Omolade Netufo v The Commissioners for HMRC

Omolade Netufo v The Commissioners for HMRC

In relation to the September 2018 seizure, HMRC's review decision was unreasonable because the officer failed to consider the proportionality of refusing restoration, specifically by not enquiring into the amount of underpaid duty. For the March 2019 seizure, HMRC's decision was reasonable as the Appellant was found to be wholesaling alcohol without approval, and her explanations did not undermine the reasonableness of the refusal to restore.

Parties
Appellant: Omolade Netufo; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal (restoration of Seized Goods) / First Tier Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Allowed in part
Legal Topics
Restoration of Seized Goods, Small Brewery Relief, Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme (awrs), Proportionality of HMRC Decisions, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Reasonableness of Administrative Decisions
Tax Law Customs and Excise Restoration of Seized Goods Small Brewery Relief Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme (awrs) Proportionality of HMRC Decisions Jurisdiction of Tribunal Reasonableness of Administrative Decisions

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omolade Netufo

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal (restoration of Seized Goods) / First Tier Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC's refusal to restore seized goods (beer) was reasonable in relation to two seizures (September 2018 and March 2019)
  2. 2 Whether the proportionality of the refusal was properly considered, especially regarding the amount of underpaid duty
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant's knowledge or innocence regarding under-declaration and wholesaling without approval was relevant to restoration

Ratio Decidendi

In relation to the September 2018 seizure, HMRC's review decision was unreasonable because the officer failed to consider the proportionality of refusing restoration, specifically by not enquiring into the amount of underpaid duty. For the March 2019 seizure, HMRC's decision was reasonable as the Appellant was found to be wholesaling alcohol without approval, and her explanations did not undermine the reasonableness of the refusal to restore.

Court Disposition

Allowed in part

Orders

  • Officer Gordon’s decision dated 5 November 2021 ceases to have effect.
  • HMRC to conduct a further review of the September 2018 seizure restoration decision, considering the amount of underpaid duty and not giving weight to delay, by a different officer.