

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. Â
		Customs and Excise - From: 2002 To: 2002 This page lists 54 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018. Â Hendy v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00212 11 Jan 2002 Excs Customs and Excise RESTORATION REFUSAL - Vehicle - Appellant disabled - Importing cigarettes and tobacco 5 times guideline - Heavy smoker - Part to be reimbursed by family - Larger quantity allowed through 7 weeks earlier - Little detail recorded but Notice 1 served - Disability not regarded as relevant by Review Officer - Wrong test applied by Review Officer - Need for proportionality - Finance Act 1994 s.16(4) - Further review directed with proper reasons Finance Act 1994 16(4) [ Bailii ] Â Peter Gilder and Sons Ltd v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Customs C00157 14 Jan 2002 Cust Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Taylor v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00215 14 Jan 2002 Excs Customs and Excise Excs Importation of large quantities of dutiable goods - Seizure of vehicle - Vehicle belonging to driver's partner - Restoration offered subject to conditions - Reasonableness - Presumption of commerciality, appeal dismissed [ Bailii ] Â Da Costa and Co (a Firm) and Collins v Thames Magistrates Court and H M Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2002] EWHC 40 (Admin); [2002] STC 267 25 Jan 2002 QBD Lord Justice Kennedy, and Mrs Justice Hallett Magistrates, Customs and Excise The claimant sought to challenge search warrants issued by the respondents. The warrants were criticised as being too widely drawn, and in breach of the 1984 Act. Criticism was also made of the implementation of the searches, in the use of excess numbers of officers, and the taking of images of hard disks, thus acquiring privileged information about other clients of the accountant claimants. Held: The imaging of the disks was less intrusive, and no different in principal from the seizure of a ledger book. The officers also questioned staff members using a pre-prepared questionnaire. The use of that should have been raised with the judge issuing the warrant. However no remedy was to be granted save for another admittedly unlawful search. The Commissioners' power to seize "documents" when entering with a warrant under paragraph 10(3)(b) of Schedule 11 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 could extend to the physical removal of computers. "Documents" were defined in section 96(1) of that Act as "anything in which information is recorded", a very similar definition to that in section 114(2) of the Finance Act 2008. The court accepted a submission that: "A computer hard disk is a single storage entity which falls within the definition of a "document" in section 96(1) of the 1994 Act because it is something "in which information of any kind is recorded". Vallue Added Tax Act 1994 72 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 15(6)(b 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Turbon International GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz C-276/00; [2002] EUECJ C-276/00; [2002] ECR I-1389 7 Feb 2002 ECJ Customs and Excise ECJ Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation No 1734/96, must be interpreted as meaning that an ink-cartridge without integrated print head, consisting of plastic casing, foam, a metal screen, seals, tape seal, labels, ink and packing material, is to be classified, pursuant to general rule 3(b) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, under sub-heading No 3215 90 80 of the Combined Nomenclature. The element which gives the cartridge its essential character is the ink which it contains. The fact, moreover, that the product in question can only be used, as regards both the cartridge and the ink, in a particular type of printer does not mean that it can be described as a part or accessory of a printer within the meaning of heading 8473 of the Combined Nomenclature, in so far as the cartridge plays no particular role in the actual mechanical functioning of the printer and merely enables it to fulfil its usual function. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Fast Forward Resources Plc v Revenue and Customs [2002] UKVAT-Customs C00223 15 Feb 2002 Cust Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Lindsay v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 27 February 2002; [2002] 1 WLR 1766; [2002] EWCA Civ 267 20 Feb 2002 CA Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Carnwath Customs and Excise, Human Rights 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 interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property. Held: The policy, adopted as a blanket policy, was disproportionate. It made no distinction between professional smugglers and others. There had been no proper attempt to strike a balance between the public interest and private rights, and there was no proportionality as required. The tenor of the letter implementing the policy made it plain that restoration should only be ordered in exceptional circumstances, and that message was reinforced by the example given: "a first time technical offence where a minimal amount of tobacco has been brought back for a relative's consumption with payment at cost." The policy was unlawful. The value of the car did not have to be taken into account on impounding for a commercial import. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 (1953 Cmd 8969) - Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 152 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Duffy and Others Times, 04 April 2002 1 Mar 2002 QBD Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Forbes Customs and Excise, Magistrates The three defendants were stopped on their way to Malaga. Each carried £7,000 or £6,000. Their explanations were not accepted, and the money was seized under the Act. The magistrates ordered it to be returned, and Customs appealed. Held: It was not proper to aggregate the sums under the Act so as to reach a total greater than £10,000 as required under the section. The magistrates should examine the cash under s 42(1)(a), and then look at what was the consignment. If the cash as a whole was one consignment with one source, then it did not matter how many people were carrying it. Drug Trafficking Act 1994 42(1) Â Avli (Ali) v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00247 26 Mar 2002 Excs Customs and Excise Excs Excise duty-owner of car lending to a friend-friend on-lending car to another person not knowing that person would use it for smuggling-whether reasonable not to restore car to owner-whether disproportionate violation of owner's right to peaceful possession of the car-appeal allowed [ Bailii ] Â Kerslake and Another v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00238 8 Apr 2002 Excs Customs and Excise Excise duties - seizure of passengers' goods - seizure of driver's car and goods - non-restoration of goods and car - whether Commissioners' decisions reasonable [ Bailii ] Â Hendry v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00248 16 Apr 2002 Excs Customs and Excise Excs Excise Duty - Refusal to restore car - Excise goods being carried partly for own use and partly for sale, otherwise than for profit, to friends etc - Whether refusal to restore reasonable - No [ Bailii ] Â Hendry v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00232 16 Apr 2002 Excs Customs and Excise Excs Excise Duty - Refusal to restore car - Excise goods being carried partly for own use and partly for sale, otherwise than for profit, to friends etc - Whether refusal to restore reasonable - No [ Bailii ] Â Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A; A v A Times, 09 May 2002 18 Apr 2002 FD Mr Justice Munby Customs and Excise, Family, Human Rights The husband had been convicted of trafficking in cannabis, and an order had been made confiscating his assets. His wife had already petitioned for divorce and begun ancillary relief proceedings. She claimed that her interest in the house under section 24 of the Act was protected. The receiver sought sale of the house to recover the sum ordered. Held: The section under the 1994 Act did protect the interest of the wife. Her right to occupy the house under the 1973 Act created an interest over and above her financial interest, and that interest was protected by section 31(4). There had to be a right and that right had to be 'in' the property. She claimed a similar protection under the Human Rights Act. Despite the risk of the husband being unable to satisfy the confiscation order, and thus be returned to prison, the proper order in this case was to vest the entire house in the wife's name. Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24 - Drug Trafficking Act 1994 31(4) 62(5)(a) 62(3) - European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 Pro 1 Â Dynatron UK Ltd v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Customs C00163 25 Apr 2002 Cust Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Richell v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00236 30 Apr 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Mevlana v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00237 7 May 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Houlton Meats Ltd v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00233 7 May 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Avis v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00249 13 May 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Hughes and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise etc [2003] 1 WLR 177; Times, 31 May 2002; Gazette, 27 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 670; [2002] 4 All ER 633 20 May 2002 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Laws and Lady Justice Arden Customs and Excise, Costs, Human Rights Nicholas Hughes was charged with VAT fraud. Nicholas was the joint owner of a company with his brother Timothy, each holding 50% of the shares. Timothy was never charged. A restraint and receivership order was made against Nicholas, preventing the company from dealing in any way with its assets. Nicholas was acquitted but the assets of the company were used to meet the receiver's costs and expenses. In each case the Commissioners had been appointed receivers of the applicant's assets pending a decision in parallel criminal proceedings on a confiscation order. The final orders were not made, and the Commissioners appealed orders denying them their costs from the assets they had realised. Held: Save as provided otherwise, statutory receivers were to be treated precisely as their common-law counterparts. The regime of restraint and receivership orders was not contrary to the applicants' human rights. Acquitted defendants are not, save exceptionally, entitled to compensation for being deprived of their liberty while on remand, and it was no more unfair that they should be uncompensated for any adverse effects that restraint and receivership orders might have had upon their assets. The introduction of CPR 69.7 had made a significant change in law and practice for receivers as regards remuneration. Simon Brown LJ said: "I entirely accept that an acquitted (or indeed unconvicted) defendant must for these purposes be treated as an innocent person . . I cannot accept, however, that for this reason it must be regarded as disproportionate, still less arbitrary (another contention advanced by the respondents), to leave the defendant, against whom restraint and receivership orders have been made, uncompensated for such loss as they may have caused him - unless, of course, by establishing 'some serious fault' on the prosecutor's part he can bring himself within the strict requirements of section 89. It is common ground that acquitted defendants are not, save in the most exceptional circumstances, entitled to compensation for being deprived of their liberty whilst on remand or indeed for any other heads of loss suffered through being prosecuted. In my judgment it is no more unfair, disproportionate or arbitrary that they should be uncompensated too for any adverse effects that restraint and receivership orders may have had upon their assets." Supreme Court Act 1981 31 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 Part VI - European Convention on Human Rights First Protocol - Civil Procedure Rules 69.7 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Ransomes Jacobsen Ltd v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Customs C00161 23 May 2002 Cust Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Criminal proceedings against Kenny Roland Lyckeskog C-99/00; [2002] EUECJ C-99/00 4 Jun 2002 ECJ European, Customs and Excise Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hovrätten för Västra Sverige - Sweden. Questions for a preliminary ruling - Obligation to refer - Court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law -Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 - Community system of reliefs from customs duty Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 [ Bailii ] Â Seaport Freight Services Ltd v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Customs C00167 21 Jun 2002 Cust Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Eurobox Line Agencies Ltd v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Customs C00159 1 Jul 2002 Cust Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Fox v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 20 July 2002; Gazette, 12 September 2002 3 Jul 2002 QBD Mr Justice Lightman Customs and Excise, Magistrates, Human Rights The claimant had been stopped by customs. He had imported various items which it was alleged exceeded the amounts appropriate for personal use. The goods had been mixed with his travelling companion. At trial he sought to challenge the fact that the Customs had treated his and his companion's goods together. Held: The provision allowing forfeiture of any goods found with contraband did not mean that a claimant could not bring evidence to challenge the assertions made by Customs and Excise. To hold to the contrary would infringe the claimant's property rights. Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 141(1)(b) - European Convention on Human Rights Sch 1 Â Broomco (1984) Ltd v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Customs C00169 4 Jul 2002 Cust Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Hacon v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00374 10 Jul 2002 Excs Customs and Excise Excs EXCISE DUTY - Restoration of vehicle - Tobacco - Partner of Appellant imported tobacco concealed in cases of beer - Importer alleged that he had stolen the beer and did not know tobacco was there - Review officer ignored importer's account - Review officer failed to review facts - Whether decision reasonable - FA 1994 ss 15(1), 16(4) - Appeal allowed [ Bailii ] Â Hyper Srl v Commission T-205/99; [2002] EUECJ T-205/99; [2002] ECR II-3141 11 Jul 2002 ECFI European, Customs and Excise Europa Customs duties - Importation of television sets from India - Invalid certificates of origin - Application for remission of import duties - Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 - Rights of the defence - Special situation. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Commissioners of Customs and Excise v A: A v A Times, 25 July 2002; [2003] 2 All ER 736; [2003] Fam 55 22 Jul 2002 CA Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Judge and Mr Justice Wall Family, Customs and Excise The Customs appealed an order allowing a judge in divorce ancillary relief proceedings to make an order transferring the matrimonial home and two life policies in such a way as would defeat their attempt to enforce recovery under the 1994 Act. Held: The customs had not established that the 1994 had any statutory priority. Both Acts gave discretion to the judge, and the decisions will vary from situation to situation, and it was not axiomatic that one Act took precedence over the other. In appropriate cases, collusion between spouses could be dealt with after the event by the Customs establishing absence of full disclosure to the court making the order. The primary task of a court is to find facts and identify the crucial legal points and to advance reasons for deciding them in a particular way, rather than to engage in academic discussion. Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24 - Drug Trafficking Act 1994 29 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Â Hoverspeed Limited, Alan Charles Andrews, Pauline Andrews, Lynne Andrews, George Wilkinson v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; QBD 31-Jul-2002 - Times, 05 August 2002; [2002] EWHC 1630 (Admin) Â Alzitrans Sl v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00430 28 Aug 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Jhalli and Another v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00353 8 Oct 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Clarke, Clarke and Dunning v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00352 8 Oct 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Janes v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00354 8 Oct 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Bacior and Another v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00361 17 Oct 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Customs and Excise v Everwine Ltd and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1631 25 Oct 2002 CA Customs and Excise Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 [ Bailii ] Â Addicition Ltd v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Customs C00168 29 Oct 2002 Cust Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Ew Taylor and Co Forwarding Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00364 4 Nov 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Creamer v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00372 5 Nov 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Jones v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00366 7 Nov 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Foster v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00358 11 Nov 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Wragg v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00357 11 Nov 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Whitehead Machinery (Partnership) v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00370 12 Nov 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Bence v Revenue and Customs [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00368 13 Nov 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Thompson v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00369 13 Nov 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Solvent Resource Management Ltd v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00371 20 Nov 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Downes v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00360 22 Nov 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Clarke and Another v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00373 28 Nov 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Anglo German Breweries Limited [2002] EWHC 2458 (Ch); [2003] BTC 5021 29 Nov 2002 ChD Mr Justice Lawrence Collins Customs and Excise, Insolvency The respondents appealed against imposition of assessments for the diversion of alcohol products from bonded warehouses without payment of duties. Pretence had been made of deliveries abroad, but the goods were later diverted. The company was insolvent even without the impositions, but sought to delay the winding up to resolve its appeal against the impositions. Held: Where there was a substantial and properly disputed debt, winding up would be delayed. However this is not a disputed debt, because it was deemed to be due once the assessment was issued. Did the appeal disturb that position? This is an excise duty case not a customs case, and the Customs Code did not apply. The debt was not suspended by the appeal. On the facts it was impossible to conclude that any fraud had taken place other than at the offices of the applicants. Finance Act 1994 12(3) - Value Added Tax Act 1994 73(7A) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Darby v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00378 2 Dec 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Regina (Hoverspeed Limited and others) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 16 December 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1804; [2003] 2 All ER 553; [2003] QB 1041; [2003] STC 1273 10 Dec 2002 CA The Master of The Rolls, Lord Justice Latham, Lord Justice Mance Customs and Excise, Crime Passengers leaving a ferry had been stopped by Customs. The vehicle was searched and a quantity of alcohol and tobacco found, which they believed not to be for personal consumption. The car and imports had been forfeited. The court had said that the methods used to select vehicles to be searched were unlawful. Held: It was appropriate for Customs to use statistical profiles to select vehicles to be stopped. Such methods were capable of being reasonable grounds for suspicion. A blanket approach was unjustified, but selecting particular individuals for investigation where they fitted certain identified patterns could be justified. A seizure of the offending articles following an unjustified stop need not be unlawful, and someone aggrieved by a seizure should take advantage of the framework of remedies available to him. Goods acquired 'for his own use' was not restricted to the personal individual use by that individual, but could include, for example, someone stocking up for a party, or acquiring them as gifts for a friend or relative. Use outside the range of such personal use was deemed to be commercial use. Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 163 163A 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Pascual v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00375 10 Dec 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Pasquet Online (T/A Balade Gourmande) v Revenue and Customs [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00389 10 Dec 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Pitcher v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00376 11 Dec 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â Lloyd v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00379 18 Dec 2002 Excs Customs and Excise [ Bailii ] Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Customs and Excise - From: 2002 To: 2002