Charlene Hughes v The Commissioners for HMRC

Charlene Hughes v The Commissioners for HMRC

The Appellant was in physical possession of the duty-unpaid cigarettes at the relevant time, satisfying the 'holding' requirement under Regulation 10 of the HMDP Regulations. No earlier excise duty point could be established on the evidence, and the burden to prove otherwise rested on the Appellant. The assessment did not breach principles of fairness or proportionality.

Parties
Appellant: Charlene Hughes; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Assessment Appeal / Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) to Upper Tribunal (tax and Chancery Chamber)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Assessment of Duty, Burden of Proof, Holding of Excise Goods, Fairness and Proportionality, Release for Consumption, Duty Point, Appeals Process
Tax Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Excise Duty Assessment of Duty Burden of Proof Holding of Excise Goods Fairness and Proportionality +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charlene Hughes

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Assessment Appeal / Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) to Upper Tribunal (tax and Chancery Chamber)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant was 'holding' the cigarettes at the duty point under Regulation 10 of the HMDP Regulations
  2. 2 Whether an earlier excise duty point could be established such that another person should be assessed
  3. 3 Whether the assessment breached EU principles of fairness and proportionality

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant was in physical possession of the duty-unpaid cigarettes at the relevant time, satisfying the 'holding' requirement under Regulation 10 of the HMDP Regulations. No earlier excise duty point could be established on the evidence, and the burden to prove otherwise rested on the Appellant. The assessment did not breach principles of fairness or proportionality.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed