The court found that a customs prosecution for evasion of duty by excess tobacco imports was incorrectly founded, after failing to acknowledge a change in the 1992 Regulations brought in in 2001. Also, a day labourer who had merely assisted in unloading contraband tobacco did not obtain a benefit by way of a pecuniary advantage in the form of the evasion of excise duty since he was not himself under a liability for the payment of that duty.
Toulson LJ said: ‘On the hearing of the appeal Mr Cammerman accepted, in our judgment correctly, that the appellant would only have obtained a benefit by way of a pecuniary advantage in the form of the evasion of excise duty if he was himself under a liability for the payment of that duty which he dishonestly evaded. To help somebody else to evade the payment of duty payable by that other person, within intent to defraud, is no less criminal, but in confiscation proceedings the focus is on the benefit obtained by the relevant offender. An offender may derive other benefits from helping a person who is under a liability for the payment of duty to avoid that liability, eg by way of payment for the accessory’s services, but that is another matter. In order to decide whether the offender has obtained a benefit in the form of the evasion of a liability, it is necessary to determine whether the offender had a liability which he avoided. In the present case that turns on whether the appellant was liable for the payment of excise duty on the relevant goods under the relevant Regulations.’
Judges:
Toulson LJ, Griffith Williams, J, Brodericj HHJ Rec Winchester
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Crim 2467
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Khan; Regina v Lockett CACD 12-Mar-2009
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders made on conviction for dealing with goods with intent to defraud the CandE of payable duty namely in bringing in excess numbers of cigarettes.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In many cases the . .
Cited – White and Others v Regina CACD 5-May-2010
The defendants appealed against confiscation orders made after a finding that they had been involved (separately) in the smuggling of tobacco, suggesting a conflict between the 1992 Regulations and the Directive.
Held: The appeals variously . .
Cited – Mackle, Regina v SC 29-Jan-2014
Several defendants appealed against confiscation orders made against them on convictions for avoiding customs and excise duty by re-importing cigarettes originally intended for export. They had accepted the orders being made by consent, but now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Customs and Excise, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.277390