David Richards J reviewed the authorities and stated the test which has been applied in the tribunals and courts since Gascoyne: ‘The issue is whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in its consideration of the question of abuse of process. The decision as to whether there is or is not an abuse of process requires the Tribunal to consider and give appropriate weight, one way or the other, to all relevant factors and to disregard irrelevant factors. Its decision must be one capable of being reached by a reasonable tribunal having regard to the relevant factors. The decision is not in my view strictly an exercise of discretion. Either it is, or it is not, an abuse of process for the grounds for seizure to be investigated by the Tribunal, but that is a question of judgment to be made on a consideration of the relevant factors. The grounds on which the Tribunal’s decision can be challenged on appeal are therefore effectively the same as for a challenge to an exercise of discretion. I accept the test put forward by Mr Puzey for HMRC in a subsequent written submission: has the Tribunal, having been properly advised as to the law, arrived at a reasonable decision which takes account of all relevant matters and leaves out of account all irrelevant matters?’
Judges:
David Richards J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC (Ch) 1972
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – 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 . .
Appeal from – Dawkin v Revenue and Customs VDT 2-Apr-2007
VDT EXCISE GOODS – Procedure – Appellant appealed against both seizure and restoration – Review decision on restoration made before appeal against seizure withdrawn – Whether Appellant able to contest facts . .
Cited by:
Cited – Revenue 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Customs and Excise
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.441949