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 >> et Fils v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKVAT(Excise) E01053 (11 July 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2007/E01053.html
Cite as: [2007] UKVAT(Excise) E1053, [2007] UKVAT(Excise) E01053

---

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

---

J Delpech et Fils v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKVAT(Excise) E01053 (11 July 2007)

E01053

Excise Duty – assessment for duty following an irregularity during the movement of duty suspended goods – application to appeal out of time – over a year's delay in appealing – no satisfactory grounds for delay or appeal put forward – application dismissed

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

J DELPECH ET FILS
Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR
HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents

Tribunal: Malcolm Gammie CBE QC

Sitting in private in London on 21 June 2007

The Appellant was unrepresented

Ms Jacky Mortlock of the Solicitor's Office of HM Revenue and Customs, for the Commissioners

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2007


 


DECISION

1. J Delpech et Fils ("the Appellant") appeals against an assessment of 2 September 2005 in the amount of £6,440 for duty due following an irregularity that occurred during the movement of excise duty suspended goods.
2. Article 20 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC provides that where an irregularity has been committed in the course of a movement involving the chargeability of excise duty, the excise duty shall be due in the Member State where the offence or irregularity was committed from the natural or legal person who guaranteed payment of the excise duty in accordance with Article 15(3) of the Directive. The Appellant is that person.
3. The Appellant gave notice of appeal on 27 March 2007 and applied for the appeal to be heard notwithstanding the significant time that had passed since the assessment was first raised. The Appellant states as its grounds of appeal that, "we were until now in negotiation with our customer and his carrier insurance should pay the duty".
4. The Appellant was not represented at the hearing and I was told by Ms Mortlock that nothing had been heard from the Appellant despite the Respondents' attempts to communicate with the Appellant. Having regard to Regulation 26(2) of the VAT Tribunals Rules 1986 I decided to hear the matter in the Appellant's absence.
5. I can state my decision on this matter relatively briefly. The notice of appeal was lodged well over a year after the disputed assessment was raised, as against the usual 30 days allowed in which to appeal. It is unclear whether the stated grounds of appeal are intended as an excuse for the delay in lodging the appeal notice or are intended as the basis upon which the Appellant is seeking to claim that it is not liable to pay the amount assessed. Either way, they are inadequate and I accordingly dismiss the application to appeal out of time and therefore the appeal against the assessment.

MALCOLM GAMMIE QC
CHAIRMAN

RELEASED: 11 July 2007

LON/07/8038