[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 >> Wallace v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00864 (29 March 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2005/E00864.html Cite as: [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00864, [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E864

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

Wallace v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00864 (29 March 2005)

E00864

EXCISE DUTIES — traveller entering UK from Cyprus in 2002 with 6,400 cigarettes — 6,000 cigarettes seized — Travellers' Allowances Order 1994 — restoration of remaining cigarettes refused — refusal to restore reasonable — appeal dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

ANTHONY GLEN WALLACE Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Colin Bishopp (Chairman)

Warren Snowdon

Sitting in public in North Shields on 17 March 2005

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

Emma Piasecki, counsel, instructed by the Solicitor's office of HM Customs and Excise, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005

DECISION
1. This is an appeal by Anthony Glen Wallace against the Respondents' refusal to restore to him 6,000 cigarettes, which were seized at Newcastle Airport on 31 March 2002. Mr Wallace had travelled from Cyprus with his wife and other family members, and was intercepted as he left the baggage hall at the airport.
2. Mr Wallace did not attend the hearing of the appeal, although the date and time appear to have been duly notified to him. We were advised by Emma Piasecki, counsel for the Commissioners, that Mr Wallace has also caused the Commissioners to instigate condemnation proceedings in the magistrates' court and he had failed to attend the hearing of those proceedings, which had, unsurprisingly, then been determined against him. We were aware that Mr Wallace had sought a hearing at his home, contending that he suffered from agoraphobia, but despite requests from the tribunal that he should do so, he had failed to produce any medical evidence substantiating his claim to be suffering from that condition. We decided it was a case in which it was appropriate for us to proceed in Mr Wallace's absence, in accordance with rule 26(2) of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 (SI 1986/590).
3. Although Mr Wallace was not present, we have considered his various letters. It appears that there is not a great deal of difference between him and the Commissioners about the facts of the case. While the passengers from Mr Wallace's flight were still in the baggage hall, a loudspeaker announcement was made that Customs officers intended to search all of their baggage. The officer who made that announcement, Richard Dangerfield, explained to us at the hearing that the only passengers within the baggage hall at the time were those who had disembarked from the Cyprus flight. The blue exit channel, intended for passengers arriving from a European Union member state, had been roped off and passengers were told that they could go to the red point if they had goods to declare or leave through the green channel, intended for passengers without goods to declare, should they consider they were eligible to do so, though their bags were nevertheless liable to inspection. Mr Wallace went through the green channel, and was stopped; his bags were searched and found to contain 6,400 cigarettes. The officers gave him 400 of the cigarettes, that is 200 for each of himself and his wife, but seized the remaining 6,000. The "red point" to which Mr Dangerfield referred was, he explained, not a channel through which passengers could walk, but an area manned by Customs officers where passengers wishing to make declarations could do so.
4. It may well be, as Mr Wallace appears to be contending in his letters, that he did not notice the red point, and instead started to leave the baggage hall through the only available exit. However, it seems to be quite clear from what he has said in his letters that, even if he had seen it, he would not have availed himself of the opportunity to make a declaration. His case is that he had bought his cigarettes, duty paid, in ordinary shops in Cyprus and could not be required to pay duty a second time. However, unfortunately for him, his belief betrays an ignorance of the provisions of the Travellers' Allowances Order 1994 (SI 1994/955) which relieves a traveller from the payment of United Kingdom duty on a maximum of 200 cigarettes when he has imported those goods from a country outside the European Union. At that time, Cyprus was not a member of the European Union and Mr and Mrs Wallace were, therefore, limited to the maximum allowance of 200 cigarettes each. The order does not give the Commissioners any discretion in the matter; if a traveller has in his possession more than 200 cigarettes he is required, if he wishes to keep them, to pay the United Kingdom duty, whether or not he has already paid duty in the country of purchase. Mr Dangerfield explained that, had Mr Wallace declared the cigarettes at the red point, he would have been given the opportunity of paying the United Kingdom duty if he wished (though it would be an unattractive option, as the aggregate cost to him of the cigarettes would comfortably exceed the price at which he might have bought them in United Kingdom shops) or he could have surrendered them. As he did not declare them, the option to pay the duty was not available to him and the cigarettes were seized.
5. Mr Wallace sought restoration of his cigarettes, protesting that he had made enquiries before he left to travel to Cyprus and had been assured that he could bring as many cigarettes back as he liked, provided they were for his own consumption. It appears that he was under the impression that Cyprus was an "honorary member" of the European Union, though quite what that means, or what he thought it meant, is not at all clear to us. It is apparent from the correspondence that we have seen that Mr Wallace has been advised, several times, by the Respondents that he was permitted to bring in only 200 cigarettes for each of himself and his wife and the reasons why have been explained, as we have explained them in this decision. We agree with the Commissioners that there is no reason why Mr Wallace should be excused compliance with the law, and treated differently from other travellers in his position, by having his cigarettes restored to him. The appeal is quite without merit, and must be dismissed.
6. Miss Piasecki sought a direction for costs in the Commissioners' favour, since Mr Wallace had failed to attend the hearing. We think that is an entirely proper application, and we direct that Mr Wallace pay to the Commissioners their costs, which we assess at £300, by 30 April 2005.

COLIN BISHOPP

CHAIRMAN
Release Date: 29 March 2005