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 >> Richardson v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00750 (29 June 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2004/E00750.html
Cite as: [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00750, [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E750

---

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

---

Richardson v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00750 (29 June 2004)

E00750

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

IAN RICHARDSON Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: J H Fryer-Spedding CBE (Chairman)

Mr J E Davison (Member)

Sitting in public in Newcastle upon Tyne on 21 April2004

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

Mr C Rose, counsel, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION
1. There being no attendance by or on behalf of the Appellant we decided to proceed to hear the appeal pursuant to the provisions of Rule 26(2) of the Value Added Tax Tribunal Rules 1986 (as amended).
2. This appeal relates to the decision of a Review Officer, Mr C J McFadden, to confirm a decision not to restore certain goods seized from the appellant.
3. The appellant was stopped by an officer of the respondents Mr MB Crosse, at Hull passenger terminal on 8 July 2003. He was returning from Zeebrugge. The appellant had with him the 3200 cigarettes, 3 kilograms of hand rolling tobacco and 100 cigars.
4. The appellant was interviewed by Mr Crosse. He said that he had made 4 or 5 trips abroad during the last 12 months. On each occasion he had bought a couple of sleeves of cigarettes and some tobacco. He had been stopped by an officer of the respondents before but had not had goods seized by them. The present trip had cost £40 and his friend, Derek Porter, had paid for it.
5. The appellant said that he had purchased the goods for his own use. He uses 3 or 4 packets of tobacco and at least a sleeve of cigarettes each week.
6. He said that his income was £77.95 weekly. He went out drinking every day and spent £30 to £40 a week on drink. He said that he thought he had spent about £20 a week on tobacco.
7. The appellant said that he had travelled to Hull in a car belonging to a person called "Howard " together with Mr Porter. He said that Howard had been abroad with him on this occasion only. He said that Mr Porter had lent him some money to buy the goods. He did not recall how much. Nor did he recall how much of his own money he had taken abroad with him. Mr Porter had given him £60 in the shop and he had not yet paid him back. The officer asked the appellant how he could spend £500 on the goods if he could not afford £40 for the crossing. The appellant said that he had saved the money up and would pay the lender back on the trip. The officer seized the goods after the interview.
8. By a letter dated 21 July 2003 the appellant requested restoration of the goods. By a letter dated 28 July 2003 the respondents informed the appellants of a decision that the goods should not be restored to him. One of the grounds for this decision was that the seizing officer believed that there was sufficient evidence to support his belief that the goods were held for a commercial purpose.
9. By a letter dated 23 August 2003 the appellant's solicitors requested a review of that decision. In the review letter dated 6 October 2003 Mr McFadden considered the evidence comprised in the above mentioned interview. He also considered the material legislation and the respondents' policy of restoration. He concluded that the goods had been imported for commercial purpose and were not for the use of the appellant. We consider that Mr McFadden reached the correct conclusion on this point. Mr McFadden also decided that the goods should not be restored. We consider that he took that decision having taken into account all material matters and no immaterial matters. His decision could not be said to be a decision which no reasonable review officer could have reached. For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal.

J H FRYER-SPEDDING CBE

CHAIRMAN

RELEASED 29/06/2004

MAN/04/ 8173