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 >> Lawton v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00780 (16 August 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2004/E00780.html
Cite as: [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00780, [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E780

---

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

---

Lawton v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00780 (16 August 2004)

E00780

RESTORATION OF GOODS — 6800 cigarettes brought in from Fuerteventura, Canary Islands, on return from holiday — a "third" country within The Travellers Allowance Order 1994 (200 cigarettes only) — Appellant confused by information supplied — appeal allowed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

CHARLES LAWTON Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Mrs E Gilliland (Chairman)

Mrs R Dean (Member)

Sitting in public in Manchester on 26 April 2004

The Appellant appeared in person

Miss M Mayoh, of counsel, instructed by the Solicitor's Office of HM Customs and Excise, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION
1. The appeal before the tribunal is that of Charles Lawton (the Appellant) against the decision of the Commissioners on review on 3 October 2003 not to restore excise goods (the goods) seized from the Appellant on 16 July 2003 at Manchester Airport. The goods comprised 6800 cigarettes.
2. The Appellant has told us that he and his wife had been on holiday at Fuerteventura in the Canary Islands. The cigarettes had been bought as gifts for their large family of sons and daughters. The Appellant had thought that Fuerteventura was part of Spain and thus in the European Union. It was he said confusing nowadays to know which country was in and which was not in the E.U. He knew now that the goods could not be brought in and it would not happen again. We accept that the cigarettes were purchased as gifts.
3. The legal position is that "the Canary Islands in the Kingdom of Spain" fall outside the definition of "member State" in The Excise Goods, Beer and Tobacco Products (Amendment) Regulations 2002 and they are a "third country" for the purposes of The Travellers Allowances Order 1994 the Schedule to which Order permits relief from excise duty on the importation from such a country of 200 cigarettes only.
4. There is a witness statement completed by the review officer Andrew McNeight in the documents before us as well as his review letter. In the letter he referred to the policy of the Commissioners as being not to restore seized goods and stated that each case was examined on its merits to determine whether or not "restoration may be exceptionally offered".
5. The role of the tribunal is to determine whether the contested decision is one which could not reasonably be arrived at under s.16 (4) of the Finance Act 1994. We do not have any power to restore the goods. In considering whether the decision was reasonable we look at the principles set out by Lord Greene M.R. in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corpn. [1948] 1 KB 223 where he stated: "…A person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting " unreasonably"."
6. We have considered whether due weight has been given to the points made by the Appellant that he did not know that he was committing an offence, that the money lost on the goods was of concern to his wife and himself both in their seventies and on State pension and indeed that he was confused as to the countries in the E.U and the allowances until the Commissioners sent to him a copy of Customs Notice 1. The review officer pointed out that any traveller should be aware of what he could and could not import, that there were notices and that he could have asked. The Appellant in a letter received by the Commissioners on 14 August 2003 said that he did ask for information at the Airport (though not of the Commissioners) and was told that the Canary Islands was in the E.U. and that they were allowed to get excise goods tax paid in a member state and brought into the U.K. for their own use. In an earlier undated letter received by the Commissioners on 21 July 2003 the Appellant had explained that he and his wife had brought in 3200 cigarettes each and on the plane had been told that they could bring in 200 each and that was how they had come to have 6800 cigarettes. The Appellant did not say how they had come to buy the number of 3200 cigarettes each which is the guideline for the cross-border traveller from the E.U. into the U.K. The trip to the Canaries was we are satisfied not made for the purpose of purchasing excise goods.
7. We are satisfied also that the Appellant was a credible witness. We are of the view that he did make some enquiry but that he misunderstood the information given to him both at the Airport and in the aeroplane. We do not consider that this was wilful nor that his intention was to avoid the regulations. In our opinion the decision of the Commissioners did not take into account the particular circumstances with a view to "exceptionally" offering restoration and accordingly was not reasonably arrived at. The appeal is allowed and we require the Commissioners to conduct a further review of their decision.
8. We make no direction as to costs.

MRS E GILLILAND

CHAIRMAN

Release date:16 August 2004

MAN/03/8165