Grzegorz Szczepaniak v Director of Border Revenue
[2023] UKFTT 416 (TC)
Zobortrans EU sro v The Home Office
4 July 2024
[2024] UKFTT 593 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company's trucks were caught smuggling tobacco multiple times. The government took the trucks, but offered to give them back for a fee. The company argued the government should return the trucks for free. A judge decided the company didn't do enough to prevent smuggling, so the government didn't have to give back the trucks for free.
Key Facts
- •Zobortrans EU s.r.o. (Appellant), a Slovakian freight company, had its vehicles seized by UK Border Force for smuggling tobacco on four separate occasions.
- •The Appellant appealed the Border Force's decisions to restore the vehicles only upon payment of fees.
- •The Tribunal hearing was initially scheduled as a video conference but was postponed due to a witness's illness and procedural issues related to cross-border evidence.
- •The Appellant's advocate's passport expiry caused a last-minute postponement request, which was denied.
- •The Appellant's director failed to attend the hearing, limiting the evidence the Tribunal could consider.
- •The Tribunal considered the reasonableness of the Border Force's decisions in light of the evidence presented.
- •The Tribunal assessed whether the Border Force followed its internal policy on vehicle restoration reasonably.
- •The Tribunal examined the Appellant's actions and whether those met the criteria for vehicle restoration under the Border Force policy.
Legal Principles
A decision is unreasonable if the decision-maker acted in a way no reasonable decision-maker would have; considered irrelevant matters; or disregarded relevant matters.
C & E Commrs v Corbitt [1980] 2 WLR 753
If additional material would not have changed the decision, the appeal can be dismissed. A finding of 'most likely' is not equivalent to 'inevitability'.
John Dee v C & E Commrs [1995] STC 941
In assessing reasonableness, the Tribunal may consider evidence not before the decision-maker.
Gora v C&E Commrs [2003] EWCA Civ 525
In restoration appeals, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to directing the Border Force to make a new decision if the original decision was unreasonable.
Case law summary
The CMR Convention outlines requirements for carriers to check goods and document discrepancies.
CMR Convention Article 8
The Border Force policy on vehicle restoration considers the responsibility of the driver and operator in smuggling attempts, with varying outcomes depending on the level of responsibility.
Border Force Policy
The Upper Tribunal found the Border Force's restoration policy to be reasonable.
Szymanski v DBR [2019] UKUT 0343 (TCC)
Outcomes
The Border Force's review decisions regarding the Third and Fourth seizures were confirmed.
The Tribunal found that the Appellant did not take reasonable steps to prevent smuggling, despite considering additional evidence and arguments. The Tribunal upheld the Border Force's decisions, even acknowledging some errors in the original assessments, as the outcome would likely remain the same or even be harsher with a new decision.