United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals (Excise) Decisions

 


Pratt v Customs and Excise [2003] UKVAT(Excise) E00408 (06 May 2003)

RESTORATION OF GOODS — Reasons for Decision not to Restore —Finance Act 1964 s.16 (4) — Goods held for Commercial Purposes — appeal dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

PATRICK JOSEPH PRATT Appellant - and - THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents Tribunal: Mr David S Porter LLB (Chairman) Mrs G Pratt

Sitting in public in Manchester on the 21^st March, 2003

The Appellant appeared in person

Mr. D. Mohyuddin of counsel instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2003

DECISION
1. This is an appeal by Patrick Joseph Pratt against a second review carried out by the Respondents on the 19^th February, 2003. That review having been carried out in the light of the decision in Hoverspeed.
2. As a preliminary point, it was agreed by the parties by consent, that the tribunal would consider that review although it was appreciated that it was not a review that the tribunal had a jurisdiction over, other than if the parties consented.

The Facts

3. On the 17^th February, 1999 the Appellant returned to the UK from France and was stopped by Customs Officers. He had been on board a bus which had taken some fifty-five people to Belgium for the purpose of buying cigarettes and drink to bring back to the United Kingdom.
4. The bus had been stopped at 11 'o' clock and it was not until 5 p.m. that the Appellant was interviewed. He was the last individual to be interviewed.
5. The Appellant confirmed at the hearing that he was unable to read, and confirmed that the statement taken by Mr G Dimmock had been read through to him and he had confirmed that it was correct.
6. Mr Mohyuddin produced to the tribunal a bundle of documents together with a skeleton argument and copy statements which have been served under the tribunal rules and have not been objected to by the Appellant. The Chairman obtained confirmation from the Appellant that both statements had been read through to him, that he understood them and did not wish to challenge them.
7. The Appellant had bought 13.25 kilograms of hand rolling tobacco (3 different brands) and a quantity of cigarettes and spirits. He had not worked for six months and was in receipt of £210.00 disability payment per month leaving him with a disposable income of £20.00
8. The Appellant indicated that he had a tax rebate of £904.00 although it was unclear at what point he had received this as it could have been prior to the visit to Belgium in 1999.
9. It was confirmed by the Appellant that he had crossed the Channel in November 1998 when he had purchased 40 pouches of tobacco.
10. It also appeared he had been again on the 29^th August, 2000 when he had been in a hired car and that car had had 10 kilos of tobacco, 4,200 cigarettes and 720 litres of beer. He confirmed at the Hearing that half the beer was his that it had been forfeited, but he hadn't bought any tobacco.
11. On the occasion in November 1999 he had spent £600 on tobacco and cigarettes. He agreed that he could roll 146 cigarettes from each pouch and that he smoked two pouches a week. On that basis he bought in 36,400 cigarettes which would have lasted just under 2½ years.
12. The Appellant alleged at the interview that 200 pouches of Golden Virginia tobacco were for himself and his wife as were the 800 Benson & Hedges cigarettes. Sixty pouches of Old Holborn were for his two sons and 200 Barclay cigarettes were for his daughter.
13. At the tribunal he alleged that half of the entire purchase was to be shared with his family. He confirmed that he had six sons and four daughters and that the family looked after each other. His children often went abroad and bought him cigarettes and he did the same when he went abroad.
14. At the hearing, the Appellant confirmed that he was aware of the amount of tobacco he could bring back as he had seen Notice 1 before when he had been stopped earlier. In any event the other passengers on the bus (some of whom were from his club) clearly knew the amounts.
15. Mr Mohyuddin summed up and referred the tribunal to his skeleton argument.
16. The Appellant had been out of work for six months by February 1999 with a disposable income of £20.00. He had managed to travel in November 1998 to buy 40 pouches of tobacco as well as alcohol for consumption at Christmas.
17. When he travelled in February 1999 he spent £600. He was still then out of work and in receipt of benefit.
18. In his interview, the Appellant indicated receipt of a tax rebate of £904.00. This may have been used in relation to the trip both in November 1998 and February 1999.
19. The fact that the Appellant only bought 40 pouches in November 1998 simply highlights his straightened financial circumstances.
20. The Appellant's application that he was going to give away 50 pouches of tobacco and some cigarettes is not credible. At the hearing he indicated he was going to give away half of the pouches.
21. The Appellant first denied having seen Notice 1 but later admitted to having done so and confirmed that at the Hearing.
22. Given the facts before him Mr McEntee acted reasonably in not agreeing to return the goods. It was reasonable to conclude that the Appellant was smuggling.
23. The Appellant indicated that with a large family of six sons and four daughters, it was not unusual for each of them to look after the other in relation to many matters including the provision of cigarettes from trips abroad.
24. His family have provided well for him and he could afford to go to Belgium on the occasions that he did as his wife was working. In any event he considered it was unreasonable for the Respondents to take the view that the goods were not for his own use.
25. After considering the facts in this matter, and although we accept that it is not uncommon for families to help each other out in these sort of circumstances, we find the level of purchases in November 1999 to be substantially above those that one would have expected under the circumstances outlined in this case.
26. Even though the Appellant lived in Rochdale and would therefore need to bring more goods back than would be the case for somebody living in the South of England, we still consider that the volume brought back in November 1999 was substantially greater than could have possibly been for his own use.
27. The parties agreed that the review to be considered by the tribunal should be that at the 19^th February, 2003. We find that the Respondents acted reasonably and we dismissed the appeal.
28. If, in fact, the matter was to be considered in relation to the review by Mr. Devlin on the 11^th May, 1999 or indeed by reference to the facts at the time of the seizure, we would still be of the opinion that the Respondents acted reasonably.
29. There was no request for costs so none were ordered.

David Porter

Chairman

Release Date:

MAN/99/8021