The defendants appealed against confiscation orders made after a finding that they had been involved (separately) in the smuggling of tobacco, suggesting a conflict between the 1992 Regulations and the Directive.
Held: The appeals variously failed and succeeded according to their facts. A person obtains a pecuniary advantage by evading duty or VAT even though the smuggled goods were seized before they could be sold on, though it has to be shown that he would have been personally liable to pay the VAT. There was unlikely to be any incompatibility between the Regulations and European Directive.
Where the goods are brought by sea, the time of their importation is deemed to be the time when the ship carrying them comes within the limits of a port.
Judges:
Hooper LJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Crim 978, [2010] STC 1965, [2010] STI 1593
Links:
Statutes:
Tobacco Products Regulations 2001, Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/3135) 5, Finance (No 2) Act 1992 1(1)(4), Council Directive 92/12/EEC, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 76(5), Criminal Justice Act 1988 71(5)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – May, Regina v HL 14-May-2008
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the . .
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v Jennings HL 14-May-2008
The appellant appealed against the refusal to discharge a restraint order under the 1988 Act. The sum found to have been obtained in the later trial vastly exceeded the sum the defendant said had ever come within his control or benefit.
Held: . .
Cited – Chambers, Regina v CACD 17-Oct-2008
The court found that a customs prosecution for evasion of duty by excess tobacco imports was incorrectly founded, after failing to acknowledge a change in the 1992 Regulations brought in in 2001. Also, a day labourer who had merely assisted in . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office v Mitchell CACD 21-Jan-2009
Sentencing judges should be astute to ensure that they are satisfied that agreements on the amount to be recovered by way of confiscation orders are soundly based. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Mackle, Regina v SC 29-Jan-2014
Several defendants appealed against confiscation orders made against them on convictions for avoiding customs and excise duty by re-importing cigarettes originally intended for export. They had accepted the orders being made by consent, but now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Customs and Excise
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.409983