Tribunal Upholds Customs Duty Penalty in Asif Patel v The Commissioners for HMRC Case, Finding Dishonesty in Duty Evasion Attempt

Citation: [2024] UKFTT 80 (TC)
Judgment on


The case of Asif Patel v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 80 (TC) provides an insightful analysis into customs and excise duty penalties, particularly focusing on the concept of dishonesty in the context of evasion of duty. The following article systematically breaks down the case, elucidating the applicable legal principles and the rationale behind the First-tier Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the appeal.

Key Facts

Asif Patel, the appellant, was penalized by the HMRC for dishonestly attempting to evade customs and excise duties, which is a civil offense under the Finance Act (FA) 1994 and FA 2003. On arrival at Manchester Airport from Turkey, Patel was found to have exceeded the personal allowance for tobacco and cigarettes, amounting to a duty evasion of £1,424. A penalty of £1,139 was then levied against him. Patel’s appeal pitted his ignorance and lack of intention against the HMRC’s assertion of his dishonesty.

The Tribunal’s decision largely hinged on the principles set forth in two landmark cases, which were cited to establish the framework for determining dishonesty:

  1. Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67: This case revised the test for dishonesty by combining subjective and objective elements. The initial step requires establishing the individual’s actual state of knowledge or belief about the facts. Once determined, the fact-finder must apply the standards of ordinary decent people to judge whether the conduct was honest or dishonest, independent of whether the defendant realized the act was dishonest by those standards.

  2. Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 3 All ER 97: This ruling illuminates the behavior expected from an honest individual. It establishes the notion that honest people do not participate in deceitful acts or transactions they know to be improper, nor do they intentionally ignore information to avoid confirming suspicions of impropriety.

The Tribunal applied these principles to Patel’s circumstances, carefully considering his claimed ignorance and various explanations.


Upon thorough examination of the evidence and Patel’s responses, the Tribunal ruled Mr. Patel’s actions as dishonest. Although Patel claimed ignorance of the allowances and duties involved, the Tribunal concluded that he was at the very least willfully blind to his obligations.

The Tribunal pointed to inconsistencies in Patel’s account and failures to provide complete responses to inquiries, which undermined his credibility. Notably, signs at the airport displayed personal allowance information, and the Tribunal found it implausible that Patel, having traveled frequently, was consistently unaware of customs allowances or the existence of different channels.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty and found the level of mitigation applied by HMRC to be appropriate, concluding that Patel deliberately sought to evade customs duties.


The decision in Asif Patel v The Commissioners for HMRC reinforces the high behavioral standard expected in matters of customs and excise duty and the rigorous application of objective tests of honesty. The Tribunal’s meticulous scrutiny of Patel’s actions against the principles of honesty outlined in Ivey and Royal Brunei Airlines v Tan demonstrates the expectations of transparency and integrity within the sphere of customs law. Individuals engaging in international travel are thereby reminded to acquaint themselves with duty regulations to avoid penalties for evasion. This case serves as a reminder of the Tribunal’s willingness to draw adverse inferences from inconsistent evidence and incomplete responses to official inquiries.

Related Summaries