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 >> Hewson v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00706 (23 April 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2004/E00706.html
Cite as: [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E706, [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00706

---

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

---

Ms Donna Hewson v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00706 (23 April 2004)

Excise Duty — importation of 10,000 cigarettes — whether for commercial purpose — appeal dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

MS DONNA HEWISON Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Mr J H Fryer-Spedding (Chairman)

Mr R Presho FCMA (Member)

Sitting in public in Newcastle upon Tyne on 7 March 2004

No attendance on behalf of the appellant

Miss E Piasecki, counsel, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION
1. There was no attendance by or on behalf of the appellant. However, by a letter dated 28 August 2003 the appellant informed the tribunal that she would not be attending the hearing of the appeal, because her health was unpredictable and she could not say if she would be well enough to make any commitment to dates. She added that she could not afford any legal representation. She sent the tribunal with that letter photocopies of certain correspondence. We have, of cause, had regard to these documents. We decided to proceed, in the absence of the appellant, under Rule 26(2) of the Value Added Tax Tribunal Rules 1986.
2. The appeal is made against a review decision of a review officer, Mr C J McFadden, made to the appellant in a letter dated 25 June 2003.
3. By the review Mr McFadden confirmed a decision to refuse restoration of goods seized from the appellant.
4. The appellant was stopped by officers of respondents at the North Shields ferry terminal on 25 March 2003. She had in her possession 10,000 cigarettes. She was interview and said that she had bought the cigarettes on the boat. She had paid for them herself. Nobody else had given her money to purchase some or all of the cigarettes. She said that she smoked and had done so since she was 14 years of age. She smoked some 60 cigarettes a day. She was not then employed, but received £84 a week sickness benefit. She said that she had spent £1,113.80 on the cigarettes. The trip had cost £49 and she had received some £800 from family and friends for a recent birthday.
5. The balance of the money which she had spent came from savings. She said that she no longer had any savings.
6. During the interview, the appellant also said that she had never been stopped by Customs before. The last time that she had travelled on the ferry was a couple of months ago. She had brought 200 cigarettes back on that occasion. She was then asked if she had travelled on any other occasion apart from that time. To this question she replied

"last year then about 3 years ago"

The officer then said that he had a record of her travelling twice in February and after further questions she agreed that she had travelled on 6 and 28 February. She said that she had travelled with her boyfriend, Danny Lee, with whom she was travelling on the day of interview. She said that she had taken the money with her to Amsterdam to purchase something that not having seen anything she decided to purchase cigarettes on the way back. She said that she thought that the cigarettes would last her 6 to 8 months although she might smoke more now.

7. In a letter dated 26 March 2003, the appellants said that when she purchased the cigarettes on the ship, she had asked the steward if there was a limit to what she was allowed to buy and that he had assured her there was no limit as long as the cigarettes were for herself.
8. The cigarettes were seized by the respondents on 25 March 2003. By the letter dated 26 March 2003 the appellant requested restoration of the goods. By a letter dated 1 May 2003 the respondents informed the appellant of their decision to refuse restoration. By a letter dated 15 May 2003 the appellant requested a review, which was carried out by Mr McFadden.
9. In the review letter dated 25 June 2003 Mr McFadden summarised the material legislation and regulations relating to the case. He also referred to the record of the interview, mentioned above, and to material correspondence. He concluded that, like the officer who originally seized the goods, he considered that the goods were for a commercial purpose and not for the use of the appellant herself. He then considered the issue of restoration, taking into account the quantity of the cigarettes, the frequency of trips made by the appellant, and the appellant's financial position. He concluded that the goods should not be restored to the appellant.
10. We consider that Mr McFadden, in carrying out his review, took into account all material facts which were available to him and did not take into account any matters which were not material. We do not think this is a case where it could be said that he reached a decision which no reasonable review officer could have reached. For these reasons, we consider that the appeal must be dismissed.

MR J H FRYER-SPEDDING

CHAIRMAN

MAN/03/8118