Excise duties – seizure of passengers’ goods – seizure of driver’s car and goods – non-restoration of goods and car – whether Commissioners’ decisions reasonable
[2002] UKVAT-Excise E00238
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271451
Cust CUSTOMS DUTIES – BTI – lifting device mounted on chassis – whether lifting device amounting to a crane – CN heading 8426 – whether instead no more than a lifting device – CN heading 8427 – GIRs 1, 3 – HSEN considered – correct heading 8427 – BTI correct – appeal dismissed
[2005] UKVAT-Customs C00195
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271383
VDT CUSTOMS DUTY – Tariff classification – Uncooked peppered turkey – Whether seasoned within Add Note 6(a) to CN Chap 16 – Naked eye and taste tests – Verification outsourced by Customs – No written instructions as to interpretation of Note 6(a) and content of reports – Reclassification and demands based solely on reports – Irregularities in verification – No close co-ordination within Code Art 13.3 – No verification with Art 71.2 – Outcome possibly different without irregularities – Community Customs Code (Council Reg (EEC) No.2913/92) Art 13.3, 37, 69.2 and 71.2 – Post-clearance demands quashed – Appeals allowed
[2008] UKVAT-Customs C00255
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271439
Excs EXCISE DUTY – Restoration of vehicle – Tobacco – Partner of Appellant imported tobacco concealed in cases of beer – Importer alleged that he had stolen the beer and did not know tobacco was there – Review officer ignored importer’s account – Review officer failed to review facts – Whether decision reasonable – FA 1994 ss 15(1), 16(4) – Appeal allowed
[2002] UKVAT-Excise E00374
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271456
Cust CUSTOMS DUTY – Warehousing – Conditions for approval for customs warehouse – Retail sale – Sales of warehoused goods to distributors retaining some for personal use – Whether retail sale – Conditions precluding to distributors while goods warehoused – Implementing Regulation (2454/94/EEC) Art 527.2 – Sixth Directive (77/388/EC) Art 16 – FA 1994 s.18(1) – Appeal dismissed
[2005] UKVAT-Customs C00193
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271380
Classification of goods for import purposes – Dual cab pick-up vehicles
[2005] UKVAT-Customs C00196
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271382
[2006] UKVAT-Customs C00213
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271401
CUSTOMS DUTY – REPAYMENTS under Article 239 (errors made by authorities) – error not shown – appeal dismissed
[2006] UKVAT-Customs C00209
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271397
[2006] UKVAT-Customs C00222
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271408
[2005] UKVAT-Customs C00200
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271388
Excs Excise Duty – Refusal to restore car – Excise goods being carried partly for own use and partly for sale, otherwise than for profit, to friends etc – Whether refusal to restore reasonable – No
[2002] UKVAT-Excise E00248
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271450
Post-Clearance Demands – New Zealand butter – Cleared on basis of certificates by New Zealand authorities – Later dispute as to validity – Quota under Protocol 18 of Accession Treaty – Whether post-clearance recovery impliedly excluded – No – Current access under WTO agreements – No exclusion in principle of post – clearance recovery under WTO law.
[2002] UKVAT-Customs C00169
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271359
Export of UK manufactured goods to Czech Republic – Failure to obtain evidence as to origin of the raw materials – Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the appeal
[2005] UKVAT-Customs C00191
England and Wales
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271377
ECJ Common Customs Tariff Combined Nomenclature Tariff classification Multi-function apparatus Apparatus combining the functions of laser printer and a digital electronic scanner module, with a copier function Heading 8471 Heading 9009
C-363/07, [2008] EUECJ C-363/07
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271126
The husband had been convicted of trafficking in cannabis, and an order had been made confiscating his assets. His wife had already petitioned for divorce and begun ancillary relief proceedings. She claimed that her interest in the house under section 24 of the Act was protected. The receiver sought sale of the house to recover the sum ordered.
Held: The section under the 1994 Act did protect the interest of the wife. Her right to occupy the house under the 1973 Act created an interest over and above her financial interest, and that interest was protected by section 31(4). There had to be a right and that right had to be ‘in’ the property. She claimed a similar protection under the Human Rights Act. Despite the risk of the husband being unable to satisfy the confiscation order, and thus be returned to prison, the proper order in this case was to vest the entire house in the wife’s name.
Mr Justice Munby
Times 09-May-2002
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24, Drug Trafficking Act 1994 31(4) 62(5)(a) 62(3), European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 Pro 1
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.170297
Jurisdiction of the Court Directive 92/83/EEC Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages Article 20, first indent Alcohol contained in cooking wine Exemption from the harmonised duty
‘While the spirit of cooperation which must prevail in the exercise of the functions assigned by Article 234 EC to the national courts, on the one hand, and the Community judicature, on the other, requires the Court of Justice to have regard to the particular responsibilities of the national court, it implies at the same time that the national court, in the use which it makes of the possibilities offered by that article, must have regard to the particular function entrusted to the Court of Justice in this field, which is to assist in the administration of justice in the Member States and not to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions ‘
K Lenaerts, P
[2008] EUECJ C-458/06, [2008] 3 CMLR 13, EU:C:2008:338
European
Opinion – Skatteverket v Gourmet Classic Ltd ECJ 3-Apr-2008
Europa (Taxation) (Opinion) Directive 92/83/EEC Excise duty Alcohol Cooking wine Article 234 EC Absence of a dispute Jurisdiction of the Court. . .
Cited – Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ECJ 10-Dec-2018
Art 50 Notice withrawable unilaterally
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 50 TEU – Notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union – Consequences of the notification – Right of unilateral revocation of the notification – Conditions
The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.631160
(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Customs union and Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Headings 8517, 8518, 8519, 8527 and 8543 – Stand-alone device designed to retrieve, receive and stream digital audio files in the form of amplified sound
C-84/15, [2016] EUECJ C-84/15
European
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.561965
Excise Duty Restoration of Goods (See Also Excise Appeal) EXCISE DUTY- seizure of goods -refusal to restore – whether conclusion that appellant had failed to prove ownership of goods unreasonable – no – in cases where decisions were flawed decision not to restore would inevitably be the same if further review directed – appeals dismissed
[2016] UKFTT 49 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.559906
ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – System of importation – Applicable tariff rates
T von Danwitz, P
C-306/13, [2014] EUECJ C-306/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2465
European
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.540330
FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTY – Outward Processing Relief – Re-imported goods after repair – wrong information on documents – no relief
VALUE ADDED TAX – whether VAT chargeable on re-import after repair – yes – wrong information on documents – Appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 217 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.472792
Customs Duty -TARIC classification code for radio navigational receiver unit intended to be incorporated into GPS system of motor vehicle – whether ‘assembly for GPS system having a position determination function’ – whether existence of housing surrounding and protecting the unit precluded it from being an ‘assembly’ – EU Customs Code Committee statement on classification of ‘assemblies for GPS systems having a position determination function’ considered – held the unit in question was an ‘assembly’ within the normal meaning of that word and no uncertainty arose which was required to be resolved by reference to the statement – in any event, the effect of the statement as argued by HMRC would be inconsistent with the true meaning of the relevant TARIC subheading – appeal allowed
[2012] UKFTT 562 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.466170
ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Tariff classification – Heading 6403 Footwear with uppers of leather Heading 6404 – Footwear with uppers of textile materials.
C-165/07, [2008] EUECJ C-165/07
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268813
Europa (Taxation) (Opinion) Directive 92/83/EEC Excise duty Alcohol Cooking wine Article 234 EC Absence of a dispute Jurisdiction of the Court.
Yves Bot AG
C-458/06, [2008] EUECJ C-458/06 – O
European
Opinion – Skatteverket v Gourmet Classic Ltd ECJ 12-Jun-2008
Jurisdiction of the Court Directive 92/83/EEC Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages Article 20, first indent Alcohol contained in cooking wine Exemption from the harmonised duty
‘While the spirit of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266447
Excise Duty Restoration of Vehicle (See Also Excise Appeal) : Other – EXCISE DUTIES – refusal to restore seized vehicle – no request for review of decision with permitted time limit – ss 14 and 14a FA 1994 – appeal against refusal of request for late review
[2016] UKFTT 35 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.559903
Excise Drawback : EXCISE DUTY – Jurisdiction of Tribunal – Cancellation of alternative evidence agreements by HMRC – Whether a ‘decision’ has been made as to entitlement to Excise Duty drawback – No – Whether a ‘condition’ imposed pursuant to Regulation 7(2) Excise Goods (Drawback) Regulations 1995 – No – Appeal struck out
[2016] UKFTT 32 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.559901
Excise Duty Appeals : Jurisdiction – EXCISE DUTY-Assessment – preliminary issue – whether assessment made out of time-Section 12(4) (b) FA1994-held on the facts-yes
[2015] UKFTT 482 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.556132
Customs Duty : Classification – Nomenclature – CUSTOMS DUTY – Combined Nomenclature – classification of panels used to fill spaces in a server rack – classification of grommets used to seal openings in data room floor – whether classified under Chapter 39 as plastics – whether classified under heading 8473 as ‘accessories suitable for use solely or principally’ with ADP machines – meaning of ‘accessories’- Turbon, Unomedical, BladeRoom and Amoena considered – whether panels classified under heading 8546 as electrical insulators – whether panels classified under heading 3925 as builders’ ware of plastics – whether grommets classified under heading 9603 as brushes – classification of panels and grommets by US exporters – classification under BTIs – appeal dismissed
[2016] UKFTT 33 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.559890
Customs Duty : Classification – Nomenclature – CUSTOMS DUTY – nomenclature – whether switches classified as electro-mechanical snap-action switches under code 8536-50-07 – whether classified as push button switches under code 8536-50-11 – application for adjournment refused – appeal allowed
[2016] UKFTT 77 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.559939
Excise duty – civil liability arising from unlawful removal and diversion from Customs’ supervision of excise goods subject to import and other duties – Article 203 of Community Customs Code – Excise Duty Point (External and Internal Community Transit Procedure) Regulations 1998 – Appellant one of a number of individuals convicted of conspiracy to defraud – whether unjust or unfair to enforce whole debt against Appellant – No. Whether an abuse of process following overturning of confiscation order in criminal proceedings – No.
[2012] UKFTT 580 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.466159
ECJ Community Customs Code and implementing regulation Community transit Offence Proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place of the offence Failure to grant a period of three months in which to furnish such proof Repayment of customs duties Concept of ‘legally owed’.
C-526/06, [2007] EUECJ C-526/06
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262923
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Indirect taxation – Excise duties – Directive 2008/118/EC – Chargeability of excise duties – Article 7(2) – Concept of ‘departure of excise goods from a duty suspension arrangement’ – Taxation of energy products and electricity – Directive 2003/96/EC – Article 14(1)(a) – Use of energy products to produce electricity – Purchase and resale by an intermediate purchaser of energy products located in a tax warehouse – Direct delivery of energy products to an operator for the production of electricity – Indication of the intermediate purchaser as the ‘consignee’ of the products in the tax documents – Infringement of the requirements of national law as regards exemption from excise duty – Refusal of exemption – Proof of the use of the products in circumstances permitting exemption from excise duty – Proportionality
C-355/14, [2016] EUECJ C-355/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:403
Directive 2008/118/EC, Directive 2003/96/EC 14(1)(a)
European
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.565148
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Excise duties – Directive 2003/96/EC – Differentiated rates of excise duty for motor fuels and heating fuels – Condition for the application of the rate for heating fuels – Submission of a monthly list of statements that the products purchased are for heating purposes – Application of the rate of excise duty laid down for motor fuels where that list is not submitted – Principle of proportionality
C. Lycourgos, P
C-418/14, [2016] EUECJ C-418/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:400
European
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.565149
Fantasy fund contributions are taxable as pool bettings.
Times 09-Oct-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 79
Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.79392
CUSTOMS DUTY, IMPORT VAT – appeals against post clearance demand notes – whether appeals late – whether FTT erred in giving permission to bring late appeals
[2019] UKUT 143 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.639520
[2007] EWHC 1889 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258488
The parties disputed whether inkjet printer cartridges were to be classsified on import as parts of printers, and free of duty, or as ink and subject to duty.
Held: ‘I can see no reason why the advances in design and technology incorporated into the G2 and G3 cartridges should make it any less appropriate to focus on the purpose for which the cartridges are used as providing the key to their essential character. That purpose is still to supply the printer with ink. Accordingly the ink should still be regarded as the most important constituent material or factor.’ The appeal by HMRC was allowed.
Henderson J
[2007] EWHC 1045 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Epson Telford Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners 2000
G1 cartridges for inkjet printers should be classified as ink and liable to payment of duty. . .
Cited – Turbon International v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz ECJ 26-Oct-2006
Europa Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Classification in the Combined Nomenclature of ink cartridges compatible with Epson Stylus Color printers – Inks (heading 3215) – Parts and accessories of machines . .
Cited – Vtech Electronics (UK) Plc v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 29-Jan-2003
. .
Cited – Turbon International GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz ECJ 7-Feb-2002
ECJ Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1734/96, must be interpreted as meaning that an ink-cartridge without . .
Cited – Wiener SI GmbH v Hauptzollamt Emmerich ECJ 20-Nov-1997
ECJ Subheading 60.04 B IV b 2 bb of the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Regulation No 3400/84 amending Regulation No 950/68 on the Common Customs Tariff, must be construed as covering under . .
Cited – VauDe Sport GmbH and Co KG v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz ECJ 10-May-2001
Europa The Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Regulation No 1359/95 amending Annexes I and II to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, and . .
Cited – Holz Geenen v Oberfinanzdirektion Munchen ECJ 28-Mar-2000
Europa Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Classification in the combined nomenclature – Regulation (EC) No 1509/97 – Rectangular wood blocks used in the construction of window frames.
‘It is settled . .
Cited – Firma Molkerei-Zentrale Westfalen/Lippe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Paderborn ECJ 3-Apr-1968
Europa 1. European economic community – nature – natural or legal persons having rights and obligations – individuals – provisions of the treaty having direct effect – concept 2. Policy of the EEC – common rules . .
Cited – Peacock AG v Hauptzollamt Paderborn ECJ 19-Oct-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251658
EXCISE DUTY – civil evasion penalty under section 8 (1) Finance Act 1994 and section 25 (1) Finance Act 2003 – whether appellant dishonest – appeal allowed
[2019] UKFTT 398 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.639120
ECJ Community Customs Code Implementing measures Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 Annex 11 Non-preferential origin of goods Television receivers Concept of substantial processing or working Criterion of added value Validity.
C-447/05, [2007] EUECJ C-447/05, C-448/05, [2007] EUECJ C-448/05
European
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251138
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants argued (inter alia) that the attempted recovery was void under the Billl of Rights.
Held: The revenue’s appeal failed. The claim was a proper claim for damages: ‘the crucial issue is to determine the nature of this claim in conspiracy. Assuming for the purpose of this argument that a claim in conspiracy does lie, then this is a claim for damages for a perfectly proper, well-recognised tort, the tort of conspiring together to defraud the claimant. That the measure of damages suffered by such a claimant may be measured by reference to the amount by which the Exchequer’s income is depleted does not in our view alter the essential character of the claim as one for damages, not as a levy of money for the use of the Crown without grant of Parliament. ‘ However, the Baldaz case, which was binding on the court, required the commissioners to establish an unlawful act actionable at their suit in order to pursue a claim for an unlawful means conspiracy. It had not done so.
Ward LJ, Chadwick LJ, Gage LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 39, [2007] 2 WLR 1156
Value Added Tax Act 1994 1, EC Sixth Council Directive on the harmonisation of the laws of the member States relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC) 28c(A)(a), Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 134
England and Wales
Cited – Bond House Systems Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 8-May-2003
The Tribunal described the general nature of a carousel fraud: ‘In its simplest form a carousel fraud works in this way. A VAT-registered trader, A, in one European Union member state sells taxable goods to a VAT-registered trader, B, in another . .
Cited – Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain . .
Cited – Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain . .
Cited – Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain . .
Cited – Lonhro plc v Fayed 19-Jul-1988
The plaintiff and defendant competed in bidding for a public company. The plaintiff having been restrained by the Secretary of State, alleged that the defendant had used a fraudulent misrepresentation to achieve this.
Held: It was not a tort . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd CA 1921
The Food Controller had been given power under the Defence of the Realm Acts to regulate milk sales. In granting the dairy a licence to buy milk in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset, the Food Controller required the Dairy to pay 2d. per imperial . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd HL 1922
The House heard an appeal by the Attorney-General against a finding that an imposition of duty on milk sales was unlawful.
Held: The appeal failed. The levy was unlawful. Lord Buckmaster said: ‘Neither of those two enactments enabled the Food . .
Cited – Congreve v Secretary of State for the Home Office CA 1976
The appellant had bought his television licence when the charge was andpound;12 although the minister had already announced that it would later be increased to andpound;18. The Home Office wrote to those who had purchased their licence before the . .
Cited – Gosling v Veley 1850
Wilde CJ said: ‘The rule of law that no pecuniary burden can be imposed upon the subjects of this country, by whatever name it may be called, whether tax, due, rate, or toll, except under clear and distinct legal authority, established by those who . .
Cited – Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company Limited v Veitch HL 15-Dec-1941
The plaintiffs sought an interdict against the respondents, a dockers’ union, who sought to impose an embargo on their tweeds as they passed through the port of Stornoway.
Held: A trade embargo was not tortious because the predominant purpose . .
Cited – Sorrell v Smith HL 1925
Torts of Conspiracy by Unlawful Means
The plaintiff had struck the first blow in a commercial battle between the parties, and the defendant then defended himself, whereupon the plaintiff sued him.
Lord Cave quoted the French saying: ‘cet animal est tres mechant; quand on . .
Cited – Hargreaves v Bretherton 1959
The Plaintiff pleaded that the First Defendant police officer had falsely and maliciously and without justification or excuse committed perjury at the Plaintiff’s trial on charges of criminal offences and that as a result the Plaintiff had been . .
Cited – Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here
The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were . .
Cited – Williams v Hursey 1959
High Court of Australia – For an unlawful means conspiracy, the plaintiff must prove that the combination or agreement was to engage in conduct which amounted to unlawful means . .
Cited – Marrinan v Vibart CA 1962
The court considered an action in the form an attempt to circumvent the immunity of a witness at civil law by alleging a conspiracy.
Held: The claim was rejected. The court considered the basis of the immunity from action given to witnesses. . .
Cited – Re Holmden’s Settlement Trusts CA 1966
Lord Denning MR said: ‘I must, however, consider the statement of Lord Upjohn on the footing that it is one of two reasons which he gave for his decision. It is said that both reasons are binding on all courts in the land, including the House of . .
Cited – Regina v Mavji CACD 1987
The court considered the offence of cheating the public revenue.
Held: Cheating might include any form of fraudulent conduct which resulted in diverting money from the revenue and depriving the revenue of money to which it was entitled. . .
Binding – Applied – Powell and Another v Boldaz and others CA 1-Jul-1997
The plaintiff’s son aged 10 died of Addison’s Disease which had not been diagnosed. An action against the Health Authority was settled. The parents then brought an action against 5 doctors in their local GP Practice in relation to matters that had . .
Cited – Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and Another v Al Bader and Others CA 18-May-2000
The differences between tortious conspiracies where the underlying acts were either themselves unlawful or not, did not require that the conspiracy claim be merged in the underlying acts where those acts were tortious. A civil conspiracy to injure . .
Cited – Michaels and Michaels v Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd, etc ChD 19-Apr-2000
The respondents sought to strike out the claim for conspiracy and failure to comply with the Act. The respondent was landlord of premises occupied by the claimants. They had served a notice under the Act of their intention to sell.
Held: The . .
Cited – Morelle Ltd v Wakeling CA 1955
The plaintiff asserted ownership of leasehold land. A similar situation had arisen in an earlier case befoe the Court of appeal, and the court was asked to decide that that case had been decided per incuriam.
Held: The per incuriam principle . .
Cited – Williams v Fawcett CA 1985
The court was asked as to the requirement of a notice to show cause why a person should not be committed to prison for contempt of court.
Held: The court refused to follow its earlier decisions as to committal procedures where they were the . .
Cited – Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another HL 25-Oct-2006
The tax payer had overpaid Advance Corporation Tax under an error of law. It sought repayment. The revenue contended that the claim was time barred.
Held: The claim was in restitution, and the limitation period began to run from the date when . .
Cited – Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credit Guarantee Department CA 23-Jul-1997
The bank claimed that it had been defrauded, and that since an employee of the defendant had taken part in the fraud the defendant was had vicarious liability for his participation even though they knew nothing of it.
Held: Where A becomes . .
Cited – Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248324
EXCISE DUTY – restoration of a vehicle – whether a decision not to restore a vehicle which has been used to carry goods liable to forfeiture was unreasonable – consideration of whether or not the refusal would cause exceptional financial hardship – no – appeal dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 514 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.632242
CUSTOMS DUTY – refusal of restoration of goods lawfully seized – seizure of Class C drugs – mis-description of goods – drugs in question were known as ‘DHEA’ or ‘Prasterone’ – appellant suffering from Addison’s disease – DHEA recommended by appellant’s medical advisers as a replacement hormone to control his disease – whether refusal to restore the drugs was unreasonable – appeal allowed – further review directed
[2018] UKFTT 492 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.632232
Europa Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Classification in the Combined Nomenclature of ink cartridges compatible with Epson Stylus Color printers – Inks (heading 3215) – Parts and accessories of machines of heading 8471 (heading 8473).
C-250/05, [2006] EUECJ C-250/05
European
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Epson Telford Ltd ChD 4-May-2007
The parties disputed whether inkjet printer cartridges were to be classsified on import as parts of printers, and free of duty, or as ink and subject to duty.
Held: ‘I can see no reason why the advances in design and technology incorporated . .
Cited – Amoena (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jul-2016
The court considered the proper classification under customs codes for a mastectomy bra. The First Tier Tribunal had found no evidence that it had an medical purpose beyond the containment of the breast from.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245665
Duty Assessment : Goods Not Seized At Time of Interception – assessment issued almost one year later – correspondence between the parties – appeal on grounds of undue and unreasonable delay – no evidence of duty having been paid – appeal dismissed
[2019] UKFTT 363 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.638528
EXCISE DUTY – wrongdoing penalty (para 4 Sch 41 FA 2008) – whether conduct deliberate
[2018] UKFTT 490 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.632244
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Classification of goods – Headings 8517, 8521, 8531 and 8543 – Product known as a ‘video multiplexer’
F. Biltgen (Rapporteur), P
C-143/15, [2016] EUECJ C-143/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:115
European
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.560484
Customs duty – restoration – strike-out application on basis that legality of seizure not contested in condemnation proceedings and goods therefore deemed duly forfeit – restoration application based on various matters not explicitly or implicitly disputing legality of seizure – strike-out application refused – preliminary general comments on appeal given
[2014] UKFTT 519 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.526899
Europa (Common Customs Tariff) Tariff classification – Sterile flakes of polydimethilsiloxane – Silicone elastomer – Meaning of ‘primary form’ – Medicament – Packaging – Meaning of ‘appliance implanted in the body’).
C-514/04, [2006] EUECJ C-514/04
European
Cited – Amoena (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jul-2016
The court considered the proper classification under customs codes for a mastectomy bra. The First Tier Tribunal had found no evidence that it had an medical purpose beyond the containment of the breast from.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243119
PROCEDURE – appeal against refusal of application for approval under the Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme – applications to amend directions for disclosure – application refused
[2017] UKFTT 411 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.590928
Revenue’s appeal from refusal of strike out of claim for restoration of impounded vehicle. Failure to use statutory remedy.
Eady J
[2008] EWHC 230 (QB)
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.265931
ECJ (Opinion) (Customs Union) Community Customs Code – Arrangements for processing under customs control – Refusal by the national customs authorities of an application for authorisation for processing under customs control – Binding nature of the conclusions of the Customs Code Committee – None – Jurisdiction of the Court to rule on the validity of those conclusions in the context of Article 234 EC – None – Interpretation of Article 133(e) of the Customs Code – Interpretation of Articles 502(3) and 504(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Overall assessment of all the circumstances of the application for authorisation.
Poaires Maduro AG
[2006] ECR I-4285, [2006] EUECJ C-11/05
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241701
Forfeiture of two lorries used to transfer goods across the border.
[2009] NICA 9
Northern Ireland
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.343909
Mann J
[2007] EWHC 2241 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.259664
A statutory rationalisation of the procedure governing the forfeiture of goods by HMRC was urgently required as the present system is so confusing to the public and pregnant with the possibility of substantial injustice.
Mr Justice Evans-Lombe
[2006] EWHC 237 (Ch)
England and Wales
Remitted from – Weller v Revenue and Customs VDT 12-Sep-2006
VDT EXCISE DUTY – Restoration of goods – Cigarettes – Whether decision not to restore was reasonable – No – Appeal allowed. . .
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.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238693
(Judgment) Community Customs Code – Customs debt on importation – Charging of interest on arrears
C-91/02, [2003] EUECJ C-91/02
European
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.187162
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins
[2003] EWHC 59 (Ch), [2003] EuLR 118
England and Wales
Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Epson Telford Ltd ChD 4-May-2007
The parties disputed whether inkjet printer cartridges were to be classsified on import as parts of printers, and free of duty, or as ink and subject to duty.
Held: ‘I can see no reason why the advances in design and technology incorporated . .
Cited – Matalan Retail Ltd v Revenue and Customs ChD 5-Aug-2009
The taxpayer imported swimwear for sale. The respondent had incorrectly indicated that such swimwear had one classification. The claimant sought to prevent the respondent reclassifying the goods, saying that they had made given binding tariff . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.179022
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.
Toulson LJ, McCombe, David Clarke JJ
[2009] EWCA Crim 214, [2009] 2 Cr App R (S) 66, [2009] Crim LR 469
England and Wales
Cited – White and Others v Regina CACD 5-May-2010
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 . .
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.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.311779
ECFI External Relations – Non-contractual liability of the Community – Incompatibility of the Community banana import regime with the rules of the World Trade Organization, (WTO) – Imposition by the United States of America – retaliation in the form of a customs-duty levied on imports from the Community by virtue of an authorization-of-WTO – Decision of-settlement body of the WTO-Dispute – Legal effects – Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions – Causal link – Unusual and special damage
MM. B. Vesterdorf, P
T-301/00, [2005] EUECJ T-301/00
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236406
ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Subheading 2519 90 10 – Fused magnesia obtained by fusion in an electric arc furnace of magnesite that has previously been caustic-burned – Fused magnesia.
C-445/04, [2005] EUECJ C-445/04
European
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235857
ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Classification in the combined nomenclature – Heading 8709 – Magnum ET120 Terminal Tractor – – Article 234 EC – Obligation of a national court to refer a question for a preliminary ruling – Conditions – Binding tariff information issued for a third party by the customs authorities of another Member State concerning a similar vehicle
C-495/03, [2005] EUECJ C-495/03
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230044
ECJ Customs union – Creation of a customs debt on importation – Goods in temporary storage – Unlawful removal of the goods from customs supervision – Person liable for the debt.
C-140/04, [2005] EUECJ C-140/04
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230053
ECJ Remission of import – Article 1, paragraph 3 of Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 – Direct Billing, the importer – group of experts, within the meaning of -Article 907 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Rights of the defense – Obvious negligence, within the meaning of Article-239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Obligation to state reasons
T-135/03, [2005] EUECJ T-135/03
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.230340
ECJ Customs Union – External Community transit operations – Meat destined for Morocco – Fraud – Application for remission of import duties – Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Article 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 – Fairness clause – Special situation – No deception or obvious negligence.
T-26/03, [2005] EUECJ T-26/03
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.230341
ECJ Appeal – Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories – Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa – Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 – Safeguard measures – Article 109 of the OCT Decision – Commission’s power of assessment – Principle of proportionality – Reasons
C-41/03, [2005] EUECJ C-41/03
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228841
ECJ Appeal – Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories – Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa – Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 – Safeguard measures – Article 109 of the OCT Decision – Commission’s power of assessment – Principle of proportionality – Reasons
C-40/03, [2005] EUECJ C-40/03
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228840
[2002] EWCA Civ 1631
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.217660
The company challenged the seizure of substantial volumes of mixed beers by UKBA at Dover, saying that no proper notice had been given of the reason for the seizure, and nor had the seizure been supported by any fact asserted.
Edwards-Stuart J
[2013] EWHC 2087 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.513561
The claimants had applied for the winding up of a company for very substantial sums of VAT due to it. Anticipating that hearing, it now sought restraining orders against the director defendants, alleging that there had been a carousel or missing trader fraud. The defendants said that the interim frezing orders made had been without jurisdiction or should not have been made as a matter of discretion.
Held: The court did have jurisdiction to grant the freezing orders against the respondents in this case, or to continue them pending the appointment of a liquidator of CandE: ‘the time has come for the English Courts to recognise, consistently with the carefully considered conclusion of the High Court of Australia, that the jurisdiction to grant freezing orders against third parties is not rigidly restricted by the Chabra requirement to show that, at the time when the order is sought, the third party is already holding or in control of assets beneficially owned by the defendant. ‘ and ‘once the relatively clear Chabra boundary line is breached, there is no wider boundary which has any sufficient clarity to serve as a workable condition to the existence of jurisdiction, than the broad confines of the second limb of the principle in paragraph 57 of the main judgment in Cardile. In particular, it seems to me that a rigid causation test is too narrow and potentially unjust, in particular because it would protect third party fraudsters who had in reality caused the claimant’s loss from exposure to a freezing order while exposing honest third parties . . ‘
Briggs J
[2006] EWHC 2313 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Cardile v LED Builders PTY Limited 1999
(High Court of Australia) The respondent (‘LED’) twice sought relief from Eagle Homes PTY Limited (‘Eagle’) for copyright infringement. Anticipating the proceedings the only shareholders and controllers of Eagle, the claimants arranged the . .
Cited – Re: Ravenhart Service (Holdings) Limited ChD 2004
The petitioners in a combined section 459 and contributories’ winding up petition sought interim relief akin to an ordinary freezing order but which was designed specifically to prevent the assets of the company from dissipation, and similar relief . .
Cited – C Inc Plc v L and Another QBD 4-May-2001
The plaintiff had obtained judgment against L, only then to find that she claimed that all only apparent assets were held by her on trust for or as agent for her husband who was overseas. The plaintiff therefore now set out to add him, and to claim . .
Cited – In Re Premier Electronics (GB) Ltd ChD 27-Feb-2001
The petitioners brought an action under s459 and obtained freezing orders both in relation to the property of the subject company and in relation to the assets of its two executive directors up to the value of pounds 500,000 each. On the adjourned . .
Cited – Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA HL 1979
An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed . .
Cited – Mercantile Group (Europe) Ag v Aiyela and Others CA 4-Aug-1993
Interlocutory injunctions including Mareva procedures and orders are available to support the enforcement of a judgment. The purpose of such a jurisdiction is so that the court can ‘ensure the effective enforcement of its orders’. A court may still . .
Cited – Aiglon Limited and another v Gau Shan Co Limited ChD 1993
The defendants had obtained world-wide Mareva injunctions in support of substantive proceedings by way of their counterclaim to enforce an arbitration award against the plaintiffs under section 26 against two companies, Aiglon Limited and L’Aiglon . .
Cited – TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra ChD 1992
Asset freezing orders may be made against persons in relation to whom the claimant asserts no cause of action and seeks no money judgment, but in relation to whom there is an arguable case that assets held in their name or under their control are in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.245032
[1799] EngR 759, (1799) 8 Bro PC 168, (1799) 3 ER 513
Scotland
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.348586
[2005] EWCA Civ 603
Customs and Excise (Management) Act 1979
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.226153
The claimant appealed against dismissal of his claim for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against the Customs and Excise. He was arrested and held accused of VAT fraud. Proceedings were discontinued. He had signed an application for registration for VAT for a company for whom he worked as an independent agent. The judge concluded that the officers had an honest belied as to the apppellant’s guilt.
Held: The judge had failed to check the circumstances against the requirements of PACE. He found that the officer knew they had insufficient evidence to charge the appellant but found them to be honest in requesting that he be charged. There was however circumstantial evidence to support the idea that he knew of the VAT fraud. Whilst there may not have been sufficient evidence to support a charge, there was not evidence to say that the officers were dishonest in their beliefs. The appeal failed.
Smith LJ said that it is not necessary to test the full strength of a possible defence. ‘An officer cannot be expected to investigate the truth of every assertion made by the suspect in interview’
Smith LJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 616
England and Wales
Cited – O’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 21-Nov-1996
Second Hand Knowledge Supports Resaobnable Belief
The plaintiff had been arrested on the basis of the 1984 Act. The officer had no particular knowledge of the plaintiff’s involvement, relying on a briefing which led to the arrest.
Held: A reasonable suspicion upon which an arrest was founded . .
Cited – Glinski v McIver HL 1962
The court considered the tort of malicious prosecution when committed by a police officer, saying ‘But these cases must be carefully watched so as to see that there really is some evidence from his conduct that he knew it was a groundless charge.’ . .
Cited – Howarth v Gwent Constabulary and Another QBD 1-Nov-2011
The claimant alleged malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office against the defendant. He had been charged with perverting the course of justice. He had worked for a firm of solicitors specialising in defending road traffic prosecutions. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225327
The claimant sought return of his car which had been seized when he returned from France. He had with him dutiable goods, but within the set limits for personal use. The Customs said that because he had made several repeated trips, and returned with the full amount every time, he had been buying for commercial purposes.
Lightman J
[2006] EWHC 2844 (Ch), Times 08-Jan-2007
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.246057
ECJ (Customs Union) Appeal – Common Customs Tariff – Subsequent recovery of import duties – Waiver of duties to be recovered – Conditions – Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Error of the customs authorities – Detectable error – Combined nomenclature – Remarks – Scope
[2005] ECR I-1751, [2005] EUECJ C-499/03
European
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223240
Whether alleged delay by Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise in seeking to re-open a defendant’s confiscation order, so as to increase the ‘amount which might be realised’ under it, had caused a breach of article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Lord Justice Rix, Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Carnwath
[2005] 1 WLR 2693, [2005] EWCA Civ 174
European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223077
(Commercial Policy) Appeal – Anti-dumping measures – Regulation terminating anti-dumping proceedings – Retroactivity – Equal treatment – Non-discrimination – Imports of certain large aluminium electrolytic capacitors from Japan
C-422/02, [2005] EUECJ C-422/02
European
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222059
ECJ Community transit – Incurrence of a customs debt in the event of offences or irregularities – Consequence of the lack of indication to the principal of the time-limit for furnishing proof of the place where the offence or irregularity occurred
C-300/03, [2005] EUECJ C-300/03
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221549
The court approved guidelines for the appointment and remuneration of a receiver appointed under the 1988 Act.
Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Longmore Lord Justice Carnwath
[2004] EWCA Civ 1628, [2005] 1 All ER 900, [2004] All ER (D) 29
Criminal Justice Act 1988 77(8)
England and Wales
Cited – Hughes and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise etc CA 20-May-2002
N was charged with VAT fraud. He was the joint owner of a company with his brother T each holding 50% of the shares. T was never charged. A restraint and receivership order was made against N, preventing the company from dealing in any way with its . .
See Also – Capewell v Customs and Excise and Another (No 2) CA 29-Jul-2005
The Commissioners had been appointed as receiver of the claimant’s assets. The receivership was later discharged, but should have been discharged earlier, the court had the power not only to calculate the level of remuneration but also who should be . .
Appeal from – Capewell v Revenue and Customs and Another HL 31-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed against an order regarding the remuneration of a receiver appointed to administer a restraint order placed on the assets of the defendant under the 1988 Act on the basis of an allegation that the defendant had been involved in . .
Cited – Lamb v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office CA 18-Mar-2010
The appellant challenged the appointment of a receiver in respect of property registered in his name, but said to be the realisable property of a man convicted of cheating the revenue. He said that he had funded the property, and that he had not . .
Cited – Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220220
The three defendants were stopped on their way to Malaga. Each carried andpound;7,000 or andpound;6,000. Their explanations were not accepted, and the money was seized under the Act. The magistrates ordered it to be returned, and Customs appealed.
Held: It was not proper to aggregate the sums under the Act so as to reach a total greater than andpound;10,000 as required under the section. The magistrates should examine the cash under s 42(1)(a), and then look at what was the consignment. If the cash as a whole was one consignment with one source, then it did not matter how many people were carrying it.
Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Forbes
Times 04-Apr-2002
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42(1)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.168120
The Honourable Mr Justice Lewison
[2004] EWHC 2198 (Ch), [2005] BPIR 137
Excise Duty Points (Duty Suspended Movements of Excise Goods) Regulations 2001
England and Wales
Cited – Re Autotech Design Ltd, HMRC v Autotech Design Ltd ChD 2006
Michael Briggs QC summarised the approach to be adopted by the court at the hearing of for the appointment of an interim liquidator pending the hearing of an insolvency petition brought by the Revenue: ‘Although the formulations of the approach to . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v SED Essex Ltd ChD 14-Jun-2013
Liquidator confirmed despite VAT challege
The Revenue sought the winding up of the company for non-payment of substantial arrears of VAT. The revenue had declined to allow VAT input claims. The company said that the petition was wrong since the debt was genuinely disputed.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215859
Free Movement of Goods – Maritime transport – Goods duty – Import surcharge
C-115/95, [1997] EUECJ C-115/95
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215819
ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Heading 99.02 – Original lithographs. Proofs printed from a plate wholly executed by hand by the artist are to be regarded as original lithographs for the purposes of Heading 99.02 of the Common Customs Tariff even if the printing has been made by means of a mechanical printing process . Proofs printed as a result of a reprinting process in which the original design made on special paper called transfer or Berlin paper is transferred several times, first from the transfer paper to the stone, then from the stone to fresh transfer paper which in turn is transferred to a new stone to enable the print of a second series and so on until the desired number of multiple impressions is achieved are also to be regarded as original lithographs.
Although the number of proofs printed from a single original design may be evidence of the non-original nature of the work, it cannot in itself constitute a decisive criterion for the definition of an original lithograph.
TF O’ Higgins P
R-291/87, [1988] EUECJ R-291/87
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215661
ECJ Common customs tariff – tariff headings – classification of products – classification by the commission of tobacco leaf stem as refuse under subheading 24.01 b – legality (Council Regulation no 97/69 as amended by regulation no 2055/84; Commission Regulation no 3517/84)
In view of the wide power of discretion conferred upon it by Regulation no 97/69 on measures to be taken for uniform application of the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, the Commission did not exceed the limits of its powers when, by Regulation no 3517/84, it classified leaf stem of flue-cured virginia tobacco as tobacco refuse falling within subheading 24.01 b. For the purposes of the common customs tariff the term ‘refuse’ does not refer to substances which are completely valueless, since, in any event, such substances do not need to be classified, but to secondary products of less value than other products.
R-141/86, [1988] EUECJ R-141/86
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215554
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 circulation the price actually paid or payable, on which the transaction value is based, must be reduced in proportion to the damage suffered.
R-183/85, [1986] EUECJ R-183/85
Council Regulation No 1224/80 3(1)
Applied – 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 . .
Cited – Asda 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 . .
Cited – HMRC v Asda Stores Ltd UTTC 8-May-2013
UTTC IMPORT DUTY – customs value – Articles 29 and 32 of Community Customs Code (Regulation 2913/92). . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215443
ECJ 1. The functional unit principle referred to in the customs cooperation council’s explanatory notes is intended to allow classification under a given heading of machines or appliances made up of components falling under several tariff headings, in cases where those components as a whole are designed to perform the single clearly-defined function referred to in the tariff heading in question. The principle does not apply where some of the components making up a product may be used independently of the other components and for functions other than those which may be performed by all the components together.
2. An apparatus described as a timer/tuner which consists of a colour-television reception component with a 12-programme memory and of a timer that can be pre-set to switch the apparatus on and off up to 10 days in advance and which must be combined with a video recorder of a specific design in order to convert into visible form transmissions received must be regarded as a part or accessory within the meaning of subheading 92.13 d of the common customs tariff.
R-223/84, [1985] EUECJ R-223/84
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215384
ECJ Common customs tariff – tariff headings – ‘sails’ within the meaning of heading 62.04 – sails for sailboards imported separately from the boards – included
The words ‘sails’ in tariff heading 62.04 of the common customs tariff must be interpreted as including sails made of synthetic textile fibres and specifically intended for sailboards when they are imported separately from their supporting structure.
R-32/84, [1985] EUECJ R-32/84
European
See Also – Van Gend and Loos v Commission ECJ 13-Nov-1984
ECJ 1. Recognition of a case of force majeure presupposes that the external cause relied upon has irresistible and inevitable consequences to the point of making it objectively impossible for the persons . .
See Also – Van Gend En Loos v Administratie Der Belastingen ECJ 5-Feb-1963
LMA The Dutch customs authorities had introduced an import charge in breach of Art.12 [Art.25] EC. This Article prohibits MS from introducing between themselves any new customs duties on imports or exports or any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215307
Tax system with regard to spirits.
R-253/83, [1985] EUECJ R-253/83
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215285
Proceedings were taken to require Mr Salumi and others to pay additional sums as levies on imports of agricultural products, on the basis that the earlier lower levy had been applied in error. Subsequently an EU regulation was enacted and the European Court interpreted the Italian court’s question as asking in substance whether that regulation applied to payments of duties made before the date the regulation came into force. HELD: ‘Although procedural rules are generally held to apply to all proceedings pending at the time when they enter into force, this is not the case with substantive rules. On the contrary, the latter are usually interpreted as applying to situations existing before the entry into force only insofar as it clearly follows from their terms, objectives or general scheme that such an effect must be given to them.
This interpretation ensures respect for the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectation, by virtue of which the effect of Community legislation must be clear and predictable for those who are subject to it. The Court has repeatedly emphasised the importance of those principles . . that in general the principle of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from the point in time before its publication and that it may be otherwise only exceptionally, where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected.’
The regulation in question contained both procedural and substantive rules which formed an indivisible whole. The individual provisions should not be considered in isolation with regard to the time at which they take effect. The regulation could not therefore be accorded retroactive effect unless sufficiently clear indications led to such a conclusion. Both the wording and the general scheme of the regulation led to the conclusion that the regulation provided only for the future.
R-128/79, [1980] EUECJ R-128/79
European
Cited – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc ChD 4-Oct-2017
EC has sole jurisdiction over old cartels
Several claimants alleged that the defendant airway had been part of a cartel which had overcharged for freight services. The court now heard arguments about whether it had jurisdition to deal with claims which preceded the measures which had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214891
ECJ 1. When a comparison of the various language versions of any subheadings in the common customs tariff reveals that the difficulties in interpretation raised before a national court result mainly from the peculiarities of one of the language versions , those subheadings are to be considered in all the official language versions simultaneously , using in addition the information to be found in the explanatory notes of the customs co-operation council.
2. A general consideration of all the official language versions of the common customs tariff shows clearly that subheading 56.01 a represents an open-ended category including all types of fibre irrespective of their method of manufacture and their subsequent use. Consequently an interpretation of that subheading which has the effect of arbitrarily restricting its scope by excluding from it all fibres which are not suitable for use later in spinning is unacceptable.
3. It is apparent from the explanatory notes of the customs co-operation council that the scope of heading 59.01 of the common customs tariff cannot be restricted to waste produced by shearing and that there cannot be a requirement that in every case the product has the appearance of dust. The notes make it clear that subheading 59.01 b I can apply equally to textile cuttings of a regular length.
4. Cuttings of synthetic textile fibres having a length of between 6 and 7 mm fall within subheading 59.01 b I of the common customs tariff as flock and dust of man-made fibres.
R-816/79, [1980] EUECJ R-816/79
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214943
ECJ The direct application of a community regulation means that its entry into force and its application in favour of or against those subject to it are independent of any measure adopting it into national law. By reason of the obligations imposed on them by the treaty member states must not impede the direct effect of regulations or other rules of community law. The scrupulous observation of this duty is an indispensable requisite for the simultaneous and uniform application of community regulations throughout the whole of the community. Accordingly member states must not adopt or allow national institutions with a legislative power to adopt a measure by which the community nature of a legal rule and the consequences which arise from it are concealed from the persons concerned. Although it is true that in the event of difficulty of interpretation the national administration may be led to adopt detailed rules for the application of a community regulation and at the same time to clarify any doubts raised, it can do so only in so far as it complies with the provisions of community law and the national authorities cannot issue binding rules of interpretation. Regulations nos 974/71 and 1013/71, as amended by regulation no 2887/71, do not permit member states to adopt provisions laying down specific criteria concerning the applicability or otherwise of compensatory amounts to contracts concluded before 19 December 1971 in order to ‘allow the contract to be executed under the conditions which would have existed had the monetary measures referred to in article 1 of regulation (EEC) no 974/71 not been taken’, as provided for under article 4(2) of regulation no 1013/71. The provisions of article 4(2) of regulation no 1013/71 are fully effective in themselves and must therefore be interpreted as leaving it to the courts of the member state concerned to decide whether the contract was executed under the conditions which would have existed in the absence of the monetary measures referred to in article 1 of regulation no 974/71. As regards the application of article 4(2) of regulation no 1013/71 the question is whether the contract was executed under the conditions which would have existed in the absence of the monetary measures which led to the introduction of the monetary compensatory amounts. Where the contract provides for payment by the opening of an irrevocable documentary credit the answer must depend on the nature of the arrangements agreed between the importer and the issuing bank and these may in turn depend on the provisions of the local law applicable to them. Where the credit is to be opened for a sum in foreign currency (as, in this case, dollars), the crucial date will be that upon which the rate of exchange determining the amount of the importer ‘ s liability to the issuing bank was applicable. For the purpose of determining whether the conditions for applying and determining monetary compensatory amounts are fulfilled reference must be made in respect of each commercial transaction ( importation or exportation ) to the day of the importation or exportation. The regime of trade with non-member countries in the common organization of the market in bananas established by regulation no 404/93, in particular the tariff quota for imports and the way it is subdivided, does not constitute a breach of fundamental rights and general principles of law.
Europa With respect to the prohibition of discrimination, it is true that two different categories of traders, those who previously operated on open national markets and were able freely to obtain supplies of third-country bananas, and those who operated on protected national markets and were ensured the possibility of disposing of community and traditional ACP bananas despite their higher price are not affected in the same way by those measures, since the former now find their import possibilities restricted, whereas the latter may now import specified quantities of third-country bananas. However, that difference in treatment appears to be inherent in the objective of integrating previously compartmentalized markets, bearing in mind the different situations of the various categories of traders before the establishment of the common organization of the market, and permits the striking of a balance between the two categories of traders, necessary for ensuring the disposal of community production and traditional acp production, which the common organization must ensure. The same considerations justify the restriction on the freedom of traders who previously operated on open markets to pursue their trade or business, the substance of that right not being impaired. With respect to those traders’ right to property, the loss of market shares does not impact that right, since the market share held before the establishment of a common organization of a market constitutes only a momentary economic position exposed to the risks of changing circumstances and is not covered by the right to property. Similarly, a position on the market resulting from an existing situation cannot, especially if that situation is contrary to the rules of the common market, benefit from protection on the basis of acquired rights or legitimate expectation. Finally, with respect to the principle of proportionality, it cannot be considered that there was a breach in that the objectives of supporting acp producers and guaranteeing the income of community producers could have been achieved by measures having less effect on competition and on the interests of certain categories of traders, since there is nothing to show that the council, which in establishing a common organization of the markets had to reconcile divergent interests and thus select options within the context of the policy choices which are its own responsibility, adopted measures which were manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective pursued. With respect to the establishment of a tariff quota, the import of bananas from acp states into the community falls under article 168(2)(a)(ii) of the fourth acp-eec lome convention, protocol 5 on bananas annexed to that convention, and annexes lxxiv and lxxv relating to that protocol. Under those provisions, the community’ s only obligation is to maintain the advantages, with respect to access of acp bananas to the community market, which the acp states had before that convention, so that regulation no 404/93 was able, without being in breach of article 168(1) of the convention, to impose a levy on imports of non-traditional acp bananas exceeding a specified tonnage. The special features of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which is characterized by the great flexibility of its provisions, in particular those conferring the possibility of derogation, the measures to be taken when confronted with exceptional difficulties and the settlement of conflicts between the contracting parties, precludes the court from taking provisions of gatt into consideration to assess the lawfulness of a regulation in an action brought by a member state under the first paragraph of article 173 of the treaty. Those features show that the gatt rules are not unconditional and that an obligation to recognize them as rules of international law which are directly applicable in the domestic legal systems of the contracting parties cannot be based on the spirit, general scheme or terms of gatt. In the absence of such an obligation following from gatt itself, it is only if the community intended to implement a particular obligation entered into within the framework of gatt, or if the community act expressly refers to specific provisions of gatt, that the court can review the lawfulness of the community act in question from the point of view of the gatt rules. Although the protocol on the tariff quota for imports of bananas is indeed an integral part of the treaty since it is annexed to the implementing convention on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the community, provided for in article 136 of the treaty, it was nevertheless adopted as a transitional measure pending standardization of the conditions for importing bananas into the common market. As part of that system, the third subparagraph of paragraph 4 of the protocol provides that, on a proposal from the commission, the council acting by a qualified majority may abolish or amend that quota, with no reservations as to the temporal extent of a decision to abolish it. That means that the protocol, which moreover cannot have the effect of derogating from a basic provision of the treaty such as article 43(2), and the quota which it provides for can be abolished without having to comply with the rules for amending the treaty laid down in article 236 of the treaty.
C-94/77, R-94/77, [1978] EUECJ R-94/77, [1978] ECR 99
European
Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214715
ECJ 1. The opinions of the committee on common customs tariff nomen- clature constitute an important means of ensuring the uniform application of the common customs tariff by the customs authorities of the member states and as such they may be considered as a valid aid to the interpretation of the tariff. Nevertheless such opinions do not have legally binding force so that, where appropriate, it is necessary to consider whether their content is in accordance with the actual provisions of the common customs tariff and whether they alter the meaning of such provisions.
2. Heading 23.06 of the common customs tariff must be interpreted to mean that it may include products consisting of parts of fruit, which however are almost entirely lacking in any of those features which determine the nature of fruit, in particular products consisting of oranges which initially entered the juice in the course of pressing the oranges and which have subsequently been strained off even if they contain scarcely any constituent parts of the flesh of the fruit or fruit juice and instead constitute principally cell membrane and albedo.
C-69/76, R-70/76, [1977] EUECJ R-70/76
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214527
ECJ Tariff heading 48.15 of the common customs tariff must be interpreted as meaning that it does not include goods consisting of two sheets of din a 4 format stuck together, one of which is carbon paper and the other flimsy paper, as such goods must be classified under tariff heading 48.18 as ‘other stationery of paper’.
R-63/77, [1977] EUECJ R-63/77
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214591
Certificates of origin.
R-49/76, [1977] EUECJ R-49/76
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214517
ECJ 1. The authority for regulation no 803/68/EEC of the council of 27 june 1968, on the value of goods for customs purposes is to be found in article 235 of the treaty and reveals no factor calculated to affect its validity.
2. Article 11(2)(b) (second branch of the alternative) of regulation no 803/68 of the council of 27 june 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that it is inadequate, as proof of the existence of a price different from the price for forward payment, to show that the price for forward payment payable includes credit charges. What must be proved is the existence of another price of a definite amount which the buyer or other buyers in similar circumstances are entitled to settle in the event of payment before the agreed date. It is for the national court to judge in every case of this kind whether or not proof has been furnished of the existence of a different price.
C-8/73, R-8/73, [1973] EUECJ R-8/73
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214323
ECJ 1. In the interest of legal certainty and of administration the characteristics and objective properties of products generally supply the decisive criterion for their classification in the common customs tariff.
2. Products processed from maize and sorghum may be classified under tariff headings 11.01 and 11.02 if after processing they still contain the essential constituents of the basic product in proportions approximating to those of the product in its natural state.
3. Heading 23.07 refers to products which have been finally processed or are the result of a mixture of different substances and which are only suitable for feeding animals and not to agglomerated products the basic materials or materials of which come, as such, under a specific heading, even if they contain a binder not generally exceeding 3 per cent by weight.
R-36/71, [1972] EUECJ R-36/71
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214161