Category: Customs and Excise

Hauptzollamt Bremen-Freihafen v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft (Common Customs Tariff ): ECJ 18 Jun 1970

ECJ 1. The interpretation of one tariff heading in relation to another must, in a case of doubt, take into account both the function of the customs tariff in regard to the necessities of the systems of organization of the markets and its purely customs function.
2. The expression ‘manioc flours’ within the meaning of article 1(d) of regulation no 19, read in conjunction with heading no 11.06 of the common customs tariff, mentioned in the annex to that regulation, refers to all farinaceous substances obtained from manioc roots, irrespective of the treatment which those roots may have undergone, where the product has a starch content in excess of 40 per cent.

Citations:

R-72/69, [1970] EUECJ R-72/69

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214100

Firma Milchwerke H. Wohrmann and Sohn Kg v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall: ECJ 4 Apr 1968

ECJ A tax imposed on the importation of products from third countries does not constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty within the meaning of article 12(2) of Regulation no 13/64 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the markets in milk and milk products when it is imposed as a charge under the national system of turnover tax.

Citations:

R-7/67, [1968] EUECJ R-7/67

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation no 13/64 12(2)

European, Agriculture, Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214071

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Evans Medical and Macfarlan Smith: ECJ 28 Mar 1995

ECJ 1. Article 30 of the Treaty applies to a national practice prohibiting importation of narcotic drugs covered by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and marketable under that convention.
In so far as they are goods taken across a frontier for the purposes of commercial transactions, such drugs are subject to Article 30, whatever the nature of those transactions. The fact that the prohibition of importation may result from an international agreement predating the Treaty or accession by a Member State and that the Member State maintains the measure pursuant to Article 234, despite the fact that it constitutes a barrier, does not remove it from the scope of Article 30, since Article 234 takes effect only if the agreement imposes on a Member State an obligation that is incompatible with the Treaty.
2. Article 30 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to ensure that this provision is fully effective by disapplying a national practice contrary to it unless that practice is necessary in order for the Member State concerned to comply with obligations towards non-member countries laid down in an agreement concluded prior to entry into force of the Treaty or to accession by that Member State.
In proceedings for a preliminary ruling, however, it is not for the Court of Justice but for the national court to determine which obligations are imposed by an earlier international agreement on the Member State concerned and to ascertain their ambit so as to be able to determine the extent to which they thwart application of Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty. In that connection, when an international agreement allows, but does not require, a Member State to adopt a measure which appears to be contrary to Community law, the Member State must refrain from adopting such a measure.
3. A national practice of refusing licences for importation of drugs from another Member State is not covered by the derogation provided for in Article 36 of the Treaty if it is based on the need to safeguard an undertaking’ s survival but that derogation may apply to it if protection of the health and life of humans requires a reliable supply of drugs for essential medical purposes to be safeguarded and that objective cannot be achieved as effectively by measures that are less restrictive of intra-Community trade than is an exclusive supply established in favour of national production.
4. Directive 77/62 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by Directive 88/295, is to be interpreted as authorizing the bodies covered by that directive which wish to obtain a narcotic drug for medical purposes, in this case diamorphine, to award the contract on the basis of the tendering undertakings’ ability to provide reliable and continuous supplies to the Member State concerned.
Provided that it is clearly indicated as a criterion for the award of a contract, reliability of supplies is one of the criteria which may be taken into account under Article 25 of the directive in order to determine the most economically advantageous tender for a contract for the supply, to the authorities concerned, of the product in question.

Citations:

C-324/93, [1995] EUECJ C-324/93, ECLI:EU:C:1995:84, [1995] ECR I-563, [1995] All ER (EC) 481

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Micula and Others v Romania SC 19-Feb-2020
The appellant sought to enforce a international arbitration award against the respondent. The award was made under an arrangement which later became unlawful on Romania’s accession to the EU, and Romania obtained s stay pending resolution by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.161161

West v Revenue and Customs: Cust 21 Dec 2007

CUSTOMS DUTIES – Ford Zephyr Mark 1 Convertible motor car manufactured in 1955 – whether within CN heading 87.03 or CN heading 97.05 as a collectors’ piece – only point in issue on the application of the CNEN was whether the motor car was ‘of high value’ or ‘may fetch a high price’ – provisional decision released in 2006 – appeal relisted for further evidence as to the value of the motor car’s constituent materials – Erika Daiber v Hauptzollamt Reutlingen (Case 200/84) considered — held the correct comparison is between the motor car’s customs value and the value of its constituent materials – findings made as to the value of the motor car’s constituent materials – held the customs value of the motor car was out of all proportion with the value of its constituent materials – the motor car was therefore properly classified within CN heading 97.05 as a collectors’ piece – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2007] UKVAT-Customs C00249

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.271433

Davison and Robinson Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 15 Jan 2019

EXCISE DUTY – preliminary issue – person holding goods where excise duty unpaid – assumed earlier release for consumption but facts as to how when and where that release occurred not established – whether person holding goods liable to be assessed for the unpaid duty – whether B and M Retail Limited v HMRC [2016] UKUT 49 (TCC) correctly decided – EU Directive 2008/118 Article 7 and Regulations 5 and 6 Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 437 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635211

Abbasi v Revenue and Customs: Excs 13 Nov 2007

Excs Customs and Excise -request for return of vehicle – 18,160 cigarettes- 27.69 litres of beer – 2.7 litres of spirits- failure to disclose when stopped – Iranian cigarettes – alleged purchase outside European Community – not agreed – appellant smuggling – request for review refused – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2007] UKVAT-Excise E01075

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.272147

Pierhead Drinks Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 23 Jan 2019

PROCEDURE – right of third party to appeal – procedural fairness – whether FTT should have given notice to appellant’s director of intention to find director not a fit and proper person to hold WOWGR – whether FTT required to give notice – whether cross-examination sufficient notice – the FTT’s decision should not be remade or amended – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 7 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Customs and Excise

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.635217

Sissen, Regina (on the Application of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne Crown Court and Another: Admn 9 Jul 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1905 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 141

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina v Sissen CACD 8-Dec-2000
The fact that some parrots, the breed of which was subject to import controls as endangered species, had been imported into Austria first, did not prevent a defendant in England committing the offence of being involved in their importation by . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Sissen CACD 8-Dec-2000
The fact that some parrots, the breed of which was subject to import controls as endangered species, had been imported into Austria first, did not prevent a defendant in England committing the offence of being involved in their importation by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Animals

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199836

Revenue and Customs v Perfect: CA 19 Mar 2019

The Court was asked whether a lorry driver who at the excise duty point is found to be carrying goods in respect of which duty has not been paid is strictly liable to pay the duty under EU law as implemented by statutory instrument in this country.

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 465

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.634769

West v Revenue and Customs: Cust 12 Sep 2006

Customs CUSTOMS DUTIES – Ford Zephyr Mark 1 Convertible motor car manufactured in 1955 – whether within CN heading 87.03 or CN heading 97.05 as a collector’s piece – only point in issue on the application of the CNEN was whether the motor car was ‘of high value’or ‘may fetch a high price’ – Erika Daiber v Hauptzollamt Reutlingen (Case 200/84) considered – earlier Tribunal Decisions in Stephen Bernard Saunders, Barnfinds Limited, Andrew Burford, and Julian Sibree Paul considered – held the Commissioners’ policy to interpret the requirement that a motor vehicle ‘may fetch a high price’ in order to qualify for classification as a collector’s piece, as a requirement that its value must be at least andpound;20,000 is unreasonable, arbitrary, and not supported by Daiber – the correct comparison is between the motor car’s customs value and the value of its constituent materials – if a motor car is classifiable as a collector’s piece its customs value must be out of all proportion with the value of its constituent materials – Direction for the appeal to be relisted for further evidence as to the value of the motor car’s constituent materials

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT-Customs C00224

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.271409

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 were obiter. In a case where the deeming provisions under paragraph 5 are applied, the tribunal can reopen those issues: though the tribunal will always have very well in mind, considerations of, or similar to, abuse of process in considering whether such issues should in fact be ventilated before it. The notice was to be read in its context to see whether it raised the issue that the goods were solely for the importer’s personal use. The letter to the customs was a notice of claim. There is a ‘very unsatisfactory mismatch of the two statutory procedures derived from different historical sources. That is something which only the legislature can correct. ‘ It was open to the tribunal to consider issues of proportionality. Here however the appeal was dismissed.
While an importer was not completely shut out from raising own use before the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have to be very conscious of issues of abuse of process when deciding that this could be done.
Buxton LJ drew attention to the impact of the Convention on the tribunal’s jurisdiction. In particular, he said that the potential impact of Article 1 of the First Protocol protecting rights of property is that the deeming provisions of the 1979 Act may not adequately enable the owner to assert his Convention rights. The deeming consequences may not therefore be paramount in every case. They may not necessarily prevent any further consideration by the FTT of the issues of fact relating to the purpose of the importation and the legality of the seizure. The FTT may allow those issues to be re-opened on hearing a restoration appeal, but must also bear in mind general considerations of, or similar to, abuse of process.

Judges:

Brooke LJ VP, Buxton LJ, Carbwath LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1162, [2005] 2 WLR 222, [2005] Ch 215

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 3 139 1141, European Convention on Human Rights 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Gascoyne v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 21-Feb-2003
The applicant challenged the respondent’s policy on restoration of vehicles confiscated on being found to be used for commercial smuggling. Vehicles would only be returned exceptionally. The applicant had written to the respondents who considered . .
Obiter – 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 – Lindsay v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 20-Feb-2002
The applicant was stopped at Customs carrying cigarettes over the quantity set for personal use. His car was seized, and Customs refused to return it. The cigarettes were for his own use and for sale to family members. He claimed the seizure was an . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Newbury Admn 3-Mar-2003
The commissioner appealed a finding that a car and other goods they had forfeited should be returned. The owner said that matters had been imported for personal use under the directive.
Held: The directive had direct effect and precedence over . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Gascoyne v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 21-Feb-2003
The applicant challenged the respondent’s policy on restoration of vehicles confiscated on being found to be used for commercial smuggling. Vehicles would only be returned exceptionally. The applicant had written to the respondents who considered . .
Cited – Davidson v Revenue and Customs Excs 25-Jul-2008
VDT EXCISE – seizure of vehicle and goods – whether seizure challenged – restoration refused – whether appeal against non-restoration of vehicle – whether decision not to restore goods proportionate – whether . .
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 . .
Explained – HM Revenue and Customs v Dawkin ChD 2008
David Richards J reviewed the authorities and stated the test which has been applied in the tribunals and courts since Gascoyne: ‘The issue is whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in its consideration of the question of abuse of process. The . .
Explained – Customs and Excise v Smith ChD 9-Nov-2005
Lewison J cited the case of Gascoyne saying that it was clear that ‘in the run-of-the-mill case where there has been a failure to give a paragraph 3 notice invoking the condemnation proceedings, the deeming provision will indeed operate against the . .
Cited – Martin v Director of Border Revenue FTTTx 14-Dec-2010
FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – restoration of car – 15 kilos of hand-rolling tobacco, 1,200 cigarettes and 2,050 cigars between three people – whether reasonable not to restore – yes – appeal dismissed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Human Rights

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200534

Hylands v Customs and Excise: VDT 7 Apr 2004

VDT CUSTOMS DUTY – Relief – Vehicle for use by handicapped person – Motor home adapted for use by person using wheel-chair – Vehicle fitted with ramps, stowage for ramps, floor track – Whether ‘specially designed for the social advancement’ of physically handicapped person – Yes – Reg 918/83/EEC Art 72.1, 72.2
ZERO RATING – Import of vehicle for use by handicapped person who usually uses a wheel-chair – Vehicle fitted with ramps etc – Whether vehicle ‘substantially and permanently adapted for carriage of a person in a wheel-chair’ – Yes – VATA 1994 Sch 8, Gp 12, Items 2, 2A, Note 5L

Citations:

[2004] UKVAT V18560

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Customs and Excise

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199092

British American Tobacco Manufacturing BV v Hauptzollamt Krefeld: ECJ 29 Apr 2004

ECJ Free movement of goods – External Community transit – Temporary removal of transit and transport documents – Breaking of seals and partial unloading of the goods – Removal of goods from customs supervision – Incurring of a customs debt on importation – Unsuspected presence of undercover customs agents – Special circumstances justifying the remission or repayment of import duties – Responsibility of the principal in the case of deception or obvious negligence on the part of persons engaged by him.

Citations:

C-222/01, [2004] EUECJ C-222/01

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196649

In re The Arena Corporation Limited; Commissioners for Customs and Excise v The Arena Corporation Limited; the Arena Corporation Limited v Schroeder: CA 25 Mar 2004

Sir Andrew Morritt V-C said that in the context of winding up proceedings the test for whether there is a genuine triable issue in a disputed claim, is whether the debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds, which, for practical purposes, is synonymous with ‘real as opposed to frivolous.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Mance Vice-Chancellor, The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 371, [2004] BPIR 415

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Commissioners for Customs and Excise, The Arena Corporation Limited v The Arena Corporation Limited / Schroeder ChD 12-Dec-2003
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Bryce Ashworth v Newnote Ltd CA 27-Jul-2007
The appellant challenged a refusal to set aside a statutory demand, in respect of his director’s loan account with the respondent company, saying the court should have accepted other accounts to set off against that debt.
Held: A statutory . .
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.

Customs and Excise, Insolvency

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195001

Nolan v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Mar 2014

EXCISE DUTY – appellant convicted of ‘knowingly . . . harbouring . . . excise goods with intent to defraud HMRC’ -whether conviction precluded an assessment for excise duty arising out of same events – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 240 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.525288

Kyocera Electronics Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld: ECJ 20 Nov 2003

ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Customs value – Determination of the transaction value – Interest payable under a financing arrangement – Exclusion – Conditions – Interest distinguished from the price actually paid or payable – Declaration not mentioning the interest due or paid.

Citations:

C-152/01, [2003] EUECJ C-152/01

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188350

Regina v Czyzewski; Regina v Bryan; Regina v Mitchell; Regina v Diafi; Regina v Ward: CACD 16 Jul 2003

The court set down detailed guidelines for sentencing for smuggling, but stated they were not to be treated as a straitjacket.
Held: The principle factors will be the level of duty evaded, the sophistication of methods used, the defendant’s position in the organisation, and personal profit. Aggravating factors included, organising, repetition after warnings, professionalism, abuse of position trust, use of children, actual or threatened violence, any health threat from what was imported, and sales to under age users, and the statutory factors. Evidence of professional smuggling might include the complexity of organisation, maintenance of accounts, using multiple sources, integration with other commerce, concealment, use of variety, links with organised crime, and high values. The court enumerated mitigating factors, and sentences ranging from moderate fines (amount below andpound;1,000 with small personal profit) to evasions of sums over andpound;100,000 and professional indications, justifying imprisonment.

Judges:

Rose LJ, Cox J

Citations:

Times 25-Jul-2003, [2004] 1 Cr App R (S) 49, [2003] EWCA Crim 2139, [2003] EWCA Crim 2305

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Modified – Regina v Dosanjh CACD 1-May-1998
In cases involving repeated, and continuing abuse of the personal import allowances system, courts should pay less attention to mitigating factors. The standards for prison terms for different values and the court gave giuidance as to when . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Neal, Hood CACD 28-Nov-2003
The defendants appealed sentence for having been involved in the large scale importation of cigarettes evading customs duty.
Held: The judge had paid proper attention to Dosanjh. Having regard also to Czyzewski, the sentences were within the . .
Cited – Owens and Another, Regina v CACD 6-Sep-2006
The defendants appealed convictions and sentence (6 and 4 years) for conspiracy to sell red diesel as ‘DERV’ and for money laundering of the proceeds of the crime. The sums involved exceeded andpound;1.4m. They said that documents should not have . .
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: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.185205

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Newbury: Admn 3 Mar 2003

The commissioner appealed a finding that a car and other goods they had forfeited should be returned. The owner said that matters had been imported for personal use under the directive.
Held: The directive had direct effect and precedence over English Law. The appellant had to behave in a proportionate manner (Louloudakis). The tribunal had a discretion as to forfeiture according to the circumstances, and must bear in mind the need for the response to be proportionate.

Judges:

Hale LJ, Moses J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 702 (Admin), Times 18-Apr-2003, Gazette 12-Jun-2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 49(1), EEC Council Directive 92/12 of 25 February 1992, on excise duties 8

Citing:

Cited – Lindsay v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 20-Feb-2002
The applicant was stopped at Customs carrying cigarettes over the quantity set for personal use. His car was seized, and Customs refused to return it. The cigarettes were for his own use and for sale to family members. He claimed the seizure was an . .
Cited – Regina (Hoverspeed Limited and others) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 10-Dec-2002
Passengers leaving a ferry had been stopped by Customs. The vehicle was searched and a quantity of alcohol and tobacco found, which they believed not to be for personal consumption. The car and imports had been forfeited. The court had said that the . .
Cited – Conegate Ltd v HM Customs and Excise 1987
Even though the terms of paragraph 6 of schedule 3 to CEMA appear to give the court in forfeiture proceedings no choice but to condemn the goods if they are ‘liable to forfeiture’ under the Act, the court must refuse to do this if to do so would be . .
Cited – Louloudakis v Elliniko Dimosio ECJ 12-Jul-2001
As penalties were not harmonised within Community law, it remains open to member states to choose the penalties which seem appropriate to them. They must, however, exercise that power in accordance with Community law and its general principles, and . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Alzitrans SL ChD 29-Jan-2003
The Commissioners had seized a lorry which had been carrying goods on which duty had not been paid. The respondent asked them to review their decision under section 14. They failed to give their determination and under section 15, were deemed to . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gascoyne v Customs and Excise and Another CA 28-Jul-2004
The Commissioners had found what they considered to be an excess of dutiable goods brought into the country by the tax payer, and had forfeited the car. The court considered the effect of the Gora case.
Held: The difficult statements in Gora . .
Cited – O’Leary International Ltd v North Wales Police Admn 31-May-2012
The company employed drivers to cross the UK. They were stopped and did not have the requisite drivers records. Instead they produced certificates as to having had rest days. These proved false, and the drivers said that the had been produced for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, European

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180750

Philip Morris International Inc and Others v Commission of the European Communities: ECFI 15 Jan 2003

The applicant sought an order to annul a decision of the Commission to issue legal proceedings against it, involving allegations that the smuggling of cigarettes had led to a loss of customs duty.
Held: It is settled law that only measures by Community institutions having an effect on an individual were challengeable by that individual in this way. The decision to issue proceedings did affect the applicant’s legal position, but was not itself determinative of them.

Citations:

Times 27-Jan-2003, T-377/00, [2003] EUECJ T-377/00

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Treaty Art 230

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178706

Lohmann v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz: ECJ 7 Nov 2002

(Judgment) Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Classification in the Combined Nomenclature of wrist orthoses, lumbar support belts, elbow supports and knee supports – Note 1(b) to Chapter 90 of the Combined Nomenclature

Citations:

[2002] ECR I-10045, [2002] EUECJ C-260/00

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

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.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178045

Hoverspeed Limited, Alan Charles Andrews, Pauline Andrews, Lynne Andrews, George Wilkinson v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 31 Jul 2002

The applicants operated ferries between Britain and France. Their customers were being stopped by Customs and Excise, and they sought to challenge the validity of the Order and non specific ways of selecting vehicles to be stopped.
Held: The Order was incompatible with the Directive insofar as it put upon the consumer the burden of establishing that the goods being imported were for personal use. The Order and its implementation interfered with free trade. The Directive allowed imposition of additional duties only where articles were for commercial use. The holding of goods in excess of the level indicated was merely an indicator, and could not be used as presumptive of commercial use. Customs had to act proportionately when deciding to confiscate or return vehicles.

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Mr Justice Bell

Citations:

Times 05-Aug-2002, [2002] EWHC 1630 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Excise Duty (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 (SI 1992 No 3155), Council Directive 92/12/EC (OJ 1992 L76/1), EC Treaty 28

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Hoverspeed Limited and others) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 10-Dec-2002
Passengers leaving a ferry had been stopped by Customs. The vehicle was searched and a quantity of alcohol and tobacco found, which they believed not to be for personal consumption. The car and imports had been forfeited. The court had said that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, European

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174433

Hyper Srl v Commission: ECFI 11 Jul 2002

Europa Customs duties – Importation of television sets from India – Invalid certificates of origin – Application for remission of import duties – Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 – Rights of the defence – Special situation.

Citations:

T-205/99, [2002] EUECJ T-205/99, [2002] ECR II-3141

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174400

Atlanta and Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert v Commission: ECFI 10 Dec 1996

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation increasing the tariff quota for imports of bananas for traders affected by a natural disaster

Citations:

T-18/95, [1996] EUECJ T-18/95

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture, Customs and Excise

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172991

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 integrated print head, consisting of plastic casing, foam, a metal screen, seals, tape seal, labels, ink and packing material, is to be classified, pursuant to general rule 3(b) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, under sub-heading No 3215 90 80 of the Combined Nomenclature. The element which gives the cartridge its essential character is the ink which it contains.
The fact, moreover, that the product in question can only be used, as regards both the cartridge and the ink, in a particular type of printer does not mean that it can be described as a part or accessory of a printer within the meaning of heading 8473 of the Combined Nomenclature, in so far as the cartridge plays no particular role in the actual mechanical functioning of the printer and merely enables it to fulfil its usual function.

Citations:

C-276/00, [2002] EUECJ C-276/00, [2002] ECR I-1389

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Epson Telford Ltd ChD 4-May-2007
The parties disputed whether inkjet printer cartridges were to be classsified on import as parts of printers, and free of duty, or as ink and subject to duty.
Held: ‘I can see no reason why the advances in design and technology incorporated . .
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.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167658

Baby Dan: ECJ 11 Jun 2015

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs Union and the Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Tariff classification – Positions 7318 and 8302 – Article specially designed for the fixing of safety barriers for the protection of children

Citations:

C-272/14, [2015] EUECJ C-272/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:388

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.548112

Hauptzollamt Hannover v Amazon EU Sarl: ECJ 11 Jun 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Customs union and Common Customs Tariff – Combined Nomenclature – Heading 8543 70 – Electrical machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature – Subheadings 8543 70 10 and 8543 70 90 – Reading devices for electronic books with translation or dictionary functions

Judges:

J.-C. Bonichot, P

Citations:

C-58/14, [2015] EUECJ C-58/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:385

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.548111

Taylor v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Sep 2012

EXCISE DUTY – use of red diesel – assessment in relation to a number of vehicles – HMRC v Jones and Jones considered – whether one vehicle was an excepted vehicle within Schedule 1 HODA 1979 – agricultural tractor – appeal allowed in part.

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 588 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes – Other, Customs and Excise, Agriculture

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.466182

DSG Retail Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 26 Aug 2010

CUSTOMS DUTY – On clearance of goods on importation no claim for preferential treatment indicated to HMRC even though the goods qualified for preferential treatment under Decision 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council (‘the Basic Decision’) – On the contrary by mistake no preferential treatment was claimed by the Appellant and full duty on importation was paid – On application for repayment being made by the Appellant, part of the claim for repayment was refused on the grounds inter alia that A.TR movement certificates had not been submitted within 4 months of their date of issue (as required by art. 8(1) of Decision 1/2006 of the EC-Turkey Customs Cooperation Committee (‘the Implementing Decision’)) and that the goods had not been submitted within the said period of 4 months so that belated presentation of A.TR movement certificates could not be accepted by HMRC pursuant to art. 8(3) of the Implementing Decision – Appellant appealed contending inter alia that on a proper interpretation of art. 8(1) of the Implementing Decision the A.TR movement certificates, which had been held by the Appellant at the time the goods went through clearance, had been ‘submitted’ and that on a proper interpretation of art. 8(3) of the Implementing Decision the goods had been ‘submitted’ within the said period of 4 months – held that on a proper interpretation of art. 8(1) of the Implementing Decision the A.TR movement certificates had not been ‘submitted’ at the time the goods went through clearance and that on a proper interpretation of art. 8(3) of the Implementing Decision the goods had not been ‘submitted’ within the said period of 4 months – These points taken as preliminary issues pursuant to an earlier Direction of the Tribunal – Preliminary issues decided against the Appellant

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 413 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.426547

Hughes and Others v HM Customs and Excise: Admn 21 Dec 2001

The applicants had either been acquitted of drugs trafficking offences, or were third parties. In each case, property had been taken into receivership, and orders had been made for the receivers to take their costs from the assets taken. The proprietors appealed that part of the orders.
Held: The receiver is an officer of the court, not an agent of the parties. He may not use an unconvicted defendant’s assets to meet the costs of the receivership. Human Rights law would in any event have interfered. Depriving an unconvicted defendant or a third party of his share of lawfully obtained assets to pay the costs of receivership is a disproportionate measure and a breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol.

Judges:

Mr Justice Hooper

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 1102

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Drug Trafficking Act 1994, Criminal Justice Act 1988 1A 77(8)

Citing:

Cited – In Re Andrews CA 25-Feb-1999
The defendant and his son had been charged with offences relating to their joint business, and restraint orders were made. The son was convicted, but the defendant was acquitted and awarded his costs out of central funds. The taxing officer held . .
Cited – Gardner v London Chatham and Dover Railway Co (No 1) 1867
When Parliament expressly confers powers and imposes duties and responsibilities of an important kind upon a particular body, it is, as he put it, improper for the court by the appointment of a manager . . . itself to assume those powers and duties. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167376

Regina v Smith (David Cadnam): HL 13 Dec 2001

Smith had bought a motor vessel, The Vertine, with andpound;55,000 provided by his co-defendant, John Marriott. In the words of the judge when imposing sentence, the respondent allowed himself to be used as Marriott’s ship owner and captain. The boat was used in April 1998 on a run to Heligoland to buy cigarettes and to smuggle them into this country without paying duty. On 8 May 1998 the respondent, Marriott and another man, David Russell, set sail once more for Heligoland. Two days later, on 10 May, they sailed The Vertine, laden with cigarettes, into the Humber estuary, past the customs houses at Immingham and Hull and so on for some 50 miles up the River Ouse until she reached Ocean Lock at the entrance to Goole. There is no customs house at this point. When the boat arrived at Goole, customs officers stopped and searched her. They found 1.25 million cigarettes on board. The excise duty payable on that quantity of cigarettes would have been andpound;130,666.40. He was found guilty of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by evading the duty, even though he remained liable to pay it.
Held: An importer of uncustomed goods, in this case cigarettes, who intends not to enter them for customs purposes and not pay any duty on them, derives a benefit under section 74 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 through not paying the required duty at the point of importation, where the goods are forfeited by HM Customs following importation, before their value can be realised by the importer. Having obtained a pecuniary advantage in the form and amount of the evaded duty and was therefore subject to a confiscation order up to the amount of his realisable assets accordingly.
Lord Rodger held that the later seizure of the cigarettes was like a case involving the subsequent loss of or damage to goods obtained in the course of a crime; such loss or damage would not affect the propriety of a confiscation order – consider for example the case of a burglar who hides the householder’s goods in the open air so that they are ruined by the weather or stolen by someone else.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

Times 17-Dec-2001, Gazette 14-Feb-2002, 2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 37, [2001] UKHL 68, [2002] 1 WLR 54, [2002] 1 All ER 366, [2001] All ER (D) 182, [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 37, [2002] Crim LR 396

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1988 81, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Dimsey; Regina v Allen CA 14-Jul-1999
A deeming section could create a taxation liability, even where the liability appeared to be duplicated. The clause under which the foreign income of a company came to be chargeable did not affect the existing liability to pay tax on the sums so . .
Cited – Regina v Banks CACD 9-Dec-1996
Valuation of drugs in confiscation order.
Applying the 1994 Act, sections 2(3) and 4(1) were directed to gross payments and not net profits. . .
Appeal from – Regina v Smith CACD 16-Jun-2000
The defendant appealed against a finding that he should forfeit a boat (the Vertine) used in a failed attempt to import a large quantity cigarettes whilst evading customs duty.
Held: ‘So far as the second limb is concerned — that is in . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bakewell, Regina v CACD 11-Jan-2006
The defendant faced allegations of evading duty on the importing of substantial quantities of cigarettes. A confiscation order was made. HMRC appealed saying it was too small a sum.
Held: ‘the liability of a smuggler who evades duty which he . .
Cited – Varma, Regina v SC 10-Oct-2012
The defendant had been convicted of offences under the 1979 Act, but then conditionally discharged. He had appealed against a confiscation order. The prosecutor now appealed against an order quashing the confiscation.
Held: The appeal was . .
Cited – Waya, Regina v SC 14-Nov-2012
The defendant appealed against confiscation orders made under the 2002 Act. He had bought a flat with a substantial deposit from his own resources, and the balance from a lender. That lender was repaid after he took a replacement loan. He was later . .
Cited – Harvey, Regina v SC 16-Dec-2015
Police had discovered quantities of stolen goods at the appellant’s business premises. He was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and confiscation order made. He now appealed from the inclusion in that order of sums of VAT which had already been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167021

Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven: ECJ 27 Sep 2001

ECJ Community Customs Code and implementing regulation – Repayment of import duties – Favourable tariff treatment – Post-clearance production of certificate of authenticity – Alteration of the tariff classification stated in the customs declaration – Concept of special situation

Judges:

C. Gulmann, P

Citations:

C-253/99, [2001] EUECJ C-253/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:490, [2002] CEC 72, [2001] ECR I-6493,

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166665

Pham Hoang v France: ECHR 25 Sep 1992

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-2; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Citations:

13191/87, (1992) 16 EHRR 53, [1992] ECHR 61

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165215

Cabletron Systems Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners: ECJ 10 May 2001

ECJ Regulations No 1638/94 and No 1165/95 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature are invalid inasmuch as they classify under heading No 8517 of the Combined Nomenclature (electrical apparatus for line telephony or line telegraphy) the adapters, link adapters and transceivers described in items 1 to 3 of the annex to Regulation No 1638/94 and the adapter cards described in item 4 of the annex to Regulation No 1165/95.
The Commission ought to have realised, in the light of the wording of headings No 8471 and No 8517, read in conjunction with the explanatory notes, as worded when those regulations were adopted, that it was wrong to classify those types of network equipment under heading No 8517. That error is manifest and consequently renders those regulations invalid.
Items of computer network equipment which are connectable to the central processing unit either directly or through one or more other units, which are specifically designed as part of a data-processing system, which are able to accept or deliver data in a form which can be used by the system and which have no function that they would be capable of performing without the assistance of an automatic data-processing machine must be classified under heading No 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature.

Citations:

[2001] EUECJ C-463/98, C-463/98, [2001] ECR I-3495

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162737

Proceedings brought by Outokumpu Oy: ECJ 2 Apr 1998

An excise duty which is charged on electricity of domestic origin at rates which vary according to its method of production, while being levied on imported electricity at a flat rate which is higher than the lowest rate but lower than the highest rate applicable to electricity of domestic origin, constitutes internal taxation within the meaning of Article 95 of the Treaty, not a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty within the meaning of Articles 9 and 12, where it forms part of a general system of taxation which is levied not only on electrical energy as such but also on several primary energy sources, and where both imported electricity and electricity of domestic origin form part of the same tax system and the duty is levied by the same authorities under the same procedures, whatever the origin of the electricity. The fact that imported electricity is taxed at the moment of import and electricity of domestic origin at the moment of production makes no difference for the classification of such a duty, since in view of the characteristics of electricity those two moments correspond to the same marketing stage, namely that when the electricity enters the national distribution network. Community law does not, at its present stage of development, restrict the freedom of each Member State to establish a tax system which differentiates between certain products, even products which are similar within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty, on the basis of objective criteria, such as the nature of the raw materials used or the production processes employed. Such differentiation is compatible with Community law, however, only if it pursues objectives which are themselves compatible with the requirements of the Treaty and its secondary legislation, and if the detailed rules are such as to avoid any form of discrimination, direct or indirect, against imports from other Member States or any form of protection of competing domestic products. Article 95 of the Treaty therefore does not preclude the rate of an internal duty on electricity from varying according to the manner in which the electricity is produced and the raw materials used, in so far as that differentiation is based on environmental considerations. Protection of the environment constitutes one of the essential objectives of the Community. The Community’s task includes the promotion of sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment and its activities include a policy in the sphere of the environment. Furthermore, compatibility with the environment of methods of producing electrical energy is an important objective of the Community’s energy policy.
Europa The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty precludes an excise duty which forms part of a national system of taxation on sources of energy from being levied on electricity of domestic origin at rates which vary according to its method of production while being levied on imported electricity, whatever its method of production, at a flat rate which, although lower than the highest rate applicable to electricity of domestic origin, leads, if only in certain cases, to higher taxation being imposed on imported electricity. Article 95 of the Treaty is infringed by a system of internal taxation where the taxation on the imported product and that on the similar domestic product are calculated in a different manner on the basis of different criteria which lead, if only in certain cases, to higher taxation being imposed on the imported product. The fact that, because of the characteristics of electricity, it may prove extremely difficult to determine precisely the method of production of imported electricity and hence the primary energy sources used for its production cannot justify such a system of taxation, since practical difficulties cannot justify the application of internal taxation which discriminates against products from other Member States. Although in principle Article 95 of the Treaty does not require Member States to abolish objectively justified differences which national legislation establishes between internal taxes on domestic products, it is otherwise where such abolition is the only way of avoiding direct or indirect discrimination against the imported products.

Citations:

C-213/96, [1998] ECR I-1777, [1998] EUECJ C-213/96

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Commission v Council (Police And Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters) ECJ 13-Sep-2005
The Commission sought anullment of Council Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The framework decision laid down a number of environmental offences, in respect of which the Member States are . .
Cited – Bloomsbury International Ltd v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 15-Jun-2011
The 1995 Regulations imposed a levy on fish both caught and first landed in the UK and also on imported fish products. The claimants, importers challenged the validity of the latter charges, saying that they went beyond the power given by the 1981 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161898

ICT v Fazenda Publica: ECJ 29 May 1997

ECJ The increase provided for in Article 1(3) of Regulation No 738/92 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton yarn originating in Brazil and Turkey must be applied whenever it is agreed that imported goods are to be paid for more than 30 days after their arrival in the customs territory of the Community, even where the difference between the price for deferred payment and that for immediate payment is greater, in percentage terms, than the increase to be applied.
That increase is intended to offset, automatically and at a standard rate, the commercial advantage which can result from deferred payment terms for goods, in order to prevent a form of credit dumping.
Such an increase must be applied to the price actually paid or payable for the goods when they are sold for export to the customs territory of the Community, excluding charges for interest as consideration for the deferred payment terms granted, provided that those terms are the subject of a `financing arrangement’ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1495/80, and that the level of charges reflects prevailing interest rates.
The free-at-Community-frontier price, to which the anti-dumping duty is applied, corresponds to the customs value of the imported goods, as defined by Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1224/80 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes, namely the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to the customs territory of the Community.
Under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1495/80 implementing certain provisions of Articles 1, 3 and 8 of Regulation No 1224/80, charges for interest due under a financing arrangement entered into by the buyer and relating to the purchase of imported goods are not to be included in the customs value determined in that way, provided that those charges are distinguished from the price actually paid or payable for the goods, that the financing arrangement has been made in writing and that the buyer can demonstrate not only that such goods are actually sold at the price declared as the price actually paid or payable, but also that the claimed rate of interest does not exceed the level for such transactions prevailing in the country where, and at the time when, the finance was provided.

Judges:

G.F. Mancini, P

Citations:

C-93/96, [1997] EUECJ C-93/96

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation No 1495/80

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161812

Rotexchemie v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof: ECJ 29 May 1997

(Judgment) 1 Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Determination of the normal value – Imports from non-market economy countries – Choice of a reference country – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (Council Regulation No 2176/84, Art. 2(5)(a))
2 Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Determination of the normal value – Imports from non-market economy countries – Reference to the price in a market-economy non-member country – Determination in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner – Criteria to be used in the choice of a reference country (Council Regulations No 2176/84, Art. 2(5)(a), and No 1531/88)
3 Although the choice, under Article 2(5)(a) of the basic anti-dumping regulation (No 2176), of the reference country to be used in order to determine the normal value of products from non-market economy countries falls within the discretion enjoyed by the institutions when analysing complex economic situations, the exercise of that discretion is not exempt from judicial review by the Court.
In reviewing the exercise of that discretion, the Court is to verify whether the relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the choice is based have been accurately stated and whether there has been a manifest error of appraisal or a misuse of powers. As regards the choice of reference country, that means that the Court is to verify whether the institutions neglected to take account of essential factors for the purpose of establishing the appropriateness of the country chosen and whether the information contained in the documents in the case was considered with all the care required for the view to be taken that the normal value was determined in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner.
4 It is possible to conclude that the normal value of products originating in a non-market economy country was determined by reference to the price in a market-economy non-member country `in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner’ within the meaning of Article 2(5)(a) of Regulation No 2176/84 where, first, the institutions did not receive any alternative proposal to their choice of reference country in circumstances where that country had already been chosen in an earlier proceeding concerning the same product, and where the traders concerned would not have failed, had they considered it necessary, to suggest a more appropriate country, and, secondly, those institutions have convincingly explained their reasons for not opting for other possible reference countries, without the applicant adducing any evidence capable of casting doubt on their analysis. For that reason, Regulation No 1531/88 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of potassium permanganate originating in the People’s Republic of China and definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on those imports is to be held valid.

Citations:

C-26/96, [1997] EUECJ C-26/96

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Commercial, Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161769

Klattner v Elliniko Dimosio: ECJ 29 May 1997

(Judgment) 1 Tax provisions – Harmonization of laws – Tax exemptions applicable to temporary importation of means of transport – Directive 83/182 – Restriction of the number of private vehicles which one person can import free of tax – No such restriction (Council Directive 83/182, Art. 3)
2 Tax provisions – Harmonization of laws – Tax exemptions applicable to temporary importation of means of transport – Directive 83/182 – Article 3 – Direct effect (Council Directive 83/182, Art. 3)
3 Tax provisions – Harmonization of laws – Tax exemptions applicable to temporary importation of means of transport – National rules penalizing the importation of a second private vehicle free of tax by requiring the immediate payment of the customs duties and charges normally applicable and payment of a surcharge of an amount equal to those duties and charges – Not permissible (Council Directive 83/182, Art. 3)
4 Article 3 of Directive 83/182 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption for which it provides may be granted in respect of more than one private vehicle per person.
First, the Directive does not place any express limit on the number of private vehicles for which exemption may be claimed, nor is any such limitation evident from the wording of Article 3.
Second, such a limitation is liable to hinder freedom of movement of persons resident within the Community, whereas the objective pursued by the directive is the elimination of obstacles to the establishment of an internal market resulting from the taxation arrangements applied to the temporary importation of certain means of transport for private or business use.
5 Article 3 of Directive 83/182 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another has direct effect and confers on individuals rights which they may assert against a Member State that has failed to transpose that directive into domestic law, or has transposed it incorrectly, and which the national courts must safeguard.
That provision – which requires the Member States to grant individuals, subject to the conditions which it specifies, exemption from taxes where they temporarily import certain means of transport for private use – appears, as far as its subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional in so far as it is not qualified by any condition and is not made subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any measure either by the Community institutions or by the Member States, and is unequivocal, that is to say, sufficiently precise to be relied on by an individual and applied by the courts.
6 Article 3 of Directive 83/182 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another must be interpreted as precluding domestic legislation under which the customs duties and other taxes applicable together with additional duty equal to the amount of those duties and taxes are to be payable immediately where a second private vehicle is imported temporarily. National legislation cannot penalize such temporary importation, which is authorized by that provision, without undermining the effect of the Directive.

Citations:

C-389/95, [1997] EUECJ C-389/95

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Transport, Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161742

Techex Computer, Grafik Vertriebs GmbH v Hauptzollamt Munchen: ECJ 18 Dec 1997

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesfinanzhof – Germany. Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Tariff classification of a ‘Vista board’ electronic component intended for image processing and capable of being used as a graphics card in a computer – Classification in the Combined Nomenclature.

Citations:

C-382/95, [1997] EUECJ C-382/95

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161737

Ace Drinks Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 14 Mar 2016

UTTC EXCISE – decision of HMRC to reject application for registration as owner of duty suspended goods held in an Excise Warehouse – appeal to Tribunal allowed and order made for application to be reviewed in accordance with Tribunal’s direction – alleged failure of HMRC to comply with direction – purported decision on review rejecting application – judicial review of review decision – permission to bring judicial review refused

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 124 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.562429

Butlers Ship Stores Limited v HM Revenue and Customs: UTTC 13 Nov 2013

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

Citations:

[2013] UKUT 564 (TCC), [2014] STC 732

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.521022

Murphy and Horton v HMRC: UTTC 1 Feb 2012

UTTC EXCISE DUTY – sections 55 and 62 Alcohol Liquors Duties Act 1979, Cider and Perry Regulations 1989, Wine and Made-wine Regulations 1989 – whether a discontinuance within regulation 13(a) on a sale of a business as a going concern holding stock of cider and made-wine – position where premises are both cider premises and a winery but made-wine is held only for the purpose of the cider business – proviso to regulation 12: application for some other purpose.

Judges:

Roth J

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 44 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Alcohol Liquors Duties Act 1979 55 62, Wine and Made-wine Regulations 1989, Cider and Perry Regulations 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.452888

TNT UK Ltd v HMRC: UTTC 7 Feb 2012

UTTC CUSTOMS DUTIES – post-clearance demand – goods imported using simplified inward processing relief system – appellant acting as importer’s, or purported importer’s, agent – import declarations submitted by appellant incorrect by reason of importer providing false identity- no bills of discharge provided – Customs Code arts 5, 204 – whether appellant liable for payment of duty and VAT – yes – appeal dismissed

Judges:

Bishopp J

Citations:

[2012] UKUT 49 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.452893

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 garments which, by reason of their objective characteristics, are intended to be worn exclusively or essentially in bed. It is for the national court to determine, in the light of the cut of the garments, their composition and presentation, and developments in fashion within the Member State concerned, whether those garments do have such objective characteristics or whether, on the contrary, they may be worn equally in bed and elsewhere.
Advocate General Jacobs referred to the emergence of a body of case law developed by the CJEU to which national courts and tribunals can resort in resolving new questions of Community law: ‘Experience has shown that that case law now provides sufficient guidance to enable national courts and tribunals – and in particular specialised courts and tribunals – to decide many cases for themselves without the need for a reference . .’

Judges:

M. Wathelet R P

Citations:

C-338/95, [1997] EUECJ C-338/95, [1997] ECR I-6495

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Epson Telford Ltd ChD 4-May-2007
The parties disputed whether inkjet printer cartridges were to be classsified on import as parts of printers, and free of duty, or as ink and subject to duty.
Held: ‘I can see no reason why the advances in design and technology incorporated . .
Cited – HS2 Action Alliance Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another SC 22-Jan-2014
The government planned to promote a large scale rail development (HS2), announcing this in a command paper. The main issues, in summary, were, first, whether it should have been preceded by strategic environmental assessment, under the relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161708

Rank Xerox Manufacturing v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen: ECJ 9 Oct 1997

ECJ The Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as meaning that apparatuses which can both send faxes and make copies, and comprise a scanning device (scanner), a digital storage device (memory) and a printing device (laser printer), are to be classified under sub-heading 9009 12 00 of the combined nomenclature.
Such multi-function machines, which might be classified either under heading 8517 or under heading 9009, must be classified, in accordance with general rule 3(c) for the interpretation of the combined nomenclature, under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration since, first, general rule 3(a), according to which the most specific description is to be preferred, is excluded because the relevant tariff headings fall within different chapters and, second, general rule 3(b) does not apply because those apparatuses display no feature enabling their essential character to be determined.

Citations:

C-67/95, [1997] EUECJ C-67/95, [1997] ECR I-5401

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161533

Siesse v Director da Alfandega de Alcantara: ECJ 26 Oct 1995

ECJ Regulation No 4151/88 does not preclude the national customs authority from authorizing an extension, after their expiry, of the periods laid down in Article 15(1) thereof for the declaration of release for free circulation of goods brought into the customs territory of the Community, if the circumstances so justify.
Furthermore, neither Article 19 of that regulation, which requires the customs authority to take all measures necessary to regularize the situation of goods in respect of which the formalities are not initiated within the abovementioned periods, nor Community law in general precludes the customs authority from requiring the payment of a sum, other than the customs duties and any expenses arising from the temporary storage of goods, for accepting a declaration for their release for free circulation after the expiry of those periods, provided that the amount of that sum is determined in accordance with the principle of proportionality and under conditions which are analogous to those applicable in national law to infringements of the same nature and gravity. It is for the national court to determine whether a 5% surcharge is consistent with those principles.

Judges:

DAO Edward, P

Citations:

C-36/94, [1995] EUECJ C-36/94, [1995] ECR I-3573

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation No 4151/88 15(1)

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161281

Neckermann Versand v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Ost: ECJ 9 Aug 1994

Europa Heading 61.08 (‘women’s or girls’ … pyjamas, …, knitted or crocheted’) of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff and Regulation No 3174/88 amending Annex I to the latter regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that not only sets of two knitted garments which, according to their outward appearance, are intended to be worn exclusively in bed but also sets used mainly for that purpose must be considered to be pyjamas. However, the mere fact that it is possible to wear in bed a set of two knitted garments, according to the generally accepted practice in the Member State concerned at the time when the goods are there cleared through customs, is not sufficient to justify classification under that heading.

Citations:

C-395/93, [1994] EUECJ C-395/93, [1994] ECR I-4027

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161196

Federal Republic of Germany v Council of the European Union: ECJ 5 Oct 1994

Europa Bananas – Common organization of the markets – Import regime. In the procedure for the adoption of a regulation by the Council, the fact that the proposal from the Commission, amended in accordance with a political agreement accepted by the competent member on behalf of the Commission at a Council session and approved by the college of Commissioners, is not in writing is of no consequence.
Article 149(3) of the Treaty states that as long as the Council has not acted, the Commission may alter its proposal at any time during the procedures mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2, and it does not require those amended proposals necessarily to be in writing. Such amended proposals, forming part of the Community legislative process, which is characterized by a certain flexibility, necessary for achieving a convergence of views between the institutions, are fundamentally different from the acts which are adopted by the Commission and are of direct concern to individuals, so that strict compliance with the formalities prescribed for the adoption of acts of direct concern to individuals cannot be required for their adoption.
Although under Article 190 of the Treaty the proposal from the Commission must be referred to by the Council in acts which it can adopt only on a proposal from the Commission, that article does not require citation of any amendment which may subsequently have been made to that proposal. The position would be different only if the Commission had withdrawn its proposal and replaced it by a fresh proposal.
Consultation of the European Parliament, where that is provided for, means that a fresh consultation should take place whenever the text finally adopted, taken as a whole, differs in essence from the text on which the Parliament has already been consulted, except in cases where the amendments substantially correspond to the wishes of the Parliament itself.
In pursuing the objectives of the common agricultural policy, the Community institutions must secure the permanent harmonization made necessary by any conflicts between those objectives taken individually and, where necessary, allow any one of them temporary priority in order to satisfy the demands of the economic factors or conditions in view of which their decisions are made.
Thus the Community legislature, which in matters concerning the common agricultural policy has a broad discretion corresponding to the political responsibilities given to it by Articles 40 and 43 of the Treaty, could thus, without infringing Article 39 of the Treaty, establish a common organization of the market in bananas intended to safeguard the income of the agricultural community concerned by guaranteeing the existing level of Community production and providing for suitable machinery for increasing its productivity, to stabilize the market by safeguarding Community production and regulating imports, and, by that machinery supplemented by the mechanism for increasing the import quota if necessary, to assure the availability of supplies.
A breach of Article 39 cannot result from the fact that in certain Member States the establishment of the common organization may have had the effect of increasing prices. The substitution for national arrangements characterized by considerable price differences of a common organization inevitably results in an adjustment of prices throughout the Community; the objective of ensuring reasonable prices for consumers must be considered at the level of the common market as a whole; and priority may be given temporarily to other objectives by the Community legislature.
The fact that Regulation No 404/93 on the common organization of the market in bananas pursues objectives of agricultural policy as well as a development policy in favour of the ACP States does not mean that it cannot be based on Article 43 of the Treaty alone.
First, Article 43 of the Treaty is the appropriate legal basis for any legislation concerning the production and marketing of agricultural products listed in Annex II to the Treaty which contributes to the achievement of one or more of the objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 39 of the Treaty, even where other objectives are pursued at the same time.
Secondly, the creation of a common organization of the market requires, alongside the regulation of Community production, the establishment of an import regime to stabilize the markets and ensure sales of Community production if, as in the case of bananas, the internal and external aspects of the common policy cannot be separated, it being understood that the institutions, when making use of their rule-making powers, cannot disregard the international obligations entered into by the Community under the Lome Convention.
The first paragraph of Article 42 of the Treaty recognizes both the priority of the agricultural policy over the objectives of the Treaty in the field of competition and the power of the Council to decide to what extent the competition rules are to be applied in the agricultural sector.

Citations:

C-280/93, [1993] EUECJ C-280/93R

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161130

Lloyd-Textil v Hauptzollamt Bremen-Freihafen: ECJ 22 Dec 1993

ECJ The suspension of customs duties pursuant to Regulation No 3563/84 applying generalized tariff preferences for 1985 to textile products originating in developing countries is dependent upon the Nimexe code corresponding to the imported product being referred to in one of the two annexes to the regulation. Men’ s linen windcheaters imported from China and South Korea do not qualify for suspension of duties, since they cannot fall within Annex I to the regulation, which is restricted to products manufactured from wool, cotton or man-made fibres, and their code is not referred to in Annex II. This conclusion cannot be disputed on the ground that the failure to refer to their code is an omission due to an oversight on the part of the Council which the Court should rectify. Under Article 28 of the Treaty any autonomous alteration or suspension of duties in the Common Customs Tariff is to be decided by the Council. It therefore falls to the Council and not to the Court to identify, on the basis of criteria determined by it, the products qualifying for suspension of duties. The fact that their code was referred to in subsequent years cannot be invoked either, since the amendment of a provision in a regulation does not mean that earlier versions of that provision must be construed in accordance with that amendment.

Citations:

C-304/92, [1993] EUECJ C-304/92

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.160963

Emsland-Starke v Oberfinanzdirektion Munchen: ECJ 1 Apr 1993

ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Amylaceous product made up of native potato starch and neutralized potato starch ester – Classification under subheading No 1108 13 00 of the Combined Nomenclature

Citations:

[1993] ECR I-1857, C-256/91, [1993] EUECJ C-256/91

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160790

Hewlett Packard v Directeur General des Douanes: ECJ 1 Apr 1993

Europa Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1679/79, which makes any waiver of post-clearance recovery of import or export duties by the competent customs authorities subject to the fulfilment of three conditions, must be interpreted in the light of the following considerations: Incorrect tariff information given to a trader other than the person liable for payment by the customs authorities of a Member State other than that of the authority competent to effect post-clearance recovery does not, in the absence of a Community regulation ensuring that such information has the same legal significance in all the Member States, constitute ‘an error made by the competent authorities themselves’. On the other hand, such an error is made by the authorities competent to effect recovery, within the meaning of that provision, where, despite the number and size of the imports made by the person liable, those authorities raised no objection concerning the tariff classification of the goods in question, even though a comparison between the tariff heading declared and the explicit description of the goods in accordance with the indications of the nomenclature would have disclosed the incorrect tariff classification. In order to determine whether there has been ‘an error … which could not reasonably have been detected by the person liable’, account must be taken, in particular, of the nature of the error, of the experience of the trader and of the diligence shown by him. In that regard, it is appropriate to make clear: – that the need to adopt, in view of the divergences between the various Member States concerning the tariff classification of goods, a regulation definitively clarifying the tariff heading under which the goods are to be classified constitutes strong evidence of the complexity of the problem to be resolved; – that even an experienced trader may regard his customs declarations as correct where he relied, for the purposes of the tariff classification of the goods in question, on tariff information provided by the customs authorities of a Member State other than that of the authority competent to effect post-clearance recovery to a company belonging to the same group as the person liable and where the tariff classification indicated in the customs declaration was not challenged for a relatively long period by the competent authorities; – that the requirement of diligence on the part of the trader concerned must be regarded as satisfied where the trader had no doubt, in view of the existence of tariff information supplied to a company belonging to the same group as the person liable, as to the correctness of the tariff classification of the goods in question; – that it is for the national court, having regard to the circumstances of the case, to establish whether, on the basis of this interpretation, the criteria for determining the extent to which the error that resulted in non-collection of the customs duties was capable of detection are satisfied.
The requirement that the person liable should have observed, in relation to his customs declaration, ‘all the provisions laid down by the rules in force’ must be regarded as satisfied where the trader, acting in good faith, declared the goods under an incorrect tariff heading, provided that the latter was clearly and explicitly indicated together with the description of the goods in question, so that the competent customs authorities should have been able immediately and unequivocally to determine the lack of conformity with the correct tariff heading. 2. Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79, which empowers the competent authorities to repay or remit import and export duties in special situations which result from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the person concerned, must be interpreted in the light of the following considerations: The fact that a trader has relied on incorrect information supplied to a company belonging to the same group as the person liable by a competent customs authority in a Member State other than that of the customs authority competent to effect post-clearance recovery may constitute a special situation of the kind referred to in that article. It is for the national court to establish whether both the other preconditions for the application of Article 13, namely the absence of obvious negligence or deception and due compliance with procedural rules, have been satisfied. The question whether the error was detectable, within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1679/79, is linked to the existence of obvious negligence or deception within the meaning of Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79, and therefore the conditions laid down by the latter provision must be assessed in the light of those laid down in Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1679/79.

Citations:

C-250/91, [1993] EUECJ C-250/91

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160788

Krohn v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas: ECJ 16 Dec 1992

ECJ The last sentence of Article 1 of Regulation No 482/74 on the classification of goods under subheading No 23.04 B of the Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as meaning that the products resulting from the extraction of maize oil fall under that subheading even when they contain, in addition to the residues resulting from the extraction of oil from the actual maize germs, other substances deriving in particular from the whole of the maize plant, other cereals or soya, in so far as those substances extraneous to maize grain are present in very small quantities and it is established that it is technically impossible to avoid their presence under normal conditions of production, processing, transport, transshipment and storage, save by incurring cost disproportionate to the commercial value of the derived products in question. Since the Community legislature has not set a maximum permitted level for matter extraneous to maize grains, it is for the national court, in resolving the case before it, to fix the permissible level of such matter.

Citations:

[1992] ECR I-6661, [1992] EUECJ C-194/91

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160750

Wunsche v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas: ECJ 4 Jun 1992

ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Customs value – Transaction value – Calculation – Interest payable under a financing arrangement – Excluded – Financing arrangement – Concept – Deferment of payment granted by the seller to the buyer – Included
(Council Regulation No 1224/80, Arts 1, 3 and 8; Commission Regulation No 1495/80, Art. 3, as amended by Regulation No 220/85)
The expression ‘financing arrangement’ used in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1495/80 implementing certain provisions of Articles 1, 3 and 8 of Regulation No 1224/80 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes, as amended by Regulation No 220/85, is to be interpreted in the same manner as the same expression in Article 3(c) of the original version of Regulation No 1495/80.
The said Article 3 is to be interpreted as meaning that interest payable as a result of time allowed by the seller and accepted by the buyer for payment for imported goods is to be regarded as ‘interest payable under a financing arrangement relating to the purchase of the imported goods’, not to be included in the customs value.

Citations:

C-21/91, [1992] EUECJ C-21/91, [1992] ECR I-3647

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation No 1224/80

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160637

Criminal proceedings against Richardt: ECJ 4 Oct 1991

The existence, as a consequence of the Customs Union, of a general principle of freedom of transit of goods within the Community does not, as Article 10 of Regulation No 222/77 affirms, have the effect of precluding the Member States from verifying the nature of goods in transit, pursuant to the Treaty, in particular Article 36. That article authorizes the Member States to impose restrictions on the transit of goods on grounds of public security, which covers both a Member State’ s internal security and its external security, of which the latter manifestly requires to be taken into consideration in the case of goods capable of being used for strategic purposes.
Accordingly, the aforementioned regulation does not preclude the legislation of a Member State from requiring, on external security grounds, that special authorization must be obtained for the transit through its territory of goods described as strategic material, irrespective of the Community transit document issued by another Member State. However, the measures adopted by the Member State as a consequence of the failure to comply with that requirement must not be disproportionate to the objective pursued.

Citations:

[1991] ECR I-4621, C-367/89, [1991] EUECJ C-367/89

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Oracle America Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd SC 27-Jun-2012
The appellant complained that the respondent had imported into the European Economic Area disk drives bearing its trade marks in breach of the appellant’s rights. The respondent had argued that the appellant had abused its position by withholding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160392

BayWa v Hauptzollamt Weiden: ECJ 7 Mar 1991

ECJ For the purposes of determining the customs value of harvest seed produced from basic seed supplied by the buyer, there should be added to the price paid or payable, in accordance with Article 8(1)(b)(i) of Council Regulation No 1224/80, licence fees which the buyer has to pay to the breeder of the basic seed in respect of the propagation of that seed, even where the breeder’s service has been performed within the customs territory of the Community.
In the first place, such licence fees must be attributed to the purchase of the basic seed, and form part of the price payable for that seed, which is then incorporated in the imported goods; in the second place there is no general principle which excludes from customs valuation services provided and goods produced within the customs territory of the Community.

Citations:

C-116/89, [1991] EUECJ C-116/89

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160259

Golobiewska v Commissioners of Customs and excise: CA 6 May 2005

The owner of a motor vehicle which had been seized by Customs applied to have it restored.
Held: the 1994 Act placed the burden on the applicant to establish that she was entitled to the return of her car, but the standard of proof was the civil standard only. The applicant had not met that standard. The case was however remitted to a different tribunal because the tribunal had failed to set out its reasons adequately.

Citations:

Times 25-May-2005

Statutes:

Finance Act 1994 16(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Flannery and Another v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, Trading As Colleys Professional Services CA 18-Feb-1999
A judge at first instance taking a view on an expert’s report should give reasons in his judgment for that view. On appeal, where no reasons had been given, he should be asked to provide reasons by affidavit for the appeal. An inadequately reasoned . .
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 – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.226030

Fens spol. sro v Slovenska republika: ECJ 5 Jul 2018

Customs Duties On Exports – Energy – Opinion – Free movement of goods – Customs duties on exports – Charges having equivalent effect to customs duties – Internal taxation – Charge for network services for the transmission of electricity

Citations:

C-305/17, [2018] EUECJ C-305/17 – O, ECLI:EU:C:2018:536

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.620019

Regina v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Ex Parte F and I Services Ltd: Admn 14 Apr 2000

The Commissioners gave advice to a tax payer, upon which the taxpayer relied, but the advice was incorrect. The law under which public authorities can be held responsible in negligence for the exercise of statutory functions is rapidly developing, and it is not possible to say that a claim against the Commissioners could not succeed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice Sedley And Mr Justice Lightman

Citations:

Times 26-Apr-2000, Gazette 25-May-2000, [2002] HC Admin 327

Links:

Bailii

Negligence, Customs and Excise, Estoppel, Administrative

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140142

Reader v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Nov 2020

Excise and Customs Duty – tobacco products seized – two separate seizures – appeal against assessments and wrongdoing penalties – no prior challenge of seizures in Magistrates Court – whether Tribunal’s jurisdiction extended to considering appellant’s grounds of appeal that the goods were for his personal use – no – whether penalties correctly assessed and reduction for behaviour correctly applied – no – special circumstances considered – appeal allowed in part against the penalties

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 472 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.656865

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v General Instrument (UK) Limited (Formerly Next Level Systems (Europe) Limited): Admn 24 Mar 1999

Tariff classification was in essence a matter of factual evaluation in view of the features and properties of the products to be classified, and continued: ‘The cases show that the European Court of Justice employs a limited number of principles and rules of interpretation. If the Tribunal applies the correct principles and rules of interpretation, the court will not normally interfere with the factual evaluation that it has carried out. In my view, this restraint on interference should be respected with particular vigour in cases where (as here) the factual assessment involves complex technical issues.’

Judges:

Dyson J

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 255, [2000] 1 CMLR 34

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139519

Regina v Her Majesty’s Treasury; Commissioners of Customs and Excise and Attorney General ex parte Shepherd Neame Limited: Admn 21 Jan 1998

UK government has sole discretion on imposition of beer duties, not subject to challenge within European Community context.

Citations:

Times 02-Feb-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 43

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance (No 2) Act 1997 8

Customs and Excise, European

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138164

Haahr Petroleum v Abenra Havn and others: ECJ 17 Jul 1997

(Judgment) Maritime transport – Goods duty – Import surcharge

Citations:

C-90/94, [1997] EUECJ C-90/94, [1997] ECR I-4085

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Bloomsbury International Ltd v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 15-Jun-2011
The 1995 Regulations imposed a levy on fish both caught and first landed in the UK and also on imported fish products. The claimants, importers challenged the validity of the latter charges, saying that they went beyond the power given by the 1981 . .
Cited – FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 29-Jan-2020
This appeal concerns the meaning and effect of the phrase ‘Customs Debt’ in article 221(4) of the former Customs Code of the EU, contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. Customs duties may be due under ‘post-clearance demands’ and the Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.161317

Valsts ienemumu dienests v Veloserviss SIA: ECJ 10 Dec 2015

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Community Customs Code – Post-clearance examination of declarations – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – National rules placing restrictions on re-examination of the results of a post-clearance examination – Powers – Decision on the first post-clearance examination – Incorrect or incomplete information not known on the date of the decision

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2015:803, [2015] EUECJ C-427/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

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

Customs and Excise

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.557042

FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs: SC 29 Jan 2020

This appeal concerns the meaning and effect of the phrase ‘Customs Debt’ in article 221(4) of the former Customs Code of the EU, contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. Customs duties may be due under ‘post-clearance demands’ and the Court now considered the time limits for such demands. The tax payer imported garlic, saying it was from Cambodia and exempt, but the respondent said they were from China and subject to duty. The taxpayer said the demand was issued outside a three year time limit.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The post clearance demand system was in place to allow criminal proceedings to take their full course, and the likelihood of such proceedings disapplied the three year limit. The domestic law doctrines of abuse of process and laches concern the conduct of legal proceedings, not the communication of a customs debt and did not assist. The Limitation Act specifically excluded customs debts. EU law provided that where no limit applied, action was required in a reasonable time, and on the facts here, HMRC had so acted. No reference was required to the ECJ.

Judges:

Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin

Citations:

[2020] UKSC 1, [2020] STC 363, [2020] 2 All ER 161, [2020] 1 WLR 757, [2020] WLR(D) 55, UKSC 2018/0218

Links:

Bailii, SC Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 Oct 14 am Video, SC 2019 Oct 14 pm Video

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At FTTTx – FMX Food Merchants Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 29-Nov-2013
FTTTx Customs duty – import of Chinese garlic, falsely declared as Cambodian in origin – late issue of post-clearance demand note for unpaid duty – whether the customs debt was the result of an act which, at the . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd UTTC 10-Dec-2015
Customs Duty – import of Chinese garlic falsely declared as Cambodian origin – Customs Code Art 221 – customs debt resulting from a criminal act – post clearance demand issued after expiry of the three year period – no express provisions in UK law . .
Appeal from – FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 30-Oct-2018
Post-clearance demand for customs duty almost seven years after the taxpayer had imported garlic into the United Kingdom, which had been falsely declared to be of a certain origin, and just under four years after the customs became aware of the . .
Cited – Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG v Landwirtschaftskammer fur das Saarland (Judgment) ECJ 16-Dec-1976
‘the right of individuals to rely on the directly effective provisions of the Treaty before national courts is only a minimum guarantee and is not sufficient in itself to ensure the full and complete implementation of the Treaty’
1. The . .
Cited – Valsts ienemumu dienests v Veloserviss SIA ECJ 10-Dec-2015
(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Community Customs Code – Post-clearance examination of declarations – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – National rules placing restrictions on re-examination of the results of a . .
Cited – Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport Und -Export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas ECJ 6-Oct-2015
Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Article 1(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) – Recovery of an export refund – Limitation period . .
Cited – Haahr Petroleum v Abenra Havn and others ECJ 17-Jul-1997
(Judgment) Maritime transport – Goods duty – Import surcharge . .
Cited – Sanders And Others v Commission (Staff Regulations) ECFI 5-Oct-2004
Claim for damages for loss sustained as a result of the alleged failure to recruit the applicants as temporary servants of the European Communities during the time they worked for the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking. It was, in essence, . .
Cited – Nencini v Parliament ECJ 19-Jun-2014
ECJ (Advocate General’s Opinion) Appeal – Former Member of the European Parliament – Allowances to cover expenses incurred in the performance of parliamentary duties – Debt resulting from the application of the . .
Cited – Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue SC 23-May-2012
The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European . .
Cited – Agra Srl v Agenzia Dogane – Ufficio delle Dogane di Alessandria ECJ 17-Jun-2010
Europa Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Community Customs Code – Article 221(3) and (4) – Post-clearance recovery of the customs debt – Limitation period – Act which could give rise to criminal court proceedings. . .
Cited – Allen and Others v Commission (Appeal) ECJ 14-Dec-2011
Appeal – Staff employed at the JET joint undertaking – Application of a legal status different from that of members of the temporary staff – Compensation for material damage suffered – Time-limits for instituting proceedings – Late submission – . .
Cited – Ze Fu Fleischhandel, Vion Trading GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas ECJ 5-May-2011
ECJ Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Article 3 – Recovery of an export refund – 30-year limitation period – Limitation rule forming part of the . .
Cited – Coburn v Colledge CA 5-Apr-1897
A solicitor commenced an action on June 12th, 1896 for his fees for work which had been completed on May 30th 1889.
Held: A period of limitation runs from the date on which the ingredients of the cause of action are complete. The statute of . .
Cited – Fleming (T/A Bodycraft) v Revenue and Customs HL 23-Jan-2008
The transitional rules introducing time limits for failing to deduct VAT inputs made insufficient allowance for the decisions in Marks and Spencer and Grundig.
Held: Lord Hope said: ‘To be compatible with EU law, taxpayers were entitled to be . .
Cited – Swansea City Council v Glass CA 1992
The defendant had failed himself to repair his property, and the Local Authority carried out the work itself under the 1957 Act. It sought to recover the associated costs from the defendant, but he said that their claim was time barred, being more . .
Cited – Sevcon Ltd v Lucas CAV Ltd HL 1986
A claim was brought for the infringement of a patent. It was brought after the specification had been published, but before the patent had been sealed.
Held: Time might run from a date before the plaintiff was entitled to sue. The cause of . .
Cited – Coburn v Colledge CA 5-Apr-1897
A solicitor commenced an action on June 12th, 1896 for his fees for work which had been completed on May 30th 1889.
Held: A period of limitation runs from the date on which the ingredients of the cause of action are complete. The statute of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, European

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.646807

Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport Und -Export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas: ECJ 6 Oct 2015

Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Article 1(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) – Recovery of an export refund – Limitation period – Date from which time runs (dies a quo) – Act or omission by the economic operator – Occurrence of the prejudice – Continuous infringement – Single infringement

Judges:

L. Bay Larsen, P

Citations:

C-59/14, [2015] EUECJ C-59/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:660

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

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

Customs and Excise

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.553098

Agra Srl v Agenzia Dogane – Ufficio delle Dogane di Alessandria: ECJ 17 Jun 2010

Europa Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Community Customs Code – Article 221(3) and (4) – Post-clearance recovery of the customs debt – Limitation period – Act which could give rise to criminal court proceedings.

Citations:

C-75/09, [2010] EUECJ C-75/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

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

Customs and Excise

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.420170

Cerchez v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Nov 2020

Application for permission to make a late appeal against assessments to excise duty and penalties – Appellant an innocent agent in the same position as Mr Perfect in the case of that name – approach in Martland followed – factors considered and weighed -particular weight given to failure to meet statutory time limit – that factor nevertheless outweighed by factors in Appellant’s favour, notably merits of case and financial consequences – application allowed

Citations:

[2020] UKFTT 452 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.656839

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Venn and Others: QBD 11 Dec 2001

The concept of forfeiture in the Act was dependent upon the seizure of goods. The Act also made a distinction between the initial detention of goods and formal seizure. The six months time limit under the Magistrates Courts Act was calculated from seizure not detention. The seizure was challenged by a notice of claim. Until the notice of claim was given, there was no person against whom a complaint could have been made, and time did not begin to run.

Judges:

Harrison J

Citations:

Times 24-Jan-2002, Gazette 14-Feb-2002, [2001] EWHC Admin 1055

Statutes:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 49 139, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 127

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Customs and Excise

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.167435

Customs and Excise v Invicta Poultry Ltd and Fareway Trading Co Ltd; Same v Direct Bargain Supplies Ltd: Admn 2 Jul 1997

Import duty underpaid for Customs error is recoverable unless the mistake was undiscoverable by the trader acting in good faith.

Citations:

Times 29-Jul-1997, Gazette 16-Jul-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 614

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation 2913/92 (OJ 1992 L302/1)

VAT, VAT, Customs and Excise

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137559

Regina v HM Commissioners of Customs and Excise ex parte Bottlestop: Admn 14 May 1997

The company complained of the seizure and retention of items pursuant to a search warrant. The warrant authorised entry to the Claimant’s premises to ‘search for documents and other papers in relation to the movement of excisable goods’. In executing the warrant customs officers removed all written and computer records of Bottlestop including its computer terminal, keyboard, mouse and all floppy discs.
Held: The court rejecting a submission that the warrant did not extend to the computer.
Forbes J said: ‘. . it is said that the computer hardware, mouse, keyboard and such like, were unlawfully seized under the terms of the warrant, because the warrant was restricted to the search and seizure of documents. Again, there is no substance in that criticism. The data stored electronically on either the hard disk of the base units of the computer in question or on the floppy disks were all documents for the purposes of the warrant. That seems to me to be beyond argument. It appears that it was not fully appreciated that the base unit would include the hard disk within it and that the hard disk would have upon it electronically stored data and thus satisfies the definition of being a document for the purposes of the warrant. So far as items such as the mouse and the keyboard are concerned, arguably those were not documents and it may be, although I make no conclusive finding about the matter that, in taking those pieces of hardware, the officers in question may have gone beyond the terms of the warrant. Having regard to the fact that they are, to all intents, part and parcel of the base unit which are required to enable the base unit to be operated and since the base unit contained documents in the form of electronically stored material on the hard disk, it does seem to me that it is strongly arguable by Customs and Excise that the keyboard and mouse are part and parcel of the base unit, although detachable from it. If they are part and parcel of the base unit, then they are part and parcel of the packaging of the documents in question. However, it does not seem to me to be necessary to resolve such an interesting academic point in this case, because all the computer and its hardware were returned to the applicant in January of this year. There is therefore no need for this aspect of the matter to be resolved by reference to public law principles. Any legitimate complaint that the applicant may have so far as concerns the mouse, the keyboard and perhaps the VDU are, so it seems to me, perfectly capable of being dealt with by reference to remedies available in the field of private law. Accordingly, for those reasons I am satisfied that there is no substance in that aspect of the applicant’s arguments.’

Judges:

Forbes J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 467

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Glenn and Co (Essex) Ltd), Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 18-Jun-2010
The company objected to the search of its offices and removal by the defendant of its computers, the officers having entered without any warrant purporting to use powers under the 1989 Act.
Held: The request for judicial review failed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137412

Adrena Sp Zo O K v Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 6 Dec 2013

FTTTx Excise Duty – restoration of excise goods deemed condemned as forfeit – seizure based on mismatch between shipping documents and physical load – 2 pallets found to contain lesser quantity of different type of lager than listed on shipping documents – liability to forfeiture not contested – restoration requested – refused and refusal confirmed on review – basis of refusal stated to be that goods seized should not normally be restored, and in the absence of notice contesting the lawfulness of the seizure, the goods were deemed lawfully seized – no ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying restoration found, also doubts about ownership of the goods expressed – HMRC v Jones and Jones relied on – held evidence of ownership sufficient, mismatch attributable to simple error from which no advantage could be seen to accrue – vague suggestions of prior fraud unsubstantiated and not relied on – on the basis of the relevant information no reasonable officer could have refused to restore the goods – direction given for further review to be carried out on the basis that ownership of the goods has been established, the mismatch was due to a simple error and there was no association with any attempted fraudulent evasion of duty – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 735 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.519616

Commission v Ireland: ECJ 12 Jun 1990

ECJ In regard to exemptions from turnover tax and excise duty granted in respect of goods contained in travellers’ personal luggage, Member States retain only the restricted power conferred on them by Directive 69/169, as subsequently extended and amended . Since no provision is made in that directive for any derogation relating to the duration of journeys and the exemptions must be granted as soon as the traveller in question has had the opportunity to make purchases in another Member State, the application of those exemptions cannot be limited by a Member State to goods contained in the personal luggage of travellers arriving at its borders after a period of 48 hours outside its territory.

Citations:

C-158/88, [1990] EUECJ C-158/88

Links:

Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.134889

Lefebvre Frere and Soeur v Commission: ECJ 14 Feb 1989

A Commission decision, adopted pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 115 of the Treaty, addressed to a Member State and authorizing that State in future to exclude from Community treatment for a specified period bananas originating in certain non-member countries and released into free circulation in the other Member States, is, with regard to all banana importers, a measure of general application which applies to situations determined objectively and has legal effects with regard to categories of persons referred to in a general and abstract manner.
It is not therefore of individual concern, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, to a banana-importing undertaking, even if that undertaking had been prohibited on several occasions by the authorities of the Member State concerned from importing bananas and had complained of its difficulties to the national courts and the Commission.
Firstly, no application for an import licence lodged by that undertaking was still pending when the decision was adopted and, secondly, a measure does not cease to be a regulation because it is possible to determine the number or even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at any given time as long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation.

Citations:

C-206/87, [1989] EUECJ C-206/87

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Agriculture, Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.134664

SC Nicktrans Srl v Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 25 Apr 2015

Excise Duty – restoration – Customs Excise and Management Act 1979 sections 88 and 139 – adaptation of vehicle for purpose of concealment of goods – seizure and confiscation of vehicle – refusal of restoration – Romanian owner denied knowledge of adaptation – s 16 Finance Act 1994 – whether the review officer had taken into account irrelevant considerations and disregarded relevant considerations in reaching her decision – yes – whether refusal reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances – no – appeal allowed – further review directed under s 16(4)(b) FA 1994

Citations:

[2015] UKFTT 177 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Customs Excise and Management Act 1979 88 139

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.547387

Revenue and Customs v Perfect (Excise Duty): UTTC 8 Dec 2017

EXCISE DUTY – persons with no actual or constructive knowledge of unpaid duty – meaning of ‘making the delivery of’ and ‘holding’ goods in Article 33(3) EU Council Directive 2008/118/EC and reg 13(2) Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010 – liability for penalty under paragraph 4 Schedule 41 Finance Act 2008.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 476 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At UTTCC – Revenue and Customs v Perfect CA 15-Mar-2022
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, European

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.665574