Tag: Customs and Excise

Alco Trade Limited v Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 13 May 2015

EXCISE DUTY – Seizure of 6,360 litres of mixed vodka – Whether the decisions not to restore goods proportionate and reasonably made – No – Whether exceptional hardship – Yes – Appeal allowed – Excise Duty Restoration of Goods (See Also Excise Appeal) : New Review On Facts

[2015] UKFTT 217 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547391

Grimshaw v Home Office: FTTTx 25 Apr 2015

EXCISE DUTY – excise goods seized from the appellant – decision refusing restoration of goods – appellant successful in condemnation proceedings – jurisdiction of the tribunal to award compensation or other remedy – appeal allowed – declaration that review decision unreasonable – no further remedy

[2015] UKFTT 178 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547372

Direction generale des douanes et droits indirects v Utopia: ECJ 20 Nov 2014

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union and Common Customs Tariff – Importation free of customs duties – Animals specially prepared for laboratory use – Public establishment or an authorised private establishment – Importer whose customers are such establishments – Packing materials or packing containers – Cages used for transportation of animals

A. O Caoimh, P
C-40/14, [2014] EUECJ C-40/14, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2389
Bailii

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538963

Mobarak v Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 24 Sep 2014

Excise Duty – whether Appellant was ‘holding’ goods and whether the Appellant was in ‘possession’ of goods’ or ‘concerned in the keeping or otherwise dealing’ with goods on which excise duty was due – yes – whether penalty payable – yes – appeal disallowed.

[2014] UKFTT 914 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Taxes – Other

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.537262

Regina v Forbes (Giles): HL 20 Jul 2001

The defendant had been convicted of evading a prohibition on importing articles of an obscene or indecent nature. He had been unaware of whether the articles were indecent images of children, or otherwise obscene images. Since the provisions which made these unlawful and therefore prohibited were so different, he claimed it was necessary to have proved that he knew the nature of what he was importing.
Held: It was not necessary in that way. The prosecution must prove that he was importing goods subject to a prohibition, and his activities were directed at evading that prohibition. Lord Hutton: ‘The offence created by section 170(2)(b) of the 1979 Act is the offence of being ‘knowingly concerned in any fraudulent evasion … of any prohibition . . with respect to the goods’. The essence of the offence is being knowingly concerned in the evasion of a prohibition. The jury were fully entitled to find that the behaviour of the appellant satisfied them that he was knowingly concerned in the evasion of a prohibition. His behaviour in buying genuine video films of ‘Spartacus’ and ‘The Godfather Part 2′ in the airport shop at Amsterdam Airport and obtaining receipts for them, leaving the genuine video films in the lavatory at Heathrow, and then producing the receipts which appeared to relate to the two video films containing indecent material, pointed quite clearly to the conclusion that he knew that he was involved in the evasion of a prohibition against importation.’

Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde Lord Hutton
Times 20-Jul-2001, Gazette 06-Sep-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
Bailii, House of Lords
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 170(2)(b), Customs Consolidation Act 1876 42, Obscene Publications Act 1959 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Conegate Ltd v HM Customs and Excise 1987
Even though the terms of paragraph 6 of schedule 3 to CEMA appear to give the court in forfeiture proceedings no choice but to condemn the goods if they are ‘liable to forfeiture’ under the Act, the court must refuse to do this if to do so would be . .
Approved – Regina v Hussain CACD 1969
The only mens rea necessary for proof of any offence of importing drugs was the knowledge that the goods were subject to a prohibition on importation. The accused must know ‘that what is on foot is the evasion of a prohibition against importation . .
Cited – Regina v Hennessey (Timothy) CACD 1978
The court considered the obligations of the prosecution on disclosure. The courts must: ‘keep in mind that those who prepare and conduct prosecutions owe a duty to the courts to ensure that all relevant evidence of help to an accused is either led . .
Cited – Regina v Taaffe HL 1984
For the purpose of section 170(2) of the 1979 Act a defendant must be judged on the facts as he believed them to be, such matter being an integral part of the inquiry as to whether he was knowingly concerned in a fraudulent evasion of a prohibition . .

Cited by:
Cited – Forbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department QBD 26-Jul-2005
The defendant argued that the 2003 Act was in breach of his article 8 rights. He had been registered as a sex offender, but the offence for which he had been convicted involved no proof of intention.
Held: The claimant having brought the . .
See Also – Forbes v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Jul-2006
The defendant had been placed on the sex offenders’ register on conviction for fraudulent evasion of prohibitions on importing goods, by importing indecent photographs of children. He had maintained that he had not known of the exact nature of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Customs and Excise

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.88459

Revenue and Customs v European Brand Trading Ltd: UTTC 23 May 2014

EW Excise Duty – order of magistrates’ court condemning goods as forfeited – further goods deemed to be duly condemned as forfeited – application by owner of goods for restoration of goods – decision not to restore goods – review decision upholding original decision not to restore goods – review decision set aside by First-tier Tribunal – directions as to further review – whether directions appropriate – extent to which further review should investigate for any purpose whether duty paid on goods which were condemned as forfeited

[2014] UKUT 226 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.534512

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Dickinson: ChD 15 Oct 2003

The applicant had returned to England with a quantity of goods which the Customs and Excise deemed were not for his personal use. His car was seized, but ordered to be restored by the VAT and Duties Tribunal.
Held: There was now a two track process for recovery of goods seized; condemned goods might be recovered through the High Court or magistrates. Here the review officer had refused to review an earlier decision not to restore the goods. The tribunal had posed the wrong question. The complainant should be given an opportunuity for a review by a body exercising judicial disciplines. It is not open to the Tribunal to receive evidence as to private use unless he had served a notice challenging the forfeiture. His letter of complaint should be treated as such since no form of notice was laid down.

The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
[2003] EWHC 2358 (Ch), Times 03-Dec-2003, Gazette 22-Jan-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1160, [2003] All ER (D) 315
Bailii
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 . .
Cited – Lindsay v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 20-Feb-2002
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 . .
Cited – Gascoyne v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 21-Feb-2003
The applicant challenged the respondent’s policy on restoration of vehicles confiscated on being found to be used for commercial smuggling. Vehicles would only be returned exceptionally. The applicant had written to the respondents who considered . .
Appeal from – Dickinson v Customs and Excise Excs 20-Feb-2003
Appeal under s.16 FA 1994 – Stopping vehicle and seizing it and tobacco – Whether stopping lawful – Whether seizure lawful – Hoverspeed (Administrative Court) – Whether adjournment should be granted – Intimidatory behaviour – Full compensation . .

Cited by:
Cited – Davidson v Revenue and Customs Excs 25-Jul-2008
VDT EXCISE – seizure of vehicle and goods – whether seizure challenged – restoration refused – whether appeal against non-restoration of vehicle – whether decision not to restore goods proportionate – whether . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.187007

Gagliardio v Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 22 May 2014

Customs duty and VAT – whether the decision by Border Revenue not to restore goods to the owner when they had been lawfully seized at Heathrow on being presented for entry into the UK for free circulation with false documentation was a reasonable decision – Appeal dismissed

[2014]] UKFTT 498 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.526817

Revenue and Customs v Caithness Creels Ltd: UTTC 5 Mar 2014

CUSTOMS DUTIES – duty suspension – shipwork end-use relief – imported goods used in manufacture of lobster creels subsequently supplied for equipping fishing vessels – refusal of renewal of authorisation – whether processing of imported goods in the course of manufacture of creels excluded the goods from end-use relief – Council Regulation 2658/87/EEC, Annex I, Part One, Section II.A.1

[2014] UKUT 97 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525877

Garraway v The Director of Border Revenue: FTTTx 14 Apr 2014

EXCISE DUTY RESTORATION OF GOODS – application to strike out appeal – seizure of excise goods and vehicle not contested – appeal against refusal to restore vehicle without payment of fee – jurisdiction of the tribunal – HMRC v Jones and Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 824 applied – application granted – appeal struck out

[2014] UKFTT 365 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525341

Panorama Cash and Carry Ltd (T/A Booze Direct) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Jan 2014

ECJ EXCISE DUTY – diversion of excise goods – liability of registered owner – Regulations 8 and 9 Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010 – whether the registered owner was aware or should have been aware of the diversion – revocation of registration – whether review decision reasonable – VAT – evidence of removal from the UK – appeal against excise duty assessment allowed – appeal against review decision confirming revocation of registration allowed – appeal against VAT assessment dismissed

[2014] UKFTT 53 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521729

Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia (Bibliographic Notice): ECJ 5 Dec 2013

ECJ Opinion – Customs union – Customs Code – Articles 70, 78, 221 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 – Revision of customs declarations – Partial examination of goods – Extension of audit results to identical goods included in other statements – Eligibility – verification – Can not request a further examination – Limitation period – Legal certainty

Mengozzi AG
C-571/12, [2013] EUECJ C-571/12
Bailii
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
Cited by:
Opinion – Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia (Bibliographic Notice) ECJ 27-Feb-2014
ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Community Customs Code – Articles 70(1) and 78 – Customs declarations – Partial examination of goods – Sampling – Incorrect code – Application of the results to identical . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519477

Amos, Regina (on The Application of) v Maidstone Crown Court and Another: CA 6 Nov 2013

The court was asked whether the process of condemnation and forfeiture of goods pursuant to section 139 and Schedule 3 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 is civil or criminal in nature for the purposes of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Richards, Elias LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1643
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Human Rights

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.519016

Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs: HL 12 Mar 2008

The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations contained the entire regime.
Held: Criminal conduct at common law or by statute can constitute unlawful means in an unlawful means conspiracy. The protection of the Bill of Rights is available to everyone. Fraudsters and cheats are as much entitled to be protected against the levying of taxes without the authority of Parliament as anyone else. The function of an action of damages is to provide a remedy for interests that are recognised by the law as entitled to protection
‘The statute makes no provision for the recovery of VAT from someone who is not a taxable person within the meaning of section 3. There is, it may be said, a gap in the statute. But this does not mean that the Commissioners have suffered a loss for which they can sue in damages. All that can be said is that payment was made to Alldech which ought not to have been made. It is an amount that can be recovered as a debt due to the Crown from Alldech. It does not change its character as a debt due to the Crown because, when it is sought to be recovered from someone else, it is described as damages. ‘
Lord Scott said: ‘there is, in my opinion, nothing whatever in the Bill of Rights point. It is true that Total are not taxable under the statutory VAT scheme in respect of any of the pleaded transactions, but the claim against Total is not a claim for tax. It is a claim for damages, for loss, caused by the fraudulent conspiracy.’

Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2008] UKHL 19, [2008] BPIR 699, [2008] 2 WLR 711, [2008] STI 938, [2008] 1 AC 1174, [2008] STC 644, [2008] BVC 340, [2008] BTC 5216
Bailii, HL
Value Added Tax Act 1994 1(1) 7, Bill of Rights 1688 4
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Total Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 31-Jan-2007
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
Cited – Gosling v Veley 1850
Wilde CJ said: ‘The rule of law that no pecuniary burden can be imposed upon the subjects of this country, by whatever name it may be called, whether tax, due, rate, or toll, except under clear and distinct legal authority, established by those who . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd CA 1921
The Food Controller had been given power under the Defence of the Realm Acts to regulate milk sales. In granting the dairy a licence to buy milk in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset, the Food Controller required the Dairy to pay 2d. per imperial . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd HL 1922
The House heard an appeal by the Attorney-General against a finding that an imposition of duty on milk sales was unlawful.
Held: The appeal failed. The levy was unlawful. Lord Buckmaster said: ‘Neither of those two enactments enabled the Food . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Hambrook 1956
The Revenue claimed for loss resulting from its being deprived of the services of a taxing officer due to a vehicle accident.
Held: The action was dismissed. An action for that kind of loss did not lie where its relationship was with an . .
Cited – Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
Cited – Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) HL 1-Apr-1981
No General Liability in Tort for Wrongful Acts
The plaintiff had previously constructed an oil supply pipeline from Beira to Mozambique. After Rhodesia declared unilateral independence, it became a criminal offence to supply to Rhodesia without a licence. The plaintiff ceased supply as required, . .
Cited – Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) CA 6-Mar-1981
Lonrho had supplied oil to Southern Rhodesia. It gave up this profitable business when the UK imposed sanctions on that country. It claimed that Shell had conspired unlawfully to break the sanctions, thereby prolonging the illegal regime in Southern . .
Cited – Marrinan v Vibart CA 1962
The court considered an action in the form an attempt to circumvent the immunity of a witness at civil law by alleging a conspiracy.
Held: The claim was rejected. The court considered the basis of the immunity from action given to witnesses. . .
Cited – Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company Limited v Veitch HL 15-Dec-1941
The plaintiffs sought an interdict against the respondents, a dockers’ union, who sought to impose an embargo on their tweeds as they passed through the port of Stornoway.
Held: A trade embargo was not tortious because the predominant purpose . .
Cited – Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch SCS 1940
Lord Justice Clerk Aitchison said: ‘When the end of a combination is not a crime or a tort in the accepted sense, and the means are not in the accepted sense criminal or tortious – cases which give rise to no difficulty – the question always is – . .
Cited – Allen v Flood HL 14-Dec-1898
Tort of Malicicious Inducement not Committed
Mr Flood had in the course of his duties as a trade union official told the employers of some ironworkers that the ironworkers would go on strike, unless the employers ceased employing some woodworkers, who the ironworkers believed had worked on . .
Cited – Sorrell v Smith HL 1925
Torts of Conspiracy by Unlawful Means
The plaintiff had struck the first blow in a commercial battle between the parties, and the defendant then defended himself, whereupon the plaintiff sued him.
Lord Cave quoted the French saying: ‘cet animal est tres mechant; quand on . .
Cited – Hargreaves v Bretherton 1959
The Plaintiff pleaded that the First Defendant police officer had falsely and maliciously and without justification or excuse committed perjury at the Plaintiff’s trial on charges of criminal offences and that as a result the Plaintiff had been . .
Cited – Quinn v Leathem HL 5-Aug-1901
Unlawful Means Conspiracy has two forms
Quinn was treasurer of a Belfast butchers’ association. Leathem, who traded as a butcher, employed some non-union men, although when the union made difficulties he asked for them to be admitted to the union, and offered to pay their dues. The union . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .
Cited – Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd CA 1967
Sham requires common intent to create other result
The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham.
Held: The word ‘sham’ should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention . .
Cited – Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain . .
Cited – Mogul Steamship Company Limited v McGregor Gow and Co QBD 10-Aug-1885
Ship owners formed themselves into an association to protect their trading interests which then caused damage to rival ship owners. The plaintiffs complained about being kept out of the conference of shipowners trading between China and London.
Cited – Yukong Lines Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation and Others (No 2) QBD 23-Sep-1997
Repudiation by charterer: Funds were transferred by a charterer’s ‘alter ego’ to another company controlled by him with intent to defeat owner’s claim – whether ‘alter ego’ acting as undisclosed principal of charterer – whether permissible to pierce . .
Cited – Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here
The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were . .
Cited – Regina v Clarence CCCR 20-Nov-1888
The defendant knew that he had gonorrhea. He had intercourse with his wife, and infected her. She would not have consented had she known. He appealed his convictions for assault and causing grievous bodily harm.
Held: ‘The question in this . .
Cited – Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd HL 1949
The Act required the occupier of a licensed racetrack to take all steps necessary to secure that, so long as a totalisator was being lawfully operated on the track, there was available for bookmakers space on the track where they could conveniently . .
Cited – Rookes v Barnard (No 1) HL 21-Jan-1964
The court set down the conditions for the award of exemplary damages. There are two categories. The first is where there has been oppressive or arbitrary conduct by a defendant. Cases in the second category are those in which the defendant’s conduct . .
Cited – Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Gardner CA 1968
The Federation of Retail Newsagents decided to boycott the Daily Mirror for a week to persuade its publishers to pay higher margins, and advised them accordingly. The publishers sought an injunction saying the Federation was procuring a breach of . .
Doubted – Michaels and Michaels v Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd, etc ChD 19-Apr-2000
The respondents sought to strike out the claim for conspiracy and failure to comply with the Act. The respondent was landlord of premises occupied by the claimants. They had served a notice under the Act of their intention to sell.
Held: The . .
Cited – Surzur Overseas Ltd v Koros and others CA 25-Feb-1999
A defendant to a worldwide Mareva injunction had failed to give full disclosure of all his assets in an affidavit filed with the court. False evidence as to sale of the assets in question was later manufactured and placed before the court. The . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Goldblatt 1972
In a winding up case, the Commissioners can if necessary proceed against a receiver for misfeasance. . .
Cited – Ex parte Island Records CA 1978
An injunction is available to any person who can show that a private right or interest has been interfered with by a criminal act. . .
Cited – RCA Corporation v Pollard CA 1982
The illegal activities of bootleggers who had made unauthorised recordings of concerts, diminished the profitability of contracts granting to the plaintiffs the exclusive right to exploit recordings by Elvis Presley.
Held: The defendant’s . .
Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
Cited – Oren, Tiny Love Limited v Red Box Toy Factory Limited, Red Box Toy (UK) Limited, Index Limited, Martin Yaffe International Limited, Argos Distributors Limited PatC 1-Feb-1999
One plaintiff was the exclusive licensee of a registered design. The defendant sold articles alleged to infringe the design right. The registered owner had a statutory right to sue for infringement. But the question was whether the licensee could . .
Cited – Regina v Mavji CACD 1987
The court considered the offence of cheating the public revenue.
Held: Cheating might include any form of fraudulent conduct which resulted in diverting money from the revenue and depriving the revenue of money to which it was entitled. . .
Cited – Metall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Inc CA 1990
There was a complicated commercial dispute involving allegations of conspiracy. A claim by the plaintiffs for inducing or procuring a breach of contract would have been statute-barred in New York.
Held: Slade LJ said: ‘The judge’s approach to . .
Cited – Rex v Bainbridge 1782
. .
Cited – Regina v Hudson 1956
To avoid the payment of tax by positive false representations constitutes a fraud on the Crown and a fraud on the public. It is a common law offence and is indictable as such. . .
Cited – Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners (2) HL 20-Jul-1992
The society had set out to assert that regulations were unlawful in creating a double taxation. It paid money on account of the tax demanded. It won and recovered the sums paid, but the revenue refused to pay any interest accrued on the sums paid. . .
Cited – Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another HL 25-Oct-2006
The tax payer had overpaid Advance Corporation Tax under an error of law. It sought repayment. The revenue contended that the claim was time barred.
Held: The claim was in restitution, and the limitation period began to run from the date when . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Attorney General v Federation of Technological Industries and Others ECJ 11-May-2006
ECJ (Taxation) C-197/03 Sixth VAT Directive – Articles 21(3) and 22(8) – National measures to combat fraud – Joint and several liability for the payment of VAT – Provision of security for VAT payable by another . .
Cited – Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .
Cited – Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited HL 4-Dec-2003
The claimant’s house was regularly flooded by waters including also foul sewage from the respondent’s neighbouring premises. He sought damages and an injunction. The defendants sought to restrict the claimant to his statutory rights.
Held: The . .
Cited – Johnson v Unisys Ltd HL 23-Mar-2001
The claimant contended for a common law remedy covering the same ground as the statutory right available to him under the Employment Rights Act 1996 through the Employment Tribunal system.
Held: The statutory system for compensation for unfair . .
Cited – Shiloh Spinners Ltd v Harding HL 13-Dec-1972
A right of re-entry had been reserved in the lease on the assignment (and not on the initial grant) of a term of years in order to reinforce covenants (to support, fence and repair) which were taken for the benefit of other retained land of the . .
Cited – MacNiven (Inspector of Taxes) v Westmoreland Investments Ltd HL 15-Feb-2001
The fact that a payment of interest was made only to create a tax advantage did not prevent its being properly claimed. Interest was paid for the purposes of setting it against tax, when the debt was discharged. A company with substantial losses had . .

Cited by:
Cited – Child Poverty Action Group, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Work and Pensions CA 14-Oct-2009
CPAG appealed against a refusal of a declaration that the respondent could use only the 1992 Act to recover overpayment of benefits where there had been neither misrepresentation nor non-disclosure.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the court . .
Cited – Digicel (St Lucia) Ltd and Others v Cable and Wireless Plc and Others ChD 15-Apr-2010
The claimants alleged breaches of legislation by members of the group of companies named as defendants giving rise to claims in conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. In effect they had been denied the opportunity to make interconnections with . .
Cited – Mobilx Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs; Blue Sphere Global Ltd v Same and similar CA 12-May-2010
Each company sought repayment of input VAT. HMRC refused, saying that the transactions were the end-product of a fraud on it, and that even if the taxpayer did not know that a fraud was involved, it should have been aware that one was and acted . .
Cited – The Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 8-Dec-2010
The Action Group had obtained a declaration that, where an overpayment of benefits had arisen due to a miscalculation by the officers of the Department, any process of recovering the overpayment must be by the Act, and that the Department could not . .
Applied – The Racing Partnership Ltd and Others v Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Ltd and Others ChD 8-May-2019
Actions concerning the alleged infringement of the claimants’ rights in respect of data relating to horseracing. The claimant had provided horse race betting odds (Betting shows) to race course owners. A rival company had provided similar data to . .
Cited – The Racing Partnership Ltd and Others v Sports Information Services Ltd CA 9-Oct-2020
The court looked at the limitations: (1) the legal protection of sports data and other information which is not subject to traditional intellectual property rights; (2) the scope of an action under the equitable doctrine of breach of confidence or . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov SC 21-Mar-2018
A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Torts – Other, Customs and Excise, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.266167

Marwaha v UK Border Revenue Agency (Cash and Compensation Team): Admn 2 Nov 2017

Flower Arrangers’ poppy straws not controlled

The court was asked whether the definition of poppy straw in the 1971 Act applied to poppy head and poppy heads and stalks imported by the Appellant for use in flower arrangements.
Held: On the correct interpretation of the statutory definition of poppy straw the two consignments in issue did not comprise poppy straw because the relevant poppies had not been mown and so the relevant poppy heads (with and without stalks) were not parts of the poppy after mowing. Rather, they had been harvested or picked with care in a way that preserved those heads for use for ornamental or decorative purpose, including floristry.

Charles J
[2017] EWHC 2321 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 727
Bailii, WLRD
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
England and Wales

Customs and Excise, Crime

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.599411

Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners: HL 26 Jun 1973

Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist

The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their patents.
Held: Disclosure should be ordered. If someone, even innocently became involved in tortious acts committed by third parties, he became under a duty assist in discovery of the identity of the third party wrongdoers. How the information was acquired was not relevant. Duties of confidence owed by taxation authorities could be overborne if necessary.
Lord Reid said: ‘So discovery to find the identity of a wrongdoer is available against anyone against whom the plaintiff has a cause of action in relation to the same wrong. It is not available against a person who has no other connection with the wrong than that he was a spectator or has some document relating to it in his possession. But the respondents are in an intermediate position. Their conduct was entirely innocent; it was in execution of their statutory duty. But without certain action on their part the infringements could never have been committed. Does this involvement in the matter make a difference?’ to which he answered ‘Yes’.
Referring to the authorities, he said: ‘They seem to me to point to a very reasonable principle that if through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrongdoing he may incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers. I do not think that it matters whether he became so mixed up by voluntary action on his part or because it was his duty to do what he did. It may be that if this causes him expense the person seeking the information ought to reimburse him. But justice requires that he should co-operate in righting the wrong if he unwittingly facilitated its perpetration.
I am the more inclined to reach this result because it is clear that if the person mixed up in the affair has to any extent incurred any liability to the person wronged, he must make full disclosure even though the person wronged has no intention of proceeding against him. It would I think be quite illogical to make his obligation to disclose the identity of the real offenders depend on whether or not he has himself incurred some minor liability. I would therefore hold that the respondents must disclose the information now sought unless there is some consideration of public policy which prevents that.’
Lord Kilbrandon: ‘There is no suggestion that in so doing he is pretending to exercise any right of relief against the discoverers.
In my opinion, accordingly, the respondents, in consequence of the relationship in which they stand, arising out of their statutory functions, to the goods imported, can properly be ordered by the court to disclose to the appellants the names of persons whom the appellants bona fide believe to be infringing these rights, this being their only practicable source of information as to whom they should sue, subject to any special right of exception which the respondents may qualify in respect of their position as a department of state. It has to be conceded that there is no direct precedent for the granting of such an application in the precise circumstances of this case, but such an exercise of the power of the court seems to be well within broad principles authoritatively laid down. That exercise will always be subject to judicial discretion, and it may well be that the reason for the limitation in practice on what may be a wider power to order discovery, to any case in which the defendant has been ‘mixed up with the transaction’, to use Lord Romilly’s words, or ‘stands in some relation’ to the goods, within the meaning of the decision in Post v Toledo, Cincinnati and St Louis Railroad Co (1887) 11 NERep 540, is that that is the way in which judicial discretion ought to be exercised.’
Viscount Dilhorne referred to the antiquity of the mere witness rule and considered the principle of whether disclosure could be ordered in the case before him: ‘discovery can be granted against a person who is not a mere witness to discover, the fact of some wrongdoing being established, who was responsible for it. The ‘mere witness’ rule has lost a great deal of its importance since the Common Law Procedure Act removed the bar to persons interested giving evidence, but it still has significance. Someone involved in the transaction is not a mere witness. If he could be sued, even though there be no intention of suing him, he is not a mere witness . . Are the respondents to be regarded as so involved in this case? I think the answer is yes.’

Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Cross of Chelsea and Lord Kilbrandon
[1974] AC 133, [1973] 3 WLR 164, [1973] 2 All ER 943, [1973] UKHL 6, [1974] RPC 101, [1973] FSR 365
lip, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Post v Toledo, Cincinnati and St Louis Railroad Co 1887
Powers of discovery where third party is involved in some way in the matters underlying the issue. . .
Applied – Orr v Diaper 1876
The plaintiff had a cause of action against the defendant and sought discovery of the name of a third party known to the defendant so that that third party could be joined in. ‘In this case the Plaintiffs do not know, and cannot discover, who the . .
Applied – Upmann v Elkan CA 5-Jun-1871
The defendant freight forwarding agent was innocently in possession of consignments of counterfeit cigars in transit to Germany through a London dock. The action was not for discovery, but for an order restraining the forwarder from releasing the . .
At First Instance – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners ChD 1972
The court considered an application for an order that the other party identify third party wrong-doers. . .
Appeal from (reversed) – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 2-Jan-1972
The plaintiffs sought discovery of the names of patent infringers from the defendant third party, submitting that by analogy with trade mark and passing-off cases, the Customs could be ordered to give discovery of the names.
Held: Buckley LJ . .

Cited by:
Cited – Camelot Group plc v Centaur Communications Limited CA 23-Oct-1997
An order for a journalist to disclose the name of an employee disclosing his employer’s information, may be made where there was a need to identify a disloyal employee. Here drafts of accounts had been released to embarrass the company. The . .
Cited – Totalise Plc v The Motley Fool Limited and Interative Investor Limited (2) CA 19-Dec-2001
The respondent operated a web site which contained a chat room. Defamatory remarks were made by a third party through the chat room, and the claimant sought details of the identity of the poster. The respondent refused to do so without a court . .
Cited – Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc and Others ChD 6-Feb-2002
Where an innocent party had been joined in an action in order to ensure proper discovery, he should be excused from the action once he had complied with the discovery required. It would be wrong to continue his involvement against an unsupported . .
Cited – Financial Times Ltd and others v Interbrew SA CA 8-Mar-2002
The appellants appealed against orders for delivery up of papers belonging to the claimant. The paper was a market sensitive report which had been stolen and doctored before being handed to the appellant.
Held: The Ashworth Hospital case . .
Applied – Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Limited HL 27-Jun-2002
Order for Journalist to Disclose Sources
The newspaper published details of the medical records of Ian Brady, a prisoner and patient of the applicant. The applicant sought an order requiring the defendant newspaper to disclose the identity of the source of material which appeared to have . .
Cited – Arsenal Football Club plc and Others v Elte Sports Distribution Ltd ChD 10-Dec-2002
The claimant alleged that the respondent had unlawfully made use of photographs of its footballers in a calendar. The respondent asked the court to strike out the claim as merely speculative, and the claimant sought pre-action disclosure.
Cited – British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd HL 7-May-1980
The defendant had broadcast a TV programme using material confidential to the plaintiff, who now sought disclosure of the identity of the presumed thief.
Held: (Lord Salmon dissenting) The courts have never recognised a public interest right . .
Followed – Loose v Williamson 1978
. .
Followed – RCA Corporation v Reddingtons Rare Records 1974
Interlocutory relief on the basis of the Norwich Pharmacal principle could be ordered, for example, on motion. . .
Cited – British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd CA 7-May-1980
Lord Denning MR said that the Norwich Pharmacal case opened ‘a new chapter in our law’ and ‘Mr Irvine suggested this was limited to cases where the injured person desired to sue the wrongdoer. I see no reason why it should be so limited. The same . .
Cited – P v T Limited 1997
The jurisdiction under Norwich Pharmacal is not confined to circumstances where there has been tortious wrongdoing and is now available where there has been contractual wrongdoing. . .
Cited – Carlton Film Distributors Ltd v VCI Plc 2003
. .
Cited – Mitsui and Co Ltd v Nexen Petroleum UK Ltd ChD 29-Apr-2005
Mitsui sought disclosure of documents from a third party under the rules in Norwich Pharmacal.
Held: Such relief was available ‘where the claimant requires the disclosure of crucial information in order to be able to bring its claim or where . .
Cited – CHC Software Care v Hopkins and Wood 1993
The jurisdiction to require discovery of documents from a third party is not restricted to seeking information from an innocent third party. The third party may himself be one of the wrongdoers. . .
Cited – Aoot Kalmneft v Denton Wilde Sapte (A Firm) Merc 29-Oct-2001
The court ordered relief by way of disclosure against a third party: ‘In Norwich Pharmacal the information required was the identity of the wrongdoer (the applicant knew what wrong had been done but not who had done it) but I see no reason why the . .
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd QBD 7-Feb-2006
The trust, operators of Ashworth Secure Hospital sought from the defendant journalist disclosure of the name of their employee who had revealed to the defendant matters about the holding of Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, and in particular medical . .
Cited – Microsoft Corporation v Ling and others ChD 3-Jul-2006
The claimant sought damages against the respondent for various infringements in sales of unlicensed products, and also additional damages. The defendant argued that Microsoft’s licensing arrangements acted anti-competively.
Held: ‘the . .
Cited – Hughes v Carratu International Plc QBD 19-Jul-2006
The claimant wished to bring an action against the defendant enquiry agent, saying that it had obtained unlawful access to details of his bank accounts, and now sought disclosure of documents. The defendant denied wrongdoing, and said it had . .
Cited – Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd CA 21-Feb-2007
The defendant journalist had published confidential material obtained from the claimant’s secure hospital at Ashworth. The hospital now appealed against the refusal of an order for him to to disclose his source.
Held: The appeal failed. Given . .
Cited – Dobson and Dobson v North Tyneside Health Authority and Newcastle Health Authority CA 26-Jun-1996
A post mortem had been carried out by the defendants. The claimants, her grandmother and child sought damages after it was discovered that not all body parts had been returned for burial, some being retained instead for medical research. They now . .
Cited – Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Ltd and others v Hargreaves QBD 18-Oct-2007
The defendant operated a web forum in which posters posted defamatory messages about the claimants. The claimants sought an order disclosing the contact details of the members of the forum. The owner of the forum said he had undertaken not to . .
Cited – Smith v ADVFN Plc QBD 13-Mar-2008
Order re case management application. The claimant said he had been defamed on an internet forum run by the defendants, and sought orders for disclosure of the identities of the posters to the website. The operator said that special software might . .
Cited – Smith v ADVFN Plc CA 15-Apr-2008
The claimant complained of defamation on internet bulletin boards. He made an application to require the forum operator to disclose IP addresses and other information about posters under a Norwich Pharmacal order. Further applications were made for . .
Cited – Smith v ADVFN Plc and others QBD 25-Jul-2008
The claimant had brought multiple actions in defamation against anonymous posters on an online forum. The claimant sought to lift the stay which had been imposed because of the number of actions. The claimant had not yet paid outstanding costs . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
Cited – Banker’s Trust v Shapira CA 1980
Enforcement through innocent third party bank
Two forged cheques, each for USD500,000, had been presented by two men and as a result USD1,000,000 had been transferred to accounts in their names. The plaintiff sought to trace assets through the banks involved.
Held: The court approved the . .
Cited – Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim and On (No.5) 1992
The rule in Norwich Pharmacal does not provide a general right of discovery. Hoffman J cited Lord Reid in Norwich Pharmacal and said: ‘The reference to ‘full information’ has sometimes led to an assumption that any person who has become mixed up in . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
Cited – Financial Times Ltd and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2009
The claimants said that an order that they deliver up documents leaked to them regarding a possible takeover violated their right to freedom of expression. They complained that such disclosure might lead to the identification of journalistic . .
Cited – United Company Rusal Plc and Others v HSBC Bank Plc and Others QBD 1-Mar-2011
The claimants sought an order for discovery here from a third party of documents required to support proposed litigation in Russia.
Held: Tugendhat J said: ‘the court [has] to be as satisfied as it can be, having regard to the limitations . .
Cited – The Rugby Football Union v Viagogo Ltd QBD 30-Mar-2011
The claimant objected to the resale through the defendant of tickets to matches held at the Twickenham Stadium. The tickets contained terms disallowing resales at prices over the face value. They sought orders for the disclosure of the names of the . .
Cited – The President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Bank of Scotland International PC 27-Feb-2006
(Guernsey) Lord Bingham said: ‘Norwich Pharmacal relief exists to assist those who have been wronged but do not know by whom. If they have straight forward and available means of finding out, then it will not be reasonable to achieve that end by . .
Cited – Media Cat Ltd v Adams and Others PCC 18-Apr-2011
The claimants had begun copyright infringement cases. Having been refused a request to be allowed to withdraw the cases as an abuse, their solicitors now faced an application for a wasted costs order.
Held: The court only has jurisdiction to . .
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Admn 20-Apr-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of legislative provisions requiring Internet Service Providers to become involved in regulation of copyright infringements by its subscribers. They asserted that the Act and proposed Order were contrary to . .
Cited – The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd SC 21-Nov-2012
The Union challenged the right of the respondent to resell tickets to international rugby matches. The tickets were subject to a condition rendering it void on any resale at above face value. They said that the respondent had advertised tickets in . .
Cited – Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Others ChD 12-Jul-2013
The claimants sought disclosure by the police of information relating to the phone hacking activities said to have been conducted by journalists engaged by the first defendant newspaper. They were wanting to make claims against the respondent, but . .
Cited – Cartier International Ag and Others v British Telecommunications Plc and Another SC 13-Jun-2018
The respondent ISP companies had been injuncted to stop the transmission of websites which infringed the trade mark rights of the claimants. The ISPs now appealed from the element of the order that they pay the claimants’ costs of implementing the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Information, Customs and Excise

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.174124

Barnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another: SC 8 May 2014

Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver

‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as management receiver of the assets of a group of companies referred to as Eastenders on the application of CPS. The order was made under section 48 of the 2002 Act but was quashed on appeal.’
Held: The Receiver’s appeal against the refusal of the court to order payment by CPS succeeded.
At common law, a receiver was entitled to his costs from the estate under receivership, howver the issue here was as to whether the order was proportionate in this case under A1P1. The taking of property without compensation is, in general, a disproportionate interference with A1. In this case the company was not a defendant, and nor were the assets those of the defendant.
The Receiver having acted under appointent of and by agreement with the CPS, they were responsible.

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2014] UKSC 26, [2014] WLR(D) 194, [2014] 2 WLR 1269, UKSC 2013/0006
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary, SC
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, European Convention on Human Rights P1 A1
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs Admn 4-Nov-2010
Applications for judicial review in relation to alcoholic goods detained by the Defendants on grounds of a suspicion that duty may not have been paid in respect of them.
Sales J said: ‘In my view, there is a clear reason why Parliament wished . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 29-Dec-2010
FTTTx Excise Duty – warehouse – application for registration as an owner of goods under Warehousekeepers and Owners of Goods Regulations 1999 (‘WOWGR’) – whether decision of HMRC could reasonably have been . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v South Western Magistrates’ Court Admn 22-Mar-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions by the magistrates first to issue search warrants, and then to refuse to disclose the information on which it had been based.
Held: The documentation now having been disclosed the second part of . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 20-Jan-2012
The Court considered the lawfulness of the exercise of the power claimed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise (HMRC) to detain goods temporarily for the purpose of investigating their status. . .
See also – First Stop Wholesale Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 27-Mar-2012
The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant’s decisions to seize and detain alcoholic drinks from his business premises.
Held: Goods could not lawfully be detained under section 139(1) for the purpose of ascertaining whether the power . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 27-Mar-2012
FTTTx Procedure – costs – application for costs out of time – whether discretion to entertain an application should be exercised – Rule 5 (3) (a) Tribunal Rules 2009 – whether direction should be made to apply . .
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Another v HM Revenue and Customs CA 22-May-2012
The appellants had succeeded in resisting proceedings commenced by the respondents for the seizure of goods. The respondent now argued that costs should not follow the event, asserting a statutory bar. The appellant additionally argued that any such . .
See Also – First Stop Wholesale Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 16-Jul-2012
The applicant challenged the court’s refusal to pay its costs after a finding that the seizure of goods by the respondent had been unlawful. The defendant argued that section 144 of the 1979 Act protected it against such an order.
Held: . .
See Also – First Stop Wholesale Ltd R (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs Admn 5-Oct-2012
Claim for judicial review of various seizure notices issued by the defendants. The question was whether a statement in the notices that ‘no evidence of UK duty payment has been provided’ was a sufficient statement of the grounds for seizing the . .
See Also – Crown Prosecution Service v The Eastenders Group and Another CACD 23-Nov-2012
‘application by the CPS for permission to appeal against . . orders made . . in the Central Criminal Court on 8 May 2012. I use the expression ‘in form’ because as will appear there are issues as to the jurisdiction of the court. The case raises . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v First Stop Wholesale Ltd and Another CA 12-Mar-2013
‘Appeals . . against orders . . arising out of the detention . . by HMRC of large quantities of alcohol from the warehouse and other premises of First Stop, the respondent to the first two appeals and the appellant in the third. At the time the . .
Cited – Capewell v Commissioners for HM Customs and Excise and Sinclair CA 2-Dec-2004
The court approved guidelines for the appointment and remuneration of a receiver appointed under the 1988 Act. . .
Cited – Capewell v Revenue and Customs and Another HL 31-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed against an order regarding the remuneration of a receiver appointed to administer a restraint order placed on the assets of the defendant under the 1988 Act on the basis of an allegation that the defendant had been involved in . .
Cited – Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd HL 15-Jun-1942
A contract for the supply by the respondents of special machinery to be manufactured by them was treated as an ordinary contract for the sale of goods. It began valid, but suffered frustration by the outbreak of war.
Held: Lord Wright restated . .
Cited – Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 23-Sep-1982
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
(Plenary Court) The claimants challenged orders expropriating their properties for redevelopment, and the banning of construction pending redevelopment. The orders remained in place for many years.
Held: Article 1 comprises three distinct . .
Cited – James and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
Cited – Raimondo v Italy ECHR 22-Feb-1994
The applicant was arrested and placed under house arrest on charges relating to his association with the Mafia. As an interim measure some of his property was seized. The proceedings ended in his acquittal. He claimed that the seizure of his . .
Cited – Benham v United Kingdom ECHR 8-Feb-1995
Legal Aid was wrongfully refused where a tax or fine defaulter was liable to imprisonment, and the lack of a proper means enquiry, made imprisonment of poll tax defaulter unlawful. A poll tax defaulter had been wrongly committed to prison by . .
Cited – In Re Andrews CA 25-Feb-1999
The defendant and his son had been charged with offences relating to their joint business, and restraint orders were made. The son was convicted, but the defendant was acquitted and awarded his costs out of central funds. The taxing officer held . .
Cited – Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd 6-Dec-2001
High Court of Australia – Rothmans were licensed to act as wholesalers of tobacco products under a New South Wales statute. They sold products to retailers for a price including licence fees, which were in reality a form of indirect taxation, . .
Cited – Hughes and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise etc CA 20-May-2002
N was charged with VAT fraud. He was the joint owner of a company with his brother T each holding 50% of the shares. T was never charged. A restraint and receivership order was made against N, preventing the company from dealing in any way with its . .
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v Compton, Comptons of Brighton Limited, Coyne, Compton CA 27-Nov-2002
Appeal against refusal of restraint order.
Held: It is enough that on the documents a good arguable case arises for treating the relevant assets as the realisable property of the defendant.
Lord Justice Simon Brown said: ‘All that I . .
Cited – Frizen v Russia ECHR 24-Mar-2005
Violation of P1-1. A confiscation order made by a Russian criminal court was unlawful and involved a violation of the applicant’s rights under A1P1. The husband was convicted of fraud. She was not herself charged with any criminal offence. After his . .
Cited – Stanford International Bank Ltd, Re CA 25-Feb-2010
Hughes LJ said: ‘it is essential that the duty of candour laid upon any applicant for an order without notice is fully understood and complied with. It is not limited to a duty not to misrepresent. It consists in a duty to consider what any other . .
Cited – Sinclair In her Capacity As the Former Receiver v Glatt Executors of Estate of Glatt and Glatt and Glatt CA 13-Mar-2009
The court considered the recovery of expenses by a receiver appointed to administer assets of money launderer. The receiver sought to exercise a lien over assets held for the prisoner by the prison to recover the costs of the receivership after the . .

Cited by:
See Also – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 11-Jun-2014
Alcoholic drinks had been seized by the respondents pending further enquiries with a view to a possible forfeiture, then held and returned but only under court order. The company had complained that the detention of the goods was unlawful. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Customs and Excise, Costs, Human Rights, Criminal Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.524663

TNT (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Jan 2011

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTY – importation of goods and their entry by the Appellant under the simplified inward processing relief procedure (SIPR) – declarations contained inaccurate information and there was a failure to comply with all the obligations relating to the entry of the goods under the SIPR – a customs debt on importation incurred pursuant to article 204(1) of the Community Customs Code Regulation 2913/92/EEC – a finding that the inaccurate information included in the declarations resulted from an attempted fraud by a person or persons unknown importing the goods and using the Appellant’s services to make the declarations – whether the Appellant was the debtor in relation to that customs debt – the circumstances to be considered in identifying the debtor in accordance with article 204(3) included the circumstance that the Appellant stated that it was acting in the name of or on behalf of another person without being empowered to do so – in consequence the Appellant was to be deemed to have acted in its own name and on its own behalf pursuant to article 5(4) – therefore the Appellant was the person who was required, according to the circumstances, to fulfil the relevant obligations and to comply with the relevant conditions and was the debtor in relation to the customs debt pursuant to article 204(3) – appeal dismissed

John Walters QC
[2011] UKFTT 38 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.442841

Infinis Energy Holdings Ltd v HM Treasury and Another: CA 21 Oct 2016

No breach of EU Legitimate Expectation

The appellant challenged rejection of its request for judicial review of a decision to remove financial support for its creation pf renewable energy.
Held: The appal failed. Althought eth claimant would indeed be severely affected, it had taken no particular decision based upon any representation from te respondent which might have created a proper expectation. There had been no breach of European law principle of law as to forseeability, certainty of legitimate expectation.

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lloyd Jones, Sales LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1030, [2016] WLR(D) 549, [2017] QB 1221, [2016] STI 2777, [2017] STC 414, [2017] 2 CMLR 12, [2017] 2 WLR 194
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Drax Power Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Hm Treasury and Others Admn 10-Feb-2016
The claimant sought to challenge the removal of the exemption for renewable source electricity from the Climate Change Levy.
Held: Review was refused. The court rejected the Respondents’ submission that EU law has no application to the RSE . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Utilities, Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.570364

Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v Commission: ECFI 23 Apr 2018

ECJ Dumping – Imports of Steel Products Originating In China and Taiwan – Judgment – Dumping – Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in China and Taiwan – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 – Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) – Normal value – Selection of the appropriate third country – Adjustments – Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(10)(k) of Regulation 2016/1036) – Calculation of the dumping margin – Adjustments – Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 3(2), (6) and (7) of Regulation 2016/1036) – Injury – Causal link

ECLI:EU:T:2018:209, [2018] EUECJ T-675/15
Bailii
European

Customs and Excise

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.609328

Chaudhry v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: Admn 17 Jul 2007

The commissioners had served a notice on the taxpayer requiring him to pay security for his tax liabiities. He appealed out of time against the finding, and was prosecuted for having continued to trade without providing the security. He appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. The legislation made no provision for suspension of the requirement not to trade. A leaflet from the commissioners might have created a legitimate expectation that the trader could continue pending a proper appeal, but no such expectation was created where, as here, the appeal was lodged out of time.
Sedley LJ, Nelson J
Times 02-Aug-2007, [2007] EWHC 1805 (Admin)
Bailii
Value Added Tax Act 1994 72(11), Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 171(4)
England and Wales

Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.258526

Solarworld v Brandoni Solare and Solaria Energia Y Medio Ambiente: ECJ 9 Nov 2017

Subsidies : Judgment – Appeal – Subsidies – Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 – Article 2 – Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from China – Definitive countervailing duty – Exemption of imports covered by an accepted undertaking – Severability
C-205/16, [2017] EUECJ C-205/16
Bailii
European

Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.599687

Denley v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 25 Aug 2017

Excise Duties
[2017] UKUT 340 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.595593

Wipox Sp Zoo v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Oct 2015

Excise Duty Appeals : Time To Appeal – Refusal of late request to carry out review of decision not to restore seized goods – Whether decision should be upheld – No – Application allowed and review directed – Section 14A Finance Act 1994
References: [2015] UKFTT 501 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556179

Revenue and Customs v Brobot Petroleum Ltd; UTTC 21 Jul 2016

References: [2016] UKUT 330 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Ratio: EXCISE DUTY – duty deferment – approval pursuant to Excise Duty (Deferred Payment) Regulations 1992 – HMRC refusing approval – FTT finding that refusal was unreasonable – whether FTT entitled to come to that conclusion – appeal allowed
Statutes: Excise Duty (Deferred Payment) Regulations 1992
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 18-Nov-16
Ref: 570409

Davidson v Revenue and Customs; Excs 25 Jul 2008

References: [2008] UKVAT-Excise E01127
Links: Bailii
Ratio: VDT EXCISE – seizure of vehicle and goods – whether seizure challenged – restoration refused – whether appeal against non-restoration of vehicle – whether decision not to restore goods proportionate – whether appellant entitled to raise issue of own use – whether abuse of process – No
JURISDICTION – Whether criminal charge – Whether Magna Carta and Bill of Rights 1689 applicable – Whether Appellant denied right to a fair trial – Gora considered – Appeal dismissed.
Statutes: Finance Act 1994 14(3), Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 1(1), Excise Goods, Beer and Tobacco Products (Amendment) Regulations 2002, Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 Sch 36, Beer Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/1228) 15, Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992 4, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 49(1), European Convention on Human Rights 6
This case cites:

  • Cited – Bowles v Bank of England KBD ([1913] 1 Ch 57, [1913] 82 LJ Ch 124, [1913] 108 LT 95, [1913] 29 TLR 42, [1913] 57 Sol Jo 43, [1913] 6 Tax Cas 136)
    The House of Commons Ways and means committee resolved to assent to the imposition of income tax at the required rate for the next year.
    Held: Such a resolution was inadequate to authorise the Crown to levy the tax by its deduction from the . .
  • Cited – Weller v Revenue & Customs VDT (Bailii, [2008] UKVAT-Excise E01110, [2008] V & DR 221)
    VDT EXCISE – RESTORATION – payment when restoration not possible – amount of payment – goods purchased on cross-channel ferry – ferry operator used simplified scheme under Article 7(9), EU Council Directive 92/12 . .
  • Cited – Gascoyne v Customs and Excise and Another CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1162, [2005] 2 WLR 222, [2005] Ch 215)
    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 – Commissioners of Customs & Excise v Dickinson ChD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 2358 (Ch), Times 03-Dec-03, Gazette 22-Jan-04, [2004] 1 WLR 1160, [2003] All ER (D) 315)
    The applicant had returned to England with a quantity of goods which the Customs and Excise deemed were not for his personal use. His car was seized, but ordered to be restored by the VAT and Duties Tribunal.
    Held: There was now a two track . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 14-Sep-16
Ref: 273034

Dickinson v Customs and Excise; Excs 20 Feb 2003

References: [2003] UKVAT-Excise E00387
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Appeal under s.16 FA 1994 – Stopping vehicle and seizing it and tobacco – Whether stopping lawful – Whether seizure lawful – Hoverspeed (Administrative Court) – Whether adjournment should be granted – Intimidatory behaviour – Full compensation
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Commissioners of Customs & Excise v Dickinson ChD (Bailii, [2003] EWHC 2358 (Ch), Times 03-Dec-03, Gazette 22-Jan-04, [2004] 1 WLR 1160, [2003] All ER (D) 315)
    The applicant had returned to England with a quantity of goods which the Customs and Excise deemed were not for his personal use. His car was seized, but ordered to be restored by the VAT and Duties Tribunal.
    Held: There was now a two track . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 08-Sep-16
Ref: 271480

Hammonds of Knutsford Plc, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs; UTTC 20 Apr 2016

References: [2016] UKUT 195 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Ratio: EXCISE DUTY – claims for ‘drawback’ – EU Directive 92/12/EEC, arts 7, 22 – EU Directive 2008/118/EC, arts 9, 33 – Excise Duty (Drawback) Regulations 1995, regs 7, 8 – whether refusal of claims as a consequence of Claimant having failed to make goods available for inspection for not less than two business days following notice of intenti
Statutes: EU Directive 92/12/EEC

Last Update: 30-Jul-16
Ref: 567343

Keown Midlands Ltd v Revenue and Customs; Excs 8 Dec 2005

References: [2005] UKVAT-Excise E00932
Links: Bailii
Ratio: Excs EXCISE DUTY – restoration of trailer – Appellant no involvement and no responsibility for unlawful importation of alcohol – Appellant’s previous offence not relevant to circumstances of the appeal – Respondents failed to apply their mind to the individual circumstances and the issue of proportionality – was the decision not to restore the seized trailer reasonable – no – appeal allowed

Last Update: 23-Jul-16
Ref: 272011

Hacon v Customs and Excise; Excs 10 Jul 2002

References: [2002] UKVAT-Excise E00374
Links: Bailii
Excs Ratio 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

Last Update: 28-May-16
Ref: 271456

Revenue and Customs v Ag Villodre Sl; UTTC 7 Apr 2016

References: [2016] UKUT 166 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Ratio Customs duty – Customs Community Code, Arts. 5, 221 – import of garlic declared to be of Indian origin – HMRC contended that garlic was of Chinese origin resulting in higher duty payable – post clearance demand for import duty – whether communicated to importer – whether posting letter sufficient communication if letter not received – whether communication to customs clearance agent sufficient – whether time limit for communication of 3 years pursuant to Art. 221(3) – whether arguable that HMRC could rely on Art. 221(4) of Community Customs Code to override time limit where alleged criminal act – permission to HMRC to amend pleading

Last Update: 21-Apr-16
Ref: 562435

McKarnon v Revenue and Customs; Excs 30 Sep 2005

References: [2005] UKVAT-Excise E00919
Links: Bailii
Excs Ratio EXCISE DUTIES – interception of vehicle – driven by Appellant’s husband vehicle found to contain 80,000 cigarettes in respect of which duty had not been paid – seizure of vehicle – request by Appellant for restoration – application of restoration policy – whether Appellant sole owner of vehicle – whether vehicle jointly owned – Appellant without involvement in any offence – Appellant an innocent party – Whether reasonable not to restore vehicle – Whether decision not to restore based upon correct findings as to ownership of the vehicle – Appeal allowed

Last Update: 06-Apr-16
Ref: 271995

Bell v Revenue and Customs; Excs 26 Jul 2005

References: [2005] UKVAT-Excise E00898, [2005] UKVAT-Excise E00898_1
Links: Bailii, Bailii
VDT Ratio RESTORATION – third trip abroad – stopped at Dover Eastern Docks – goods within the guidelines – purchased for the Appellant and his family – Appellant seriously depressed after death of father – encouraged to go abroad to buy the goods by aunt – refusal to restore cigarettes and spirits reasonable – appeal dismissed

Last Update: 21-Mar-16
Ref: 271969

Butters v Revenue and Customs; Excs 6 Jun 2005

References: [2005] UKVAT-Excise E00888
Links: Bailii
EXCS Ratio EXCISE DUTIES – Seizure of excise goods at Hull ferry port – no condemnation proceedings and goods deemed to be forfeit – whether issue of importation of goods for own use can be raised by Appellant before tribunal – yes – whether decision on review to refuse restoration reasonable – no – case remitted by tribunal for further review – appeal allowed
Last Update: 12-Mar-16 Ref: 271964

Dalziel v Revenue and Customs; Excs 5 Jul 2006

References: [2006] UKVAT-Excise E00967
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE DUTY RESTORATION OF GOODS – other – condemnation proceedings before magistrates concluding that cigarettes properly forfeited as held for commercial purpose – allegations before tribunal of falsehood, gross exaggeration and lack of independence on part of reviewing officer – allegations held to be without foundation – appeal dismissed
Last Update: 18-Feb-16 Ref: 272049

Xerox Ltd v Revenue and Customs; UTTC 19 Nov 2015

References: [2015] UKUT 631 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
ICO CUSTOMS DUTY – engineered solid ‘ink sticks’ – whether classifiable as ‘printing ink … other inks, whether or not concentrated or solid’ under CN heading 3215 or as ‘parts’ of printers under CN heading 8443 – General Rules of Interpretation considered – held, applying GRI 3(a) that CN heading 3215 provides the more specific description – appeal dismissed
Last Update: 16-Feb-16 Ref: 558961

Stanton Shipping and Trading Ltd v Revenue and Customs; Excs 3 Oct 2006

References: [2006] UKVAT-Excise E00995
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE DUTY – Assessments on Appellant warehouse keeper made under s. 12 FA 1994 following irregular departures from suspension arrangements – art. 6 Excise Directive 92/12/EEC; regs. 4(2) and 5(4) Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and REDS) Regulations SI 1992/3135 – whether unlawful conduct of the Commissioners causative of the irregular departures – held not — whether Appellant properly liable – held yes – no Community law principle required the assessments to be quashed – Greenalls Management Limited v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2005] UKHL 34 followed – appeal dismissed
Last Update: 12-Feb-16 Ref: 272078

Wellings v Customs and Excise; Excs 13 Apr 2005

References: [2005] UKVAT-Excise E00876
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE DUTIES – Seizure of car and goods at Coquelles – no condemnation proceedings and goods and car deemed to be forfeit – whether issue of importation of goods for own use can be raised by Appellant before tribunal – yes – whether decision on review to refuse restoration reasonable – no – case remitted by tribunal for further review – appeal allowed
Last Update: 12-Feb-16 Ref: 271956

Malinowski v Revenue and Customs; Excs 7 Apr 2008

References: [2008] UKVAT-Excise E01105
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE DUTY – seizure of cigarettes and vehicle – Appellant claimed that the vehicle belonged to him and that he was unaware of the conduct of the driver – refusal to restore the vehicle – Appellant appealed under Finance Act 1994 s 16(4) – Appellant decided at the hearing not to pursue his appeal – appeal dismissed
Last Update: 02-Feb-16 Ref: 272182

Perfect v Revenue and Customs; FTTTX 7 Dec 2015

References: [2015] UKFTT 639 (TC)
Links: Bailii
FTTTx Excise Duty – Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010, reg 13 – Finance Act 2008, Sch 41 – assessment and penalty in respect of seized goods – whether the appellant driver of the vehicle was ‘making the delivery of’ or ‘holding’ the goods and therefore liable for the assessment – No – appeal allowed
Last Update: 26-Dec-15 Ref: 557186

Sidhom v The Director of Border Revenue (Excise Duty Restoration of Goods (See Also Excise Appeal); FTTTX 11 Dec 2015

References: [2015] UKFTT 664 (TC)
Links: Bailii
FTTTX EXCISE D seizure of two ivory figurines D imported without the required permits D CITES D restoration refused D whether or not the refusal was reasonable D failure to take into account delayed receipt of the notice of seizure D failure to consider proportionality D appeal allowed
Last Update: 23-Dec-15 Ref: 557189

Ahmed v Customs and Excise; Excs 25 Mar 2004

References: [2004] UKVAT-Excise E00687
Links: Bailii
RESTORATION- Son took commercial vehicle to Calais for the day – purchased 265.5 kg hand rolling tobacco, 800 cigarettes, 480 litres beer, 315 litres wine and 3.7 litres spirits – commercial purchase not in dispute – car offered for restoration on payment of £5,346.88 – Appellant unwilling to pay – unaware of son’s activities – third party car – appeal dismissed
Last Update: 29-Nov-15 Ref: 271727

Billingham v Customs and Excise; Excs 25 Mar 2004

References: [2004] UKVAT-Excise E00686
Links: Bailii
EXCISE DUTY – restoration of seized excise goods and conditional restoration of motor vehicle – whether the goods were for personal or commercial use – commercial use but selling at above cost price to family and cost price to friends – Appellant knew what he was doing wrong – the non-restoration and conditional restoration proportionate to the Appellant’s contravention – yes – did the conditional restoration of the vehicle create exceptional hardship – no – was the decision not to restore the excise goods and offer conditional restoration of the vehicle reasonable – yes – appeal dismissed
Last Update: 29-Nov-15 Ref: 271732

Reynolds v Customs and Excise; Excs 27 May 2004

References: [2004] UKVAT-Excise E00724
Links: Bailii
EXCS EXCISE DUTIES – Importation of 25 kg of hand rolling tobacco by driver of vehicle – importation of 13 kg tobacco and 13000 cigarettes by his 2 passengers – forfeiture of vehicle and goods – whether review decision not to restore vehicle and goods was reasonable – appeal dismissed
Last Update: 29-Nov-15 Ref: 271807

Irving v Wilson And Another; 22 Nov 1791

References: [1791] EngR 1492, (1791) 4 TR 485, (1791) 100 ER 1132
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Kenyon CJ, Ashurst J
If a Reveriue officer seize goods as forfeited, which are not liable to seizure, and take money of the owner to release them, the latter may recover back the money in action for money had and received. In such an action a month’s notice need not be given under the 23 G. 3, c. 70, s. 30.
The action was brought for the recovery of money had and received by customs officers. The officers had stopped a cart containing goods which required a permit, without which they were liable to forfeiture. The carrier did not have a permit, but told the officers that the goods formed part of a larger consignment, and that a permit for the entire consignment was with the remainder of the consignment, some miles behind. The officers waited some time, but the remainder of the consignment did not appear. The officers then seized the goods. When the remainder of the consignment eventually arrived, and the permit was produced, those goods also were seized. The officers then refused to restore the goods until a payment had been made by the owner.
Held: The action succeeded.
Ashurst J noted that ‘the goods were not liable to seizure’, but also stated that ‘the defendants acted right in stopping the goods at first; but when the permit came up, there was no pretence to detain them’.
Lord Kenyon CJ distinguished between the initial detention and the subsequent seizure, stating that ‘whatever ground of probability there was for stopping the first cart, yet after the matter was cleared up, there was no pretence for making a seizure’.
This case is cited by:

Jacobsohn v Blake and Compton; 13 Jan 1843

References: (1844) 6 Man and G 919, 13 LJ CP 89, [1843] EngR 175, (1844) 6 Man & G 919, (1843) 134 ER 1164
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Tindal CJ, Erskine J, Cresswell J
Custom-house officers took possession of goods landed by the plaintiff for the purpose of examination and detained them upon a misapprehension that they were prohibited and liable to forfeiture. In an action for trespass, the defence was that, there having been no seizure by the officers, the action of trespass could not be maintained. The jury were directed that the goods having been legally in the possession of the defendants, and there having been no seizure by them, the action of trespass could not be maintained. That direction was upheld in the Court of Common Pleas.
Held: In order to entitle the plaintiff to maintain such an action [of trespass] there must have been an actual seizure of the plaintiff’s goods. There was no evidence of any act of trespass. There was no seizure whatever by the defendants. The goods were landed and taken possession of by the defendants in the discharge of their duty, for the purpose of their being examined. There was no evidence of any seizure or of any other act amounting to a trespass. There was no trespass in the first instance, or anything that could be called a seizure. The goods were taken by the plaintiff’s agent to the proper place for examination of them by the defendants in the regular discharge of their duty as custom-house officers. Upon their examination, all that the defendants did was, to detain them, till it could be ascertained whether or not they were liable to forfeiture. This is not an act of trespass.
Tindal CJ said: ‘[T]he defendants merely took possession of the goods, in the execution of their duty as custom-house officers, for the purpose of examination. When the goods were examined certain marks were found upon them, which induced the defendants to think they were prohibited; and they said they must detain them; and then, on a subsequent application on the part of the plaintiff for the delivery of the goods, the answer was that they were detained and would be prosecuted as seizures. It appears, therefore, that the defendants originally detained the goods under a real and honest doubt that they were subject to forfeiture: whether that doubt was well grounded, is not now the question. . . There has been no abuse of authority on their part. The goods remained, during the whole time of the examination, in the same custody in which they were, in the first instance, legally detained.’
Coltman J said: ‘The defendants were custom-house officers acting under an authority given them by law. It was their duty to examine the goods in question, in order to ascertain to what duty they were liable, or whether or not they were subject to forfeiture. If the goods had been afterwards detained by them for a time more than reasonable for the examination, that might have been an abuse of their authority so as to render them liable in another form of action. But it appears to me there is no ground for saying they did more than detain the goods for a reasonable time, in order that the question as to the liability of the goods to forfeiture might be submitted to the proper authorities.’
This case is cited by:

F Loendersloot Internationale Expeditie Nv v Revenue and Customs; Excs 24 Mar 2006

References: [2006] UKVAT-Excise E00948
Links: Bailii
Coram: Theodore Wallace
Excs EXCISE – Duty suspended movement – Assessment on consignor – Theft during transit following release from detention – Guarantee provided by warehousekeeper of dispatch which was consignor – Release after journey time on AAD – Whether Appellant still guarantor – Appellant not notified of release – Compatibility of DSMEG Regs 2000 reg 7(1) with Excise Directive 92/12/EEC Arts 15.3 and 20.1 – Powers of Tribunal under FA 1944 s.16(5) – Appeal dismissed

Belkiss v Revenue and Customs; Excs 30 May 2008

References: [2008] UKVAT-Excise E01117
Links: Bailii
EXCS EXCISE DUTY – Restoration appeal – restoration of excise goods seized – Appellant’s case was that they were imported for his own use – Decision that it would not be an abuse of this Tribunal’s process to consider this issue notwithstanding the Appellant’s indication to the Commissioners that he did not wish to contest the legality of the seizure in the Magistrates’ Court – Decision on the facts that the Customs officers’ decision not to restore the goods on the grounds that they were imported for commercial purposes was not unreasonable – appeal dismissed

Cleanaco Ltd v Revenue and Customs; Excs 11 Jan 2007

References: [2007] UKVAT-Excise E01012
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE DUTY – Duty suspension – Diversion of spirits on dispatch from authorised warehouse – Liability of owner – False AADs prepared on instructions of owner’s employees without directors’ knowledge – Whether irregularity caused by Appellant – Notice under DSMEG Regs 2001 (S.I.2001/3022) reg 7(2) – Whether prior excise duty point under REDS Regs 1992 (S.I. 1992/3135) reg 4(2)(a) – Validity of assessment under FA 1994 s.12(1A) – Greenalls Management [2005] 1 WLR 1754, HL considered – Excise Directive (EEC/92/12) Art 20 – Assessment to VAT under VATA 1994 s.73(7B) – Appeal dismissed

HMRC v Europlus Trading Ltd FTC/38/2012; UTTC 1 Mar 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 108 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Excise Duty – reclaim of excise duty on exportation of beer – appeal from the FTT’s decision that HMRC had breached European law and the supplier’s human rights by undertaking extended verification of its claim for drawback of excise duty on beer warehoused for export – the effect of the FTT’s finding that the supplier had failed to satisfy the duty paid drawback condition by demonstrating that excise duty had previously been paid on the beer and had not been refunded – whether the supplier had legitimate expectations that HMRC would not undertake such extended verification in the light of HMRC’s existing policy – whether HMRC had changed its policy without notice to suppliers – whether the FTT had jurisdiction to consider the arguments on legitimate expectation and the European law points, or whether such claims were beyond the jurisdiction of the FTT under sections 14 and 16 of the Finance Act 1994.

Ludgate and Another v Customs and Excise; Excs 11 Apr 2003

References: [2003] UKVAT-Excise E00403
Links: Bailii
Excs RESTORATION – Refusal – Review decision – Import of tobacco by non-smoker as gift to father-in-law, who looks after Appellant’s children and helped building patio – Whether gift in consideration of money or money’s worth – No – Whether review decision reasonable – Appeal allowed – Further review ordered
RESTORATION – Import of excise goods in excess of schedule to Personal Reliefs Order – Burden of proof on Commissioners to shew import for commercial purpose – Whether burden of proof played part in decision on review

TC Kirton Plant Hire Ltd v Revenue and Customs; Excs 30 Jul 2008

References: [2008] UKVAT-Excise E01130
Links: Bailii
VDT EXCISE DUTY RED DIESEL – assessment re two vehicles – only one dipped – issues whether undipped vehicle could be assessed and whether methodology for calculation of duty correct – High Court decision in Thomas Corneill followed – reduction in mileage for one vehicle accepted by Customs – subject thereto appeal dismissed.

Galbraith v Revenue and Customs; Excs 27 Sep 2006

References: [2006] UKVAT-Excise E00993
Links: Bailii
Excs Restoration of vehicle seized by Customs sought – order in condemnation proceedings declared forfeit goods (25kgs. hand rolling tobacco and 600 cigarettes) and seized vehicle in which they were carried – vehicle used for part-time taxi business – exceptional hardship and proportionality considered – appeal dismissed

Boardman and Another v Customs and Excise; Excs 23 Apr 2004

References: [2004] UKVAT-Excise E00705
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE DUTY – Restoration of seized motor vehicle – the cigarettes and tobacco were sold for a profit – the non-restoration was proportionate to the contravention – no exceptional hardship – no third party owner – no reasons given for the deemed decision – outcome of a further review inevitably the same – non-restoration decision reasonable – Appeal dismissed.

Vevers v Revenue and Customs; Excs 24 Jun 2008

References: [2008] UKVAT-Excise E01121
Links: Bailii
EXCS EXCISE DUTY – Restoration of seized Mercedes Sprinter — Appellant did not appear – vehicle condemned as forfeit by the magistrates – 100 kilograms of hand rolling tobacco imported – tobacco to be sold on at a profit – no exceptional hardship – was the decision not to restore the vehicle reasonable – yes – Appeal dismissed.

Koluch v Revenue and Customs; Excs 26 Jun 2008

References: [2008] UKVAT-Excise E01122
Links: Bailii
EXCS EXCISE DUTY – NON RESTORATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE – The Appellant was the owner of the vehicle – not present at the seizure – the vehicle was used for smuggling excise goods – Appellant did not take reasonable steps to prevent the vehicle from being used for smuggling – evidence indicated that the Appellant knew about the smuggling attempt – non-restoration of vehicle proportionate – no exceptional hardship – review decision reasonable – Appeal dismissed

HM Customs and Excise v Jack Baars Wholesale, Baars, and Baars; CmpC 16 Jan 2004

References: [2004] EWHC 18 (Ch), [2004] BPIR 543
Links: Bailii
Coram: Mr Justice Lindsay
Statutes: Insolvent Partnerships Order 1994
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Re Autotech Design Ltd, HMRC -v- Autotech Design Ltd ChD ([2006] EWHC 1596 (Ch))
    Michael Briggs QC summarised the approach to be adopted by the court at the hearing of for the appointment of an interim liquidator pending the hearing of an insolvency petition brought by the Revenue: ‘Although the formulations of the approach to . .
  • Cited – Revenue & Customs -v- SED Essex Ltd ChD (Bailii, [2013] EWHC 1583 (Ch))
    The Revenue sought the winding up of the company for non-payment of substantial arrears of VAT. The revenue had declined to allow VAT input claims. The company said that the petition was wrong since the debt was genuinely disputed.
    Held: The . .

Powell v Revenue and Customs; Excs 18 Aug 2005

References: [2005] UKVAT-Excise E00900
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE – RESTORATION – Jurisdiction – Whether Tribunal can entertain appeal against review decision directed by Tribunal under FA 1994 s.16(4)(b) – Whether appellant ‘required the review’ within s.16(2) – No – Whether exclusion compatible with Human Rights Convention – No – Held necessary to read in words under HRA 1998, s.3 – Alternatively exclusion incompatible with Community Law
Jurisdiction – Goods disposed of before original decision under CEMA 1979 s.152(b) to refuse restoration – Whether section 152(b) includes power to make payment when restoration in kind not possible – Yes – Power either implied or read in under HRA s.3 – Not covered by CEMA s.6(2) – Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction
Jurisdiction – Payment when restoration not possible – Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction as to amount – Meaning of ‘restored’ in s.152(b) – Yes by implication or under HRA s.3

TNT UK Ltd v HMRC; UTTC 7 Feb 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 49 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Bishopp J
UTTC CUSTOMS DUTIES – post-clearance demand – goods imported using simplified inward processing relief system – appellant acting as importer’s, or purported importer’s, agent – import declarations submitted by appellant incorrect by reason of importer providing false identity- no bills of discharge provided – Customs Code arts 5, 204 – whether appellant liable for payment of duty and VAT – yes – appeal dismissed