French Sole (Marylebone) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 913 (TC)
Watch Trading Co v The Director of Border Revenue
6 November 2023
[2023] UKFTT 963 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company tried to sneak expensive watches into the UK by saying they were cheap parts. They got caught, and the judge didn't believe their excuse, so they lost the watches.
Key Facts
- •The Watch Trading Co (Appellant), a US company, sent a parcel to Mr. Mike Thomas (UK) containing five Rolex watches valued at $59,000, declared as "precision instrument parts" worth $500.
- •The parcel was seized by UK Border Force for misdeclaration.
- •The Appellant appealed the Border Force's refusal to restore the watches, claiming it was a mistake.
- •The Tribunal found the Appellant's evidence unreliable and inconsistent.
- •The Tribunal found that Mr. Mike Thomas deals in watches.
- •The Tribunal found that there was no supporting evidence for a second parcel containing watch straps and parts, allegedly mistakenly sent to the US.
- •The Tribunal found that the documentation for the Rolex parcel was not created for a separate 'Straps Parcel'.
- •The Tribunal found that the payment for the Rolexes did not originate from Mr. Thomas's company account, and the invoice did not list his company as the delivery address.
- •The Tribunal found that the misdeclaration was deliberate, not accidental.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Border Force's decision not to restore seized goods, and must decide whether the decision was reasonable.
Finance Act 1994 s 16(4) and Schedule 5 s.2(1)(r)
The test for reasonableness is whether the Border Force Officer acted in a way no reasonable officer could have acted; whether irrelevant matters were considered or relevant ones disregarded.
C&E Commrs v JH Corbitt (Numismatists) Ltd [1980] STC 231
If additional material, even if not considered by the original decision-maker, would not change the outcome, the appeal can be dismissed.
John Dee [1995] STC 941
The Tribunal may consider evidence not before the original decision-maker and reach its own factual conclusions.
Gora v C&E Commrs [2003] EWCA Civ 525
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found the misdeclaration was deliberate, not a mistake, based on unreliable and inconsistent evidence from the Appellant. Even considering additional evidence, the Border Force decision would have been the same.