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 >> Capper v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKVAT(Excise) E01139 (04 September 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2008/E01139.html
Cite as: [2008] UKVAT(Excise) E01139, [2008] UKVAT(Excise) E1139

---

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

---

Philip Capper v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKVAT(Excise) E01139 (04 September 2008)

E01139

EXCISE DUTIES ... refusal of restoration of goods seized on importation — goods condemned as forfeit by magistrates' court — only ground on which restoration sought that goods claimed to be for own use — appeal dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

PHILIP CAPPER Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: Colin Bishopp (Chairman)

David Kippest

Sitting in public in Birmingham on 25 July 2008

The Appellant in person

Vinesh Mandalia, counsel, instructed by the Solicitor and General Counsel for HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2008


 


DECISION

1. On 21 February 2007 the Appellant, Philip Capper, arrived at Birmingham airport on a flight from Malaga. He was intercepted by HMRC officers, and found to have 8000 cigarettes in his possession. He had not sought to pay UK duty on them when he arrived. The intercepting officer, following an interview with Mr Capper, decided that the cigarettes should be seized on the ground that UK duty was due but had not been offered, and the cigarettes were indeed seized. Mr Capper challenged the lawfulness of the seizure by requiring the Commissioners to take condemnation proceedings in the magistrates' court, and he also requested restoration of the goods. The latter request was refused, and that refusal was upheld on review. Mr Capper appeals to this tribunal against the review decision.
2. The condemnation proceedings were heard in the magistrates' court on 13 December 2007, and were decided in the Commissioners' favour. We were provided with a copy of the magistrates' order, which shows that the magistrates accepted the Commissioners' contentions that "at importation into the United Kingdom [the goods]were held for a commercial purpose", that UK excise duty was due on them, and that it had not been paid. The goods were, therefore, found to be liable to forfeiture, and they were condemned accordingly.
3. In his notice of appeal to this tribunal, Mr Capper asserted that the cigarettes were for his own and his family's use and, when the appeal came on for hearing, he told us that he had nothing to add to that assertion. Unfortunately for him, the issue has already been decided, against him, by the court whose task it is to determine such issues, and it is not open to this tribunal to consider and determine exactly the same matter again. If he was dissatisfied with the magistrates' decision, Mr Capper should have appealed it to the Crown Court, a course he did not adopt. We cannot deal, in this tribunal, with what amounts to an appeal against the magistrates' decision.
4. As we indicated to Mr Capper at the hearing, if he had no grounds for claiming restoration beyond those already considered by the magistrates, it was impossible for us to allow his appeal, and we do indeed dismiss it.

COLIN BISHOPP

CHAIRMAN
Release Date: 4 September 2008

MAN/07/8040