FTTTx Excise Duty – whether decisions and review decisions refusing requests for restoration of seized alcohol were unreasonable – ‘burden of proof’ issues and the Appellant’s contention that HMRC should have sustained the refusal of requests, rather than the Appellant demonstrate unreasonable features of the decisions to refuse restoration – confused issues concerning any claim that the duty had indeed been paid notwithstanding that in one case condemnation proceedings in the Magistrates’ Courts had not been commenced, and that such proceedings had been commenced and then withdrawn in the second case in issue – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 552 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.526945

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 to create a distinct power of detention, namely to allow for the goods to be held where there is uncertainty whether duty has been paid on them or not, to allow for investigations to be carried out before HMRC decide whether to seize the goods or return them. That was the view of Pill LJ and Chadwick LJ in Gora (see paras. [50]-[52] and [59]) which, although not binding upon me, is strong persuasive authority. It does not require much imagination to see that there may be many cases in which there is uncertainty when HMRC officers inspect goods whether duty has been paid on them or not, and to see that in such cases the effective and fair implementation of the relevant tax and its associated enforcement regime will require that goods are held for a period while investigations are carried out in an effort to remove that uncertainty. In general (and without seeking to level criticism against the Claimants in the present cases), Parliament cannot have intended that an owner of goods should be able, just by obfuscating and creating uncertainty at the point of inspection in relation to his supply chain and whether duty has or has not been paid, to avoid the full rigour of the machinery for the enforcement of payment of taxes, including by forfeiture of goods on which duty has not been paid. Section 139(1) was intended to confer powers on HMRC to facilitate the effective and fair collection of tax, and to create effective sanctions where duty is not paid, and I consider that it is plain in that context that Parliament intended that there should be a distinct power of detention of goods to allow for a period of investigation where there is uncertainty whether duty has been paid on goods as it should have been.’

Judges:

Sales J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2797 (Admin), [2011] STC 64, [2011] 1 WLR 488, [2010] STI 2887

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others CA 11-Apr-2003
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and . .

Cited by:

See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 29-Dec-2010
FTTTx Excise Duty – warehouse – application for registration as an owner of goods under Warehousekeepers and Owners of Goods Regulations 1999 (‘WOWGR’) – whether decision of HMRC could reasonably have been . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 20-Jan-2012
The Court considered the lawfulness of the exercise of the power claimed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise (HMRC) to detain goods temporarily for the purpose of investigating their status. . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 27-Mar-2012
FTTTx Procedure – costs – application for costs out of time – whether discretion to entertain an application should be exercised – Rule 5 (3) (a) Tribunal Rules 2009 – whether direction should be made to apply . .
See Also – Barnes v Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others CCC 4-Apr-2012
The respondent had had a receivership order made after ex parte restraint orders were made. The orders were set aside as unlawful, but the receiver now sought his very substantial costs from the respondent’s assets. . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA 22-May-2012
The appellants had succeeded in resisting proceedings commenced by the respondents for the seizure of goods. The respondent now argued that costs should not follow the event, asserting a statutory bar. The appellant additionally argued that any such . .
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Eastenders 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 Also – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 11-Jun-2014
Alcoholic drinks had been seized by the respondents pending further enquiries with a view to a possible forfeiture, then held and returned but only under court order. The company had complained that the detention of the goods was unlawful. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.425777

ECJ (Taxation) Directive 92/81/EEC – Excise duties on mineral oils – Exemptions – Fuel used by an excavator mounted permanently on a vessel operated independently of the engine of the ship – Definition of ‘navigation

Citations:

C-505/10, [2011] EUECJ C-505/10, [2011] EUECJ C-505/10

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 92/81/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.444623

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – seizure of vehicle – refusal to restore – whether reasonable? Yes on the facts – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 153 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422184

FTTTx 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 168 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422181

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY- Goods deemed condemned – appellant withdrew from Magistrates’ hearing- goods condemned Tribunal no jurisdiction to hear argument as to own use – application on grounds of hardship for return of vehicle – appellant able to obtain another vehicle – case dismissed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 209 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422219

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3704 (Admin), [2010] STI 624, [2010] STC 682

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979

Citing:

Cited – Dodds v Walker HL 1981
The landlord served his notice to determine the tenancy on the last day of a 30 day month. The tenant served his counternotice on the 31st day of the month four months later.
Held: Dismissing the tenant’s appeal, the House found that the court . .
Cited – Freeman v Read 4-Jun-1863
When the relevant period for the giving of a notice is a month or specified number of months after the giving of a notice, the general rule is that the period ends upon the corresponding date in the appropriate subsequent month, ie the day of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420989

The defendants appealed against confiscation orders made after a finding that they had been involved (separately) in the smuggling of tobacco, suggesting a conflict between the 1992 Regulations and the Directive.
Held: The appeals variously failed and succeeded according to their facts. A person obtains a pecuniary advantage by evading duty or VAT even though the smuggled goods were seized before they could be sold on, though it has to be shown that he would have been personally liable to pay the VAT. There was unlikely to be any incompatibility between the Regulations and European Directive.
Where the goods are brought by sea, the time of their importation is deemed to be the time when the ship carrying them comes within the limits of a port.

Judges:

Hooper LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Crim 978, [2010] STC 1965, [2010] STI 1593

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Tobacco Products Regulations 2001, Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/3135) 5, Finance (No 2) Act 1992 1(1)(4), Council Directive 92/12/EEC, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 76(5), Criminal Justice Act 1988 71(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – May, Regina v HL 14-May-2008
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the . .
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v Jennings HL 14-May-2008
The appellant appealed against the refusal to discharge a restraint order under the 1988 Act. The sum found to have been obtained in the later trial vastly exceeded the sum the defendant said had ever come within his control or benefit.
Held: . .
Cited – Chambers, Regina v CACD 17-Oct-2008
The court found that a customs prosecution for evasion of duty by excess tobacco imports was incorrectly founded, after failing to acknowledge a change in the 1992 Regulations brought in in 2001. Also, a day labourer who had merely assisted in . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office v Mitchell CACD 21-Jan-2009
Sentencing judges should be astute to ensure that they are satisfied that agreements on the amount to be recovered by way of confiscation orders are soundly based. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Mackle, 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.

Criminal Sentencing, Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.409983

FTTTX Excise Duty – Seizure of vehicle – Refusal of restoration – Whether refusal reasonable in the circumstances – Yes – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 355 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.409147

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – vehicle on permanent loan to friend of appellant – friend brought in large quantities of tobacco – deemed forfeiture of tobacco and vehicle – whether non-restoration of vehicle reasonable – exceptional hardship for appellant – appeal allowed – fresh review ordered

Judges:

Nicholas Aleksander (Tribunal Judge)

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 254 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.409082

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – Restoration of vehicle for a fee – Appellant pleading own use and disproportionate sanction – Appellant did not pursue condemnation proceedings before magistrates – Tribunal not entitled to reopen issue of own use – Tribunal obliged to deal with the Appeal on the footing of a commercial importation – review decision reasonable – Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Tildelsey OBE

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 207 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.409027

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTIES – Whether duties were due on postal packages – Appellant argued imported from Germany rather than United States – Not proved on balance of probabilities – Appellant contended that HMRC not entitled to treat original decision as upheld – Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear Appeals against deemed decisions – Duties properly levied – Appeal dismissed

Judges:

Tildesley OBE C

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 219 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.409031

FTTTx Excise Duty – drawback claims – whether goods available for inspection for two clear business days – no – whether sufficient evidence of duty paid – no – nature of Tribunal’s jurisdiction – whether HMRC’s decision not to waive compliance with strict requirements reasonable – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 122 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408971

Citations:

[1858] EngR 810, (1858) El Bl and El 670, (1858) 120 ER 661

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.289281

Excise Duty Hydrocarbon Oil – (See Also Excise Restoration of Vehicle) : Assessment – Appellant company buying and selling second-hand trucks, and decanting red diesel from them into storage vessels at the yard, which were then being used to fuel company vehicles – Whether red diesel was present in two Mercedes cars? – Yes – Whether the assessment was made to best judgment? – Yes – Whether the presence of red diesel was deliberate or careless? – Deliberate – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 561 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.641365

EXCISE DUTY – penalties – section 8 Finance Act 1994 and section 25 Finance Act 2003 – importing tobacco and cigarettes without payment of duty – dishonestly seeking to evade duty – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 567 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.641361

When the customs seized cash under the section on the suspicion that it might be the proceeds of drug trafficking, the time limit imposed by the section for the return of the money if continued retention was not authorised, was strict. They had 48 hours within which to obtain authority. Money was seized at 11:30am on a Saturday. The application was made on the Monday morning, but the case did not come on for hearing until 1.20pm. It was held that it was not sufficient to make the application within the 48 hours, the authorisation itself had to be granted. Parliament had imposed a simple rule with no provision for these difficulties.

Citations:

Times 04-Jul-2001, Gazette 19-Jul-2001

Statutes:

Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.90266

Excise Duty and Customs Duty – Civil Evasion Penalties – section 8 Finance Act 1994 and section 25 Finance Act 2003 – whether conduct involved dishonesty – quantification of penalty – mitigation allowed – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 563 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.641366

FTTTx Excise Duty – Restoration – Deemed condemnation – Review – Whether reasonable and proportionate – Yes – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 153 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373710

FTTTx EXCISE DUTIES – Black Cherry Liqueur – alcoholic beverage 22% abv produced from fermented and distilled alcohol – duty determined by reference to customs duty tariff classification – whether product within heading 2206 or 2208 – correct classification: 2208 – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 154 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373701

FTTTx EXCISE GOODS RESTORATION – VEHICLE RESTORATION – own use? – yes – appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 133 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1994 16(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At FTTTx – Revenue and Customs v Jones and Another CA 18-Jul-2011
HMRC appealed against an order for the return to the owner of goods seized under the 1979 Act. The respondents imported tobacco and alcohol which was seized. They said it had been for personal use. HMRC now said that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to . .
Appeal from – HM Revenue and Customs v Lawrence and Joan Jones UTTC 15-Jan-2010
UTTC EXCISE DUTY – RESTORATION OF EXCISE GOODS AND VEHICLE – Jurisdiction of Tribunal – Deemed forfeiture – Did the Tribunal err in law in accepting jurisdiction on lawfulness of seizure and or underlying facts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373681

FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – use of ‘red diesel’ – appellant access to ‘red diesel’ from fork lift truck – filled vehicle to get to petrol station – in receipt of tax credits – insufficient evidence of use – some diesel receipts – insufficient evidence to rebut use of ‘red diesel’ for 12 months – assessed accordingly – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 118 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373661

RESTORATION – Vehicle – Refusal to restore – Importation by Appellant and two others of tobacco in excess of indicative level – Appellant’s companions appeared not to know price paid – Disagreement as to who paid and where goods bought – Whether goods for own use or all for commercial use by Appellant – Whether refusal to restore ‘reasonable’ – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT-Excise E00418

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.271505

Excs EXCISE DUTY – respondents refusal to restore excise goods to female appellant and car used by female appellant and friend to transport excise goods to male appellant – failure by respondents to prove that excise goods held or to be used for commercial purpose – finding of innocence on part of male appellant – appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT-Excise E00453

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.271525

Excise duties – Exemption from tax on mineral oils – Directive 92/81/EEC – Article 8(1)(c) – The term ‘navigation’

Citations:

C-389/02, [2004] EUECJ C-389/02

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.195735

Appeal from refusal of judicial review of: ‘points of principle about the lawfulness of the domestic statutory regime in the United Kingdom relating to excise duty. More specifically, the application challenges the lawfulness of some key features of the legislation which governs the holding of excise goods in duty suspension (i.e. before an excise duty point has arisen, and therefore before duty has been paid), by an authorised warehousekeeper in an excise warehouse.’

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 1357

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.640105

RESTORATION – HGV – Refusal to restore – English driver employed by Danish haulier – Large quantity of tobacco found in trailer – whether Appellant had taken all reasonable steps to prevent smuggling – Failure to consider normal Danish practices – Whether restoration on payment of duty on tobacco ‘reasonable’ – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT-Excise E00417

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.271503

EXCISE DUTY RESTORATION OF VEHICLE (see also EXCISE APPEAL) Dismissed on facts

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT-Excise E00419

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.271500

(Free Movement Of Goods) Non-recovery of monetary compensatory amounts in connection with triangular inward processing traffic.

Citations:

C-93/87, [1989] EUECJ C-93/87

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.215666

Common Customs Tariff – Composite video camera-recorder.

Citations:

R-245/87, [1989] EUECJ R-245/87

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.215664

(Common Customs Tariff) Common Customs Tariff – Calculating machines – Automatic data-processing machines.

Citations:

R-234/87, [1989] EUECJ R-234/87

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.215662

FTTTx Restoration – red diesel found in vehicle hired to third party – whether hire company aware or should have been aware – no – whether HMRC’s decision to restore the vehicle to Appellant for a fee of andpound;1260 subsequently reduced to andpound;500 was a reasonable exercise by the Respondents of their discretion under s 152(b) of CEMA 1979 – no – Appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 707 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.519598

ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Headings 2204 and 2206 – Beverage fermented on the basis of fresh grapes – Alcohol content of 15.8% to 16.1% by volume – Addition of corn alcohol and beet sugar during the course of production.

Citations:

C-339/09, [2010] EUECJ C-339/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.427346

ECJ Free movement of goods – Radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment – Mutual recognition of conformity – Non-recognition of the declaration of conformity issued by the manufacturer established in another Member State.

Citations:

C-132/08, [2009] EUECJ C-132/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.342036

CUSTOMS DUTY – transaction values – section 21 VATA 1994 – amount of duty in issue – goods imported by appellant for himself and a third party – liability of declarant for duty – Article 201(3) Commission Regulation 2454/93 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 248 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.462685

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 130 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.408946

(Customs Union) Appeal – Admissibility of new arguments – Remission of an import levy – Sugar – Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 – Equity

Citations:

C-68/05, [2006] EUECJ C-68/05, ECLI:EU:C:2006:674, [2006] ECR IA-10367

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.245654

ECFI Customs Union – Importation of compact fluorescent lamps with electronic ballast system (CFL-i) from Pakistan – Post-clearance recovery of import duties – Application for remission of import duties – Article 220, paragraph 2, sub b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.

Citations:

T-191/09, [2010] EUECJ T-191/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.427701

RESTORATION OF GOODS – a load of vodka being delivered from spain to the u.k seized – issues of title and evidence of payment considered – review decision reasonably arrived at – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT-Excise E00947

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272023

Excise Duty – S139 and 141 CEMA 1979 – Seizure of Tobacco Products for failure to pay Excise Duty – Decision not to Restore upheld – Appeal Dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 560 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.466161

Application by the Respondents to strike out an Appeal Notice lodged on behalf of the Appellant.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT-Excise E01129

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.273036

VDT EXCISE DUTY – restoration of alcohol and car – Appellant is owner of a pub and the Respondents considered that the wine was purchased for the pub – whether reasonable – yes – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT-Excise E01131

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.273041

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT-Excise E01128

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.273035

VDT EXCISE DUTIES … large quantities of cigarettes found in Appellant’s car and home – no UK duty paid – cigarettes and car seized – restoration of car refused – whether review upholding refusal reasonable – yes – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT-Excise E01132

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.273040

VDT EXCISE DUTY – application for restoration only – jurisdiction of the tribunal – could the tribunal consider personal use – no – reasonableness of the commissioners’ decision – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT-Excise E01133

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.273038

Appeal against seizure of a volume of cigarettes on entry to the UK on the basis that it was not exempt as being imported for personal use.

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1987 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272809

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

Judges:

David Richards J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC (Ch) 1972

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Cited by:

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

Customs and Excise

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.441949

EXCS EXCISE DUTY – whether requirement to provide a guarantee under art 13 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC means that the person’s liability is limited to the amount of the guarantee – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT-Excise E01126

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 92/12/EEC 13

Customs and Excise

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.272203

EXCS EXCISE DUTY – Restoration of seized Mercedes Sprinter — Appellant did not appear – vehicle condemned as forfeit by the magistrates – 100 kilograms of hand rolling tobacco imported – tobacco to be sold on at a profit – no exceptional hardship – was the decision not to restore the vehicle reasonable – yes – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT-Excise E01121

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.272200

EXCS Customs and Excise, Community Shopping, seizure of goods; legality of seizure; deemed forfeiture; restoration appeal; jurisdiction; abuse of process; whether legality of seizure can be raised in restoration appeal.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT-Excise E01124

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.272202

Excs EXCISE DUTY- 800 cigarettes sent through post by sister to appellants – ‘gift concession’ withdrawn 19 July 2007- respondents required andpound;182.26 to forward cigarettes – decision reasonable – no review – case dismissed

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT-Excise E01125

Links:

Bailii

Customs and Excise

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.272201