ECJ Appeal – Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories – Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa – Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 – Safeguard measures – Article 109 of the OCT Decision – Commission’s power of assessment – Principle of proportionality – Reasons
C-40/03, [2005] EUECJ C-40/03
European
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228840
ECJ Appeal – Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories – Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa – Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 – Safeguard measures – Article 109 of the OCT Decision – Commission’s power of assessment – Principle of proportionality – Reasons
C-41/03, [2005] EUECJ C-41/03
England and Wales
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228841
The claimant sought return of his car which had been seized when he returned from France. He had with him dutiable goods, but within the set limits for personal use. The Customs said that because he had made several repeated trips, and returned with the full amount every time, he had been buying for commercial purposes.
Lightman J
[2006] EWHC 2844 (Ch), Times 08-Jan-2007
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.246057
ECJ (Customs Union) Appeal – Common Customs Tariff – Subsequent recovery of import duties – Waiver of duties to be recovered – Conditions – Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Error of the customs authorities – Detectable error – Combined nomenclature – Remarks – Scope
[2005] ECR I-1751, [2005] EUECJ C-499/03
European
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223240
Tax system with regard to spirits.
R-253/83, [1985] EUECJ R-253/83
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215285
Proceedings were taken to require Mr Salumi and others to pay additional sums as levies on imports of agricultural products, on the basis that the earlier lower levy had been applied in error. Subsequently an EU regulation was enacted and the European Court interpreted the Italian court’s question as asking in substance whether that regulation applied to payments of duties made before the date the regulation came into force. HELD: ‘Although procedural rules are generally held to apply to all proceedings pending at the time when they enter into force, this is not the case with substantive rules. On the contrary, the latter are usually interpreted as applying to situations existing before the entry into force only insofar as it clearly follows from their terms, objectives or general scheme that such an effect must be given to them.
This interpretation ensures respect for the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectation, by virtue of which the effect of Community legislation must be clear and predictable for those who are subject to it. The Court has repeatedly emphasised the importance of those principles . . that in general the principle of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from the point in time before its publication and that it may be otherwise only exceptionally, where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected.’
The regulation in question contained both procedural and substantive rules which formed an indivisible whole. The individual provisions should not be considered in isolation with regard to the time at which they take effect. The regulation could not therefore be accorded retroactive effect unless sufficiently clear indications led to such a conclusion. Both the wording and the general scheme of the regulation led to the conclusion that the regulation provided only for the future.
R-128/79, [1980] EUECJ R-128/79
European
Cited – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc ChD 4-Oct-2017
EC has sole jurisdiction over old cartels
Several claimants alleged that the defendant airway had been part of a cartel which had overcharged for freight services. The court now heard arguments about whether it had jurisdition to deal with claims which preceded the measures which had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214891
ECJ The direct application of a community regulation means that its entry into force and its application in favour of or against those subject to it are independent of any measure adopting it into national law. By reason of the obligations imposed on them by the treaty member states must not impede the direct effect of regulations or other rules of community law. The scrupulous observation of this duty is an indispensable requisite for the simultaneous and uniform application of community regulations throughout the whole of the community. Accordingly member states must not adopt or allow national institutions with a legislative power to adopt a measure by which the community nature of a legal rule and the consequences which arise from it are concealed from the persons concerned. Although it is true that in the event of difficulty of interpretation the national administration may be led to adopt detailed rules for the application of a community regulation and at the same time to clarify any doubts raised, it can do so only in so far as it complies with the provisions of community law and the national authorities cannot issue binding rules of interpretation. Regulations nos 974/71 and 1013/71, as amended by regulation no 2887/71, do not permit member states to adopt provisions laying down specific criteria concerning the applicability or otherwise of compensatory amounts to contracts concluded before 19 December 1971 in order to ‘allow the contract to be executed under the conditions which would have existed had the monetary measures referred to in article 1 of regulation (EEC) no 974/71 not been taken’, as provided for under article 4(2) of regulation no 1013/71. The provisions of article 4(2) of regulation no 1013/71 are fully effective in themselves and must therefore be interpreted as leaving it to the courts of the member state concerned to decide whether the contract was executed under the conditions which would have existed in the absence of the monetary measures referred to in article 1 of regulation no 974/71. As regards the application of article 4(2) of regulation no 1013/71 the question is whether the contract was executed under the conditions which would have existed in the absence of the monetary measures which led to the introduction of the monetary compensatory amounts. Where the contract provides for payment by the opening of an irrevocable documentary credit the answer must depend on the nature of the arrangements agreed between the importer and the issuing bank and these may in turn depend on the provisions of the local law applicable to them. Where the credit is to be opened for a sum in foreign currency (as, in this case, dollars), the crucial date will be that upon which the rate of exchange determining the amount of the importer ‘ s liability to the issuing bank was applicable. For the purpose of determining whether the conditions for applying and determining monetary compensatory amounts are fulfilled reference must be made in respect of each commercial transaction ( importation or exportation ) to the day of the importation or exportation. The regime of trade with non-member countries in the common organization of the market in bananas established by regulation no 404/93, in particular the tariff quota for imports and the way it is subdivided, does not constitute a breach of fundamental rights and general principles of law.
Europa With respect to the prohibition of discrimination, it is true that two different categories of traders, those who previously operated on open national markets and were able freely to obtain supplies of third-country bananas, and those who operated on protected national markets and were ensured the possibility of disposing of community and traditional ACP bananas despite their higher price are not affected in the same way by those measures, since the former now find their import possibilities restricted, whereas the latter may now import specified quantities of third-country bananas. However, that difference in treatment appears to be inherent in the objective of integrating previously compartmentalized markets, bearing in mind the different situations of the various categories of traders before the establishment of the common organization of the market, and permits the striking of a balance between the two categories of traders, necessary for ensuring the disposal of community production and traditional acp production, which the common organization must ensure. The same considerations justify the restriction on the freedom of traders who previously operated on open markets to pursue their trade or business, the substance of that right not being impaired. With respect to those traders’ right to property, the loss of market shares does not impact that right, since the market share held before the establishment of a common organization of a market constitutes only a momentary economic position exposed to the risks of changing circumstances and is not covered by the right to property. Similarly, a position on the market resulting from an existing situation cannot, especially if that situation is contrary to the rules of the common market, benefit from protection on the basis of acquired rights or legitimate expectation. Finally, with respect to the principle of proportionality, it cannot be considered that there was a breach in that the objectives of supporting acp producers and guaranteeing the income of community producers could have been achieved by measures having less effect on competition and on the interests of certain categories of traders, since there is nothing to show that the council, which in establishing a common organization of the markets had to reconcile divergent interests and thus select options within the context of the policy choices which are its own responsibility, adopted measures which were manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective pursued. With respect to the establishment of a tariff quota, the import of bananas from acp states into the community falls under article 168(2)(a)(ii) of the fourth acp-eec lome convention, protocol 5 on bananas annexed to that convention, and annexes lxxiv and lxxv relating to that protocol. Under those provisions, the community’ s only obligation is to maintain the advantages, with respect to access of acp bananas to the community market, which the acp states had before that convention, so that regulation no 404/93 was able, without being in breach of article 168(1) of the convention, to impose a levy on imports of non-traditional acp bananas exceeding a specified tonnage. The special features of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which is characterized by the great flexibility of its provisions, in particular those conferring the possibility of derogation, the measures to be taken when confronted with exceptional difficulties and the settlement of conflicts between the contracting parties, precludes the court from taking provisions of gatt into consideration to assess the lawfulness of a regulation in an action brought by a member state under the first paragraph of article 173 of the treaty. Those features show that the gatt rules are not unconditional and that an obligation to recognize them as rules of international law which are directly applicable in the domestic legal systems of the contracting parties cannot be based on the spirit, general scheme or terms of gatt. In the absence of such an obligation following from gatt itself, it is only if the community intended to implement a particular obligation entered into within the framework of gatt, or if the community act expressly refers to specific provisions of gatt, that the court can review the lawfulness of the community act in question from the point of view of the gatt rules. Although the protocol on the tariff quota for imports of bananas is indeed an integral part of the treaty since it is annexed to the implementing convention on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the community, provided for in article 136 of the treaty, it was nevertheless adopted as a transitional measure pending standardization of the conditions for importing bananas into the common market. As part of that system, the third subparagraph of paragraph 4 of the protocol provides that, on a proposal from the commission, the council acting by a qualified majority may abolish or amend that quota, with no reservations as to the temporal extent of a decision to abolish it. That means that the protocol, which moreover cannot have the effect of derogating from a basic provision of the treaty such as article 43(2), and the quota which it provides for can be abolished without having to comply with the rules for amending the treaty laid down in article 236 of the treaty.
C-94/77, R-94/77, [1978] EUECJ R-94/77, [1978] ECR 99
European
Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214715
Certificates of origin.
R-49/76, [1977] EUECJ R-49/76
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214517
VDT CUSTOMS DUTY – Relief – Vehicle for use by handicapped person – Motor home adapted for use by person using wheel-chair – Vehicle fitted with ramps, stowage for ramps, floor track – Whether ‘specially designed for the social advancement’ of physically handicapped person – Yes – Reg 918/83/EEC Art 72.1, 72.2
ZERO RATING – Import of vehicle for use by handicapped person who usually uses a wheel-chair – Vehicle fitted with ramps etc – Whether vehicle ‘substantially and permanently adapted for carriage of a person in a wheel-chair’ – Yes – VATA 1994 Sch 8, Gp 12, Items 2, 2A, Note 5L
[2004] UKVAT V18560
England and Wales
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199092
(Judgment) Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Classification in the Combined Nomenclature of wrist orthoses, lumbar support belts, elbow supports and knee supports – Note 1(b) to Chapter 90 of the Combined Nomenclature
[2002] ECR I-10045, [2002] EUECJ C-260/00
European
Cited – Amoena (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jul-2016
The court considered the proper classification under customs codes for a mastectomy bra. The First Tier Tribunal had found no evidence that it had an medical purpose beyond the containment of the breast from.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178045
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.
T-205/99, [2002] EUECJ T-205/99, [2002] ECR II-3141
European
Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174400
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.
C-276/00, [2002] EUECJ C-276/00, [2002] ECR I-1389
European
Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Epson Telford Ltd ChD 4-May-2007
The parties disputed whether inkjet printer cartridges were to be classsified on import as parts of printers, and free of duty, or as ink and subject to duty.
Held: ‘I can see no reason why the advances in design and technology incorporated . .
Cited – Amoena (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jul-2016
The court considered the proper classification under customs codes for a mastectomy bra. The First Tier Tribunal had found no evidence that it had an medical purpose beyond the containment of the breast from.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167658
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); No violation of Art. 6-1; No violation of Art. 6-2; Violation of Art. 6-3-c; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
13191/87, (1992) 16 EHRR 53, [1992] ECHR 61
Human Rights
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165215
(Order) Appeal – Order of the President of the Court of First Instance in proceedings for interim measures – Urgency – Undeniable urgency – Assessment of evidence
[1998] ECR I-8787, C-363/98, [1998] EUECJ C-363/98
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162503
(Judgment)
[2000] EUECJ C-17/98
European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.162315
(Judgment) 1 Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Determination of the normal value – Imports from non-market economy countries – Choice of a reference country – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (Council Regulation No 2176/84, Art. 2(5)(a))
2 Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Dumping margin – Determination of the normal value – Imports from non-market economy countries – Reference to the price in a market-economy non-member country – Determination in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner – Criteria to be used in the choice of a reference country (Council Regulations No 2176/84, Art. 2(5)(a), and No 1531/88)
3 Although the choice, under Article 2(5)(a) of the basic anti-dumping regulation (No 2176), of the reference country to be used in order to determine the normal value of products from non-market economy countries falls within the discretion enjoyed by the institutions when analysing complex economic situations, the exercise of that discretion is not exempt from judicial review by the Court.
In reviewing the exercise of that discretion, the Court is to verify whether the relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts on which the choice is based have been accurately stated and whether there has been a manifest error of appraisal or a misuse of powers. As regards the choice of reference country, that means that the Court is to verify whether the institutions neglected to take account of essential factors for the purpose of establishing the appropriateness of the country chosen and whether the information contained in the documents in the case was considered with all the care required for the view to be taken that the normal value was determined in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner.
4 It is possible to conclude that the normal value of products originating in a non-market economy country was determined by reference to the price in a market-economy non-member country `in an appropriate and not unreasonable manner’ within the meaning of Article 2(5)(a) of Regulation No 2176/84 where, first, the institutions did not receive any alternative proposal to their choice of reference country in circumstances where that country had already been chosen in an earlier proceeding concerning the same product, and where the traders concerned would not have failed, had they considered it necessary, to suggest a more appropriate country, and, secondly, those institutions have convincingly explained their reasons for not opting for other possible reference countries, without the applicant adducing any evidence capable of casting doubt on their analysis. For that reason, Regulation No 1531/88 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of potassium permanganate originating in the People’s Republic of China and definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on those imports is to be held valid.
C-26/96, [1997] EUECJ C-26/96
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161769
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesfinanzhof – Germany. Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Tariff classification of a ‘Vista board’ electronic component intended for image processing and capable of being used as a graphics card in a computer – Classification in the Combined Nomenclature.
C-382/95, [1997] EUECJ C-382/95
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161737
(Judgment) 1 Tax provisions – Harmonization of laws – Tax exemptions applicable to temporary importation of means of transport – Directive 83/182 – Restriction of the number of private vehicles which one person can import free of tax – No such restriction (Council Directive 83/182, Art. 3)
2 Tax provisions – Harmonization of laws – Tax exemptions applicable to temporary importation of means of transport – Directive 83/182 – Article 3 – Direct effect (Council Directive 83/182, Art. 3)
3 Tax provisions – Harmonization of laws – Tax exemptions applicable to temporary importation of means of transport – National rules penalizing the importation of a second private vehicle free of tax by requiring the immediate payment of the customs duties and charges normally applicable and payment of a surcharge of an amount equal to those duties and charges – Not permissible (Council Directive 83/182, Art. 3)
4 Article 3 of Directive 83/182 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption for which it provides may be granted in respect of more than one private vehicle per person.
First, the Directive does not place any express limit on the number of private vehicles for which exemption may be claimed, nor is any such limitation evident from the wording of Article 3.
Second, such a limitation is liable to hinder freedom of movement of persons resident within the Community, whereas the objective pursued by the directive is the elimination of obstacles to the establishment of an internal market resulting from the taxation arrangements applied to the temporary importation of certain means of transport for private or business use.
5 Article 3 of Directive 83/182 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another has direct effect and confers on individuals rights which they may assert against a Member State that has failed to transpose that directive into domestic law, or has transposed it incorrectly, and which the national courts must safeguard.
That provision – which requires the Member States to grant individuals, subject to the conditions which it specifies, exemption from taxes where they temporarily import certain means of transport for private use – appears, as far as its subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional in so far as it is not qualified by any condition and is not made subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any measure either by the Community institutions or by the Member States, and is unequivocal, that is to say, sufficiently precise to be relied on by an individual and applied by the courts.
6 Article 3 of Directive 83/182 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another must be interpreted as precluding domestic legislation under which the customs duties and other taxes applicable together with additional duty equal to the amount of those duties and taxes are to be payable immediately where a second private vehicle is imported temporarily. National legislation cannot penalize such temporary importation, which is authorized by that provision, without undermining the effect of the Directive.
C-389/95, [1997] EUECJ C-389/95
European
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161742
ECJ Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Amylaceous product made up of native potato starch and neutralized potato starch ester – Classification under subheading No 1108 13 00 of the Combined Nomenclature
[1993] ECR I-1857, C-256/91, [1993] EUECJ C-256/91
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160790
ECJ The last sentence of Article 1 of Regulation No 482/74 on the classification of goods under subheading No 23.04 B of the Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as meaning that the products resulting from the extraction of maize oil fall under that subheading even when they contain, in addition to the residues resulting from the extraction of oil from the actual maize germs, other substances deriving in particular from the whole of the maize plant, other cereals or soya, in so far as those substances extraneous to maize grain are present in very small quantities and it is established that it is technically impossible to avoid their presence under normal conditions of production, processing, transport, transshipment and storage, save by incurring cost disproportionate to the commercial value of the derived products in question. Since the Community legislature has not set a maximum permitted level for matter extraneous to maize grains, it is for the national court, in resolving the case before it, to fix the permissible level of such matter.
[1992] ECR I-6661, [1992] EUECJ C-194/91
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160750
(Judgment) Maritime transport – Goods duty – Import surcharge
C-90/94, [1997] EUECJ C-90/94, [1997] ECR I-4085
European
Cited – Bloomsbury International Ltd v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 15-Jun-2011
The 1995 Regulations imposed a levy on fish both caught and first landed in the UK and also on imported fish products. The claimants, importers challenged the validity of the latter charges, saying that they went beyond the power given by the 1981 . .
Cited – FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 29-Jan-2020
This appeal concerns the meaning and effect of the phrase ‘Customs Debt’ in article 221(4) of the former Customs Code of the EU, contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. Customs duties may be due under ‘post-clearance demands’ and the Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.161317
(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Community Customs Code – Post-clearance examination of declarations – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – National rules placing restrictions on re-examination of the results of a post-clearance examination – Powers – Decision on the first post-clearance examination – Incorrect or incomplete information not known on the date of the decision
ECLI:EU:C:2015:803, [2015] EUECJ C-427/14
European
Cited – FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 29-Jan-2020
This appeal concerns the meaning and effect of the phrase ‘Customs Debt’ in article 221(4) of the former Customs Code of the EU, contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. Customs duties may be due under ‘post-clearance demands’ and the Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.557042
Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Article 1(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) – Recovery of an export refund – Limitation period – Date from which time runs (dies a quo) – Act or omission by the economic operator – Occurrence of the prejudice – Continuous infringement – Single infringement
L. Bay Larsen, P
C-59/14, [2015] EUECJ C-59/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:660
European
Cited – FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 29-Jan-2020
This appeal concerns the meaning and effect of the phrase ‘Customs Debt’ in article 221(4) of the former Customs Code of the EU, contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. Customs duties may be due under ‘post-clearance demands’ and the Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.553098
The company complained of the seizure and retention of items pursuant to a search warrant. The warrant authorised entry to the Claimant’s premises to ‘search for documents and other papers in relation to the movement of excisable goods’. In executing the warrant customs officers removed all written and computer records of Bottlestop including its computer terminal, keyboard, mouse and all floppy discs.
Held: The court rejecting a submission that the warrant did not extend to the computer.
Forbes J said: ‘. . it is said that the computer hardware, mouse, keyboard and such like, were unlawfully seized under the terms of the warrant, because the warrant was restricted to the search and seizure of documents. Again, there is no substance in that criticism. The data stored electronically on either the hard disk of the base units of the computer in question or on the floppy disks were all documents for the purposes of the warrant. That seems to me to be beyond argument. It appears that it was not fully appreciated that the base unit would include the hard disk within it and that the hard disk would have upon it electronically stored data and thus satisfies the definition of being a document for the purposes of the warrant. So far as items such as the mouse and the keyboard are concerned, arguably those were not documents and it may be, although I make no conclusive finding about the matter that, in taking those pieces of hardware, the officers in question may have gone beyond the terms of the warrant. Having regard to the fact that they are, to all intents, part and parcel of the base unit which are required to enable the base unit to be operated and since the base unit contained documents in the form of electronically stored material on the hard disk, it does seem to me that it is strongly arguable by Customs and Excise that the keyboard and mouse are part and parcel of the base unit, although detachable from it. If they are part and parcel of the base unit, then they are part and parcel of the packaging of the documents in question. However, it does not seem to me to be necessary to resolve such an interesting academic point in this case, because all the computer and its hardware were returned to the applicant in January of this year. There is therefore no need for this aspect of the matter to be resolved by reference to public law principles. Any legitimate complaint that the applicant may have so far as concerns the mouse, the keyboard and perhaps the VDU are, so it seems to me, perfectly capable of being dealt with by reference to remedies available in the field of private law. Accordingly, for those reasons I am satisfied that there is no substance in that aspect of the applicant’s arguments.’
Forbes J
[1997] EWHC Admin 467
England and Wales
Cited – Glenn and Co (Essex) Ltd), Regina (on The Application of) v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 18-Jun-2010
The company objected to the search of its offices and removal by the defendant of its computers, the officers having entered without any warrant purporting to use powers under the 1989 Act.
Held: The request for judicial review failed. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137412
Customs Duty – classification – LED bulbs
[2013] UKFTT 732 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.519638
Excise Duty – restoration – Customs Excise and Management Act 1979 sections 88 and 139 – adaptation of vehicle for purpose of concealment of goods – seizure and confiscation of vehicle – refusal of restoration – Romanian owner denied knowledge of adaptation – s 16 Finance Act 1994 – whether the review officer had taken into account irrelevant considerations and disregarded relevant considerations in reaching her decision – yes – whether refusal reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances – no – appeal allowed – further review directed under s 16(4)(b) FA 1994
[2015] UKFTT 177 (TC)
Customs Excise and Management Act 1979 88 139
England and Wales
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.547387
Excise Warehouse – Assessment
[2014] UKFTT 105 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.521691
ECJ 1. Obligations of member states – failure to fulfil – action by the commission before the court of justice – bringing the action – timing – discretion of the commission (EEC treaty, article 169) 2. Free movement of goods – goods – concept – article possessing artistic or historic value (EEC treaty, article 9) 3. Free movement of goods – articles possessing artistic or historic value – charges on exports – charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty (EEC treaty, article 16) 4. Free movement of goods – customs duties and quantitative restrictions – nature of each – difference – prohibitions and restrictions for the protection of national treasures – special nature – strict construction (EEC treaty, articles 16 and 36) 5. Free movement of goods – prohibitions and restrictions for the protection of national treasures – limits to be observed by member states regarding the object and nature of the means adopted – incompatibility with the treaty of a charge on the export of articles of artistic or historic value (EEC treaty, article 36) 1. It is for the commission, under article 169 of the treaty, to judge at what time it shall bring an action before the court; and the considerations which determine its choice of time cannot affect the admissibility of the action, which follows only objective rules. 2. By goods, within the meaning of article 9 of the EEC treaty, there must be understood products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions. The rules of the common market apply to articles possessing artistic or historic value subject only to the exceptions expressly provided by the treaty. 3. Any charge which, by altering the price of an article exported, has the same restrictive effect on the free circulation of that article as a customs duty is deemed to be a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty within the meaning of article 16 of the EEC treaty. A tax levied on the exportation of articles possessing artistic or historic value falls within the prohibition contained in article 16 by reason of the fact that export trade in the goods in question is hindered by the pecuniary burden which it imposes on the price of the exported articles. 4. The prohibitions or restrictions on imports and exports referred to in article 36 of the EEC treaty are by nature clearly distinguished from customs duties and assimilated charges whereby the economic conditions of importation or exportation are affected without restricting the freedom of decision of those involved in commercial transactions. Because such measures constitute an exception to the fundamental principle of the elimination of all obstacles to the free movement of goods between member states, they must be strictly construed. 5. The prohibitions and restrictions referred to in article 36 of the EEC treaty cannot justify the retention of measures, such as customs duties or charges having equivalent effect, which fall outside the scope of the prohibitions referred to in the chapter relating to the elimination of quantitative restrictions between member states. In order to avail themselves of article 36, member states must observe the limitations imposed by that provision both as regards the objective to be obtained and as regards the nature of the means used to attain it. The levy of a tax on the exportation of goods possessing artistic or historic value is incompatible with the provisions of the treaty.
C-7/68, [1968] EUECJ C-7/68
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131870
Council regulations empowered customs officers of member states to seize goods suspected of being counterfeit or pirated and in breach of Trade Mark and other laws This applied even to goods which were merely seized in transit through a member state, from a non-EU source to a non-EU destination. The validity of the regulation was not capable of doubt, and no factor had been identified which could challenge its validity. The wording of the regulation expressly envisaged such action.
Times 14-Apr-2000, C-383/98, [2000] EUECJ C-383/98
Cited – Nokia Corporation v Revenue and Customs ChD 27-Jul-2009
Nokia sought judicial review of a decision of the Commissioners to release a consignment of goods which it said were infringing counterfeits of its own models. The Commissioners said that in the absence of evidence that they were intended for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89840
Excise duty is payable on cigarettes imported as if personal imports but by use of agent in Luxembourg organising he imports as a commercial enterprise.
Times 09-Apr-1998, C-296/95, [1998] EUECJ C-296/95
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88432
A person importing more alcohol than the rules set down, allowed the Customs and Excise to decide if it was private use.
Gazette 08-Feb-1995
Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 (1992 No 3155)
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79747
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.
Gazette 05-Apr-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 215
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79376
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.
[1710] EngR 34, (1710) 8 Bro PC 288, (1710) 3 ER 588
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.391764
The decision to refuse a retrospective licence for the importation of antique ivory, was one for the Department of Environment Transport and the Regions, and not one for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. An appeal against a refusal could not therefore lie to the VAT Tribunal, even though they had been seized by the Commissioners.
Times 14-Jun-2000, Gazette 22-Jun-2000
Commission Regulation EC/939/97 (OJ 1997 LI40/9) Art 8(3)
England and Wales
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79395
Justices must accept CandE assumption that importation was for commercial gain.
Times 07-Dec-1994
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79323
The question of whether waste had been ‘disposed’ of for landfill tax, was wider than simply discarding or depositing. It could include any waste disposal or removal process, and was not limited to the moment at which the waste was deposited. A subsidiary company had bought waste and then deposited it at a landfill site owned by the defendants. The subsidiary claimed it had not intended at the time of the deposit to be disposing of it as waste. The transfer of title and price did not settle the issue of the intentions of the person disposing of the material.
Times 28-Mar-2000, Gazette 14-Apr-2000
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79378
A prosecutor has been given the right of appeal against a magistrates decision whether as to finding or sentence on offence of fraudulent evasion of excise duty. Crown Court has right to hear appeal.
Times 25-Nov-1998
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 147(3)
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79322
(Supreme Court of Canada) A contraband search based on reasonable suspicion of the presence of smuggled material is an exception to the usual requirements for searches imposed by section 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Dickson CJ said: ‘People do not expect to be able to cross international borders free from scrutiny . . Consequently, travellers seeking to cross national boundaries fully expect to be subject to a screening process. This process will typically require the production of proper identification and travel documentation and involve a search process . . ‘
Dickson CJ
[1988] 2 RCS 495
Canada
Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.590394
Use of personal agent for import of tobacco lost exemption from UK duty.
Independent 01-Jun-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.86427
Use of agent to import cigarettes for private use did not exempt from UK duty.
Times 31-May-1995
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.86416
Customs officers making an inference from importation had an accompanying duty to warn the suspect of the consequences of interview and to allow a rebuttal opportunity.
Times 12-Mar-1998, Gazette 29-Apr-1998
Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 (1992 No 3155) 5(3)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.86418
Customs offered a reward for information, but the offer was clearly not a certainty, and there had been no intention to create a contractual or legal relationship. The informant had been clearly told that the decision as to the award would not be made by the officer, but by his superior in that officer’s discretion, and therefore no legal binding offer to make payment had been made.
Times 28-Apr-2000
England and Wales
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88824
The claimant had been searched on arrival at Southampton. Nothing untoward was found. He challenged the refusal of the officer to say why he had been selected to be searched.
Held: His appeal failed. The Act gave the officer the power he exercised without having to provide justification.
Arden, Irwin LJJ
[2018] EWCA Civ 1673, [2018] WLR(D) 458
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979
England and Wales
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620469
Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Customs Union and the Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Subheadings 7307 11 10, 7307 19 10 and 7307 19 90 – Molded cast-iron pipe fittings spheroidal graphite
ECLI:EU:C:2018:564, [2018] EUECJ C-397/17
European
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620037
Excise Duty Appeals : Time To Appeal
[2018] UKFTT 374 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619378
Excise Warehouse : Approval – Alcohol Warehouse Registration Scheme – appeal against refusal of application for registration – whether HMRC could have reasonably concluded that the Appellant was not – fit and proper – appeal dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 365 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619369
Excise Duty Appeals : Costs – whether DBR acted unreasonably in defending or conducting proceedings – yes – amount of costs to be awarded
[2018] UKFTT 372 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619372
Alleged underpayment of tax on imported ciders.
[2018] EWCA Civ 1406
England and Wales
Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618381
ECJ Status of Gibraltar – Freedom To Provide Services – Purely Internal Situation – Inadmissibility : Judgment
[2017] WLR(D) 166, [2018] 1 CMLR 362, ECLI:EU:C:2017:449, [2017] EUECJ C-591/15, [2017] 4 WLR 67, [2017] 4 WLR 167
European
Cited – Department of Health and Social Security v Barr and Montrose Holdings (Judgment) ECJ 3-Jul-1991
Europa It follows from Article 1(3) of the Treaty of Accession 1972 in conjunction with Article 158 of the Act of Accession that the jurisdiction in preliminary ruling proceedings conferred on the Court by . .
Cited – Routier and Another v Revenue and Customs SC 16-Oct-2019
A Jersey Charity created under a will of a Jersey resident was transfer to the UK, and reregistered with the UK Charity Commission. The Revenue sought to apply Inheritance Tax.
Held: Jersey was to be considered a third country for the purpose . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.588272
Dumping – Imports of Tartaric Acid Originating In China – Judgment – Dumping – Imports of tartaric acid originating in China – Modification of the definitive anti-dumping duty – Partial interim review – Action for annulment – Direct and individual concern – Admissibility – Determination of the normal value – Constructed normal value – Change in methodology – Individual treatment – Article 2(7)(a) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(7)(a) and Article 11(9) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) – Temporal adjustment of effects of annulment
T-431/12, [2018] EUECJ T-431/12
European
Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609506
Excise Duty Restoration of Vehicle (See Also Excise Appeal) : Review Directed
[2018] UKFTT 221 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609292
Excise Duty Civil Penalty (See Also Excise Hydrocarbon Oil [Duty]) : Evasion
[2018] UKFTT 196 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609283
ECJ Dumping – Imports of Bicycles Consigned From Cambodia, Pakistan and The Philippines – Judgment (Extracts) – Dumping – Imports of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines – Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China – Regulation (EU) 2015/776 – Circumvention – Transhipment – Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 18(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036)
ECLI:EU:T:2018:196, [2018] EUECJ T-462/15
European
Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609048
It was not necessary for the Commissioners themselves to authorise by order proceedings for conspiracy to commit a non-summary customs and excise offence, namely to evade the prohibition on importation of a controlled drug. The Criminal Law Act could not be used to reinstate that requirement because just they had not been charged with the substantive offence. The statutory provisions of the Acts, when read together, suggested that such consent would not be required.
Pill LJ, Crane J, Sir Charles McCullough
Times 05-Apr-2000, Gazette 06-Apr-2000, (2000) Crim LR 571, (2000) 2 CAR 181
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(2)(b) 145(1) 145(6), Criminal Law Act 1977 4(3)
Applied – Regina v Whitehead CACD 1982
An order for consent by the Commissioners to allow proceedings was not required where the accused person had already been detained for an offence under the Custom and Excise Acts. Detention for conspiracy to evade the prohibition imposed by the 1971 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85347
A person who set out to import pornographic videos, and received packages which hid their true content, was guilty of importing the content, as indecent photographs of children, even if that had not been what was expected. If he knows he is evading a prohibition against importation, he is responsible for what is imported.
Times 04-Apr-2000, Gazette 05-May-2000
Customs Consolidation Act 1876, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85261
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.
Lord Woolf CJ
Gazette 07-Jun-2001, Times 12-Jun-2001, [2001] 1 WLR 1673
Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 (1992 No 3155), Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 3, European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
Cited – Regina (Mudie and Another) v Dover Magistrates’ Court and Another CA 4-Feb-2003
The applicants wished to challenge the confiscation of their goods by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise on their return to Dover. They appealed the refusal of Legal Aid.
Held: The Convention guaranteed the right to legal assistance for . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80901
Theer was no jurisdiction under the section to determine a dispute as to the value of goods.
Ind Summary 19-Jun-1995
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(1)(b)
England and Wales
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.78726
Free Movement of Goods – Tariff Classification – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Subheadings 9021 10 10, 9021 10 90 and 9021 90 90 – Spinal fixation systems – Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1214/2014
ECLI:EU:C:2018:247, [2018] EUECJ C-227/17
European
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608641
Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Principle of retroactive application of the softer criminal law – Article 49 (1), third sentence, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Export refunds – Specific export refunds for certain types of meat boned cattle – Specific export refunds obtained by means of maneuvers or misrepresentation as to the nature of the goods exported – Goods which did not fall within the scope of Union rules on special refunds for export at the time of misrepresentation, but which have been included in the scope of this regulation later, as a result of a change in the regulation
ECLI: EU: C: 2018: 240, [2018] EUECJ C-115/17 – O
European
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608626
[2018] EWCA Civ 579
England and Wales
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608355
Appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal refusing the appellants’ appeal against a statutory excise duty assessment
[2018] UKUT 58 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 April 2022; Ref: scu.606446
Free Movement of Goods – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties – Article 30 TFEU – Internal taxation – Article 110 TFEU – Charge applied to exported petroleum products – Charge not passed on to the consumer – Tax burden for the taxpayer – Reimbursement of the sums paid by the taxpayer
ECLI:EU:C:2018:139, [2018] EUECJ C-76/17
European
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.606018
Excise Duty Tobacco : Other – wrongdoing penalties – seizure of vehicle -importation of cigarettes – whether penalties disproportionate
[2018] UKFTT 105 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605746
Customs Duty and IMPORT VAT – Inward processing procedure – failure to submit bills of discharge within 6 months time limit – 40 post-clearance demand notes issued – some notes returned undelivered and reissued – all notes later reissued – request for review turned down as out of time – application to make late appeals to Tribunal – Denton and Data Select applied – appeals against demand notes reissued for first time were not out of time for appeal to the Tribunal – appeals against demand notes reissued after being returned undelivered were out of time – application in relation to those notes upheld.
[2018] UKFTT 72 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605750
Excise Duty Restoration of Vehicle (See Also Excise Appeal) : Dismissed On Facts – application for the restoration of a vehicle forfeited because it was being used for the transportation of goods on which duty had not been paid – was the offer by the Respondents to restore the vehicle in return for a fee of pounds 8,325.00 unreasonable – Yes – Direction for a further review
[2018] UKFTT 102 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.605754
UTTC EXCISE DUTIES – whether assessment made within time limit – FA 1994 s 12 – when necessary facts came to the respondents’ knowledge – whether FTT’s findings of fact open to it – yes – appeal dismissed
[2017] UKUT 245 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.587999
UTTC EXCISE DUTY – penalty under paragraph 4(1) Schedule 41 Finance Act 2008 – person carrying dutiable goods intercepted in green channel at airport – whether excise duty point occurred before that point – appeal allowed.
[2018] UKUT 18 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604785
ECJ Taxation – Judgment – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2008/118/EC – Article 7 – General arrangements for excise duty – Supply of petroleum products, without charging excise duty – Filling stations at the border of the Hellenic Republic with third countries – Chargeability of excise duty – Concept of ‘release for consumption’ of excise goods – Concept of ‘departure from a duty suspension arrangement’
ECLI:EU:C:2018:77, [2018] EUECJ C-590/16
European
Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604716
Excise Warehouse : Approval – EXCISE DUTY – Duty Suspended alcohol – Registered owner of duty suspended goods – Approval to operate as warehousekeeper – fit and proper persons – Revocation of excise duty approvals under the Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations (WOWGR) 1999 and sections 92 and 100G Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA) – Excise Notice 196 Section 10 – Alcohol Due Diligence (ADD) condition – whether revocation decisions of HMRC could reasonably have been arrived at and proportionate – A1P1 ECHR – proportionality – inevitable same decisions arrived at – appeals dismissed
[2018] UKFTT 36 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604377
Arden, Newey LJJ
[2018] EWCA Civ 135
England and Wales
Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604207
‘Where a penalty is imposed on a person in possession of goods on which it is alleged that excise duty has not been paid, is the reverse burden of proof on whether duty has been paid incompatible with article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention)? The Upper Tribunal held that it was compatible and Euro Wines (CandC) Limited (the appellant) appeals with leave granted by this court.’
[2018] WLR(D) 46, [2018] EWCA Civ 46
England and Wales
Updated: 04 April 2022; Ref: scu.604142
Free Movement of Goods – Customs Union
C-529/16, [2017] EUECJ C-529/16
European
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.602092
Customs Union : Judgment – Customs union – Imports of bananas from Equador – Post-clearance recovery of import duties – Application for the remission of import duties – Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision – Reasonable time
ECLI:EU:T:2017:884, [2017] EUECJ T-125/16
European
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.601076
Excise Duty Appeals : Other
[2017] UKFTT 858 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.600995
Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed
[2017] UKFTT 814 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.600990
Excise Duty Civil Penalty (See Also Excise Hydrocarbon Oil [Duty])
[2017] UKFTT 852 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.600954
FTTTx (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling) Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) of Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) of Finance Act 1994 – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed
[2017] UKFTT 794 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.600944
Customs Union – Community Customs Code – Non-Community Goods – External Community Customs Transit Procedure : Judgment
C-46/16, [2017] EUECJ C-46/16
European
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599685
Dumping : Judgment
C-204/16, [2017] EUECJ C-204/16
European
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599688
Liability to excise duty on consignments of cooking wine, cooking port and cooking cognac imported from France by the respondent which is a wholesale trader in the food business.
[2017] EWCA Civ 1845
England and Wales
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599583
Customs Duty
[2017] UKUT 393 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599436
Excise duty – jurisdiction of First-tier Tribunal – paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 to the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 – effect on person who was not owner of goods seized
[2017] UKUT 439 (TCC)
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979
England and Wales
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599439
Customs Duty : Dental Lamps
[2017] UKUT 342 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599433
[2017] EWHC 2583 (Admin)
Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999
England and Wales
Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598399
Excise Duty
[2017] UKUT 359 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595606
Excise Duty
[2017] UKUT 321 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595591
Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling – Excise and Customs Duty – importation of tobacco products – late appeal against Civil Evasion Penalties – s 25(1) Finance Act 2003 and s 8(1) Finance Act 1994 – cross application by HMRC to strike out – merits of appeal considered – whether any reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case succeeding – no – whether dishonesty – yes – whether allowances given to reduce penalties correct – yes – appeal dismissed
[2017] UKFTT 673 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595451
Excise Duty Appeals : Jurisdiction – EXCISE DUTY – Alcoholic Liquor Duty – exemption for denatured alcohol – request by licensed receiver and user to use particular formulation of denatured alcohol for use not previously permitted by HMRC – application to strike out appellant’s case – whether decision of HMRC not to allow such use appealable – whether appellant has standing to appeal – strike out refused.
[2017] UKFTT 657 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.594556
Excise Duty Tobacco : Other
[2017] UKFTT 645 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.594548
Excise Duty : Rebated Fuel In Road Vehicles – Excise Duty – s 13 Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 – taking in and use of rebated fuel in road vehicles – whether insufficient evidence to rebut assessed use of rebated fuel for period of assessment – yes – whether quantum reasonable and fairly assessed – yes – appeal dismissed
[2017] UKFTT 654 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.594551
(Excise Duty Civil Penalty (See Also Excise Hydrocarbon Oil [Duty]) : Evasion) Excise Duty – penalties s 8 FA 1994 – one step test for dishonesty in N’Daye and Osman doubted
[2017] UKFTT 624 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592642
EXCISE DUTY – appeal against HMRC’s decision to refuse approval for registration as a wholesaler of alcohol on the basis that they were not satisfied that the appellants are fit and proper persons – s 88C (2) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 – appeal allowed and a review ordered under s 16(4) of the Finance Act 1994 – application to bar HMRC from proceedings – refused
[2017] UKFTT 615 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592635
Excise Duty Civil Penalty (See Also Excise Hydrocarbon Oil [Duty]) : Reasonable Excuse
[2017] UKFTT 631 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.592640
Claimant’s renewed application for judicial review of a decision to refuse the claimant’s application for a licence to import, possess and supply hoasca tea for the purposes of consumption by its congregation.
Sir Ross Cranston
[2017] EWHC 1963 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591656
