swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Customs and Excise - From: 1200 To: 1799
This page lists 3 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
William Paul, and Christopher Clithero, Esqrs v Sir John Shaw, Bart [1710] EngR 34; (1710) 8 Bro PC 288; (1710) 3 ER 588
29 Jan 1710
PC
Customs and Excise
Prisage is an ancient duty in specie on goods imported, and may be granted away by the crown ; but goods chargeable with this duty are not thereby exempted from the payment of other duties.
[ Commonlii ]
Walter Grosset, Esq, Inspector-General of His Majesty's Customs At The Port of Leith v Thomas Ogilvy of Dundee, In The County of Forfar, Merchant [1753] UKHL 2_Paton_1
16 Feb 1753
HL
Scotland, Customs and Excise
Customs -
Act 3 Anne, c. 13, and 9 Geo. II.-Indemnity Act, 18 Geo. II.-Tobacco was imported from the Plantations abroad, by merchants in Leith, upon which the usual duties were paid. Afterwards it was exported, and, in terms of the act in such cases, a drawback of the whole duty was obtained, and the goods exported under a certificate that they were for foreign export. After the ship proceeded to sea the tobacco was clandestinely relanded: Held that the Indemnity Act; 18 Geo. II., did not apply to such a case, and that the tobacco was forfeited, and the penalties attached.
[ Bailii ]
Irving v Wilson And Another [1791] EngR 1492; (1791) 4 TR 485; (1791) 100 ER 1132
22 Nov 1791
Lord Kenyon CJ, Ashurst J
Customs and Excise
If a Revenue officer seize goods as forfeited, which are not liable to seizure, and take money of the owner to release them, the latter may recover back the money in action for money had and received. In such an action a month's notice need not be given under the 23 G. 3, c. 70, s. 30.
The action was brought for the recovery of money had and received by customs officers. The officers had stopped a cart containing goods which required a permit, without which they were liable to forfeiture. The carrier did not have a permit, but told the officers that the goods formed part of a larger consignment, and that a permit for the entire consignment was with the remainder of the consignment, some miles behind. The officers waited some time, but the remainder of the consignment did not appear. The officers then seized the goods. When the remainder of the consignment eventually arrived, and the permit was produced, those goods also were seized. The officers then refused to restore the goods until a payment had been made by the owner. Held: The action succeeded.
Ashurst J noted that "the goods were not liable to seizure", but also stated that "the defendants acted right in stopping the goods at first; but when the permit came up, there was no pretence to detain them".
Lord Kenyon CJ distinguished between the initial detention and the subsequent seizure, stating that "whatever ground of probability there was for stopping the first cart, yet after the matter was cleared up, there was no pretence for making a seizure".
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
