[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 >> Jewitt (t/a A A Jewitt & Sons Coach Hire) v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00731 (27 May 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2004/E00731.html Cite as: [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E731, [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00731

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

EXCISE DUTY— Excise goods found in hold of coach – coach seized – conditional restoration allowed – whether goods for commercial purpose – whether review officer acted reasonably – appeal dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

William Jewitt t/a A A Jewitt & Sons Coach Hire

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: J H Fryer-Spedding CBE (Chairman)

Mrs K Ramm FCA (Member)

Sitting in Newcastle Upon Tyne on 18/3/2004

Mr W Jewitt, Appellant, appeared in person

Miss E Piasecki, of counsel instructed by the Solicitor for Customs and Excise appeared for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION
1. This appeal is made against the decision of a review officer, Mr G Crouch, in a letter dated 26 March 2003. It relates to the conditional restoration of a motor coach, the property of AA Jewitt & Sons. The evidence in this case comprises statements made by Mr Jewitt and his wife Pauline, two officers of the respondents, the oral evidence of Mr Jewitt given at the hearing, and further documentary evidence relating to the request for a review and the eventual appeal.
2. Mr Jewitt said that "AA Jewitt" was his father. At the material time the coach belonged to a partnership of Mr William Jewitt and his brother Brian. At the date of the hearing, however, the coach was owned by a partnership of Mr William Jewitt and his son. Therefore, this appears to be an appeal made by the partnership of Mr William and Brian Jewitt, with Mr William Jewitt appearing on behalf of the partners. We have treated it as such.
3. On 2 December 2002 at Dover Eastern docks a coach, registration number 3287EL, driven by Mr W Jewitt was stopped by the officers of the respondents. Mrs Pauline Jewitt was acting as courier on the coach on which there were 22 passengers. The officers requested the passengers to remove all their tobacco goods from the coach and informed them that their luggage would be moved from the coach and placed in a baggage reclaim for collection. Mr Ian Joseph Currie, a customs officer arranged the unloading of the baggage from the hole of the coach. He identified a number of suitcases and holdalls which contained tobacco and cigarettes. A detailed description of these is given in his statement dated 28 June 2003. Mr Currie asked Mr W Jewitt if he knew to whom that luggage belonged and Mr Jewitt replied that he did not. Mr Jewitt also said that he did not notice anyone putting the suitcases on the coach, nor had he noticed anybody taking what appeared to be empty suitcases on the outward journey. Mr and Mrs Jewitt agreed to make statements to officers.
4. Mr Jewitt was questioned by Mr Steven Michael Potter, a customs officer. Mr Jewitt showed Mr Potter 1000 Lambert & Butler KSF cigarettes and 200 silk cut KSF cigarettes which he said were for him and his wife. Mr Jewitt said that he had been with the coach too Ostende and Bruges for the weekend. This was a private tour organised by his firm. They organised such a trip once a year. He was asked whether he had ever had his coach selected for examination by customs. He said never when driving as AA Jewitt & Sons. He said that "a couple of years back" he had had some beer and tobacco seized. He said that he had not had anything seized from him in the current year. Mr Potter then asked Mr Jewitt if it surprised him to know that Customs had on record that 12 kilos of Turner had been seized from him in January of the current year. Mr Jewitt said that it would surprise him.
5. Mr Jewitt said that he had brought back a box of tobacco and a box of Superkings for his brother and the Silkcut for his wife. He had brought 60 pouches of Golden Virginia for himself and his wife had brought Lambert & Butlers and the Silkcut for a friend. Mr Potter then checked the January record and asked Mr Jewitt if he could recall having had 12 kilos of Turner tobacco seized after declining to answer questions relating to it. Mr Jewitt insisted he did not recall the incident.
6. Mr Potter asked Mr Jewitt who had loaded the bags into the hold. Mr Jewitt said the passengers brought them to him and he had loaded them. The hold had been empty before he loaded it. He could give no explanation as to how the 8 bags, not claimed by passengers, had come to be in the hold. Mr Jewitt said he himself was smoking Turners at the time because he had run out of Golden Virginia and had to borrow a pack.
7. In his evidence to the tribunal, Mr Jewitt said that he recalled that on a previous occasion he had had Turner tobacco seized from him in January. He had taken the blame for another passenger whose goods they probably were. He also said that Mr Potter had not correctly recorded what he had said in his statement. He couldn't himself have put all the bags in the hold.
8. Mrs Jewitt was interviewed by Heidi Virgina Warriner a customs officer. She said that neither she nor her husband had a previous contact with the respondents. Neither had they had goods seized by the respondents before. She said that she and her husband had a large box of Golden Virginia, 200 Silkcut ultra, 1000 Lambert & Butler, 3 bottles of brandy, 3 bottles of barcadi, 1 bottle of vodka, 6 bottles of wine and 2 bottles baileys. They also had £200 worth of Superkings for Mr Brian Jewitt, She said that Mr Brian Jewitt had given them the cash for his cigarettes before they left the United Kingdom,
9. Mrs Jewitt, in relation to the loading of the luggage on the coach, said that she and her husband had put the luggage on the coach, but some of the men had helped actually lift it on. She did not know to whom the unclaimed baggage belonged. She did not think it could have got into the hold without her or her husband's knowledge. She felt that it must belong to a passenger.
10. Following the interviews, Mr Potter formally seized the following excise goods:

120 kilograms Turner hand rolling tobacco

12 kilograms Golden Virginia hand rolling tobacco

10200 Regal cigarettes

3600 Superkings cigarettes

1200 Lambert & Butler cigarettes

500 cigars

11. 5 litres sparkling wine

1 litre vodka

1 litre Baileys liqueur

3 litres Bacardi and Rum

12. 75 litres Cognac
13. He also seized the coach having transported the excise goods liable to forfeiture. Subsequently the respondent offered restoration of the coach on payment of the fee of £7690. Mr Jewitt accepted such conditional restoration. By a letter dated 12 February 2003 the appellants' solicitors, Messrs Nicholson Portnell of Hexham requested a review of the decision to offer conditional restoration. Mr Crouch carried out such a review and set out his decision in his letter dated 26 March 2003 to the appellants' solicitors.
14. Mr Crouch reviewed the material evidence, including the matters set out above. He took into account the material legislation and regulations. He stated that he was satisfied that the excise goods were not held for the appellants' own use and that they were held for commercial purposes. He noted that, in the event, some of the cigarettes had been purchased for Mr Brian Jewitt with funds provided by him. Mr Crouch considered all the circumstances in the context of the current restoration policy of the respondent and decided to confirm the conditional restorational decision.
15. We should say that we did not find Mr Jewitt a cogent witness. In particular, he was evasive about his previous experience of having goods seized by the respondents.
16. We find that the evidence shows that, on the balance of probabilities, the excise goods seized had been the property of Mr William Jewitt, apart from those designated for Mr Brian Jewitt, which would have been imported for a commercial purpose in any event. We also consider that, in reaching his decision, Mr Crouch did take into account all material matters and did not take into account any immaterial matters. Nor could it be said that he reached a decision which no reasonable review officer could have reached. For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal.

J H FRYER-SPEDDING CBE

CHAIRMAN

Release date:

MAN/03/8083