[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 >> Davies v Revenue and Customs [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00933 (16 December 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2005/E00933.html Cite as: [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E933, [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00933

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

EO00933

EXCISE DUTIES — appeal against referral to restore seized goods and car — material evidence produced only after review — Respondents inviting tribunal to allow appeal and direct further review — directions to that effect made

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

GRAHAM DAVIES Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR

HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: Colin Bishopp (Chairman)

Sitting in private in Manchester on 6 December 2005

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

Christopher Sykes of the Solicitor's office of HM Revenue and Customs for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005


 


DECISION

1. This appeal came before me for a pre-hearing review on 6 December 2005. The Appellant, Graham Davies, did not appear and was not represented, while the Respondents were represented by Christopher Sykes of their Solicitor's office.
2. The appeal is against the Respondents' decision, on review, not to restore to Mr Davies various excise goods and a motor vehicle seized from him at Hull on 4 April 2005.
3. Mr Davies provided, with his notice of appeal, copies of two medical reports obtained on his behalf by solicitors who are pursuing a claim for damages in respect of personal injuries he suffered in an accident in 1999. It is apparent from the reports that the accident has affected his mental capacity. The reports were not available to the officer who conducted the review. Mr Sykes volunteered that the reports, had they been available, might have affected the officer's conclusion and that, were this appeal to proceed to a hearing, it was almost inevitable that the tribunal would allow the appeal and direct a further review in which the medical evidence could be considered.
4. Although Mr Davies was not present, and I did not have the opportunity of discussing Mr Sykes' proposal with him, it seemed to me to be eminently sensible and that it would reduce considerably the time for which Mr Davies would have to wait for the resolution of his claim for the restoration of his goods and car. Accordingly I direct:

(a) The Respondents shall carry out a further review, at which the medical reports and the grounds of appeal shall be taken into account.

(b) The review shall be concluded within six weeks of the release of this decision, and its outcome shall forthwith be notified to Mr Davies and the tribunal.

5. I add, for Mr Davies' benefit, that if he is dissatisfied with the outcome of the review I have directed, he may appeal again to the tribunal.

COLIN BISHOPP

CHAIRMAN
Release Date: 16 December 2005

MAN/05/8037