[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 >> Roebuck& Ors v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00779 (13 August 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2004/E00779.html Cite as: [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E779, [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00779

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

E00779

EXCISE DUTY — father and two sons importing 18 kg hand rolling tobacco and 15,000 cigarettes — forfeiture of goods — whether goods should be restored — whether review decision was reasonable — whether tobacco was for own use — appeal allowed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

PETER ROEBUCK Appellant

STEVEN PAUL ROEBUCK

GARY ROEBUCK

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Mr I E Vellins (Chairman)

Mrs G Pratt (Member)

Sitting in public in York on 22 July 2004

Mr Peter Roebuck for the Appellants

Mr R Spragg, of counsel, instructed by the Solicitor's Office of HM Customs and Excise, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION
1. In this appeal the Appellants are Peter Roebuck together with his sons Steven Paul Roebuck and Gary Roebuck who reside in Leeds. They were stopped at Eastern Docks, Dover on 14 June 2003 when they were returning from a coach trip to Luxemburg and France with 18 kg tobacco, approximately 15,000 cigarettes, 1.2 litres of vodka, 2.25 litres sparkling wine and 1.4 litres whisky. These were seized by the Commissioners. They requested restoration of the goods on 18 June 2003. A decision was made by the Commissioners to refuse restoration of the goods on 31 July 2003. The Appellants requested a review of that decision. Following a review the decision not to restore was confirmed to the Appellants by the Commissioners on 13 November 2003. Each of the Appellants appealed by notice dated 29 November 2003 in which each Appellant contended that "the goods were for my personal use and not for resale".
2. At the hearing of this appeal at York on 22 July 2004 Mr Peter Roebuck attended to represent himself and his two sons. The two sons did not appear or attend. The Commissioners were represented by Mr R Spragg, counsel.
3. The evidence on behalf of the Commissioners was in the form of witness statements from the officers at Dover and from the review officer which had been served on the Appellants. The Appellants had not made any objections to the witness statements. In the Commissioners' bundle were also letters which Mr Peter Roebuck had written.
4. At the hearing of the appeal Mr Roebuck gave evidence on behalf of himself and his sons.
5. From the evidence we find the following facts.

The interviews at Dover

6. The interview of Mr Peter Roebuck at Dover was conducted by an officer of the Commissioners, Michelle Toptalo. She asked Peter Roebuck if he was travelling alone. He replied in the affirmative. He agreed that he had been travelling on a coach. He was asked if he had purchased any cigarettes or tobacco and replied that he had purchased enough for him and his sons. The officer then asked him if his sons had travelled on that day and he replied in the affirmative. The officer asked him why he had told her that he had been travelling alone, and he replied because one son was ahead and the other one had been pulled in by the officer.
7. Peter Roebuck told the officer that he had been to Luxemburg and that he had purchased with his sons 15,000 cigarettes and 18 kg tobacco which was to be shared equally among them. He told the officer that his share of the goods was for himself and his wife. In total the three of them had purchased three boxes each containing 25 cartons of 200 cigarettes and 12 packs of 6 kg tobacco. He said that it was all their money and that he had paid the cashier and that his share had cost £800. He said that he was a bricklayer and gave details of his wages. His wife worked in a hospital. He and his wife had substantial savings of over £200,000. He had paid for the goods with cash from his wages. He said that he smoked Regal cigarettes but also liked tobacco. He smoked about 300 to 400 a week, about 50 a day, made up of cigarettes and tobacco. When he rolled cigarettes he rolled approximately 30 to 35 from a 50 gram pouch of tobacco. His wife smoked 300 cigarettes a week but no tobacco. He had hoped that the goods would last him for about one year. He had in his pocket a packet of 20 Regal cigarettes with 18 left in the packet. He said that he used his son's lighter. He had last travelled about five years previously and was aware of the Customs guidelines and had seen Public Notice 1 given to him by the bus driver.
8. Mr Peter Roebuck was asked why he and his sons were not walking through the controls together. He replied that they were told to come off and got in the wrong queue at Immigration and got split up, and he had not known where to go. He said that his eldest son, Gary, lived with him, and that he and Gary worked together as bricklayers. He said that Gary had a similar income to his. He confirmed that all of the goods carried between Peter Roebuck and his sons were for the joint purchase and that they had got all the tobacco and cigarettes together in Luxemburg and had not bought any goods on the ferry.
9. Steven Roebuck was interviewed by another officer of the Commissioners, Mr Gary Rodgers. The officer asked him if he was travelling alone and he replied "yes I'm on a coach". He said that he had been to Luxemburg. He was carrying bags. He said that in one bag was Golden Virginia tobacco although he did not know how much, and in the other bag was 25 sleeves of Regal cigarettes. He had had no dealings before with the Commissioners and was aware of the prohibitions and restrictions. The officer tallied the goods which were 7.5 kg Golden Virginia hand rolling tobacco, 5,140 Regal cigarettes, 2.25 litres of sparkling wine and 1.4 litres of whisky. When asked what he would do with the goods he replied "For me. Smoke 'em". He said that the goods cost just over £700. He was asked if he had a receipt but he replied that he did not, and that he did not know where it was gone but he had one in the shop. He said that he smoked two pouches of hand rolling tobacco a week and would roll 100 to 110 roll ups per pouch. He just smoked cigarettes at the weekend, about 40 a night. Some were for his girlfriend and she smoked 30 to 40 a day. He worked as a fabricator welder and gave details of his income. He lived with his girlfriend in a council house and gave details of his outgoings. He said that he spent on smoking between himself and his girlfriend about £15 per day, about £105 per week. He had in his pocket an open packet of Regal cigarettes marked "L" and a lighter. He said that this came out of the open carton. He said that he had bought 26 cartons. He had read the leaflet on the coach. He had last travelled abroad to Greece in 2000 on holiday.
10. Mr Steven Roebuck was questioned by the officer about having initially told the officer that he had 25 cartons of cigarettes, and the officer asked if he had bought 26. He replied that he had got one on the ferry. The officer indicated that this was marked "Luxemburg". Steven Roebuck told the officer that he had bought them off a bloke on the ferry as he did not wish to open the others that were on the coach. He did not know the name of the bloke on the ferry but it was not his brother or father. The officer then asked him if he had travelled with his brother and father and Steven Roebuck agreed that he had. The officer asked him why he had initially told the officer that he had travelled alone. Steven Roebuck replied "In my eyes I'm a bloke". He confirmed that his father had the receipt for all the goods, although from his initial analysis the officer thought that he had purchased the goods on his own behalf and got a receipt for himself and mislaid it. The officer asked him if the tax had been paid in Luxemburg on the carton of cigarettes that he had bought on board. Mr Steven Roebuck replied "no". The officer pointed out that when he and his brother had been stopped there was "one carton down" but Steven Roebuck stated that these cigarettes "were not that".
11. While Mr Peter Roebuck was being questioned, Gary Roebuck came back into the baggage examination area to join his father, after Gary Roebuck had already walked through the controls a short while before. An officer asked him about the goods that had been with him. Gary Roebuck told him that the goods were on the coach. He said that he had been with his father and brother. He said that he had a box of vodka on the coach. When the officer examined the coach he found a blue carrier bag containing tobacco goods which Gary Roebuck agreed were his goods.
12. Gary Roebuck was interviewed by an officer, Russell Osbourn. He told the officer that he had been to Luxemburg and had bought 25 cartons of Regal cigarettes and 12 packets of tobacco costing roughly £800 each. He had travelled with his father and brother. He said that they had put their money together and that the receipts for the goods was all contained in the one receipt. He stated that he was not a revenue trader and that no one had assisted him with the finance of the purchase of the goods. He confirmed that he was a 33 year old bricklayer and that he had used his own money. He intended to smoke the goods himself with some for his girlfriend and some for his grandfather. He said that he smoked 30 to 40 a day, both cigarettes and roll ups, but mostly roll ups. He gave details of his earnings and savings and confirmed that he lived with his parents. He stated that he was not intending to sell the goods. He had last travelled abroad about a year previously when he was working in Rhodes. He stated that he rolled about 20 cigarettes a day, and smoked two or three pouches a week. He had on him a packet of Regal cigarettes with 19 cigarettes in it and a lighter. Gary Roebuck told the officer that he had been in front and when he turned round his father and brother were not there so he came back. He had left the vodka and tobacco he was carrying on the coach before he came back for his father and brother. The officer put to him that the quantities of tobacco and cigarettes did not add up, and he replied that there should be 12 kg and 15,000 cigarettes and they had bought three boxes each. He expected his cigarettes and tobacco to last about a year. He was asked why he had not told the officer about the tobacco he had carried through and left outside. He replied that the officer knew about the tobacco because it was on the receipt that his father had. He confirmed that he worked with his father.
13. Following the interviews the officers were not satisfied that the goods were not for a commercial purpose and were seized. Seized from Peter Roebuck were 6 kg hand rolling tobacco and 5,000 cigarettes, from Gary Roebuck 4.5 kg hand rolling tobacco, 4,800 cigarettes and 12 litres of vodka, and from Steven Roebuck 7.5 kg hand rolling tobacco, 5,140 cigarettes, 3 bottles of sparkling wine and 2 bottles of whisky.

The review

14. On 18 June 2003 Mr Peter Roebuck wrote to the Commissioners requesting the return of his goods and those of his sons. He had stated in the letter that they were all very tired by the time they got to Dover and the coach was only half full. He had not been sitting with his sons so they did not get off the coach together. He had noticed his younger son being stopped by Customs but he did not know that his eldest son had gone through the controls and was outside with other passengers from the coach. He stated that he had explained that they each had 5,000 cigarettes, 6 kg tobacco and 4 bottles of vodka. The sparkling wine and whisky were free drinks. He confirmed that all of the tobacco goods were on one receipt. He wrote that he had stayed to answer questions because he had done nothing wrong and wanted to get matters sorted out. He confirmed that all the goods purchased were for their own personal use and that of the close family.
15. Following letters from the Commissioners refusing to restore the goods, Mr Peter Roebuck wrote again requesting a review of the decision. He denied bringing goods in for sale.
16. The review officer accepted the request by Peter Roebuck for a review of the decision not to restore the goods to himself or his sons, out of time. The officer noted the wage slips that Mr Roebuck had sent.
17. The officer, Mrs H Marshall, in her letter of 13 November 2003 setting out her review, concluded that she was not persuaded to restore the seized goods to any of the three passengers, for the following reasons:-

1) Both Peter Roebuck and Steven Roebuck had told two different officers that they were travelling alone, at first, before admitting to the officers that Peter Roebuck and his two sons were travelling together. The officer concluded that they had wished to mislead the officers;

2) They had a large quantity of tobacco goods between them. It appeared that Steven Roebuck had 200 cigarettes that were not duty paid and did not qualify for relief;

3) There appeared to be 200 cigarettes missing from the 75 sleeves or cartons purchased in the shop;

4) Initially Steven Roebuck had stated that he had purchased his own goods and had lost his receipt. The officer concluded that this was a deliberate attempt by him to mislead the Commissioners. Peter Roebuck and Gary Roebuck had said that they had pooled their money to purchase the tobacco goods yet had produced no evidence to demonstrate where the money came from. The officer concluded that the goods were not genuinely shared between them but were bought in bulk for some commercial purpose.

5) When Peter Roebuck had been asked what he smoked he had replied "Regal but I do like tobacco". That statement gave the impression that he did not normally smoke tobacco. The officer queried therefore why he had purchased such a large quantity, unless it was for some other purpose. The officer considered that Peter Roebuck's statement that he obtained 30 to 40 roll ups from one 50 g pouch was unrealistic and was an indicator that he did not normally smoke tobacco;

6) When stopped by Customs they all had an open packet of Regal cigarettes on them. Those of Steven Roebuck were from the carton purchased on board the ferry, and since he appeared to have been three packets short of a full carton, it seemed likely to the officer that they all had cigarettes from this illegal carton. It was strange to the officer that two of them had only one cigarette missing from their open packet of cigarettes. The officer would have expected that heavy smokers would have smoked more than one cigarette during a sea crossing of at least one hour's duration. He concluded that they had taken one cigarette out of a packet just to give the impression that they were smokers. Peter Roebuck did not have a lighter which was unusual for a heavy smoker.

7) Gary Roebuck had said that he had purchased 75 cartons of cigarettes and 12 packs of tobacco, yet later in his interview he did not seem to know how much tobacco he had had in his bag and thought that there should be 12 kg altogether, when there were 18 kg in total. He was in fact carrying 4.5 kg tobacco and 5,140 cigarettes and Steven Roebuck had 7.5 kg tobacco and 4,800 cigarettes including the extra carton purchased on the ferry. The officer concluded that the goods had not been shared equally as one would expect and indeed as they had maintained;

8) Peter Roebuck had told the officer that he earned £330 per week net and that Gary Roebuck earned the same as him. Gary Roebuck had told an officer that he earned £500 to £600 per week which according to his wage slips was not an accurate reflection of his income. The officer concluded that Gary Roebuck had misled the officer into believing that he had a greater income than he really had.

18. Subsequently each Appellant served a notice of appeal dated 29 November 2003, each contending that the goods were for their own personal use and not for resale.

Evidence of Peter Roebuck at hearing of appeal

19. Mr Peter Roebuck gave evidence at the hearing of the appeal that he and his sons had read in a local newspaper about a trip to Luxemburg by coach for cheap drink and cigarettes. They went on the Friday evening 12 June 2003 returning on the Sunday 14 June 2003. He said it was the first time they had been on one of the trips. They had taken the ferry from Dover to Luxemburg where they stopped at a supermarket and everyone on the coach had purchased cigarettes and tobacco. Then the coach took them to France, where the people on the coach were purchasing spirits and beer which was cheaper in France than in Luxemburg. He said that everyone on the coach put their cigarettes and tobacco in black bin liners. It appeared to him that other people on the coach had been on such a trip before as they seemed to know each other, all except the Roebuck family. The coach had set off from Leeds and had stopped at Wakefield and in other towns to pick people up who had booked for the trip. The people had booked from the advertisement in the Yorkshire newspaper. The Roebucks had brought with them their own bag. On the return ferry to Dover, the coach passengers got on the coach on board the ship and as it was driving off the ferry, they were told that the coach was going to be stopped and searched. Mr Peter Roebuck said that the coach driver told them to take everything off the coach or the Customs might keep anything they found on the coach. People on the coach told Mr Roebuck to take their tobacco and cigarettes out of their own bag and put them in the bin liners that the coach driver had supplied.
20. Mr Peter Roebuck said that he and his sons split up their goods roughly equally. When they got off the coach they did not know where to go. The coach driver was telling Mr Roebuck to hurry as the coach driver did not want to be held up behind other coaches. There was a barrier to pass by and Mr Roebuck and his sons found themselves split up by the barrier. Two of the sons ducked under a barrier that Mr Roebuck went around, and all three of them were stopped separately and questioned separately. Mr Roebuck complained that the officer who interviewed him seemed to be very bitter and hostile. He said that he asked the officer how much he was entitled to bring back into the United Kingdom, and the officer had told him that he could bring back as much as he liked as long as it was for his own consumption. He had asked how much that was and she told him that she did not know.
21. Mr Roebuck said that the passengers from the coach were asked to put onto a table or desk the items that they had bought and were given the chance to walk away and leave them or to stop and sort it out. He said that he wanted to sort matters out and stayed for the interviews as did his sons. This had caused them to miss the coach, and they later had to return home by a bus to York and a taxi to Leeds. He said that there was no consistent treatment of the passengers. Mr Peter Roebuck said that when the tobacco had been purchased at the warehouse in Luxemburg it had been in 3 kg sealed packages. He and his sons had each purchased 6 kg tobacco and 5,000 cigarettes.
22. Peter Roebuck said that his cigarettes and tobacco were to be smoked by himself and his wife. He confirmed that no one had contributed to the cost of the purchase of the goods and no one had contributed towards the cost of the travel. He confirmed that he had not intended to resell any of the goods. Most of the cigarettes that he purchased were for his wife who did not smoke rolling tobacco. He himself intended to smoke the rolling tobacco and some of the cigarettes. He said that he smoked about 300 cigarettes a week including those that he had rolled himself from tobacco. This was the only occasion that they had travelled to buy cigarettes and tobacco and he had thought that the goods would last him about a year. The money had come from his own wages and savings. His wife normally smoked about 20 cigarettes a day. He had been tired from the journey and this may have accounted for why any mistakes may have been made in the addition of the items. He had travelled with two of his three sons, and none of his sons had ever been in trouble before. He confirmed that none of them were purchasing goods for resale, and that the entire goods were for their own personal use. They were not smugglers.
23. Peter Roebuck stated that his son Gary worked with him as a bricklayer, but Gary also had another job bricklaying for himself so that the income of Gary was more than the income of Peter Roebuck. He thought that Gary's cigarettes and tobacco would have lasted Gary about one to one and a half years. Gary was not buying the goods for anyone else. Gary had intended to smoke the tobacco and cigarettes himself but he had told Peter Roebuck that he had intended to give some of the cigarettes and tobacco to his grandparents as they smoked. Gary Roebuck had not told Peter Roebuck about anyone else that Gary Roebuck would give cigarettes to.
24. Peter Roebuck said that his son Steven lived with a girlfriend and had told Peter before the trip that Steven was buying the tobacco and cigarettes for himself and his girlfriend who also smoked. Mr Peter Roebuck did not know how many cigarettes a day each smoked.
25. Peter Roebuck said that Gary Roebuck lived with Peter Roebuck and his wife at home and contributed towards his keep although not as much as Gary Roebuck had said at the interview.
26. Peter Roebuck said at the hearing that before he went on the trip he had believed that as the United Kingdom was part of the European Community he could buy what he liked in Luxemburg and France and bring it back as long as it was for his own use. He had not been told of any limits or guidelines. He said that when they got off the coach, they were split up in the rush and crowd, and had not deliberately gone through separately. He said that when he had initially agreed with the officer that he had travelled alone, he had not intended to mislead the officer, and had not intended to give the impression that he and his sons had not been travelling on the same coach. Indeed he said that he had told the officer that the three of them had purchased the goods together on one receipt and that he had paid over the money himself for the tobacco and cigarettes, having collected money from his two sons before paying the money over to the cashier. The three of them had put the cigarettes and tobacco onto one trolley and had been given one receipt. He agreed that his son Steven had not told the truth to the officer when Steven told the officer that Steven had paid for his goods and had lost the receipt. Steven had also not told the truth to the officer when Steven had told the officer that Steven had bought cigarettes on the ferry. Peter Roebuck confirmed that Steven Roebuck had not bought cigarettes on the ferry. Peter Roebuck had asked Steven Roebuck specifically about this and Steven Roebuck had told his father that he had not bought any cigarettes on the ferry. The three of them had not had any guilty intentions. Gary Roebuck would not have returned from the coach back to the area where his father was being questioned if he had had any guilty intentions.
27. Mr Peter Roebuck said that he had told the truth at the interview when he said that he obtained 30 to 40 roll up cigarettes from tobacco as he made them quite thick. Peter Roebuck preferred to smoke roll ups on his building site rather than cigarettes. Other people were less likely to ask for cigarettes if he was smoking roll ups. Gary had not told him about seeing any leaflets on the coach. He knew that Gary had a girlfriend but did not know anything about her smoking habits.

Conclusions

28. We have considered all the evidence in this appeal. We find that Mr Peter Roebuck was an honest and credible witness and we believed his evidence given at the hearing. We are satisfied that Peter Roebuck and his two sons in June 2003 travelled by coach to Luxemburg and France to purchase tobacco, cigarettes and a small quantity of liquor for their own use. We are satisfied that they were not intending to purchase the goods for commercial use. We are satisfied that they were not smugglers. We are satisfied that all three of them had sufficient income and savings in order to fund the purchase of the goods from their own resources, and that no one else was contributing towards the purchase of the goods. We are satisfied that all three of them were smokers and we are satisfied with the explanation given by Peter Roebuck as to the smoking habits of the three of them and the members of their families.
29. We are satisfied that the three members of the Roebuck family who are the appellants in this appeal purchased for equal distribution between them 18 kg tobacco and 15,000 cigarettes in Luxemburg, and then purchased some liquor in France. We are satisfied that Mr Peter Roebuck's goods, in relation to tobacco products, amounted to 6 kg tobacco and 5,000 cigarettes. We are satisfied that these were to be smoked by himself and his wife, and we are satisfied that both Peter Roebuck and his wife were smokers. The purpose of the trip for Mr Peter Roebuck was to purchase the cigarettes and tobacco to be smoked by himself and his wife, and in our view this amounts to purchasing them for his own use in law.
30. We find that Gary Roebuck purchased his share of the tobacco and cigarettes with his own money. We are satisfied that he financed the purchase from his own earnings and savings, and that no one else contributed towards the purchase. We are satisfied that the tobacco goods were to be smoked by Gary Roebuck together with some for his girlfriend and some for his grandfather, neither of whom contributed towards the purchase. We are satisfied that Gary Roebuck was not to be reimbursed by anyone for the cost of the purchase of the goods. We find that Gary Roebuck was purchasing for his own use in law, that the goods were not being purchased for commercial purposes, and that he was not a smuggler. We further find that Steven Roebuck was purchasing his one third share of the tobacco goods for smoking by himself and his girlfriend both of whom smoke. Again we are satisfied that the goods were not purchased for commercial purposes and that he was not a smuggler. We are satisfied that the goods were purchased for his own use in law and that no one was contributing towards his purchase of the goods.
31. We are satisfied that Peter Roebuck and his son Steven were not deliberately intending to deceive the officers when they initially agreed with the officers that they had been travelling alone. Both at their interviews confirmed to the officers that the three Roebucks were travelling together and had purchased the goods together. Certainly they were travelling alone in the sense that they were not travelling with their wives or partners. Steven Roebuck did not tell the whole truth to the officer relating to the receipt or in connection with the loose cigarettes. We are satisfied that Steven Roebuck did not purchase cigarettes on the ferry, and that the loose cigarettes had been part of the number of cigarettes that had been purchased by them in Luxemburg. We find that Gary Roebuck did not initially tell the officer that he had tobacco with him on the coach. We find, however, that Gary Roebuck returned to Customs control to join his father. We find that his return to join his father was not the action of someone who intended to hide his purchase from the officers, and was not the action of someone involved in commercial importation. We are not satisfied that Steven's loose cigarettes had not had duty paid on them in Luxemburg or that there were in fact cigarettes missing. We find that the evidence of Peter Roebuck has satisfactorily explained the smoking habits of the family. We are satisfied that Peter Roebuck himself obtains 30 to 40 roll ups from his pouch and that is realistic. We disagree with the doubts of the review officer set out at reasons (1) to (8) inclusive in the review letter. We are satisfied that Gary had made a mistake in his addition of the items, and we are satisfied that Gary Roebuck earns more than his father because he has two sets of employment. We are satisfied that Peter Roebuck and his sons each have reasonable earnings from their employment, and in addition Peter Roebuck has substantial savings. We are satisfied that they funded their purchases and the trip from their earnings and savings.
32. The Appellants have not challenged the legality of the seizure of the goods or the forfeiture of the goods. The Appellants have requested the restoration of the goods which has been refused by the Commissioners and the review decision has confirmed the decision not to restore the goods.
33. The burden of proof is on the Commissioners to show that the importation was for commercial purposes. We find that the Commissioners have not satisfied that burden of proof.
34. We find that the review officer could not reasonably have arrived at her decision. We find that the Commissioners have acted in a way in which no reasonable panel of Commissioners could have acted. We find that the Commissioners did not give sufficient weight to the information given by the Appellants in the correspondence, nor to the full answers which they gave to the officers when stopped at Dover. At their interviews and in the correspondence the Appellants were making it clear that they had funded the purchase of the tobacco and cigarettes through their earnings and savings, and that they had purchased the goods for their own use and to give some of the cigarettes and tobacco to Peter Roebuck's wife, to Steven Roebuck's girlfriend and grandfather and to Gary Roebuck's girlfriend, without being reimbursed, and that it was not the intention of any of them to sell any of the goods. They also confirmed that no one had asked them to buy any goods for others. They had told the officers at their interviews that they were comfortably off financially. We are satisfied that the Appellants had not previously travelled abroad to purchase goods, and they have no history of having previously travelled abroad to import cigarettes or tobacco. The officer did not give sufficient weight to this. We find that the review officer did not give sufficient weight to the information which the Appellants had provided, and accordingly that the review officer disregarded facts provided by the Appellants to which she should have given weight. We find that the Appellants satisfactorily explained the discrepancies. We find accordingly that the reasons given by the review officer in her review decision as to why she should not restore the goods to the Appellants were not reasonable in all the circumstances.
35. The evidence given by Peter Roebuck at the hearing has confirmed that the Appellants were not importing the goods commercially and that they were importing the goods for the own use of themselves and their families. There was nothing to indicate to the Commissioners that their incomes were not sufficient to fund the purchase of the goods or that the Appellants needed to sell the goods or any part of them for profit.
36. We allow the appeal. The Appellants had indicated that they did not seek an order for costs and we make no order as to costs.
37. In allowing this appeal the powers of the tribunal are limited to the extent that we cannot order the Commissioners to restore the goods, but we can direct that the review officer should consider restoration of the goods in view of our findings of fact.
38. We accordingly direct under section 16(4) (b) of the Finance Act 1994 that the Commissioners do conduct a further review of the decision to refuse restoration of the goods and serve the same on both the Appellants and the tribunal within 30 days of the release of this direction and decision. We further direct that the review be conducted by an officer not previously involved and shall be on the basis of the findings of this tribunal that the goods were held for the own use of the Appellants. The review officer shall consider whether restoration should be made in the form of compensation, and if so shall specify the amount of compensation and the basis of the calculation. If the Appellants are dissatisfied with the results of such review, they will have a further right of appeal to the tribunal.

MR I E VELLINS

CHAIRMAN

Release Date: 13 August 2004

MAN/03/8192