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 applicant in any subsequent appeal to a tribunal.’ He likened the tribunal’s function to that of a sentencing court once a defendant has been convicted and cannot question the correctness of his conviction.
As for considerations of abuse of process mentioned by Buxton LJ in Gascoyne, Lewison J said that the tribunal must ask the question whether the appellant could have raised the question of the lawfulness of the forfeiture in other proceedings and, if so, why did he not do so. In the light of the reasons for not raising the matter in condemnation proceedings the tribunal can then answer the question ‘Should he have done so?’ and, if the answer is ‘Yes’, in most cases it will be an abuse of process for him to raise the question before the tribunal.
Lewison J
[2005] EWHC 3435 (Ch)
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 49
England and Wales
ExplainedGascoyne 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 by:
CitedRevenue 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 March 2021; Ref: scu.441948