Anna Wierzbicka v The Director of Border Revenue
[2024] UKFTT 566 (TC)
Grzegorz Szczepaniak v Director of Border Revenue
10 May 2023
[2023] UKFTT 416 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone's truck was used to smuggle a huge amount of cigarettes. Even though he said he didn't know, the judge decided he was involved in the smuggling. Because of this, the government kept the truck, and the court agreed that was fair.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Szczepaniak's haulage business vehicle was seized for smuggling over 2.6 million cigarettes.
- •The duty evaded was £614,195.90.
- •Mr. Szczepaniak appealed the Border Force's refusal to restore the vehicle.
- •The Upper Tribunal remitted the case for a rehearing.
- •The Tribunal found Mr. Szczepaniak complicit in the smuggling.
- •A previous journey was also deemed suspicious and possibly a test run for the smuggling attempt.
Legal Principles
Tribunal's jurisdiction in restoration appeals is limited to determining the reasonableness of the Border Force's decision.
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA) s 152, Finance Act 1994 (FA 1994) s 16
The Tribunal can consider all evidence, including evidence not before the review officer, and find its own facts.
Gora v C&E Comms [2003] EWCA Civ 525, Behzad Fuels (UK) Ltd v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 319
The Tribunal must apply a three-stage process for dealing with non-compliance with directions (Denton v White [2014] EWCA Civ 90).
Denton v White [2014] EWCA Civ 90, Wolf Rock (Cornwall) Ltd v Langhelle [2020] EWHC 2500 (Ch), BPP v HMRC [2017] UKSC 55
Forfeiture of vehicles involved in commercial smuggling is generally acceptable and proportionate.
Lindsay v HMRC [2002] EWCA Civ 357
Outcomes
Mr. Szczepaniak's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found Mr. Szczepaniak complicit in the smuggling based on evidence of inadequate checks, false documentation, and the suspicious nature of both journeys.