[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 >> RDE&T GmbH v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKVAT(Excise) E01149 (11 November 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/Excise/2008/E01149.html Cite as: [2008] UKVAT(Excise) E1149, [2008] UKVAT(Excise) E01149

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

E01149

EXCISE DUTY – restoration of excise goods refused – Appellant did not appear – appeal dismissed

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

RDE&T GmbH Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S

REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: DR JOHN F AVERY JONES CBE (Chairman)

Sitting in public in London on 11 November 2008

The Appellant was not represented

Sarabjit Singh, counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2008


 


DECISION

1. RDE&T GmbH appeals against a decision on review dated 29 October 2007 to refuse restoration of excise goods consisting of 1,680 litres of Teachers whisky and 11,835 litres of Smirnoff vodka. The Appellant was not represented; the Respondents ("Customs") were represented by Mr Sarabjit Singh.
2. I decided to hear the appeal in the Appellants' absence. Correspondence addressed to the Appellant at the address shown in the notice of appeal both from the Tribunal and from Customs has been returned in the post. There is no other means of contacting the Appellant.
3. The facts are that on 12 May 2007 a vehicle registration BPNX59 and trailer containing the goods were stopped by Customs at Dover Eastern Docks. The movement had been manifested as metal. There was no importer shown on the AAD. There were no duty stamps on the bottles and the lot markings had been removed from the whisky boxes. The goods were seized. Condemnation proceedings took place on 20 March 2008 at the Dover Magistrates' Court and the goods were condemned as forfeit. Restoration was refused by Customs on 11 September 2007 and the decision was upheld on review on 29 October 2007.
4. My jurisdiction is limited to considering whether I am "satisfied that the Commissioners or other person making that decision could not reasonably have arrived at it…" (s 16(4) of the Finance Act 1994). The burden of proof of showing this is on the Appellants and they have not appeared or done anything that would enable me to conclude that the decision was unreasonable. The reviewing officer found that there were no exceptional circumstances for departing from Customs' policy of not restoring excise goods in these circumstances; that there was insufficient evidence that the Appellants owned the goods; and that he considered that on the balance of probabilities the goods would have been diverted to an illicit destination if they had not been intercepted. All these conclusions seem entirely reasonable to me.
5. Accordingly I dismiss the appeal. Mr Singh asked for costs, Customs having warned the Appellant that they would do so, although I assume that the letter was not in fact delivered to the Appellants. I award the costs of, incidental to and consequent upon the appeal to Customs to be determined in the absence of agreement by a Tribunal Chairman.

JOHN F. AVERY JONES

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE DATE: 11 November 2008

LON/07/8114