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.
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…
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 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: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR