EXCISE DUTIES — rehearing of appeal — original tribunal decision overturned by process of judicial review - forfeiture by Customs of excise goods imported from continent as being held or used for commercial purpose — penalty imposed by Customs under FA 1994 s 9 — evidence emerging for the first time at tribunal rehearing suggesting that goods not being imported for own use — reasonableness of review decision in light of information known to tribunal but not to Customs — held not to be the case that review decision could not reasonably have been arrived at — requirements for avoiding liability to penalty not proven — appeal dismissed
MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE
JOHN ROBERT PASCUAL Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents
Tribunal: Mr M S Johnson (Chairman)
Mr J E Davison
Sitting in public in Newcastle upon Tyne on the 14th October 2002
The Appellant appeared in person
Mr D Mohyuddin of counsel, instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2002
(a) not to restore certain excise goods seized by Customs from the appellant ("the forfeiture"); and
(b) imposing a penalty upon the appellant of £250 ("the penalty").
2 litres of spirits
27 litres of wine
786 litres of beer.
The appellant's application to have the appeal allowed
The respondents' application to amend their statement of case
Evidence before this tribunal
The facts of the appeal as found by this tribunal
- "You claimed that the last time you were abroad was 4 months previously and that you had made 6 or 7 trips to the continent in the previous year. Customs have evidence, however, to show that at least 19 trips have been made in the previous 12 months, all completed within about 6 hours and invariably every other Thursday".
"In all the circumstances and applying the Civil Law test of "the balance of
probabilities" I have concluded that the officers were justified in believing the goods concerned were imported for a small scale commercial purpose".
Submissions of the parties
Decision of this tribunal with reasons
M S JOHNSON