AG v Denis [2000] JRC 127 (07 July 2000)
The company deliberately and continuously evaded customs duty, but the fine was reduced due to procedural changes not clearly communicated to the defendant.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] JRC 127
- Parties
- Prosecution: States of Jersey Customs and Excise Department; Defendant: Defendant company (represented by Mr. Denis)
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 07 July 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Judgment
- Outcome
- company fined
- Legal Topics
- Customs Duty Evasion, Fine Imposition
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
States of Jersey Customs and Excise Department
Prosecution
Defendant company (represented by Mr. Denis)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 failure to pay customs duty
- 2 deliberate evasion of duty
Ratio Decidendi
The company deliberately and continuously evaded customs duty, but the fine was reduced due to procedural changes not clearly communicated to the defendant.
Court Disposition
company fined
Orders
- company fined £14,000 to be paid by the end of the month
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JUDGMENT THE LIEUTENANT BAILIFF: In December, 1999, the States of Jersey Customs and Excise Department checked their records in respect of the defendant company and, suspecting that there had been an under declaration, obtained a warrant to search the business premises. They seized the business accounting records for 1997, 1998 and 1999. As a result they discovered that the company had failed to pay duty on 55 occasions, the total sum amounting to £19,841.59. Mr. Denis, today representing the company, attended for interview and admitted the offences. He claimed that at first he thought there had simply been a muddle but realised, as time went on, that that was not so. He then feared the consequences of coming clean and so kept quiet which simply compounded the evasion. The back duty has been settled in the net sum of £19,841.59 relating to imports valued at full retail price at £31,622.71. In mitigation there has been a guilty plea but this was hardly surprising in the circumstances. The company has paid the back duty, however the evasion was deliberate and continuous. Mr. Denis, the proprietor, is an experienced tobacconist and there can be little excuse for getting the company into this situation. Advocate Benest has drawn our attention to the change in the system which caused this difficulty in the first place and we are not wholly convinced that the change was made clear to the trade or to Mr. Denis. The Crown has moved for a fine of £15,000 but we have taken account of the change in procedure and reduced the conclusion of the Crown by £1,000. Accordingly the company is fined the sum of £14,000 to be paid by the end of the month. Authorities Customs and Excise (General Provisions)(Jersey) Law, 1972: Article 77. Page Last Updated: 19 Aug 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII