[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 >> Hatfield v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00867 (29 March 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2005/E00867.html Cite as: [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E867, [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00867

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

E00867

Restoration of goods and vehicle — appeal by one of two travellers — quantities of goods imported costs and frequency of travel considered — decision of Commissioners not to restore either goods or vehicle reasonable — appeal dismissed — costs awarded against Appellant on her non-attendance

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

ELIZABETH HATFIELD Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Elsie Gilliland (Chairman)

Susan Stott FCA

Sitting in public at York on 10 February 2005

No appearance by or on behalf of the Appellant.

Sue Hurst of counsel instructed by the Solicitor for Customs and Excise for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005


 


DECISION

1. The appeal before the tribunal is that of Elizabeth Hatfield ("the Appellant") against a decision of the Commissioners on a review set out in a letter from them dated 9 November 2003 not to restore to the Appellant excise goods and a vehicle seized by them at the UK Control Zone at Coquelles France on 3 November 2003. The Appellant did not attend the hearing and at the request of Miss Sue Hurst, counsel for the Commissioners, we determined to proceed under rule 26(2) of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 and hear the appeal.
2. In the absence of the Appellant Counsel summarised for the tribunal the nature of the appeal and referred us to the appropriate documentation in the bundle of documents before us. The Appellant and her travelling companion Mr Richard Buckley were stopped at Coquelles at about 7.36 hours on 3 December 2003. The Appellant was driving a blue diesel Vauxhall Vectra motor car registration number X934 FUY (the vehicle). The imported goods seized comprised 15 kgs. tobacco, 3000 cigars, 6400 cigarettes, 360 litres of beer and 2 litres of vodka ( the goods); the vehicle was also seized. The duty due on the goods was £4063.20. The Appellant did not challenge the seizure by way of condemnation proceedings so the goods and the vehicle have been forfeited to the Crown by passage of time.
3. Copies of the manuscript notes of the interviews by Customs officers with the Appellant and Mr Buckley when they were stopped are in the bundle. These record that each of them declared initially only 5 kgs tobacco and 15 cases of beer. Subsequently the Appellant said that she had 150 pouches of tobacco, 16 sleeves of cigarettes and 60 boxes of cigars; that she and Mr. Buckley who lived together had paid for all the goods on a joint Halifax account at a cost of £1810; and that the tobacco was for her, the cigars for her father and the cigarettes for her daughter who was 16 and had not paid for them. The beer was a gift from both Mr Buckley and her to a football club.
4. Counsel drew our attention to inconsistencies which were noted in the information supplied by the two parties. On the cost of the goods although the Appellant had said this was £1810 Mr Buckley had told his interviewing officer that the tobacco had cost £1800 and the beer £300. On previous travel the Appellant said that she had last been abroad about a month before with Mr Buckley in a Ford transit van and a month or six weeks before that with Mr Buckley in a Mondeo she thought; whereas Mr Buckley said his last trip had been three or four weeks before with the Appellant and a Delia Reynolds in a white transit van but later that within the last four weeks he had been with the Appellant in a Rover vehicle. The Appellant said that on her last trip in the transit van she had bought nothing but her partner said he had 16 trays of beer in total and 2 sleeves of cigarettes for Delia. Both however agreed that they were abroad every few weeks. As to consumption the Appellant said that the tobacco would last her partner and her three to four months. Mr Buckley said as to the beer that they went through four trays of beer each week. There were discrepancies also as to the financing of the purchases. The Appellant said the Mr Buckley's mother had left him some money 3 or 4 years ago and that he had £700 from his father's illness a couple of weeks before; he referred to neither of these but to savings of £20-30 per week. The Appellant was not employed but Mr Buckley had sickness benefit for them both which he put at £130-180 per week and there was rent allowance.
5. Miss Hurst gave us details also of a number of other vehicles registered at the address of the Appellant and Mr Buckley and that there was evidence too of trips abroad that they had made. A white transit van was registered on 1 November 2003 and had passed through Coquelles on 18 November 2003; a vehicle number L69 KVV registered on 8 July 2003 had been through Calais on 25 July 2003 and 31 July 2003. There was also a Peugeot N478 DML registered to Amanda Wood of the same address with no evidence associated with it of the transport of excise goods. The Commissioners were not satisfied that the goods qualified for relief from excise duty and gave the parties the following reasons: "Lies about the quantity of goods brought in; frequency of travel; income-expenditure; inconsistencies between the two accounts of previous travel." The copy notes show the signature of the Appellant to the notes after the reasons for seizure were set out and that of Mr. Buckley on his notes that the same were accurate.
6. There was some further correspondence between the Appellant and the Commissioners subsequent to the seizure. In particular the Appellant emphasised the difficulties caused through the loss of the vehicle as she needed to give a great deal of practical help to her disabled brother-in-law. In her Notice of Appeal dated 2 February 2004 the grounds as set out were: "I had my car and goods seized. I was not offered the option of paying any duty on the goods that were seized namely my car X934 FUY." She added also "I just want my car back".
7. The role of the tribunal in this matter is to consider whether the decision made on behalf of the Commissioners by the review officer was one which could not reasonably have been arrived at. (Section 16(4) of the Finance Act 1994). It is established law that in exercising their discretion the Commissioners must comply with Wednesbury principles in that the officer must take into account all relevant material and disregard irrelevant material. It is clear from his review decision that the officer Gareth Morgan (who did not attend to give evidence) looked at the matter afresh and considered the background of the seizure and subsequent correspondence including the issue of hardship as raised by the Appellant. He set out the policy of the Commissioners as being generally not to restore goods though each case was examined on its merits and further not to restore private vehicles used for the improper importation of goods except at their discretion in certain limited circumstances on terms. Although he had the power to confirm withdraw or vary the original decision not to restore the goods or the vehicle he had decided that none should be offered for restoration. The review officer questioned the credibility of the Appellant who on her own admission in the interview notes had lied initially to the officer as to what she had brought in to the U.K. seeking to explain this as caused by her uncertainty as to what was permitted. The officer could not accept this as the Appellant would have been made aware of the guidelines on three previous occasions when she had been stopped by Customs. Although the Appellant had claimed that the goods were for personal and family use the officer considered that the goods or most of them were to be sold for profit. On the issue of hardship the officer's view was that no exceptional hardship as distinct from inconvenience and expense was established and as there were other vehicles registered at the property including one to the Appellant and one to Mr Buckley there need be no reliance on the seized vehicle only.
8. We noted that in the grounds of her appeal the Appellant stated that she had not been afforded the opportunity to have her car back on paying the duty. She then valued her car at £3000. It is clear however from the judgment in Lindsay v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2002] EWCA CIV 267 that where a vehicle has been used to import goods for profit seizure of such vehicle is acceptable and proportionate subject always to exceptional hardship. In our view the review officer acted reasonably when after consideration of all the material he decided against restoration of either the goods or the vehicle. There was no plausible explanation for the inconsistencies in the answers given in the interviews by the Appellant and Mr Buckley on such important matters as their financial arrangements and the funds available to pay for their trips and goods and as to the number of times and in what vehicles they had made these regular trips particularly as they had been together for some seventeen years and had two children. We are satisfied also that the officer considered whether there was any exceptional hardship in the circumstances described by the Appellant and that his decision that there were none was proper and appropriate.
9. We dismiss the appeal.
10. The Commissioners are entitled to costs and have sought costs in view of the Appellant's non-attendance. We direct that the Appellant shall pay the Commissioners' costs in the sum of £300.

ELSIE GILLILAND

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE DATE: 29 March 2005

MAN/04/8017