Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 2001 To: 2001

This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Siples Srl, in liquidation v Ministero delle Finanze [2001] ECR I-277; [2001] EUECJ C-226/99; C-226/99
11 Jan 2001
ECJ
A. La Pergola, P
European, Customs and Excise
ECJ Common Customs Code - Appeals - Suspension of implementation of a decision of the customs authorities
[ Bailii ]
 
G van de Water v Staatssecretaris van Financien (Judgment) C-325/99; [2001] EUECJ C-325/99; [2001] ECR I-2729.
5 Apr 2001
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
Article 6 (1) of the Directive was designed to establish the point in time at which the excise duty becomes actually chargeable, but not to determine the person from whom the duty should be claimed. Any production, processing, holding or circulation outside a suspension arrangement gives rise to the chargeability of the excise duty. In those circumstances, once it is established before the national court that such a product has departed from a suspension arrangement without the excise duty having been paid, it is clear that the holding of the product in question constitutes release for consumption within the meaning of Article 6 (1) of the Directive and that the duty has become chargeable.
Council Directive 92/12/EEC 6(1)
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Cresta Holidays Ltd and Others Gazette, 05 April 2001; [2001] EWCA Civ 215
5 Apr 2001
ChD

Insurance, Torts - Other, Customs and Excise
Travel operators sold insurance on behalf of insurance companies who paid on Insurance Premium Tax. The level of tax was raised, but the increase was later found to be unlawful state aid. The operators sought a refund of the tax overpaid from the Commissioners. Such a claim could be made only under one of two provisions. One related to claims before payment, and the second to restitution. Since the claimants had not themselves paid the tax, there was no restitution, and the claim failed.
[ Bailii ]
 
Cabletron Systems Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners [2001] EUECJ C-463/98; C-463/98; [2001] ECR I-3495
10 May 2001
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
ECJ Regulations No 1638/94 and No 1165/95 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature are invalid inasmuch as they classify under heading No 8517 of the Combined Nomenclature (electrical apparatus for line telephony or line telegraphy) the adapters, link adapters and transceivers described in items 1 to 3 of the annex to Regulation No 1638/94 and the adapter cards described in item 4 of the annex to Regulation No 1165/95.
The Commission ought to have realised, in the light of the wording of headings No 8471 and No 8517, read in conjunction with the explanatory notes, as worded when those regulations were adopted, that it was wrong to classify those types of network equipment under heading No 8517. That error is manifest and consequently renders those regulations invalid.
Items of computer network equipment which are connectable to the central processing unit either directly or through one or more other units, which are specifically designed as part of a data-processing system, which are able to accept or deliver data in a form which can be used by the system and which have no function that they would be capable of performing without the assistance of an automatic data-processing machine must be classified under heading No 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Kaufring v Commission T-191/97 (Customs Union) T-191/97; [2001] EUECJ T-191/97
10 May 2001
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
ECJ Action for annulment - Importation of television sets from Turkey - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 3(1) of the Additional Protocol - Compensatory levy - Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 - Remission of import duty not justified - Rights of the defence
[ Bailii ]
 
Kaufring v Commission T-293/97 (Customs Union) T-293/97; [2001] EUECJ T-293/97
10 May 2001
ECJ

European, Customs and Excise
E J Action for annulment - Importation of television sets from Turkey - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 3(1) of the Additional Protocol - Compensatory levy - Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 - Remission of import duty not justified - Rights of the defence
[ Bailii ]
 
Customs and Excise v D'Souza and others [2001] EWCA Civ 901
7 Jun 2001
CA

Customs and Excise
Renewed application for leave to appeal. Property had been made subject to an award in favour of the claimant after a substantial fraud on them. The defendants wished to say the property was held on trust. Held: The defendants had been able to produce their evidence at the first hearing. They had not done so and it should not know be admitted, and the judge had been entitled to be sceptical about the evidence provided..
[ Bailii ]
 
Goldsmith and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Gazette, 07 June 2001; Times, 12 June 2001; [2001] 1 WLR 1673
7 Jun 2001
QBD
Lord Woolf CJ
Human Rights, Customs and Excise
The applicants were stopped after bringing into the country 26 kilos of tobacco, without declaring it. The customs applied for an order condemning the tobacco. The applicants argued that the proceedings were, in effect, criminal proceedings, and that, therefore, the reversal of the burden of proof was a breach of their right to a fair trial. Held: The Act was clear that these were civil proceedings, and the consequences and associations of the proceedings did not have the characteristics of criminal proceedings, and therefore the reversal of the burden of proof was appropriate. The court considered whether forfeiture proceedings are criminal. Full weight must be given to the consequence of goods being forfeited, but reference also made to the fact that the legislation categorises the proceedings as civil, and that none of the usual consequences of a criminal conviction follow from condemnation and forfeiture proceedings. There is no conviction or finding of guilt. Under domestic law the person concerned is not treated as having a conviction. The person concerned is not subject to any other penalty, apart from the consequences of the forfeiture and loss of the goods.
Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 (1992 No 3155) - Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 3 - European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
1 Citers


 
Walsh v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 04 July 2001; Gazette, 19 July 2001
4 Jul 2001
QBD

Customs and Excise
When the customs seized cash under the section on the suspicion that it might be the proceeds of drug trafficking, the time limit imposed by the section for the return of the money if continued retention was not authorised, was strict. They had 48 hours within which to obtain authority. Money was seized at 11:30am on a Saturday. The application was made on the Monday morning, but the case did not come on for hearing until 1.20pm. It was held that it was not sufficient to make the application within the 48 hours, the authorisation itself had to be granted. Parliament had imposed a simple rule with no provision for these difficulties.
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42


 
 Regina v Forbes (Giles); HL 20-Jul-2001 - Times, 20 July 2001; Gazette, 06 September 2001; [2001] UKHL 40; [2002] 2 AC 512; [2001] Crim LR 906; [2002] 1 Cr App R 1; [2001] 3 WLR 428; [2001] 4 All ER 97
 
Regina v Peter John Brown and Others [2001] EWCA Civ 1771
27 Jul 2001
CACD
Lord Justice Mantell, Mr Justice Rougier, Mr Justice Grigson
Customs and Excise, Crime
The defendants appealed convictions for conspiracy. There had been a large, admitted, conspiracy to cheat the revenue by mis-selling bonded tobacco etc. They criticised the judge's direction on the extent of involvement required to be found part of a conspiracy. They argued that some express intention had to be shown. That argument failed. Other people involved, had been used by the Customs to co-operate in gaining further evidence, and the existence of that involvement had been withheld from the defence with the consent of the judge. That procedure had been proper.
1 Cites


 
PSL Freight Ltd v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2001] EWHC Ch 6
31 Jul 2001
ChD
The Vice-Chancellor
Customs and Excise

[ Bailii ]
 
European Textiles Ltd v Customs and Excise [2001] UKVAT-Customs C00164
21 Sep 2001
Cust

Customs and Excise

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven; ECJ 27-Sep-2001 - C-253/99; [2001] EUECJ C-253/99; ECLI:EU:C:2001:490; [2002] CEC 72; [2001] ECR I-6493,
 
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Venn and Others Times, 24 January 2002; Gazette, 14 February 2002; [2001] EWHC Admin 1055
11 Dec 2001
QBD
Harrison J
Customs and Excise
The concept of forfeiture in the Act was dependent upon the seizure of goods. The Act also made a distinction between the initial detention of goods and formal seizure. The six months time limit under the Magistrates Courts Act was calculated from seizure not detention. The seizure was challenged by a notice of claim. Until the notice of claim was given, there was no person against whom a complaint could have been made, and time did not begin to run.
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 49 139 - Magistrates Courts Act 1980 127
1 Citers


 
Regina v Smith (David Cadnam) Times, 17 December 2001; Gazette, 14 February 2002; 2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 37; [2001] UKHL 68; [2002] 1 WLR 54; [2002] 1 All ER 366; [2001] All ER (D) 182; [2002] 2 Cr App R (S) 37; [2002] Crim LR 396
13 Dec 2001
HL
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Customs and Excise, Criminal Sentencing
Smith had bought a motor vessel, The Vertine, with £55,000 provided by his co-defendant, John Marriott. In the words of the judge when imposing sentence, the respondent allowed himself to be used as Marriott's ship owner and captain. The boat was used in April 1998 on a run to Heligoland to buy cigarettes and to smuggle them into this country without paying duty. On 8 May 1998 the respondent, Marriott and another man, David Russell, set sail once more for Heligoland. Two days later, on 10 May, they sailed The Vertine, laden with cigarettes, into the Humber estuary, past the customs houses at Immingham and Hull and so on for some 50 miles up the River Ouse until she reached Ocean Lock at the entrance to Goole. There is no customs house at this point. When the boat arrived at Goole, customs officers stopped and searched her. They found 1.25 million cigarettes on board. The excise duty payable on that quantity of cigarettes would have been £130,666.40. He was found guilty of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by evading the duty, even though he remained liable to pay it. Held: An importer of uncustomed goods, in this case cigarettes, who intends not to enter them for customs purposes and not pay any duty on them, derives a benefit under section 74 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 through not paying the required duty at the point of importation, where the goods are forfeited by HM Customs following importation, before their value can be realised by the importer. Having obtained a pecuniary advantage in the form and amount of the evaded duty and was therefore subject to a confiscation order up to the amount of his realisable assets accordingly.
Lord Rodger held that the later seizure of the cigarettes was like a case involving the subsequent loss of or damage to goods obtained in the course of a crime; such loss or damage would not affect the propriety of a confiscation order – consider for example the case of a burglar who hides the householder's goods in the open air so that they are ruined by the weather or stolen by someone else.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 81 - Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Hughes and Others v HM Customs and Excise [2001] EWHC Admin 1102
21 Dec 2001
Admn
Mr Justice Hooper
Customs and Excise, Criminal Practice, Human Rights
The applicants had either been acquitted of drugs trafficking offences, or were third parties. In each case, property had been taken into receivership, and orders had been made for the receivers to take their costs from the assets taken. The proprietors appealed that part of the orders. Held: The receiver is an officer of the court, not an agent of the parties. He may not use an unconvicted defendant’s assets to meet the costs of the receivership. Human Rights law would in any event have interfered. Depriving an unconvicted defendant or a third party of his share of lawfully obtained assets to pay the costs of receivership is a disproportionate measure and a breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol.
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 1A 77(8)
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Dannatt v Customs and Excise [2001] UKVAT-Excise E00243
21 Dec 2001
Excs

Customs and Excise
EXCS PROCEDURE - Disclosure - European Commission Letter of Formal Notice - Appeal against decision to restore car on payment of restoration fee - Formal Letter opens enquiry into UK's response to bootlegging leading possibly to infraction proceedings against UK - Issue in present appeal is whether UK's policy on restoration of cars used for bootlegging is so disproportionate as to be unreasonable - Application dismissed
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.