Key Facts
- •Mr. Ahmed's vehicle was seized after 11,260 cigarettes and 1.5kg of tobacco were found concealed within it.
- •Mr. Ahmed had previous seizures of tobacco products.
- •Mr. Ahmed claimed the tobacco was to pay for his sister's funeral expenses, but his explanations were inconsistent and lacked supporting evidence.
- •Mr. Ahmed did not challenge the legality of the seizure of the tobacco or the vehicle within the statutory timeframe.
- •HMRC refused to restore the vehicle, citing their policy against restoring vehicles used for improper importation of excise goods.
Legal Principles
Goods liable to forfeiture may be seized, and any vehicle carrying them may also be seized.
Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA)
If a seizure is not challenged within one month, the goods are deemed condemned as forfeited.
Schedule 3, Paragraph 5, CEMA
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the legality of the seizure itself if not challenged within the timeframe.
Jones, Race, Hill, EBT cases
The Tribunal's power on appeal is limited to determining whether the Review Decision was reasonable.
Section 16(4) Finance Act 1994
A decision is unreasonable if the decision-maker acted in a way no reasonable decision-maker could have, disregarded relevant matters or considered irrelevant ones.
Customs and Excise v JH Corbitt (Numismatists) Ltd
The reasonableness of the decision is judged against the information available at the hearing, even if not available to the decision-maker initially.
Gora v CCE, Harris v Director of Border Revenue
Tobacco products are liable to excise duty if held for commercial purposes in the UK.
Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010
Anything chargeable with duty and found concealed or not declared is liable to forfeiture.
s.78(4) CEMA
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Review Decision was reasonable. The Tribunal found that the concealment of goods, the quantity involved, Mr. Ahmed's history of smuggling, and his inconsistent explanations did not justify restoring the vehicle. The Tribunal also found that no exceptional hardship was demonstrated.