[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 >> Van Praag v Revenue and Customs [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00917 (28 September 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2005/E00917.html Cite as: [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E917, [2005] UKVAT(Excise) E00917

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

EO00917

EXCISE DUTY – restoration of car on payment of the trade value of the car being less than the duty – whether unreasonable – no – appeal dismissed

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

MICHELLE VAN PRAAG Appellant

- and -

HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: DR JOHN F AVERY JONES CBE (Chairman)

TONY RING FTII ATT

Sitting in public in London on 23 September 2005

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

Sarabjit Singh instructed by the Acting Solicitor for HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005


 


DECISION

1. Michelle van Praag appeals against a decision on review on 14 December 2004 to restore her car on payment of £1,100 and not to restore 14.5 kilos of hand rolling tobacco both of which were seized at Dover on 12 October 2004. The Appellant did not appear and was not represented; Mr Sarabjit Singh appeared for the Respondents.
2. From the papers we find the following facts:

(1) The car and excise goods were seized because the Appellant initially stated that money was to be given in exchange for the goods; there were inconsistencies in her story (initially she said that family and friends had provided money for the tobacco, and later that she would not receive any money); the quantity of tobacco was excessive; there were no smoking materials on the Appellant or in the car; and her consumption rate (10 cigarettes a day for her and 20 for her partner amounting to 1.5 pouches a week, which the Appellant said meant that the tobacco would last for a year, whereas it would last for about 3.5 years, which is more than its useful life).

(2) The Appellant, having received Notice 12A, initially asked to take condemnation proceedings but withdrew the request.

(3) The review letter considered these factors and also the Appellant's stated income and expenditure and savings. It concluded that the tobacco was held for a commercial purpose in circumstances where the cost of the tobacco was paid by others, rather than being sold at a profit. The review officer varied the decision not to restore the car to restoration on payment of £1,100 being the trade value of the car, which was less than the duty on the tobacco of £1,253.64.

3. Mr Singh, relying on Gascoyne v Customs and Excise Commissioners [2002] 2 WLR 222, contends in his skeleton argument that having withdrawn the condemnation proceedings the Appellant cannot argue that the tobacco was for her own use. The only jurisdiction of the Tribunal is to determine the reasonableness of the decision, and whether the fee was proportionate.
4. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is contained in section 16 of the Finance Act 1994 which applies to matters contained in Schedule 5 including decisions on restoration. Section 16(4) provides that

"In relation to any decision as to an ancillary matter, or any decision on the review of such a decision, the powers of an appeal tribunal on an appeal under this section shall be confined to a power, where the tribunal are satisfied that the Commissioners or other person making the decision could not reasonably have arrived at it, to do one or more of the following, that is to say—

(a) to direct that the decision, so far as it remains in force, is to cease to have effect from such time as the tribunal may direct;

(b) to require the Commissioners to conduct, in accordance with the directions of the tribunal, a further review of the original decision;…."

5. In the absence of the Appellant we have considered whether we are satisfied that the decision was unreasonable or disproportionate and we consider that the decision was entirely reasonable and proportionate. The Appellant's first statement to the officer was that she was taking the tobacco to family and friends in Gloucester and "They gave me the money to get it." Although this statement was subsequently withdrawn we consider that her first statement is more likely to be true, and so even if we were able to reconsider the issue of whether the tobacco was for her own use, we would not have found that it was. On that basis the Respondents have applied their normal policy of offering the car for restoration on payment of the lesser of the duty and the value of the car. This seems entirely proportionate to us. The only exceptional reason put forward by the Appellant was that the car was to assist a disabled family member but no further evidence was ever given. We do not consider that this is a ground for departing from the normal policy.
6. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal.

JOHN F. AVERY JONES

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE DATE: 28 September 2005

LON/05/8011