[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 >> Challoner v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00734 (27 May 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2004/E00734.html Cite as: [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00734, [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E734

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

RESTORATION — Partner took ford transit van with two friends to Luxembourg and Calais – 30 kg hand-rolling tobacco, 719.50 litres of beer and 540 litres of wine – clearly smuggling – Appellant had not given permission – Appellant pregnant could not attend interview – would not agree interview by telephone – Commissioners had acted reasonably in not returning the van - dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

HALEY CHALLONER Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: D S PORTER (Chairman)

Sitting in public in Manchester on 5th April 2004

The Appellant did not attend

Mrs M Mayoh of counsel for the Commissioners

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION

1. This is an appeal by Hayley Challoner (the Appellant) contained in a letter dated 15^th May 2003 against the refusal to restore her Ford Transit Van number S 359 RJA seized on 19^th December 2002 when being driven by her partner. The Appellant states that the Transit Van car is hers and that she was unaware that her Partner was taking it abroad to buy tobacco and drink. The Respondents allege that the Van was not a "third party car" and that the Appellant knew perfectly well that the Van was being used for such purposes

The Parties

2. Mrs M Mayoh of counsel appeared for the Commissioners, called Mr G Crouch as a witness, and produced a bundle of documents for the Tribunal. As no one appeared for the Appellant, this Tribunal determined to proceed under rule 26(2) of the Value Added Tax Rules 1986 (as amended).

The Facts

3. Mr Paul Connolly, Mr Steven Almond and Mr Joseph Anthony Challoner were stopped at the UK Tourist Control Zone, in Coquelles France, at approximately 23.23 hours on 19^th December 2002. Mr Connolly was driving the vehicle. The Appellant and Mr Challoner live together at 4 Swan Close, Great Sutton Cheshire. Mr Connolly was interviewed by Angela D Szentesi (whose typed statement appears at page 21 in the bundle, which has not been challenged). Mr Challoner had bought 5 kg of hand-rolling tobacco, 60 cases of beer and 60 cases of wine to be shared between the three of them. He had been stopped on a previous occasion and had his goods seized.
4. Mr Connolly referred to the Appellant as his wife/girl friend and confirmed that she smoked as well. He thought that the drink would last over Christmas. He was unsure how much he smoked but guessed about30 – 40 per day. He confirmed that he owned his own company that repaired houses; that he had had a tax bill of £30,000 for the current year; that he had a BMW Jeep and that his wife had a BMW convertible. He was earning about £3000 per month. Mr Joseph Challoner (the Appellant's brother) worked for him and Mr Almond had worked for him previously. Most of the costs had been put on Mr Challoner's credit card and Mr Joseph Challoner and Mr Almond had both given him £2000 to help to buy the goods.
5. Mrs Mayoh called Mr Crouch, who was put on oath, and was the reviewing officer. His statement, which was not challenged, appears on pages 40 and 41 of the bundle. On 12^th March 2003 J Walker wrote to the Appellant offering to interview her over the telephone. In her reply of 17^th March 2003 the Appellant indicated that she could not understand how a telephone interview would help. She was 8 months pregnant and could not travel to Dover. She reiterated that Mr Connolly did not have her permission to take the vehicle on the continent to purchase the goods and that she felt that she was being penalised for his actions.
6. In his letter of the 15^th May 2003 (see pages 84 to 96 of the bundle) Mr Crouch set out in considerable detail the facts, as he understood them. He was satisfied that the goods had not been purchased for the travellers own use and that they had been smuggling. The Appellant could not be suffering hardship as Mr Challoner had stated in his interview that she had a BMW convertible. Further Mr Challoner was her partner and the vehicle was a van used for the business. Mr Challoner must therefore have had the right to use it. The value of the vehicle was estimated at £4075.00 and the duty evaded was £4,648.89 and the refusal to restore the van was fair and proportionate
7. We find as fact the matters set out in paragraphs 3 to 8 above.

The Law

8. The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 states that any vehicle which has been used for the carriage of the goods, which have not paid duty and are forfeited is also liable to forfeiture, although the Commissioners may restore the vehicle on such terms as they think proper.

Summing up

9. Mrs Mayoh submitted that the Appellant had been given the opportunity to either attend an interview or have one conducted over the telephone. All the evidence from the interview notes and the other officers involved, had been taken in to account. A ford transit van was hardly a domestic vehicle. The travellers had clearly been smuggling and there was no need to apply proportionality.

The Decision

10. I have considered the facts and I am satisfied that the Reviewing Officer acted reasonably in refusing to restore the Ford Transit Van. The Appellant has made no attempt to allow an interview so that she could explain the position a she saw it. Neither has she attended today. I therefore dismiss the appeal
11. I award the Respondents costs of £500.

D S PORTER

CHAIRMAN

MAN/03/8107