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 >> Fritton v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00859 (24 February 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2005/E00859.html
Cite as: [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00859, [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E859

---

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

---

Fritton v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00859 (24 February 2005)

E00859

EXCISE DUTY — seizure of mercedes car allegedly used to transport excise goods which duty unpaid — appellant's father appealed legality of seizure as owner of car — condemnation proceedings brought in magistrates' court — condemnation order made did not extend to car — held tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider non restoration of car to appellant since magistrates' court held it belonged to her father

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

MISS ELIZABETH FITTON Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Mr J D Demack (Chairman)

Mr J T B Strangward

Sitting in public in Manchester on 5 December 2003

Mr F Fitton for the Appellant

Miss S Holland of counsel instructed by the Solicitor of HM Customs and Excise for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION

1. Miss Elizabeth Fitton, the appellant, appeals against a decision of Customs on review by letter of 18 October 2002 not to restore to her a Mercedes motor car, reg no J341 PCW, seized on 24 May 2001.

2. The car was seized in these circumstances. On 24 May 2001 Customs officers attended Miss Fitton's father's house and seized 1100 mixed cigarettes and a 50g pouch of tobacco. Mr Fitton had previously told them that he had purchased the goods at Westhoughton dog track. They alleged that he also said that he had used the car to transport and hold the goods. (Before us Mr Fitton denied saying that he had said that he had used the car to transport the goods).

3. By letter of 1 June 2001 to Customs, Mr Fitton requested immediate return of the car and said that he was its legitimate owner. By a further letter, dated 22 June 2001 he appealed the legality of seizure. Consequently Customs commenced condemnation proceedings in the Leigh Magistrates' Court.

4. According to the statement of case, "at the final hearing on 1 May 2002 at which [Mr Fitton] was legally represented, he had sworn on oath at a previous hearing that [Miss Fitton] was the owner of the car, [Mr Fitton] was unable to swear to the ownership of the car and the Order for condemnation was signed."

5. A copy of the Condemnation Order was included in our bundle of documents, but, as so often happens, it was glossed over at the hearing so that at the time we did not consider it in detail. We have now had opportunity to examine it and find that whilst the complaint referred to both excise goods and the car, the order concluded:

   "IT IS THIS DAY ADJUDGED that the Complaint is true and it is ordered that the said goods be condemned as forfeit."

6. In other words, the Condemnation Order dealt only with the excise goods and not the car. If, as Customs maintain, neither they nor the magistrates' court were satisfied that Miss Fitton owned the car and it formed part of Mr Fitton's property, they were liable to restore it to him after the court hearing as it was not condemned as forfeit: it was apparently held not to be liable to seizure.

7. (After the hearing before us on 18 December 2003 we caused a letter to be sent to Customs (with a copy to Miss Fitton) pointing out the terms of the Condemnation Order and inviting them, if they considered it to require rectification, to indicate that fact and to take whatever steps were necessary to rectify it. Customs have chosen not to reply to that letter).

8. In the particular circumstances of this case, we do not see ourselves as having any jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by Miss Fitton. The magistrates' court held that the car belonged to her father. On the basis of the events which have occurred, it should have been returned to him after the Condemnation Order was made. He was then at liberty to dispose of it as he wished.

   DAVID DEMACK

   CHAIRMAN

   RELEASE DATE: 24 February 2005

   MAN/03/8008