![]() |
[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 >> Cross v Customs and Excise [2003] UKVAT(Excise) E00396 (27 March 2003) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2003/E00396.html Cite as: [2003] UKVAT(Excise) E00396, [2003] UKVAT(Excise) E396 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
E00396
RESTORATION REFUSAL – Excise goods – Foot passenger – Small quantity of goods bought on behalf of family – Goods to be given to babysitter – Commerciality not proved – Goods for own use also forfeit – Proportionality – Failure to consider particular facts and lesser sanctions – New review directed
LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE
JACQUELINE CROSS Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents
Tribunal: THEODORE WALLACE (Chairman)
R S SURI JP
Sitting in public in London on 10 March 2003
The Appellant appeared in person
Sarabjit Singh, counsel, instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2003
DECISION
"You clearly knew that you were doing wrong when you decided to import goods in excess of the guidelines."
He wrote that the Appellant had offered no reason for departing from the policy of non-restoration and he could find no reason for varying the policy in her case.
Conclusions
"The action taken must, however, strike a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the public interest. There must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued : Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden (1982)5 EHRR 35, 50-51, para 61 and Air Canada v United Kingdom (1995) 20 ERR 150… I would accept Mr Baker's submission that one must consider the individual case to ensure that the penalty imposed is fair."
Lord Phillips went on to cite this passage from Louloudakis v Greece (Case C-262/99) [2001] ECRI – 5547,
"The administrative measures or penalties must not go beyond what is strictly necessary for the objectives pursued and a penalty must not be so disproportionate to the gravity of the infringement that it becomes an obstacle to the freedoms enshrined in the Treaty."
THEODORE WALLACE
CHAIRMAN
RELEASED: 27 March 2003
LON/2002/8187