[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	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 >> Synott v Customs & Excise [2003] UKVAT(Excise) E00447 (21 July 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2003/E00447.html Cite as: [2003] UKVAT(Excise) E00447, [2003] UKVAT(Excise) E447

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

RESTORATION OF VEHICLE — vehicle and trailer stopped with three passengers — substantial amount of cigarettes and alcohol — discrepancies in statements — alcohol not for own use — appeal dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

PETER SYNNOTT Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Mr D S Porter LLB (Chairman)

Mr P Whitehead (Member)

Sitting in public in Manchester on the 30 May 2003

The Appellant appeared in person

Mr A Vincent of counsel instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2003


 


DECISION

1. An appeal against a disputed decision of the Respondents in refusing to restore a vehicle and trailer seized on the 28 November 2001 contained in a review decision dated the 20 March 2002. Mr A Vincent appeared for the Respondents and called Mr Tooke, a customs officer, and produced a bundle to the tribunal. The Appellant appeared in person and called his wife, Mrs Christine Synnott, as a witness.

The Facts

2. The Appellant lives in Sheffield, South Yorkshire, and travelled with his wife and father (who is disabled) on the 27 November 2001 to Dover. He had a ticket for one night and two days away. The intention of the trip was to buy alcohol and cigarettes for two parties, one in November and one at Christmas.
3. He was travelling in a Kia Sedona people carrier which belonged to him, on hire purchase, and was toeing a trailer.
4. When he got back to Dover he was asked to drive into the search area and was approached by a Customs' man who clearly showed that he felt that the Appellant must have been smuggling. He was asked if he had any cigarettes and he said "200 in the car". He was then asked if he had any cigarettes in the trailer and he said "about 800". The Customs officers then unloaded the trailer and discovered that the Appellant had 24kgs of hand rolling tobacco, 15,000 cigarettes, 66 cases of beer, 4 cases of wine and 6 litres of spirits. When the officers emptied the trailer they discovered the cigarettes under the beer. This appeared to be an attempt to hide it.
5. The three occupants were then separately interviewed, both the Appellant and his wife said that they were very frightened. Mrs Synnott said that she had signed the statement but had not read it through. Mr Synnott said that he had been persuaded to suggest that all three had been buying the goods although he had paid for all of them himself. He had been advised that that would make it easier for him. He therefore alleged that he had 9kgs of tobacco, 5,000 cigarettes and that he and his wife had paid £1,400 and his father had contributed £1,000 to the purchase.
6. When interviewed his father said that he had only bought a bottle of whiskey and four bottles of wine and he was unaware of how much tobacco his son had bought as he minded his own business, if they understood what he meant.
7. The Appellant and his wife also confirmed that they travelled to the continent usually once a month. They had been on two occasions with their caravan. It was not inconvenient to them to travel so frequently although it was 204 miles from Sheffield, because Mr Synnott's mother lived in Dover and his brother lived near. Their visits to the south coast therefore enabled him to visit his family.
8. Both the Appellant and his wife confirmed that they no longer smoked but the Appellant confirmed that he had smoked at least 30 cigarettes a day and maybe more on a bad day as he had smoked both at home and at work.
9. Mrs Synnott confirmed that she smoked 15 to 20 cigarettes a day, although at the hearing she suggested it might have been more but there was a substantial discrepancies in the statements at the time of the seizure and at the tribunal hearing.
10. Mr Vincent in summing up considered that the review had been reasonable. It was clear from the evidence that the Appellant and his wife had attempted to mislead and under-declare the goods. On the balance of probability it was unlikely that the goods were for their own use. Mr Synnott's own father indicated that he minded his own business where his son was concerned.
11. The Appellant clearly knew the guidelines and at the time of the seizure indicated that the cigarettes were under the beer because he knew he was over the limit. The evidence given to the tribunal today is different to that given at the seizure. His father lived in County Down in Ireland and although he had come over to stay with his son when he had his hip replacement it was clear that the vehicle could not be of any great value to Mr Synnott senior if he was in Ireland and his son was in Sheffield. In all the circumstances it was clear that the Appellant was smuggling and had every intention of selling the goods and in those circumstances the review was reasonable and the case should be dismissed.
12. Mr Synnott produced to the tribunal a typed note of court rulings and EU Law (see copy in the bundle). His note made the point that where an individual bought goods for his own use it was improper of the Customs and Excise to seize them and the vehicle in which they were being carried.
13. It was also essential that the Customs officers had reasonable grounds on the balance of probabilities to assume that the individual was in fact carrying goods beyond the guidelines for the purposes of smuggling.
14. The Customs' officer had clearly made his mind up that the Appellant was smuggling and he had no justification for that.
15. The goods had been purchased for his own use for the family and for the parties in November and December. He lived in a council house which he had recently bought. He had no secret bank account and his standard of living was not excessive. In those circumstances the decision of the reviewing officer was unreasonable and the case should be allowed.
16. We have considered the facts and do not believe that the Appellant acquired the goods for his own use, but for the purpose of onward sales.
17. The evidence given at the time of the seizure and subsequently at the tribunal was substantially different. We accept that the Appellant and his wife might have been frightened at the time of the interview, that would not account for the different versions of facts produced by the three individuals.
18. We do not find it credible that the Appellant could possibly consume the quantity of dutiable goods which were seized for his own purposes as they would have lasted well over 12 months.
19. We understand that the vehicle and trailer are still in the possession of Customs and Excise and accept that the vehicle is valued between £14,000 and £16,000. The duty on the excise goods was £6,032 but proportionality would not apply because the Appellant was smuggling.
20. We were surprised that the Appellant had not agreed with the hire-purchase company that they could sell the vehicle at auction. This would have reduced this debt and we are sure that the hire-purchase company would have agreed that he could continue to pay by the instalments as previously. The Appellant appeared to believe that if that occurred, he would loose his credit rating and not be able to borrow money again. We can not think that that is right.
21. The Respondents did not ask for costs so no costs are rewarded.

D S PORTER LLB

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE DATE: