|[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 >> Mevlana v Customs and Excise  UKVAT(Excise) E00237 (7 May 2002)
Cite as:  UKVAT(Excise) E00237
[New search] [Context] [Printable version] [Help]
EXCISE - Restoration refusal - Tobacco and alcohol - Concealment - 5 kg of tobacco conealed in spare wheel well in boot - Other excise goods also in boot - Whether "packed or found with" concealed goods - Yes - Use for concealment - Other tobacco concealed in glove box and handbag - Secondary reason for non-restoration that goods paid for by cousin - CEMA 1979 s 49(1)(f), 141(1)(a)(b) - Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992, Art 5(1) - Appeal dismissed
LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE
MUSTAFA MEVLANA Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents
Tribunal: MR THEODORE WALLACE (Chairman)
MR J N BROWN, CBE, FCA, ATII
MR S K DAS
Sitting in public in London on 7 May 2002
Mrs Envar, daughter, for the Appellant
Miss Caroline Neenan, Counsel, instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2002
"The reason why I bought so much alcohol, cigarettes and tobacco [is] my daughter is getting married.
As for the tobacco I was requested to buy for my family. The reason why I bought so much I thought there was no limit of what you could buy for our wedding ceremony."
He enclosed a copy of an invitation for 4 March.
19. On 16 March Mr Horsler wrote refusing restoration stating that a quantity of tobacco was concealed in the spare wheel well and glove box and that he was to receive money for some of the goods. There were no exceptional reasons for restoration.
It is this Department's general policy that seized excise goods are not restored. However, each case is examined on its merits to determine whether or not restoration may be exceptionally offered. In conducting this examination the presence of any one of the following factors will militate against restoration:
· Any evidence of previous smuggling or failure to comply with legal requirements;
· Any evidence that the person involved knew what they were doing was wrong;
· Any evidence that the person was paid to make the journey;
· Large quantities of goods which might damage legitimate trade;
· Any evidence that the goods were for a commercial purpose."
He said that the Appellant's statement was an admission that he knew he was doing something wrong. It is clear from Mr Devlin's witness statement made in June 2001, long before Lindsay that the primary reason for forfeiture and non-restoration was the concealment of part of the tobacco.
"(1) … where any thing has become liable to forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Acts -
(a) any … vehicle, … container (including any article of passengers' baggage) or other thing whatsoever which has been used for the carriage, … or concealment of the thing so liable to forfeiture; and
(b) any other thing mixed, packed or found with the thing so liable,
shall also be liable to forfeiture."