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 [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00856 (23 February 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2005/E00856.html
Cite as: [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E856, [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00856

---

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

---

Lawton v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00856 (23 February 2005)

E00856

EXCISE DUTY — two travellers entering UK from Canary Islands with 6800 cigarettes — permitted maximum not subject to UK duty 200 per person — Travellers' Allowances Order 1994, art 2 and Schedule — no attempt to declare cigarettes made — cigarettes seized and restoration refused — whether decision reasonably arrived at — yes — appeal dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

CHARLES LAWTON Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Colin Bishopp (Chairman)

Carole Roberts

Sitting in public in Manchester on 18 January 2005

The Appellant in person

Samantha Holland, counsel, instructed by the Solicitor's office of HM Customs and Excise for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005


 


DECISION

1. On 16 July 2003 the Appellant, Charles Lawton, arrived at Manchester Airport with his wife, on a flight from Fuerteventura, in the Canary Islands. They were intercepted by Customs officers – we do not know the reason – and found to have in their possession a total of 6,800 cigarettes. The cigarettes were seized because Mr and Mrs Lawton had more than the permitted maximum of 200 cigarettes each and they had not attempted to declare the excess.

2. Mr Lawton did not cause the Commissioners to take condemnation proceedings but he did seek restoration of his and his wife's cigarettes. Restoration was refused and that refusal was upheld on review. The review was the subject of an earlier appeal to this tribunal which resulted in a decision, released on 16 August 2004, directing the Commissioners to undertake a further review. The Tribunal took the view, as its decision indicates, that Mr and Mrs Lawton were confused about the quantity of cigarettes that they could legitimately bring into the United Kingdom without paying duty and that there was no intention on their part to evade United Kingdom duty.

3. The further review was duly carried out by Julie Wiggs. We did not hear evidence from Mrs Wiggs but did have a brief, unchallenged statement and a copy of her letter to Mr Lawton in which she upheld the original decision not to restore the cigarettes.

4. Mr Lawton told us that he was now aware that the Canary Islands, although part of Spain, do not fall within the European Union for the purpose of the imposition of excise duties and that, by virtue of the Travellers' Allowances Order 1994, article 2 and the Schedule, a traveller is relieved from UK duty on only 200 cigarettes bought in the Canary Islands and transported to the UK. Mr Lawton also accepted that he and his wife should have entered the red channel as they were leaving the baggage hall of the airport, in order to declare those cigarettes they had above their 200 allowance. He told us, however, that he did not realise that at the time. On the contrary, he had made enquiries (but not of Customs) at the airport before leaving for his holiday in the Canary Islands and had been advised that he could bring back as many cigarettes as he liked provided they were for his own consumption. He had, he said, made the same enquiry of the holiday representative when he was in the Canary Islands, with the same result.

5. He had learnt that the guideline quantity of cigarettes which a traveller might reasonably buy in another European Union country and bring back to the United Kingdom without payment of further duty was 3,200 per person and he and his wife had bought that quantity each when in the Canary Islands. On the aeroplane when travelling back they had been asked whether they wished to buy further cigarettes; he had asked how many he could buy and he was told that 200 were permitted. Accordingly he bought a further 200 for each of himself and his wife, with the result that on arrival in the United Kingdom they had between them 6,800.

6. We are quite willing to accept that Mr Lawton made enquiries, as he told us, but if the answers given to him were as he explained, he plainly asked the wrong people, or asked the wrong questions, since the information he received was incorrect. Quite how he came to know that the indicative level for importation without payment of UK Duty on cigarettes bought in other EU countries was 3200 per traveller did not emerge (this was, indeed, a point also made by the tribunal which heard Mr Lawton's first appeal).

7. The question we must ask ourselves is whether the refusal, upheld by Mrs Wiggs on her review, to restore Mr and Mrs Lawson's cigarettes is a decision at which she could not reasonably have arrived; that is the extent of the tribunal's jurisdiction conferred on it by section 16(4) of the Finance Act 1994. Though one might be excused for believing that the Canary Islands are within the European Union the law is nevertheless clear: for present purposes they are not. It is equally clearly the law that the maximum number of cigarettes which may be imported from the Canary Islands without the payment of United Kingdom duty is 200 per person. Administration of the law would be impossible if individuals were relieved from compliance on grounds of ignorance. It might be considered a little hard not to restore to Mr and Mrs Lawton the 200 cigarettes each which they could lawfully have imported but all of the cigarettes were liable to seizure, by virtue of sections 139 and 141 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, and we cannot say that a refusal to restore any of the goods is a decision at which the Commissioners could not reasonably have arrived. The total quantity imported was considerably above the permitted maximum, and that the decision might be hard is not enough.

8. We are unanimous that the appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.

   COLIN BISHOPP

   CHAIRMAN

   Release Date: 23 February 2005

   MAN/04/8103