[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 >> Robson v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00719 (17 May 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2004/E00719.html Cite as: [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E719, [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00719

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

EXCISE DUTY — imported goods within indicative limits- whether other evidence proving that goods imported for commercial purpose – appeal dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

SHAUN MICHAEL ROBSON Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: J H Fryer-Spedding CBE (Chairman)

Mrs K Ramm FCA (Member)

Sitting in public in Newcastle Upon Tyne on 18 March 2004

The Appellant in person and Miss SC Hurst of Counsel for the appellant

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION
1. This appeal relates to a decision of a review officer Mr R Brenton set out in a letter dated 30 July 2003.
2. On 10 June 2003 the appellant was stopped by officer of the respondents at the U.K. control zone, Coquelles, France. He was returning to the United Kingdom having been on a coach trip to Luxemburg. Mr Nicholas Dunford an officer of the respondents interviewed the appellant on 10 June 2003. The appellant had with him 3200 Lambert and Butler cigarettes, 3 kilos of Golden Virgina HRT and 156 litres of Stella Larger.
3. The appellant said that he had last been abroad 7 months ago when he went to Luxemburg. He was stopped by customs on that occasion. They seized from him the excise goods which he had with him. The appellant said that this was because he had brought them from a Moroccan and the appellant had not obtained a receipt for them.
4. The appellant said that he smoked 20 to 40 cigarettes a day at least. He also smoked "Rolies" at about 40 to 50 a day. He said that his mother had said that if he gave up smoking and lost some weight she would take him on holiday for free.
5. The appellant said that he did not have a packet of cigarettes with him at the time. His packet was on the coach. He said that he had last had a cigarette about an hour ago. Mr Dunford asked him if he wanted a cigarette. The appellant replied that he did not. He would have one later. Later in the interview Mr Dunford asked where the appellant's cigarettes were. The appellant said that he had one Marlborough which he had borrowed. Mr Dunford said that the appellant had informed him that he was travelling alone and asked him where the cigarette came from. The appellant replied "I borrowed it off the coach".
6. Mr Dunford concluded that the appellant appeared not to be a smoker. The appellant could not roll a cigarette. He did not smoke between 5am and 8am on the day of the interview. When asked, he said that he did not wish to smoke then. When he needed to smoke a cigarette he did not smoke it in a natural manner, and apparently had to borrow a cigarette "off the coach" because he did not have any cigarettes with him.
7. The appellant said that no one had given him money to buy cigarettes. He said that he was a self employed scaffolder, but he had just been "laid off" with a payment of £300 which was a part source of £635 which he took out with him for the trip. He said he did not get unemployment benefits. The balance of the money taken abroad had been saved by him over the past 7 months. He now had 83p savings. He said that he was due to begin work the next week as a labourer for Cleveland scaffolding and Seaton Roofing.
8. Mr Dunford ceased the appellant's goods. By a letter dated the 14 June 2003 the appellant requested restoration. He said that the coach trip organiser had informed him that he would be allowed to bring back goods of the quantity which he had in fact brought back. He said that they were for his own personal use. By a letter dated 2^nd July 2003 the respondents informed the appellant that the goods would not be restored.
9. By a letter received by the respondent on the 8 July 2003 the appellant wrote to the respondents requesting a review of the decision not to restore the goods. In this letter he said again that the goods were for his own use and that he was also intending to give his father some tobacco. He said that it was cheaper to get his cigarettes and lager that way.
10. Mr R Brenton, the review officer, carried out a review of the appellant's case by the letter dated 30 July 2003 he referred to the material interview evidence and to the relative statutory provisions. He also referred to the respondent's policy in such restoration cases. He referred to the fact that the seizing officer was satisfied that the tobacco goods were held for a commercial purpose, being not for own use. He concluded that the decision not to restore the appellant's goods should be confirmed.
11. The appellant gave evidence at the tribunal. We do not consider, however, that his evidence added in any material way to what he had stated in the above interview.
12. We consider that Mr Dunford was correct in his view that the appellant had imported the goods for a commercial purpose. It follows that Mr Brenton was correct in taking this fact into account in relation to his review. We further consider that Mr Brenton took into account all material facts and did not take into account any immaterial facts. The conclusion which he reached is not one which no reasonable review officer could have reached. It follows, therefore, that the appeal will be dismissed.

JH FRYER-SPEDDING CBE

CHAIRMAN

Release date: