Anna Wierzbicka v The Director of Border Revenue
[2024] UKFTT 566 (TC)
Mateusz Ziomek v The Director of Border Revenue
22 November 2022
[2022] UKFTT 444 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A truck was caught smuggling cigarettes. The owner's company didn't check the goods properly, breaking some rules. The government seized the truck but offered it back for a reduced fee. The owner tried to fight it in court, but the court sided with the government, saying the company should have been more careful.
Key Facts
- •Appellant's Mercedes Sprinter was seized for carrying smuggled cigarettes.
- •Initial restoration fee was £44,207.18 (amount of evaded revenue).
- •Review reduced the restoration fee to £8,841.44.
- •Appellant appealed, arguing the decision was unreasonable and disproportionate.
- •The CMR (Consignment Note) lacked key information (consignee name, goods description), violating the CMR Convention.
- •Appellant failed to conduct basic checks on the consignee and the goods.
- •Border Force policy considers the haulier's responsibility in preventing smuggling.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal's power is limited to determining whether the review decision was reasonable and proportionate.
Section 16(4) and (5) of the Finance Act 1994
A decision may be deemed unreasonable even if reasonable at the time, considering later revealed facts.
Revenue and Customs v Riaz Ahmed T/A Beehive Stores [2017] UKUT 359 (TCC)
Decisions must comply with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and must be proportionate.
Lindsay v Customs and Excise [2002] EWCA Civ 267
The burden of proof is on the appellant to show the review decision was unreasonable.
Gora v Customs and Excise Commissioners [2003] EWCA Civ 525
HMRC is not required to publish full details of its restoration policy.
Phu Greg-Car v The Director of Border Revenue [2018] UKFTT 148 (TC)
Adequate checks go beyond those required by the CMR Convention, especially in preventing smuggling.
Szymanski v The Director of Border Revenue [2019] UKUT 343 (TCC)
Public authorities must give intelligible and adequate reasons for their decisions.
South Bucks District Council v Porter [2004] 4 All ER 775
Article 6 of the CMR Convention outlines the required information in a consignment note.
CMR Convention, Article 6
Article 8 of the CMR Convention outlines the carrier's responsibilities on taking over the goods.
CMR Convention, Article 8
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The review decision was reasonable and proportionate. The appellant failed to comply with the CMR Convention and did not take adequate steps to prevent smuggling.