Tribunal Allows Appeal in Marion Trading Case, Emphasizing Importance of Legal Principles and Due Process

Citation: [2024] UKFTT 55 (TC)
Judgment on

Introduction

The decision in Marion Trading Limited v The Director of Border Revenue is a significant case that illustrates the nuanced application of legal principles in the context of a refusal to restore seized goods. The case revolved around an appeal against a refusal to restore goods seized by the Border Force, allegedly due to an attempt to evade excise duty. The Tribunal analyzed the decision through the lens of addressing whether the Border Force failed to consider relevant considerations, the Tameside duty of sufficient enquiry, the Wednesbury unreasonableness test, and ECHR proportionality.

Key Facts

Marion Trading Limited (MTL), an importer of alcoholic drinks, faced the seizure of eighteen pallets of alcohol by the Border Force. The seizure was due to both a lack of correct import documentation and unpaid excise duty upon the goods’ arrival in the UK. MTL attributed this to a clerical error and the goods arriving a day earlier than expected. Despite later payment of duty and submitting of documentation, MTL’s request for restoration was denied on grounds that suggested a deliberate attempt to evade duty. MTL appealed, arguing the decision disregarded material considerations and evaluating if the decision was proportionate under Article 1, Protocol 1 of the ECHR.

In reviewing the case, the First-tier Tribunal considered the following legal principles:

  1. Relevance of Considerations: As established in ClientEarth, the decision maker must consider all relevant facts required by legislation or internal policies. Tribunal Judge Vos and Tribunal Member Myerscough found that relevant considerations were not fully taken into account by the Border Force, particularly MTL’s explanations and supporting evidence for the early arrival and payment of duty.

  2. ‘Tameside’ Duty: Originating from Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC, the duty requires a decision maker to acquire necessary information to make informed decisions. The Tribunal found that the Border Force failed to request a legible copy of a key document from MTL and erroneously labeled MTL’s explanation as implausible without sufficient basis.

  3. Wednesbury Unreasonableness: Following the principles in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation, a decision may be questioned if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing it. In this case, the Tribunal concluded that the decision reached by the officer was one that no reasonable officer could have made, given the disregard for evidence submitted by MTL.

  4. ECHR Article 1, Protocol 1: In assessing proportionality, the decision must strike a fair balance between the interests of the community and the protection of the appellant’s possessions. The Tribunal stated that this did not necessarily need determination considering their order for a re-review but acknowledged its consideration under normal circumstances.

Outcomes

The Tribunal’s structured analysis led them to allow the appeal. They ordered the decision to cease effect immediately and directed Border Force to conduct a further review, taking into account all the evidence and the Tribunal’s finding of no deliberate attempt to evade the payment of excise duty.

Conclusion

The Marion Trading Limited v The Director of Border Revenue case reaffirms the necessity for decision-makers to adhere to established legal principles when making determinations that affect property rights. By methodically applying legal precedents and principles, the Tribunal has not only granted relief to the appellant but has also provided valuable jurisprudence for future references in similar contexts. This case thereby underscores the imperative role of due process and thorough consideration in administrative decisions.

Related Summaries