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 >> Bevins v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00791 (08 September 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2004/E00791.html
Cite as: [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E791, [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00791

---

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

---

Bevins v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT(Excise) E00791 (08 September 2004)

RESTORATION — Son took father's vehicle to France — purchased 10kg of hand rolling tobacco 600 cigarettes; 20 cases of beer and 5 boxes of cigars — purchase for own use and the subject of a separate appeal — deemed decision — confusions as to time for Appellant to appeal

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

T S BEVINS Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: D S PORTER (Chairman)

MR A E BROWN (Member)

Sitting in public in York on 19th August 2004

The Appellant appeared in person

Miss E Piaseski of counsel for the Commissioners

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION

1. This is an appeal by T S Bevins (the Appellant) against the deemed refusal to restore his vehicle number G 413 REG seized on 12^th June 2001 when being driven by his son Mr A L Bevins. The Appellant stated that the car was his and that he was unaware that his son had taken it abroad to buy tobacco. The Respondents allege that the car was not a "third party car" and that the Appellant knew perfectly well that the car could be used by his son for such purposes.

The Parties

2. Miss E Piaseski of counsel appeared for the Commissioners and produced a bundle of documents for the Tribunal. The Appellant's son appeared on the Appellant's behalf.

The Facts

3. The Appellant requested a review of the decision of the Respondents not to return his vehicle on the 24^th July 2001. The Respondents had 45 days in which to respond to that request, but failed to do so. As a result, a decision not to restore the vehicle was deemed to have occurred on 8^th September 2001. As a result, the Appellant had 30 days in which to appeal to the Tribunal otherwise he would be out of time. No such appeal was lodged within the time scale.
4. In the meantime Mr Andrew Bevins had lodged an appeal for the restoration of the goods, which case is on-going.
5. Miss Piaseski conceded on behalf of the Respondents that there had been considerable confusion and she had been instructed today to agree that the case should be reviewed and she would not therefore appose the Appellants application.
6. We find as fact the matters set out in paragraphs 3 to 5 above.

The Decision

7. My colleague and I agree that the case should be reviewed and that the Commissioners have not acted reasonably in refusing to restore the vehicle.
8. THIS TRIBUNAL HEREBY DIRECTS under section 16(4)(b) of the Finance Act 1994:

a) That the Commissioners do conduct a further review of the decision to refuse restoration of the vehicle and serve the same on both the Appellant and the Tribunal within 30 days of the release of this decision;

b) That the Review be conducted by an officer not previously involved, shall be on the basis of the finding by the Tribunal that the goods were held for the Appellant's own use and shall consider whether restoration should be made in the form of compensation and if so shall specify the amount of compensation and the basis of the calculation;

c) That the Review officer shall take account of any further material or representations made by the Appellant within 14 days to Ralli Quays West, 3 Stanley Street, Salford M60 9LB;

d) That the Appeal is determined on the above basis;

e) That if dissatisfied with the Review the Appellant will have a further right of appeal to this Tribunal;

9. We award £50 costs to the Appellant.

D S PORTER

CHAIRMAN

Release Date:

MAN/02/8071