HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) with effect from 1 April 2011
Excise Duties
Case: E00370 
(Adobe PDF file size 31kb)
Appellant: WHITEHEAD MACHINERY (PARTNERSHIP)
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
Restoration - Third party owner - Tractor and trailer used by lessee for bootlegging - Tractor and trailer seized on entry to UK - Restoration offered to lessor (Appellant) on payment of £5000 fee - Whether reasonable - Finding that Appellant had not acted with lack of care - Appeal allowed - Re-review directed
Case: E00372 (Adobe PDF file size 40kb)
Appellant: WILLIAM JOSEPH CREAMER
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
EXCISE - Restoration Refusal - Application by Customs for Direction under FA 1994 s.16(4)(b) opposed by Appellant - Appeal listed - Customs 'consented' to appeal being allowed - Primary facts in dispute - Determination by Tribunal on whether tobacco for own use - Gora v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1992] V&DR 49 applied - Direction for new review on basis of facts found and Hoverspeed C.A.
Case: E00374
Appellant: DESPENA HACON
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
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
Case: E00378
Appellant: ERIC DARBY
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
EXCISE DUTY -Restoration of goods - Reasonableness of refusal - Decision not to restore wrong in law and unsustainable on facts - Appeal allowed
Case: E00380
Appellant: T D G (U K) LIMITED
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
EXCISE DUTY - tobacco products duty - conditions of approval of excise warehouse - refusal of application to vary approval to permit the storage of duty suspended tobacco products manufactured in the United Kingdom for home use - extent of jurisdiction of tribunal - whether decision to refuse unreasonable - yes - whether policy to refuse all such applications unlawful - not decided - whether 2001 Regulations ultra vires the enabling Act - no - whether decision discriminated between national and intra-Community transactions and so incompatible with Art 13 of excise directive - no - whether decision incompatible with Art 15(2) of excise directive which deems authorization to be for both national and intra-Community movements - no - whether 2001 Regulations incompatible with excise directive - no - whether Court of Justice should be requested to give a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Arts 13 and/or 15.2 of the excise directive - no - appeal allowed - TPDA 1979 s 7; CEMA 1979 ss 92 and 93; FA 1994 s 16(4); EC Treaty Art 234; Council Directive (EEC) No 92/12 Arts 13 and 15; Tobacco Products Regulations 1979 SI 1979 No. 904 Reg 13(3); Tobacco Products Regulations 2001 SI. 2001 No 1712 Reg 9(4)
Case: E00383 (Adobe PDF file size 49kb)
Appellant: JOHN ELTON RAINBOW
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
EXCISE DUTY - Restoration of goods - Restoration of car - Proportionality - Half imported goods for own use, half for resale at cost - Seized goods not offered for restoration - Whether decision reasonable - Yes - Seized car offered for restoration on payment of amount equal to excise duty on all imported goods - Whether offer reasonable and proportionate - Decision quashed on basis that amount demanded should relate to excise duty on the goods imported for resale - Matter sent back for further review - CEMA 1979 s.152(b)
Case: E00242 (Adobe PDF file size 95kb)
Appellant: JOHN CLARKE
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
EXCISE DUTIES - importation of excise goods purchased in Belgium and France without payment of UK duty - whether goods were for personal use - seizure by Commissioners of car used for importation- car belonging to importer's son - son ignorant of importer's purpose - refusal to restore - whether reasonable nature of tribunal's jurisdiction - Commissioners' policy
Case: E00219 (Adobe PDF file size 69kb)
Appellant: JOSEPH ASHLEY WADE & ANDREA DEAN Appellants
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
EXCISE DUTY -Appellants imported 18 kilos of hand rolling tobacco and 1000 cigarettes - excise goods and male appellant's car seized because appellants failed to satisfy Customs that goods not intended for commercial purpose - Customs refused to restore goods and car - no review of decision carried out within statutory time limit - appellants produced evidence to support claim that they could afford to pay for goods - whether Customs' decision not to restore reasonable - appeal allowed
Case: E00223
Appellant: THOMAS HARDY KENDAL LIMITED Appellant
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
ASSESSMENT - Excise duty on made wine - overfilling of bottles - due diligence appeal dismissed
Case: E00353 (Adobe PDF file size 55kb)
Appellant: AVTAR SINGH JHALLI & KATHLEEN MARGUERITE JOHNS
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
EXCISE DUTY - Restoration of seized goods and vehicle - Goods alleged to have been hidden in car - Review out of time - No reasons given for original decision not to restore - Whether decision "reasonable" - Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 arts 3, 3A, 5 - CEMA 1979 ss 49(1), 151(b) - FA 1994 ss 14(2), 15(1), (2), 16(4) - Appeal allowed
Case: E00341(Adobe PDF file size 51kb)
Appellant: FERAL BIRDANE
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
EXCISE DUTY - Restoration of seized goods - Review of decision not to restore - Whether review decision based on correct evidence - Function of review officer not to determine whether decision not to restore "reasonable" - Whether review officer carried out proper function - Whether decision "reasonable" - Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 art 5 - CEMA 1979 ss 121(1), 152, 141(1)(b) - Appeal allowed
Case: E00339 (Adobe PDF file size 54kb)
Appellant: TRACIE LORRAINE OLDLAND
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
EXCISE GOODS - Importation in excess of indicative limits - Seizure of goods and vehicle - Refusal to restore vehicle - Reasonableness, proportionality - Appeal allowed
Case: E00337 (Adobe PDF file size 52kb)
Appellant: MARCEL WATTS
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
Importation of goods liable to excise duties - Whether Appellant can show exoneration from excise duties because goods are for own use - Goods and vehicle seized - Commissioners' discretion to restore - Commissioners' policy - Reasonableness - Tribunals limited jurisdiction - Appeal dismissed
Case: E00262 (Adobe PDF file size 101kb)
Appellant: B S GORA HAMER & PERKS LTD/ PARTY BOOZE (LIVERPOOL) LTD
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
EXCISE AND CUSTOMS DUTIES - Detention of excise goods - Refusal to release - Excise goods detained but not yet seized as liable to forfeiture - Whether appeal lies to tribunal against refusals to restore - No - FA 1994 s.16 and Sch 5 para 2(r) - Whether detention violates right to peaceful enjoyment of property within article 1 of First Protocol to ECHR - No
APPEAL - Human rights - Fair Trial - Independent and impartial tribunal - Criminal charge - Seized and forfeited goods - Refusal to restore - Right to fair trial - Whether appeal concerns a criminal charge within Art 6.2 and 6.3 - No - Whether appeal engages civil rights and obligations within Art 6.1 - Yes - Whether tribunal's review jurisdiction affords a fair hearing - Yes - FA 1994 s.16(4) and ECHR Art 6
Case: E00271 (Adobe PDF file size 81kb)
Appellant: BARRIE PAUL COOPER- and - The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
Respondent:
EXCISE DUTY : Restoration of excise goods and vehicle - Importation of quantities of excise goods in excess of amounts set out in Schedule to Personal Reliefs Order - Decision not to restore upheld on review - A ground of decision that Appellant's expenditure incommensurate with income- Failure of Commissioners to take into consideration Appellant's other financial resources - Whether decision reasonable - Appeal allowed - Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 (SI 1992/3155) art 5(2), (3)-(3C) - FA 1994 s 16(4)
Case: E00288 (Adobe PDF file size 73kb)
Appellant: DAVID & CHRISTINE ROBERTS
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
Dutiable goods - Attempt to satisfy officers that they were for use of importer and family - Seizure of goods and vehicle - Refusal to restore - Presumption of commerciality - Commissioners' discretion - Interviews -Reasonableness - Proportionality - Appeal allowed
Case: E00285 (Adobe PDF file size 30kb)
Appellant: PATRICK JOHN WHITE
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
Tobacco products - Appellant unable to satisfy Commissioners that they were for his own use - Refusal to restore - Presumption of commerciality - Lindsay v Commissioners of Customs and Excise considered - Commissioners' decision not unreasonable - Appeal dismissed
Case: E00284 (Adobe PDF file size 35kb)
Appellant: MILLS (L J)
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
EXCISE DUTY - Restoration of seized car - Whether excise goods imported for non-commercial purpose - No - Appeal dismissed
Case: E00286 (Adobe PDF file size 24kb)
Appellant: HARINDER SINGH BRAR
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
EXCISE - Restoration refusal - Application by Commissioners for direction for further review - Vehicle lent - Owner's ignorance of trip accepted - Need for proportionality - Appeal allowed - Further review directed.
PRACTICE - Non-appearance by Appellant - Commissioners appeared - Whether "no party . appears" - No - Trib Rules rule 26(1) - Whether non-appearance constitutes want of prosecution within Rule 18 - Yes - Dismissal not appropriate in circumstances
Case: E00283 (Adobe PDF file size 24kb)
Appellant: RITA HEGARTY
Respondent: The Commissioners of Custom & Excise
EXCISE DUTY : Restoration of car - Decision not to restore to 3rd party owner car deliberately used for commercial smuggling - Reasonable to conclude that owner knew of that use - Appeal dismissed
Case: E00249 (Adobe PDF file size 28kb)
Appellant: AVIS (MICHELLE)
Respondent:
Excise Duties - Cigarettes imported in car belonging to third party - Car seized - Restoration of seized car - Refusal to restore car - Reasonableness - Whether third party's innocence of drivers' activities taken into account - No - Decision quashed on that ground - Whether third party who loses valuable car is dealt with disproportionately by comparison to drivers who lose less valuable excise goods - Appeal deferred for further argument in light of Granger
Case: E00248 (Adobe PDF file size 29kb)
Appellant: RONALD HENDRY
Respondent:
Excise Duty : Refusal to restore car - Excise goods being carried partly for own use and partly for sale, otherwise than for profit, to friends etc - Whether refusal to restore reasonable - No
Case: E00247 (Adobe PDF file size 90kb)
Appellant: MISS MOLUK ADAM AVLI (ALI)
Respondent:
Excise Duties : Excise duty-owner of car lending to a friend-friend on-lending car to another person not knowing that person would use it for smuggling-whether reasonable not to restore car to owner-whether disproportionate violation of owner's right to peaceful possession of the car-appeal allowed
Case: EO0243 (Adobe PDF file size 20kb)
Appellant: MRS DANNATT
Respondent:
PROCEDURE: Disclosure - European Commission Letter of Formal Notice - Appeal against decision to restore car on payment of restoration fee - Formal Letter opens enquiry into UK's response to bootlegging leading possibly to infraction proceedings against UK - Issue in present appeal is whether UK's policy on restoration of cars used for bootlegging is so disproportionate as to be unreasonable - Application dismissed
Case: E00238 (Adobe PDF file size 70kb)
Appellant: PAUL ROBERT KERSLAKE
Respondent: ELAINE BARBARA GREEN
Excise Duties - ¾ seizure of passengers' goods ¾seizure of driver's car and goods ¾non-restoration of goods and car ¾ whether Commissioners' decisions reasonable
Case: E00237 (Adobe PDF file size 75kb)
Appellant: MUSTAFA MEVLANA
Respondent:
Excise - Restoration refusal - Tobacco and alcohol - Concealment - 5 kg of tobacco conealed in spare wheel well in boot - Other excise goods also in boot - Whether "packed or found with" concealed goods - Yes - Use for concealment - Other tobacco concealed in glove box and handbag - Secondary reason for non-restoration that goods paid for by cousin - CEMA 1979 s 49(1)(f), 141(1)(a)(b) - Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992, Art 5(1) - Appeal dismissed
Case: E00236 (Adobe PDF file size 32kb)
Appellant: COLIN JOHN RICHELL
Respondent:
Excise Duty - Restoration of car - Restoration of excise goods - Excise goods imported in car - Small proportion of cigarettes and tobacco (between 1-3% in value) concealed - Whether decision not to restore car unreasonable and disproportionate - Yes - Whether decision not to restore excise goods unreasonable - No - Appeal allowed in part
Case: E00233 (Adobe PDF file size 26kb)
Appellant: HOULTON MEATS LIMITED
Respondent:
Excise Duty : Restoration of company car - company did not know employee was taking caking car abroad - appeal dismissed
Case: E00232 (Adobe PDF file size 29kb)
Appellant: RONALD HENDRY
Respondent:
Excise Duty - Refusal to restore car - Excise goods being carried partly for own use and partly for sale, otherwise than for profit, to friends etc - Whether refusal to restore reasonable - No
Case: E00215 (Adobe PDF file size 75kb)
Appellant: HELEN TAYLOR
Respondent:
Importation of large quantities of dutiable goods - Seizure of vehicle - Vehicle belonging to driver's partner - Restoration offered subject to conditions - Reasonableness - Presumption of commerciality, appeal dismissed
Case: E00212 (Adobe PDF file size 52kb)
Appellant: ANTHONY HENDY
Respondent:
RESTORATION REFUSAL - Vehicle - Appellant disabled - Importing cigarettes and tobacco 5 times guideline - Heavy smoker - Part to be reimbursed by family - Larger quantity allowed through 7 weeks earlier - Little detail recorded but Notice 1 served - Disability not regarded as relevant by Review Officer - Wrong test applied by Review Officer - Need for proportionality - Finance Act 1994 s.16(4) - Further review directed with proper reasons
Case: E00201 (Adobe PDF file size 57kb)
Appellant: SUKHDEV SINGH
Respondent:
Excise Duty - Seizure of vehicle and goods - Commissioners refusal to restore - Reasonableness of decision - Proportionality - Balance - Nature of decision on review - Remitted to Commissioners for further review - s.16 4(b) FA 1994
Case: E00200 (Adobe PDF file size 97kb)
Appellant: PHILIP J LETTE
Respondent:
Restoration of vehicle - Refusal to restore - Reasonableness - Proportionality - Commissioners required to conduct further review s.16 FA 1994
Case: E00199
Appellant: MRS DANNATT
Respondent:
PROCEDURE - Disclosure - European Commission Letter of Formal Notice - Appeal against decision to restore car on payment of restoration fee - Formal Letter opens enquiry into UK's response to bootlegging leading possibly to infraction proceedings against UK - Issue in present appeal is whether UK's policy on restoration of cars used for bootlegging is so disproportionate as to be unreasonable - Application dismissed
Case: E00188
Appellant: AYKUT ATES
Respondent:
EXCISE DUTY - owner of car lending it to a friend for a specific purpose not knowing that the friend would use it for bootlegging - whether reasonable not to restore car to innocent owner - whether disproportionate violation of the owner's right to peaceful possession of the car - appeal allowed
Case: E00187
Appellant: BRIAN SHAW
Respondent:
EXCISE DUTIES - Alcohol and cigarettes brought in to UK in car - cigarettes not for personal consumption - non-restoration of seized car - whether Commissioners' policy reasonable - whether a disproportionate violation of the owner's right to peaceful possession of the car.
Case: E00173 (Adobe PDF file size 37kb)
Appellant: RONALD P ANGLISS
Respondent:
EXCISE DUTIES - Procedure - Right of appeal - Strike out application - Request for review - Whether Appellant gave notice in writing to Commissioners requiring them to review decision not to restore goods - Construction of expression "require them to review that decision" - Commissioners' application to strike out dismissed - FA 1994 ss14-16 - Art 6 of ECHR
Case: E00157 (Adobe PDF file size 50kb)
Appellant: CLIFBREAKERS LIMITED
Respondent:
EXCISE DUTY - hydrocarbon oil - whether vehicles are digging machines - converted Land Rovers fitted with below-floor compressor, hydraulic power pack and electrical generator - whether designed and constructed for excavation - no - whether used on roads for other purposes - in one case, yes - further vehicle with compressor above the floor - decision deferred for parties to provide further evidence
Case: E00144
Appellant: MICHAEL GABE
Respondent:
Excise Duty - Importation of quantities of beer and tobacco goods in excess of amounts specified in Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 - Seizure of vehicle owned by third party - Whether Commissioners' decision reasonable - S.16(4) Finance Act 1994
Case: E00143
Appellant: JANE WHITING
Respondent:
Excise Duty - Bootlegging - Seizure of car used in bootlegging operation - Car not belonging to bootlegger - Commissioners offered to restore car on payment of restoration charge - Restoration charge fixed on basis that car "owner" was blameworthy - Whether decision to impose that condition reasonable - Yes - CEMA 1979 s.152(b)
Case: E00139
Appellant: Betty Delores Butcher
Respondent:
EXCISE DUTY - Dishonest underdeclaration of betting duty - whether amount of duty assessed to the best judgment of Customs and Excise - consideration of amount of penalty s.1 & 2 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, Reg 4 of the General Betting Duty Regs 1987 and s.8(1) Finance Act 1994.
Case: E00133
Appellant: S E Bunting and B J Bunting T/A Bunting & Sons
Respondent:
Excise Duty - Hydrocarbon oil - Repayment of excise duty on heavy fuel oil - Relief for horticultural producers - Oil used for heating greenhouses for breeding and cultivating "beneficial insects" - Beneficial insects sold for protecting crops from destructive insects - Whether insects horticultural produce - Appeal dismissed.
