![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals (Excise) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals (Excise) Decisions >> Richell v Customs and Excise [2002] UKVAT(Excise) E00236 (30 April 2002) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2002/E00236.html Cite as: [2002] UKVAT(Excise) E236, [2002] UKVAT(Excise) E00236 |
[New search]
[Context]
[Printable version]
[Help]
EXCISE DUTY - Restoration of car - Restoration of excise goods - Excise goods imported in car - Small proportion of cigarettes and tobacco (between 1-3% in value) concealed - Whether decision not to restore car unreasonable and disproportionate - Yes - Whether decision not to restore excise goods unreasonable - No - Appeal allowed in part
LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE
COLIN JOHN RICHELL Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents
Tribunal: STEPHEN OLIVER QC (Chairman)
LYNNETH SALISBURY
SUNIL DAS ACIS
Sitting in public in London on 30 April 2002
The Appellant in person
Zöe Taylor, counsel, instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2002
DECISION
· He had nothing to declare,
· He had been to Calais and Belgium,
· The car belonged to him and he had owned it for two years,
· He had not been stopped by Customs before,
· He had travelled across the Channel every five or six weeks,
· Of the excise goods purchased, 40 pouches of hand-rolling tobacco, the "Royals" cigarettes and the King Edward cigars belonged to him,
· Of the excise goods purchased, some Silk Cut cigarettes belonged to one of his colleagues and some Super Kings belonged to another and,
· There were no other excise goods in the vehicle apart from wine and spirits.
The other two gentlemen were questioned and they stated that they had not been stopped by Customs before.
"This was stupid, I had never done it before, and it is obviously dishonest, but as it took some time for the car to leave the ferry I had time to do this."
He also made the point that he suffered from arthritis and needed the vehicle but could not afford to replace the vehicle as he was retired.
"… shall be confined to a power, where the tribunal is satisfied that the Commissioners or other person making the decision could not reasonably have arrived at it, to do one or more of the following, that is to say -(a) to direct that the decision, so far as it remains in force, is to cease to have effect from such time as the tribunal may direct;
(b) to require the Commissioners to conduct … a further review of the original decision; and
( c) in the case of a decision which has already been acted on or taken effect and cannot be remedied by a further review, to declare the decision to have been unreasonable and to give directions to the Commissioners as to the steps to be taken for securing that repetitions of the unreasonableness do not occur when comparable circumstances arise in future."
"Every natural legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.The proceeding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."
"The first rule, which is of a general nature, enhances the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property; it is set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph. The second rule covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to certain conditions; it appears in the second sentence of the same paragraph. The third rule recognizes that the States are entitle, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general rule, by enforcing such laws as they deem necessary for the purpose. It is contained in the second paragraph. The court must determine, before considering whether the first rule was complied with, whether the last two are applicable."
"… the Court must determine whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. The search for this balance is inherent in the whole of the Convention and is also reflected in the structure of Article 1."
STEPHEN OLIVER QC
CHAIRMAN
RELEASED:
LON/01/8057-RICH.OLI