[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 >> Atkinson v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00849 (22 February 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2005/E00849.html Cite as: [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E849, [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00849

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

E00849

EXCISE DUTIES — travellers importing excise goods from France and Belgium without payment of UK duty — goods and vehicle seized and not restored — parties coming to agreement at conclusion of hearing — further review directed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

RICHARD ATKINSON Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Colin Bishopp (Chairman)

Howard Middleton FCA

Sitting in public in Manchester on 13 January 2005

Simon Nichol, counsel, instructed by McBride & Co, for the Appellant

Joshua Shields, counsel, instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005


 


DECISION

1. On 16 March 2002 the Appellant, Richard Atkinson, and a friend, Thomas Giblin, arrived at Dover, from France, in Mr Atkinson's Ford Transit van, and were intercepted by Customs officers; we do not know why. The vehicle contained various quantities of excise goods. Mr Atkinson and Mr Giblin failed to satisfy the Customs officers (as, at that time, it was thought they must do) that the goods were for their own consumption, and they and the van were seized.

2. Mr Giblin required the Commissioners to commence condemnation proceedings, but later withdrew his requirement for fear that it would delay the handling of Mr Atkinson's request that his van be restored to him. That request was refused, and the refusal was upheld on a review undertaken by Graham Crouch. His letter of 19 August 2002 set out his decision, which is the subject of this appeal.

3. When the appeal came before us, Mr Atkinson was represented by Simon Nichol of counsel, and the Commissioners by Joshua Shields, also of counsel. We heard evidence from Mr Atkinson, Mr Giblin, Kieran Villiers, one of the intercepting officers, and Mr Crouch.

4. It is not necessary for us to deal with the evidence since Mr Crouch, who had heard what Mr Atkinson and Mr Giblin said, told us that, had he been aware of the matters they mentioned when he carried out his review, the result might well have been different. The parties then agreed that we should make the direction which follows.

5. Mr Crouch is to undertake a further review, within six weeks of the release of this decision, and is to communicate the outcome of the review to Mr Atkinson's solicitors and to the Tribunal as soon as it has been concluded. In carrying out the review he is to proceed on the footing that the goods which Mr Giblin had bought in France and Belgium were for his own use, whereas some (but an undefined quantity) of Mr Atkinson's goods were being brought into the United Kingdom for commercial purposes, that is re-sale at a profit. We record that Mr Atkinson did not concede that he intended to sell any of the goods, but that he was willing to have the review conducted upon the basis that he did so intend. Mr Crouch is also to keep in mind that the quantities of goods were comparatively modest (and in some cases below the guideline levels) and that this was a first offence (assuming it was in fact an offence) and he is to consider the proportionality of depriving Mr Atkinson of his van, and whether it might instead be restored to him on terms.

6. Mr Nichol sought a direction for costs in Mr Atkinson's favour. Mr Shields conceded that there should be a direction in respect of the hearing itself, since the evidence which caused Mr Crouch to reconsider was not before him when he carried out his review and had been disclosed very late; had it been disclosed earlier the hearing might have been avoided. We have come to the conclusion that there is merit in those points, but that we must make a direction which the parties can readily put into effect. We direct that the Commissioners should pay the Appellant's reasonable costs of the hearing, that is to say his solicitors' costs of attending and any out of pocket expenses which have been incurred in the attendance of the solicitors, Mr Atkinson and Mr Giblin, and in addition they are to pay the entirety of Mr Nichol's reasonable brief fee.

   COLIN BISHOPP

   CHAIRMAN

   RELEASE DATE: 22 February 2005

   MAN/02/8218