EXCISE DUTY – Appeal heard in the absence of the Appellant under VAT Tribunals Rules, Rule 26(2) – Appeal under s.16 FA 1994 against a review decision not to offer seized excise goods for restoration – imported excise goods allegedly concealed in a manner appearing to be intended to deceive an officer; s.49(1)(f) CEMA – R on the application of Hoverspeed and Others v CCE considered – held that the Appellant had not shown that either the decision not to offer the goods for restoration or the review decision was unreasonable – appeal dismissed
Citations:
[2003] UKVAT-Excise E00388
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Tanner v Customs and Excise Excs 26-Mar-2004
RESTORATION – Goods only seized – Goods alleged to have been hidden in van – Customs evidence confused and contradictory – Whether review decision based thereon reasonable – No – Further review directed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Customs and Excise
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271486
