Grzegorz Szczepaniak v Director of Border Revenue
[2023] UKFTT 416 (TC)
Marion Trading Limited v The Director of Border Revenue
16 January 2024
[2024] UKFTT 55 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company's alcohol shipment was seized due to paperwork problems. The government wouldn't give it back, claiming the company tried to avoid taxes. A judge ruled in favour of the company, saying the government didn't properly investigate and made a decision no sensible person would make. The government now has to review its decision.
Key Facts
- •Marion Trading Limited (MTL) imported alcoholic drinks from Romania.
- •Goods were seized in December 2021 due to missing paperwork and unpaid excise duty.
- •MTL subsequently paid the duty.
- •Border Force refused to restore the goods, citing a deliberate attempt to evade duty.
- •MTL appealed, arguing Border Force failed to consider relevant factors and that the decision was disproportionate.
Legal Principles
Decision-maker must consider all relevant considerations.
R (ClientEarth) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy [2020] EWHC 1303 (Admin)
Duty to carry out a sufficient enquiry ('Tameside' duty).
R (Plantagenet Alliance Limited) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 1662 (Admin)
Decision must be one a reasonable officer could have reached.
Customs and Excise Commissioners v J H Corbitt (Numismatists) Limited [1980] 2 WLR 653
Proportionality under Article 1, Protocol 1 ECHR.
European Convention on Human Rights
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Border Force failed to consider key evidence, didn't conduct sufficient enquiries, and reached a decision no reasonable officer could have reached. The decision was based on a flawed conclusion that there was a deliberate attempt to evade duty.