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:
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