Gurmit Singh v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 738 (TC)
Omolade Netufo v The Commissioners for HMRC
10 February 2023
[2023] UKFTT 121 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
Omolade imported beer and was caught twice. The first time, a small mistake led to a big punishment, so the judge sent it back to HMRC to reconsider. The second time, she was knowingly breaking the rules, so she lost the beer.
Key Facts
- •Two seizures of alcohol from Omolade Netufo: September 2018 (over 8,000 liters of beer) and March 2019 (4,375.625 liters of beer/lager).
- •September 2018 seizure: Underpaid import duty due to incorrectly claiming small brewery relief.
- •March 2019 seizure: Possession of alcohol for wholesale sale without the requisite HMRC approval.
- •Appellant did not challenge the legality of either seizure.
- •HMRC refused restoration of seized goods in both instances. Appeals followed.
- •Appellant argued lack of knowledge regarding import declaration errors (September) and that her sales were retail, not wholesale (March).
- •Discrepancies in HMRC's records regarding quantities seized in September 2018.
Legal Principles
Dutiable alcohol is liable to forfeiture if possessed for carrying on a controlled activity (including wholesaling without AWRS approval).
Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 (ALDA), s. 88A
Goods imported without correct duty payment are liable to forfeiture.
Implicit in the case
HMRC has discretion to restore seized goods; Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to determining if HMRC's decision was unreasonable (Finance Act 1994, s. 16(4)).
Finance Act 1994 (FA94)
If legality of seizure isn't challenged, goods are deemed duly condemned.
Implicit in the case
Tribunal can consider facts not before the reviewing officer but can't contradict deemed facts.
Implicit in the case
In determining reasonableness, the Tribunal considers whether HMRC considered irrelevant matters, disregarded relevant ones, or erred in law; proportionality is also considered.
Implicit in the case
Outcomes
Appeal allowed (September 2018 seizure)
HMRC's review decision was unreasonable due to failure to consider the amount of underpaid duty in relation to the value of the goods. While the Tribunal would likely have reached the same conclusion, it wasn't inevitable; case remanded for further review by a different officer.
Appeal dismissed (March 2019 seizure)
The Tribunal found the Appellant was knowingly engaged in wholesale sales without proper authorisation, therefore HMRC's decision not to restore was reasonable.