Antelope Transport Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 307 (TC)
McGeown Transport Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
27 September 2023
[2023] UKFTT 854 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company's truck was caught smuggling cigarettes. Even though the company claimed they didn't know, a court ruling says they're still responsible for the taxes. Their attempt to change their story too late failed.
Key Facts
- •McGeown Transport Ltd.'s vehicle was stopped at Dover, containing 6,800,400 cigarettes without excise duty.
- •An excise duty assessment of £1,640,936 was issued.
- •The appellant initially claimed unawareness of the cigarettes, relying on Taylor and Wood.
- •The appeal was stayed pending HMRC v Perfect, which involved a CJEU reference.
- •The CJEU ruled that knowledge of the goods is not required for liability.
- •HMRC applied to strike out the appeal based on the CJEU ruling.
- •The appellant then sought to amend its pleadings, claiming McGeown Haulage, a related company, was the holder of the goods.
- •Evidence showed McGeown Transport Ltd. controlled the vehicle and its driver.
Legal Principles
Tribunal must strike out proceedings if it lacks jurisdiction or the appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
Person in physical possession of excise goods at the point of chargeability is liable for excise duty, even without knowledge or interest in the goods.
Council Directive 2008/118/EC, Article 33(3)
UK Courts are bound by CJEU decisions made before 31 December 2020.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
Amendments to pleadings will be refused if they have no real prospect of success, are inherently implausible, self-contradictory, or unsupported by evidence.
Quah Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs International [2015] EWHC 759 (Comm)
Outcomes
HMRC's application to strike out the appeal was granted.
The appellant's original ground of appeal (lack of knowledge) had no prospect of success due to the CJEU ruling establishing strict liability.
Appellant's application to amend its pleadings was refused.
The proposed amendment was considered implausible, self-contradictory, unsupported by evidence, and introduced too late in the proceedings.