]) : Evasion – penalties under s 8 FA 1994 and s 25 FA 2003 – whether dishonest evasion of duties: yes – whether mitigation reasonable: no, increased from 5% to 70% — whether duty amount correct: no, split between excise duty and customs duty wrong and calculation of customs duty wrong – failure to provide evidence of calculations – appeal allowed in part.

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 231 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.637872

Ainsworth v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling): FTTTx 19 Mar 2019

EXCISE DUTY – HMRC strike out application on grounds of want of jurisdiction – deeming effect of para 5 Sch 3 Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 – appeal against assessment struck out – excise penalty upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 201 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.635736

Clark v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Nov 2018

Excise Duty Restoration of Vehicle (See Also Excise Appeal) : Owner Not User – Appeal against decision to restore vehicle seized on entry into the UK for a fee – Whether the decision could reasonably have been reached – No – Appeal allowed – Further review directed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 657 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.632385

Thomson v Revenue and Customs: VDT 28 Feb 2007

Excise Duty – vehicle – seizure challenged by owner – no steps taken to initiate condemnation proceedings by HMRC – rights in vehicle transferred to Appellant – restoration offered to Appellant at a fee – whether appeal against fee competent in absence of resolution of challenge – Adjourned so that proceedings can be taken.

Citations:

[2007] UKVAT Excise E01022

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.250500

Kammac Plc v Revenue and Customs (Excise Warehouse : Approval): FTTTx 29 Mar 2019

Excise Duty – Revocation of excise duty approvals under the Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations (WOWGR) 1999 and s 92 CEMA– whether review decision of HMRC could reasonably have been arrived at.

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 215 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.635759

UAB Angleras v The Director of Border Revenue (Excise Duty Restoration of Goods (See Also Excise Appeal) : New Review On Facts): FTTTx 5 Feb 2019

EXCISE – restoration of Mercedes Van – Mercedes Van sold by Border Force before restoration decision made – Border Force decision that normal policy not applicable because of alleged deceit by Appellant – no deceit – appeal allowed and Border Force directed to make a new decision

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 77 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.635734

Woodmore v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 May 2010

EXCISE DUTY – non-restoration of vehicle – importation of tobacco already held by earlier tribunal to be a commercial importation – earlier tribunal allowing appeal and ordering re-review on single ground of hardship – reviewing officer finding hardship not exceptional and upholding the non-restoration – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 278 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and excise

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.422253

Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Distillerie Bonollo and Others (Dumping – Imports of Tartaric Acid Originating In China – Judgment): ECJ 3 Dec 2020

Appeal – Dumping – Imports of tartaric acid originating in China – Appeal brought by an intervener at first instance – Second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Partial interim review – Loss of market economy treatment during the review procedure – Modification of the definitive anti-dumping duty – Determination of the normal value – Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 – Cross-appeal – Action for annulment brought by competing producers established in the European Union – Admissibility – Direct concern – Allocation of powers to comply with a judgment

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2020:979, C-461/18, [2020] EUECJ C-461/18P

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise, Commercial

Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.660704

Morewood v The Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 15 Apr 2010

EXCISE DUTIES – tobacco seized from traveller on arrival in UK from Spain – legality of seizure challenged – challenge later withdrawn – only contention before tribunal that goods for own use – issue determined against appellant by withdrawal of challenge to seizure – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 169 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 16 October 2022; Ref: scu.422194

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 applicant in any subsequent appeal to a tribunal.’ He likened the tribunal’s function to that of a sentencing court once a defendant has been convicted and cannot question the correctness of his conviction.
As for considerations of abuse of process mentioned by Buxton LJ in Gascoyne, Lewison J said that the tribunal must ask the question whether the appellant could have raised the question of the lawfulness of the forfeiture in other proceedings and, if so, why did he not do so. In the light of the reasons for not raising the matter in condemnation proceedings the tribunal can then answer the question ‘Should he have done so?’ and, if the answer is ‘Yes’, in most cases it will be an abuse of process for him to raise the question before the tribunal.

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 3435 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 49

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedGascoyne v Customs and Excise and Another CA 28-Jul-2004
The Commissioners had found what they considered to be an excess of dutiable goods brought into the country by the tax payer, and had forfeited the car. The court considered the effect of the Gora case.
Held: The difficult statements in Gora . .

Cited by:

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

Customs and Excise

Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.441948

BS and CA (Commercialisation Du Cannabidiol – CBD) (Free Movement of Goods – The Market In Hemp): ECJ 14 May 2020

(Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Free movement of goods – Common organisation of the market in hemp – National legislation restricting the importation of hemp from another Member State solely to fibre and seeds

Citations:

C-663/18, [2020] EUECJ C-663/18_O, [2020] EUECJ C-663/18

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.660177

JD Classics Holdings Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Jun 2010

CUSTOMS DUTIES – 23 motor cars – whether within CN heading 87.03 or CN heading 97.05 as collectors’ pieces – only points in issue on the application of the CNEN were whether the cars individually possessed ‘a certain scarcity value’ and ‘illustrated a significant step in the evolution of human achievements, or a period of that evolution’ -Erika Daiber v Hauptzollamt Reutlingen (Case 200/84), Uwe Clees v Hauptzollamt Wuppertal (Case 259/97) considered — held the correct comparison to evaluate scarcity is between the motor car and other cars of the same type which are generally obtainable – held that the Respondents had failed to rebut the presumption that the motor cars in question ‘illustrated a significant step in the evolution of human achievements, or a period of that evolution’ – Barnfinds Limited v HMRC not followed – findings made that the motor cars were all relatively scarce and that they all ‘illustrated a significant step in the evolution of human achievements, or a period of that evolution’ – the motor cars were therefore properly classified within CN heading 97.05 as collectors’ pieces – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 259 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.422276

BT Transporti SRL In Liquidation v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Jun 2010

EXCISE DUTY – Seizure of vehicles belonging to Appellant – decisions on restoration by HMRC – Border Agency refusing to review decisions- application to strike out appeals – two appeals struck out but Agency ordered to review decisions

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 287 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.422261

Regina v Dosanjh: CACD 1 May 1998

In cases involving repeated, and continuing abuse of the personal import allowances system, courts should pay less attention to mitigating factors. The standards for prison terms for different values and the court gave giuidance as to when consecutive offences were correct.

Judges:

Rose VP CACD LJ, Butterfield, Richards JJ

Citations:

Gazette 03-Jun-1998, Times 07-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Crim 1450, [1998] 3 All ER 618, [1999] 1Cr App R (S)107, [1998] Crim LR 593, [1999] 1 Cr App R 371

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Basra CACD 22-Feb-2002
The defendant appealed his sentence for a substantial money laundering offence. The antecedent offence was that of fraudulent evasion of VAT
Held: The maximum sentence for the antecedent offence was seven years, and for the offence under s93A, . .
ModifiedRegina v Czyzewski; Regina v Bryan; Regina v Mitchell; Regina v Diafi; Regina v Ward CACD 16-Jul-2003
The court set down detailed guidelines for sentencing for smuggling, but stated they were not to be treated as a straitjacket.
Held: The principle factors will be the level of duty evaded, the sophistication of methods used, the defendant’s . .
CitedRegina v Neal, Hood CACD 28-Nov-2003
The defendants appealed sentence for having been involved in the large scale importation of cigarettes evading customs duty.
Held: The judge had paid proper attention to Dosanjh. Having regard also to Czyzewski, the sentences were within the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.154324

Regina v Hayward: CACD 24 Jun 1998

Where a transaction would normally allow suspension of payment of duty, the duty became payable immediately if the documents had been falsified. Offence was committed irrespective of where the goods had eventually been sold. A failure to comply with the regulations meant that an offence of using false documents was committed despite a claim that the goods were purchased in France.

Citations:

Times 13-Jul-1998, Gazette 24-Jun-1998, [1998] EWHC Crim 1898

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

DistinguishedGreenalls 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.86833

FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 30 Oct 2018

Post-clearance demand for customs duty almost seven years after the taxpayer had imported garlic into the United Kingdom, which had been falsely declared to be of a certain origin, and just under four years after the customs became aware of the fraud.

Judges:

Lewison, Newey LJJ, Henry Carr J

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 2401, [2018] WLR(D) 670, [2019] 1 WLR 2841

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At FTTTxFMX Food Merchants Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 29-Nov-2013
FTTTx Customs duty – import of Chinese garlic, falsely declared as Cambodian in origin – late issue of post-clearance demand note for unpaid duty – whether the customs debt was the result of an act which, at the . .
At UTTCRevenue and Customs v FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd UTTC 10-Dec-2015
Customs Duty – import of Chinese garlic falsely declared as Cambodian origin – Customs Code Art 221 – customs debt resulting from a criminal act – post clearance demand issued after expiry of the three year period – no express provisions in UK law . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromFMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 29-Jan-2020
This appeal concerns the meaning and effect of the phrase ‘Customs Debt’ in article 221(4) of the former Customs Code of the EU, contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. Customs duties may be due under ‘post-clearance demands’ and the Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.628681

Revenue and Customs v FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd: UTTC 10 Dec 2015

Customs Duty – import of Chinese garlic falsely declared as Cambodian origin – Customs Code Art 221 – customs debt resulting from a criminal act – post clearance demand issued after expiry of the three year period – no express provisions in UK law extending the three year time limit – whether notification valid in the absence of such legislation – FTT held the notification invalid – appeal allowed — no need for express provisions in UK law to extend the three year time limit – notification valid

Citations:

[2015] UKUT 669 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromFMX Food Merchants Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 29-Nov-2013
FTTTx Customs duty – import of Chinese garlic, falsely declared as Cambodian in origin – late issue of post-clearance demand note for unpaid duty – whether the customs debt was the result of an act which, at the . .

Cited by:

At UTTCFMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 30-Oct-2018
Post-clearance demand for customs duty almost seven years after the taxpayer had imported garlic into the United Kingdom, which had been falsely declared to be of a certain origin, and just under four years after the customs became aware of the . .
At UTTCFMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 29-Jan-2020
This appeal concerns the meaning and effect of the phrase ‘Customs Debt’ in article 221(4) of the former Customs Code of the EU, contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. Customs duties may be due under ‘post-clearance demands’ and the Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.558964

FMX Food Merchants Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 29 Nov 2013

FTTTx Customs duty – import of Chinese garlic, falsely declared as Cambodian in origin – late issue of post-clearance demand note for unpaid duty – whether the customs debt was the result of an act which, at the time it was committed, was liable to give rise to criminal court proceedings – yes – whether the amount of the debt could be communicated to the debtor more than three years after the debt was incurred – no express provisions in UK law for extension of three year period – whether three year time limit applies or not – Article 221 of Customs Code and section 167 Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 – held no valid provisions in UK law providing extension to three year period – three year period therefore applies – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 720 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs & Excise Management Act 1979 167

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoFMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 21-Dec-2010
FTTTx ANTI-DUMPING DUTY – post clearance demand note – fraudulent declaration of country of origin – remission of duty – error by customs authorities – no – good faith of importer – no – appeal dismissed . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRevenue and Customs v FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd UTTC 10-Dec-2015
Customs Duty – import of Chinese garlic falsely declared as Cambodian origin – Customs Code Art 221 – customs debt resulting from a criminal act – post clearance demand issued after expiry of the three year period – no express provisions in UK law . .
At FTTTxFMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 30-Oct-2018
Post-clearance demand for customs duty almost seven years after the taxpayer had imported garlic into the United Kingdom, which had been falsely declared to be of a certain origin, and just under four years after the customs became aware of the . .
At FTTTxFMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 29-Jan-2020
This appeal concerns the meaning and effect of the phrase ‘Customs Debt’ in article 221(4) of the former Customs Code of the EU, contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. Customs duties may be due under ‘post-clearance demands’ and the Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.519601

Portugal v Transnautica: ECJ 29 Apr 2010

Stay of proceedings

Citations:

C-506/09, [2012] EUECJ C-506/09 – P

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

OpinionPortugal v Transnautica ECJ 22-Mar-2012
Appeal – Customs union – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Remission of import duties – Consignments of tobacco and ethyl alcohol for third countries – Fraud committed by an employee of the company liable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452611

FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Dec 2010

FTTTx ANTI-DUMPING DUTY – post clearance demand note – fraudulent declaration of country of origin – remission of duty – error by customs authorities – no – good faith of importer – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 20 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoFMX Food Merchants Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 29-Nov-2013
FTTTx Customs duty – import of Chinese garlic, falsely declared as Cambodian in origin – late issue of post-clearance demand note for unpaid duty – whether the customs debt was the result of an act which, at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.428210

Aspen Wholesale Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Mar 2010

FTTTx Excise Duty – Duty chargeable – Excise Duty Point – Tax warehousekeeper releasing excise goods under duty suspension arrangement for export to EU – Goods fraudulently diverted – Revocation of Registered Owner status – Whether reasonable – Yes – Assessment of duty correct – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 103 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.408945