Jersey Unreported Judgments

2000/127

3 pages

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

7^th July, 2000

 

Before:  P.J. de Veulle, Esq., Lieutenant Bailiff,

and Jurats Potter and Le Brocq

 

The Attorney General

 

-v-

 

E. Denis & Company

 

 

1 count of:   knowingly and with intent to defraud the States of Jersey of duty payable, acquiring possession of goods, chargeable with a total duty of £19,841.59, which was not paid, contrary to Article 77(a) of the Customs and Excise (General Provisions)(Jersey) Law, 1972.

 

Plea:   Guilty.

 

Details of Offences:

 

On 55 occasions between 1997 and 1999 the company had failed to declare duty payable on imported cigars, pipe tobacco and snuff.  Sometime prior to 1997 the system by which duty is payable on importing tobacco goods had changed.  A form of self assessment was introduced in order to alleviate the pressure on the limited resources available to the Customs and Excise Department.  Thus when parcels containing tobacco products arrived via the post, the custom had developed whereby the importer would voluntarily declare the duty payable and make arrangements for its payment.  Initially the accused was not aware of the change of regime although he had vast experience in the tobacco industry and knew that tobacco attracted duty.  Having received the first few packets of tobacco through the post in this way he was expecting to be contacted by the Customs and Excise Department with a demand for duty.  As time passed and he was not so requested he realised that he was accumulating stocks of tobacco without paying the duty thereon.  In his question and answer interview the principal of the defendant company admitted that it was a question of fear of recrimination which prevented him from making a clean breast of things.  What had initially started as a muddle became a problem of greater and greater magnitude to a point where he was afraid to come forward and admit that the duty had not been paid.

 

Details of Mitigation:

 

This was a first offence for the company, through Mr. Denis, and once apprehended, had been fully co-operative with those who had investigated the matter.  A plea of guilty had been entered to all offences.  The company had repaid the outstanding duty.  It was an offence of omission rather than an offence of commission.

 

Previous Convictions:    None.

 

Conclusions:   £15,000 fine, on basis of necessary deterrent element.

 

Sentence and Observations of the Court:   £14,000 fine, to be paid by 31^st July, 2000.

 

The reason for the slight reduction in the conclusions moved for by the Crown was that the Court was not satisfied that the change in regime by the Customs and Excise Department had been satisfactorily communicated to the accused.

 

 

M. St.J. O'Connell, Esq., Crown Advocate;

Advocate F.J. Benest for the defendant company.

 

JUDGMENT

 

THE LIEUTENANT BAILIFF:

 

In December, 1999, the States of Jersey Customs and Excise Department checked their records in respect of the defendant company and, suspecting that there had been an under declaration, obtained a warrant to search the business premises.  They seized the business accounting records for 1997, 1998 and 1999.  As a result they discovered that the company had failed to pay duty on 55 occasions, the total sum amounting to £19,841.59.

 

Mr. Denis, today representing the company, attended for interview and admitted the offences.  He claimed that at first he thought there had simply been a muddle but realised, as time went on, that that was not so.  He then feared the consequences of coming clean and so kept quiet which simply compounded the evasion.

 

The back duty has been settled in the net sum of £19,841.59 relating to imports valued at full retail price at £31,622.71.

 

In mitigation there has been a guilty plea but this was hardly surprising in the circumstances.  The company has paid the back duty, however the evasion was deliberate and continuous.  Mr. Denis, the proprietor, is an experienced tobacconist and there can be little excuse for getting the company into this situation.

 

Advocate Benest has drawn our attention to the change in the system which caused this difficulty in the first place and we are not wholly convinced that the change was made clear to the trade or to Mr. Denis.

 

The Crown has moved for a fine of £15,000 but we have taken account of the change in procedure and reduced the conclusion of the Crown by £1,000.  Accordingly the company is fined the sum of £14,000 to be paid by the end of the month.

 

Authorities

 

 

Customs and Excise (General Provisions)(Jersey) Law, 1972: Article 77.