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
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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."
- 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."
- 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.
- (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).
- 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
