Site icon swarb.co.uk

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 have upheld their decision. The respondent then appealed to the tribunal, but the commissioners relied upon different grounds at the tribunal.
Held: The commissioners were not to be deemed to have upheld their initial decision on the same grounds, and were not prevented from presenting additional or different grounds. However, once requested for the grounds of the deemed decision, they were under a duty then to give their reasons. This was necessary to allow the respondent to consider whether to appeal. The decision to seize was disproportionate, but the tribunal had acted beyond its powers in ordering restoration. Case remitted.
The issue was whether the Commissioners were correct to revoke the BTI. Commissioners commonly adopted new legal arguments in the course of an appeal to the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal said, ‘we do not consider that the revocation decision is invalid because the Commissioners put forward different reasons, in the light of the annulment of the Regulation for the classification being wrong, as they had always contended’
Times 10-Feb-2003, [2003] EWHC 75 (Ch)
Finance Act 1994 14 15
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCommissioners of Customs and Excise v Newbury Admn 3-Mar-2003
The commissioner appealed a finding that a car and other goods they had forfeited should be returned. The owner said that matters had been imported for personal use under the directive.
Held: The directive had direct effect and precedence over . .
CitedSony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.179027 br>

Exit mobile version