[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Harrison v HM Revenue & Customs [2006] EWHC 2844 (Ch) (15 November 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/2844.html Cite as: [2006] EWHC 2844 (Ch)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		15/11/2006

Mr Justice Lightman:

1. This is an appeal by the Applicant Mr Colin Harrison ("the Applicant") from a decision ("the Decision") of the VAT and Duties Tribunal ("the Tribunal") released on the 2^nd September 2005. By the Decision the Tribunal dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs ("the Commissioners") contained in a letter dated the 22^nd July 2004 not to restore to the Applicant his excise goods ("the Goods") and his car, a Proton Compact ("the Vehicle") which had been seized by the Commissioners on the 22^nd April 2004 at the Dover Hoverport Terminal on his return from Belgium. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant had bought the Goods for his own use (as the applicant contended) or for commercial purposes (as contended by the Commissioners). The Tribunal held that he had bought them for commercial purposes, that there was no reason why in the circumstances the Goods or the vehicle should be restored and that the appeal should accordingly be dismissed.
2. On this appeal the Applicant appeared in person and the Commissioners were represented by Mr James Puzey. The Applicant on the appeal raised one issue of law and one issue of fact. Subject to these two issues the relevant facts and law were not in issue. Subject only to these two issues the undisputed facts and law are set out in the Decision and do not require to be set out in detail.
3. During a week on holiday at St Margarets Kent in April 2004 the Applicant on each day (except Sunday) travelled to the Continent in the Vehicle. On his return on the 22^nd April 2004, a customs officer stopped him. After a discussion between them as to his previous trips abroad, the goods he had brought and the times he had been stopped, the customs officer Mr Timothy Little ("Mr Little") requested and the Applicant agreed to an interview. During the interview the Applicant readily agreed that he had purchased 2,000 cigarettes, 3 kilos of hand rolling tobacco, 173 cigars, 2.8 litres of whiskey and 5 litres of wine (namely "the Goods") all of which were within the recommended guidelines. The Applicant stated that he had bought them for his own use. The Applicant was also questioned about his previous trips. Mr Little's notes of the interview were typed out and the Applicant signed the notes as a correct record of the interview. It was concluded that the Goods were held for a commercial purpose and that the Goods and Vehicle should be seized.
4. On the 26^th April 2004 the Applicant wrote to the Commissioners to appeal the seizure of the Vehicle and on the 7^th May 2005 made clear that what he was seeking was restoration of the Vehicle. On the 3^rd June 2004 the Commissioners refused this request stating as the reason that the Vehicle had been used for the improper importation of excise goods, that the quantity was not small and it was not a first occurrence (there having been two previous seizures of excise goods of the Applicant) and that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the established policy not to restore vehicles used for this purpose. The Applicant on the 10^th August 2004 appealed to the Tribunal. At the first hearing on the 5^th January 2005 the Applicant challenged the accuracy and contemporaneity of the notes of the interview and to enable this to be explored the hearing was adjourned until the 29^th June 2005. At this adjourned hearing Mr Little attended and gave evidence confirming the accuracy and contemporaneity of the interview notes. He was apparently asked a few questions by the Tribunal but the Applicant did not cross-examine him or challenge his evidence. On the 2^nd September 2005 the Tribunal released the Decision dismissing the appeal. The relevant part of the Decision reads as follows:

"18. We have considered the facts and the submissions and have decided that the Customs Review Officer acted reasonably in refusing to restore the goods and we dismiss the appeal.

19. We had been concerned at the first hearing that the interview notes had not been taken down contemporaneously. Having heard evidence from Mr Little we are satisfied that not only were the interview notes contemporaneous but that the Appellant knew full well that they were. He is no stranger to the workings of Customs in these matters. He has had goods seized from him on two previous occasions. He conceded that he had signed the interview notes as being correct. The only matter, that gave rise to some doubt, were the dates of his various trips. The appellant agreed when asked by the Chairman with all the dates of his previous trips. We have no doubt that he has been buying the goods with a view to selling them."

5. The Applicant on this appeal asserts that he has at all times been entirely innocent of any wrongdoing and has at all times acted honestly and in accordance with the law. First of all he says that he did not give false answers to Mr Little about his previous travel in order to deceive him and, though the transcript indicates that he did so, the transcript is inaccurate. It seems to me that the conclusion that the transcript was accurate was clearly justified by the unchallenged evidence of Mr Little as to the fact that the Applicant signed it as a correct record and the decisions to this effect by the Customs Review Officer and the Tribunal were fairly and properly arrived at. There is no substance in this ground of challenge. I have read de bene esse a note put before me by the Applicant setting out his reconstruction of the interview. It is not for me to decide on this appeal on new evidence this question afresh. The evidence cannot undermine the finding made.
6. The Applicant secondly argued that his innocence and the fact that he held the goods for personal use is established by the fact that the quantity of the Goods in question fell within the guidelines which Regulation 4 of the Excise Goods, Beers and Tobacco Products (Amendment) Regulation 2002 inserted as paragraph (1A) and (1B) in regulation 12 of the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001. This legislation provides in paragraph (1B)(e)(viii) that in determining whether excise goods are held or used for a commercial purpose by any person regard shall be taken to the matters there specified, one of which is the quantity of products and whether it exceeds the quantities specified. The fact that the quantity does not exceed the figure given is however not decisive as to whether the goods are held for commercial purposes or for private use: it is merely one of the specified factors which, together with any other relevant circumstances, may be taken into account. There were in this case ample other circumstances (e.g. the number of trips, the previous seizures and the dishonesty in answering questions about previous trips) which justified the Customs Review Officer and the Tribunal in reaching the conclusions which they did.
7. I accordingly dismiss this appeal.