The applicant had returned to England with a quantity of goods which the Customs and Excise deemed were not for his personal use. His car was seized, but ordered to be restored by the VAT and Duties Tribunal.
Held: There was now a two track process for recovery of goods seized; condemned goods might be recovered through the High Court or magistrates. Here the review officer had refused to review an earlier decision not to restore the goods. The tribunal had posed the wrong question. The complainant should be given an opportunuity for a review by a body exercising judicial disciplines. It is not open to the Tribunal to receive evidence as to private use unless he had served a notice challenging the forfeiture. His letter of complaint should be treated as such since no form of notice was laid down.
The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
[2003] EWHC 2358 (Ch), Times 03-Dec-2003, Gazette 22-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1160, [2003] All ER (D) 315
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others CA 11-Apr-2003
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and . .
Cited – 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 – 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 . .
Appeal from – Dickinson v Customs and Excise Excs 20-Feb-2003
Appeal under s.16 FA 1994 – Stopping vehicle and seizing it and tobacco – Whether stopping lawful – Whether seizure lawful – Hoverspeed (Administrative Court) – Whether adjournment should be granted – Intimidatory behaviour – Full compensation . .
Cited by:
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Customs and Excise
Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.187007