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 grant the original appeal was limited, and that the decision was out of its jurisdiction since the goods and vehicle were, after the withdrawal of their notice of claim, deemed to have been duly condemned and forfeited.
Held: HMRC’s appeal succeeded.
Mummery LJ said: ‘the FTT had no power to re-open and re-determine the question whether or not the seized goods had been legally imported for the respondents’ personal use; that question was already the subject of a valid and binding deemed determination under the 1979 Act; the deeming was the consequence of the respondents’ own decision to withdraw their notice of claim contesting the condemnation and forfeiture of the goods and the car in the courts; the FTT only had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a review decision made by HMRC on the deemed basis of the unchallenged process of forfeiture and condemnation; and the appellate jurisdiction of the FTT was confined to the correctness or otherwise of the discretionary review decision not to restore the seized goods and car.’
‘On the question of Convention compliance, there is no problem with either the condemnation procedure and the restoration procedure. Both procedures are available to the owner of the goods when they are seized. Both are clear in their terms. If the owner wishes to challenge the condemnation of the goods as forfeit, the notice of claim court hearing procedure is available: if he simply wishes to challenge the refusal to restore the goods, the appeal tribunal hearing procedure is available.’
Mummery, Moore-Bick, Jackson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 824, [2012] 2 WLR 544, [2011] STC 2206, [2012] Ch 414, [2012] 1 All ER 470
Bailii
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, European Convention on Human Rights 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others CA 11-Apr-2003
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and . .
Appeal from – HM Revenue and Customs v Lawrence and Joan Jones UTTC 15-Jan-2010
UTTC EXCISE DUTY – RESTORATION OF EXCISE GOODS AND VEHICLE – Jurisdiction of Tribunal – Deemed forfeiture – Did the Tribunal err in law in accepting jurisdiction on lawfulness of seizure and or underlying facts . .
At FTTTx – Jones v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 18-Jun-2009
FTTTx EXCISE GOODS RESTORATION – VEHICLE RESTORATION – own use? – yes – appeal allowed. . .
Cited – 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 – HM Revenue and Customs v Dawkin ChD 2008
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 . .
Cited – Customs and Excise v Weller ChD 23-Feb-2006
A statutory rationalisation of the procedure governing the forfeiture of goods by HMRC was urgently required as the present system is so confusing to the public and pregnant with the possibility of substantial injustice. . .
Cited – Customs and Excise v Smith ChD 9-Nov-2005
Lewison J cited the case of Gascoyne saying that it was clear that ‘in the run-of-the-mill case where there has been a failure to give a paragraph 3 notice invoking the condemnation proceedings, the deeming provision will indeed operate against the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Staniszewski v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Appeals : Jurisdiction) FTTTx 17-Jul-2015
FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – assessment to excise duty and a non-deliberate wrongdoing penalty following the seizure of goods on their being brought into the UK from an EU Member State – whether the appeal should be . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Race UTTC 15-Jul-2014
UTTC EXCISE DUTY – assessment in relation to excise goods seized from respondent – appeal from refusal to strike out statutory appeal – appeal allowed in part – ground of appeal struck out in part – application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Customs and Excise, Human Rights
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.441888