[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 >> Hay v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00860 (01 March 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2005/E00860.html Cite as: [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E860, [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00860

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

E00860

Excise Duty and seizure of cigarettes brought from Turkey – refusal to restore – whether refusal reasonable in whole circumstances – appeal dismissed.

EDINBURGH TRIBUNAL CENTRE

HENRY HAY Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: (Chairman): T Gordon Coutts, QC

Sitting in Edinburgh on Monday 28 February 2005

for the Appellant HEARD ON PAPERS ONLY

for the Respondents Mr Andrew Scott, Shepherd & Wedderburn, WS

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005.


 


DECISION

At the request of the Appellant this appeal which was against a review decision refusing restoration of seized tobacco products and also refusing restoration on payment of the outstanding duty was heard on papers only.

The Appellant and his wife returning from Turkey, arrived at Aberdeen Airport on 21 August 2004. Their baggage did not arrive on the same flight and was reported missing. No Customs declaration was made in relation to that baggage. On the arrival of the baggage in Aberdeen it was examined by a Customs officer and was discovered to contain a total of 740 cigarettes.

Since no declaration had been made and the amount imported exceeded the allowance of 200 per person permitted by the Travellers Allowances Order 1994 the cigarettes were seized.

Matters were rendered somewhat complicated by a verbose and proforma Statement of Case by the Commissioners which went into, at some length, provisions applicable to the EU and Member States. Turkey is not, as yet, a member of the EU and the order above quoted applies. Considerations of the history of allowances, importation for own use and matters of that sort set out in the Statement of Case are irrelevant.

In the course of various letters Mr Hay requested restoration of, at least, 400 of the cigarettes.

The normal practice when passengers are parted from their baggage is for a form C1422 to be given to the passengers to complete. That form provides the opportunity to make a declaration of any goods which must be declared and of any goods which are claimed as part or all of the duty are tax free allowance.

In his correspondence Mr Hay asserted that he had assumed the cigarette allowance was 400 per person, that he was not given C1422 and was ignorant of the rules.

In a letter accompanying the appeal to the Tribunal Mr Hay said "we have already admitted we were unsure of tobacco limit for importation from non-EU country, but assumed it was at least 400 cigarettes per person". He asserted that had he been at the airport on arrival of the baggage the subject could have been resolved there and then.

Whether or not a form C1422 was given to Mr Hay seems to the Tribunal to be of minimal relevance in the light of his repeated statement that he thought that the importation limit was 800 and so was below that limit. The Tribunal accordingly infers that even if he had been not parted from his baggage he would still not have declared the importation of the cigarettes, wrongly assuming that he was within the limits.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is the duty of the traveller to declare any goods which require to be declared. Under these circumstances the Tribunal can come to no conclusion other than that the goods were rightly seized. A policy decision was taken not to offer any restoration on payment of any sum.

The Tribunal has carefully considered whether there could be said to be any exceptional circumstances and whether the officers had failed to take all relevant matters into account or took into account irrelevant matters. The decision to seize and not restore on conditions was reasonable and not one which no reasonable panel of Commissioners could have reached. The Respondents' forfeiture policy set out in Mr Sked's Review letter of 31 August 2004 is clear and supportable and the appeal is accordingly refused.

It requires to be added that the Appellant sent to the Tribunal a cheque for £128.19 under cover of a letter stating "in an attempt to close this issue and hopefully restore the goods we have enclosed a cheque". Since the appeal has failed the Tribunal clerk will be instructed to return the cheque to the Appellant because the cigarettes are not to be restored.

T GORDON COUTTS, QC

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE: 1 MARCH 2005

EDN/05/8000