[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 >> Rasburn v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00823 (11 November 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2004/E00823.html Cite as: [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E823, [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00823

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

E00823

EXCISE GOODS — 16000 cigarettes seized — Tribunal directed re-review and account to be taken of its findings of fact — officer on re-review had not received that decision — appeal allowed — independent re-review directed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

KEVIN RASBURN Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Mrs E Gilliland (Chairman)

Miss C A Roberts (Member)

Sitting in public in Manchester on 30 September 2004

The Appellant in person

Miss M Mayoh instructed by the Solicitors office of HM Customs and Excise for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION
1. The appeal before the Tribunal is that of Kevin Rasburn (the Appellant) against the decision of the Commissioners on a re-review to refuse to restore excise goods seized from him at Manchester Airport on 2 June 2001. The goods comprised 16,000 cigarettes and the Appellant was returning from holiday with his wife on a flight from Spain.
2. The Appellant has appeared in person to present his case. The Commissioners are represented by Miss Mayoh of Counsel, who proposed to call as a witness Julie Wiggs (formerly Julie Logan), the review officer.
3. Counsel has, however, advised the Tribunal that she has become aware that her witness the review officer had not received and thus not referred to the previous tribunal decision in this matter. That decision dated 11 November 2003 allowed the Appellant's appeal and exercising the power available to it the Tribunal then made a direction which required a re-review by an independent officer of the Commissioners who was to take into account the findings of fact set out in the direction.
4. The review letter of Mrs Wiggs dated 5 March 2004 is headed "2^nd Formal Departmental Review" and the officer was aware that it was a re-review though she took her authority from a re-review decision of the Tribunal of 3 February 2004. That arose from an application by the Commissioners for the re-review directed on 11 November 2003 to be stood over. The then chairman dismissed that application and required the re-review to be carried out within 21 days of the release date of the direction. Mrs Wiggs subsequently issued her review letter. We are satisfied that justice cannot be served on the re-review if the Tribunal decision requiring the same is not before the review officer. Like the Appellant we consider that the delay is unacceptable in view of the seizure being now some three and a half years ago.
5. We allow the appeal and direct that a further review be conducted by an independent officer of the Commissioners within the period of three weeks.
6. The Appellant did not seek costs and we make no direction as to costs. He did seek a written apology from the Commissioners for the wasted hearing and we trust that the Commissioners will look at this.

MRS E GILLILAND

CHAIRMAN
Release Date: 11 November 2004

MAN/2004/8050