William Dean successfully opposes non-restoration appeal in Tax Tribunal

News

01/03/2016

UAB Transagma v Director of Border Revenue [2016] UKFTT 126 (TC) involved a decision by UK Border Force not to restore a vehicle in which 166,000 cigarettes were found. The cigarettes attracted duty of over £35,000. The vehicle was seized under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. UAB Transagma appealed against the non-restoration to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber).

William Dean was instructed on behalf of the Director of Border Revenue to resist the appeal. The Tribunal agreed that the reviewing officer had correctly applied the relevant policy and that she had been entitled to come to the decision at which she had ultimately arrived. That was the case notwithstanding an apparent error in the text of the decision itself, because the reviewing officer had in fact applied the correct test. The Tribunal agreed that the company had not performed basic reasonable checks on its cargo.

The judgment is available on BAILII here.

William was instructed by the Cash Forfeiture and Condemnation Legal Team at the Home Office.

Featured Counsel

William Dean

Call 2011

Latest News & Events

Success for Andrew Warnock KC, Jack Harding and Gurion Taussig in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that claims for compensation by a man who killed three people, but was acquitted by a jury in the Crown Court on the grounds of insanity, are barred by the doctrine of illegality. The Claimant, Mr Lewis-Ranwell, sought damages from…

The Dekagram: 19th January 2026

In this week’s Dekagram Dominique Smith examines a recent decision of the Court of Appeal considering and endorsing 90:10 split liability offers (contrary to the received wisdom following the decision of the High Court in Mundy v TUI [2023] EWHC 385 (Ch); and Robbie Parkin…

Kerry Nicholson writes about Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust and the implications for secondary victims in cross border cases for the Journal of Personal Injury Law

Kerry analyses Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust and the Supreme Court’s attempt to impose coherence on decades of caselaw from McLoughlin, Alcock and Frost through Walters, Shorter and Ronayne. She then asks the hard question for modern travel law practitioners: what, if anything, can claimants do…

© Deka Chambers 2026

Search

Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)