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 and refused his request for restoration. He then requested a review under the Finance Act, and appealed the redecision against him to the VAT and Duties Tribunal.
Held: The original letter was out of time as a notice of claim which would have required proceedings to be taken for condemnation. Even so, there was no particular time limit for the respondents to begin condemnation proceedings, and therefore the standard six months’ limit applied to applications in the Magistrates Court. It was not an abuse for the respondents to utilise the alternate procedure through the High Court which had no such time limit. The policy of not restoring vehicles used for commercial smuggling had been considered obiter in Lindsay, and found not unlawful. The tribunal’s decision to treat the hearing as a review of the respondent’s decision was a sufficient remedy.
Neuberger J
Times 28-Mar-2003, Gazette 24-Apr-2003, [2003] Ch 292
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 3 139 1141, Finance Act 1979 15, European Convention on Human Rights, Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992
England and Wales
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 – Allgemiene Gold- und Silberscheideanstalt v United Kingdom ECHR 1986
The court considered arrangements for challenging the impounding of a motor vehicle.
Held: The fact that a smuggler had recourse to the courts, even though the decision could only successfully be challenged if it was one which a publich . .
Cited – AGOSI v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Oct-1986
Krugerrand coins were seized by the Commissioners and the claimant was unsuccessful in obtaining their restoration under what is now section 152(b) of the 1979 Act. It was argued that the request for restoration of the coins amounted to a . .
Appealed to – 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 by:
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Dickinson ChD 15-Oct-2003
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 . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.180313
