Omar v Revenue and Customs  UKVAT(Excise) E00938 (02 February 2006)
RESTORATION — Appellant's Luton Van and 1000 kg of hand rolling tobacco properly forfeited — van in yard containing 500 gms of hand rolling tobacco from the same source improperly seized — Appellant unaware of presence of tobacco — appeal allowed — case to be reconsidered
MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE
KENNETH OMAR Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR
HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents
Tribunal: David S Porter (Chairman)
Elizabeth M Pollard
Sitting in public in York on 30 November 2005
The Appellant appearing in person
Richard Manley, counsel, instructed by the Acting Solicitor for HM Revenue and Customs for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2006
- "…A full search of all the vehicles in the building then took place when a further 500gms of Golden Virginia hand-rolling tobacco was found under the driver's seat of another Van registration S 2204 KNV. This tobacco bore the manufacturers batch code of 457242. The 1000kg in the other vehicle also bore the batch number 457242 as well as 156242. They also bore the Dutch tax stamps."
We are concerned about the accuracy of the evidence supplied to Julie Wiggs as set out in her letter above. We are satisfied from the evidence that van S 204 KNV was parked outside the garage and was inspected by the Customs Officers prior to them going into the garage.
- The letter also stated "When asked about the 500gms of tobacco found under the driver's seat of S 204 KNV you said somebody had moved that vehicle out of the garage that morning. You had given them the keys for it and opened all the doors and claimed there was no tobacco in it at that time."
We query the validity of the above quote. In his interview at Doncaster police station (see page 42 of the bundle) the Appellant stated that he gave them (relating to the Customs Officers) the keys. We are satisfied from the evidence that the Customs Officers inspect S 204 KNV outside the garage, the keys having been taken off the visor by the Appellant and given to the Customs Officers so that they could inspect the vehicle. We are also satisfied that there was no tobacco in S 1204 KNV at the time of that search.
1. that the Commissioners do conduct a further review of the decision to refuse restoration of the VW van and serve the same on both the Appellant and the Tribunal within 30 days of the release of this direction
2. that the Review be conducted by an officer not previously involved, who shall make enquiry of the Customs officer, who found the tobacco in the VW van S 204KNV, to discover where the tobacco came from and when it was found in the Van. If fingerprints were on the packets of the 500gms of tobacco he should satisfy himself that they are the Appellants fingerprimts. He should then consider whether restoration should be made in the form of compensation and if so he shall specify the amount of compensation and the basis of the calculation
3. that the Review officer shall take account of any further material or representations made by the Appellant within 14 days to H M Revenue & Customs at 1st Floor Southwest Queens Dock Liverpool L74 4AG
4. that the Appeal is determined on the above basis and the Appellant is entitled to apply within 60 days of the release of the direction for costs
5. that if dissatisfied with the Review the Appellant will have a further right of appeal to this Tribunal
DAVID S PORTER
Release Date: 2 February 2006