[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals (Excise) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals (Excise) Decisions >> Pitts v Customs & Excise [2003] UKVAT(Excise) E00446 (21 July 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2003/E00446.html Cite as: [2003] UKVAT(Excise) E00446, [2003] UKVAT(Excise) E446

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Pitts v Customs & Excise [2003] UKVAT(Excise) E00446 (21 July 2003)

EXCISE DUTY — seizure of vehicle in which excessive goods were carried — vehicle belonging to importer's daughter — refusal to restore the vehicle — deemed upholding of decision — appeal conceded by Commissioners and remitted for further review — findings of fact

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

REBECCA PITTS Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Lady Mitting (Chairman)

Mrs M Crompton

Sitting in public in Manchester on 19 May 2003

Mr Graham Pitts appeared for the Appellant

Mr D Mohyuddin of counsel instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2003
 


DECISION

1. On 1 May 2001 the Appellant's Vauxhall Corsa motorcar P633 TWW was stopped at Western Docks, Dover. In it were the Appellant's father, Mr George Pitts and her partner, Mr John Turner (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the travellers"). In the vehicle were 6 kilograms of tobacco, 6,800 cigarettes; 9 litres of wine, 1.7 litres of spirits and 1 case of beer. Not only was part of the consignment concealed but the travellers made a misdeclaration to the seizing officer as to the quantity of goods being carried. Both the goods and the vehicle were seized.
2. Miss Pitts requested the return of her vehicle, a request which was turned down by the Commissioners by letter dated 1 June 2001. She applied for a review of that decision which was not completed within the 45 day time limit and the decision of 1 June 2001 was therefore deemed to have been upheld.
3. The Appellant appealed against the deemed decision. At the hearing before us, the Respondents applied for a Direction that the appeal be allowed and the case remitted for a further review, the grounds of the application being that "… in the light of Hoverspeed and others that their deemed decision should not be relied on and that the issues raised by the request for restoration should be fully reviewed." The Appellant consented to the application and we made a direction accordingly. However, with the consent of both parties, we felt it would be helpful to the reviewing officer if we were to make a finding of fact on the question of Miss Pitts' knowledge both as to the use to which her vehicle would be put and as to the travellers' intentions when she loaned her vehicle to them. To this end we heard oral evidence from Miss Pitts.
4. Miss Pitts told us that she purchased the vehicle on 4 April 2001. The purchase price was £3,600 which was provided by way of a part exchange allowance on her existing vehicle of £400, an £88 deposit and £3,112 from a finance company.
5. She had driven the vehicle only about three times when her father cut out of the Daily Mirror a coupon for a cheap channel crossing. The entire family were considering going to a Centre Park in France for their summer holiday and her father decided to use the cheap coupon to go across to France to look at the Centre Park. Mr Pitts offered to take his daughter's car on the basis that she did not do a high mileage and he would take the car for a run to run the engine in. Miss Pitts did not need the car that day and agreed to the request. Mr Turner accompanied Mr Pitts, saying that he wished to see how long the journey would take and to form a view as to whether or not the children would be able to sit in the car for the duration of the journey. Miss Pitts told us that another reason why her partner would accompany her father was because her father had a heart condition and Mr Turner would keep him company and share the driving.
6. The Appellant's parents and Mr Turner all smoked and Miss Pitts assumed that they would therefore bring back some duty free cigarettes. They had all been on package holidays before and always did bring back some duty free tobacco. To the best of Miss Pitts' recollection, no discussion had taken place at any stage about bringing back cigarettes. She told us that it did not occur to her that they would be "stupid enough to bring back over the limit" and she saw no need to hold any discussion with them about this. In answer to a question from the tribunal Miss Pitts said to the best of her knowledge none of them had ever brought back goods in excess of the permitted limit before and had never in her presence had any discussion about so doing.
7. She had no communication with her father and partner after they left home with the vehicle until they phoned her after the seizure.
8. It was put to her by Mr Mohyuddin in cross examination that there would be no need for a vehicle which had done 59,000 miles when purchased to be "run in". Miss Pitts replied that she was not a mechanic and to her, her father's suggestion did not seem odd. She respected her father and assumed that he was offering to run the car in as a good will gesture. Mr Mohyuddin also put it to her that it should have occurred to her that they would bring back excess goods as they were only two passengers travelling in a four seater car to which Miss Pitts replied that they were sensible people and she would not have thought that they would do this. She conceded that she had in fact never addressed the matter at all. Mr Mohyuddin also asked why Mr Turner should have told the seizing officer in interview that Miss Pitts knew that the car was being used to bring back hand rolling tobacco. Miss Pitts responded that she could not answer for Mr Turner but assumed he would reply to that effect because he knew that she knew he was a smoker and would bring some tobacco back from a trip abroad.
9. These seizing officer's notes of interview were annexed to a witness statement served by an officer who carried out a later review of the case and which was served upon Miss Pitts. Mr Mohyuddin submitted that her failure to challenge that witness statement implied an acceptance that she did know that the vehicle was to be used for carrying excess goods and that she was therefore complicit in the smuggling attempt. He also contended that the travellers' reasons for the trip lacked credibility in that the vehicle did not need running in and the length of the journey could have been ascertained by Mr Turner by looking at a map. Finally, his contention was that given that her car was being used with only two travellers in it, it should have been apparent to her that excess goods could be brought back.
10. We accepted Miss Pitts' evidence in its entirety. She struck us as a straight forward and honest witness and we have no reason to doubt the truth of what she told us. We find that she was in no way complicit in the travellers' activities and when she lent the vehicle to them had no knowledge of their intentions. We accept that she assumed that they would bring back goods within the permitted limits because they all smoked but that it at no time occurred to her that they would bring back excessive amounts.
11. That therefore is our finding of fact and in accordance with our previously released Direction, the appeal is allowed on the terms set out in therein.

LADY MITTING

CHAIRMAN

Release Date:

MAN/01/8348