Jones v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 133 (TC) (18 June 2009)

Jones v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 133 (TC) (18 June 2009)

The appeal was allowed because the Tribunal found the goods were imported for the appellants' own use, not for commercial purposes, and that the refusal to restore was unreasonable. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal as there was no abuse of process in the appellants' withdrawal from condemnation proceedings, given their misunderstanding and personal circumstances.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 133
Parties
Appellants: Lawrence and Joan Jones; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Restoration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Excise Goods Seizure, Restoration of Seized Goods, Own Use Vs Commercial Use, Abuse of Process, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Procedural Fairness
Tax Law Customs and Excise Law Human Rights Law European Union Law Excise Goods Seizure Restoration of Seized Goods Own Use Vs Commercial Use Abuse of Process +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawrence and Joan Jones

Appellants

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Restoration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal can hear the appeal after withdrawal from condemnation proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the goods were imported for own use or commercial purpose
  3. 3 Whether refusal to restore goods was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Tribunal found the goods were imported for the appellants' own use, not for commercial purposes, and that the refusal to restore was unreasonable. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal as there was no abuse of process in the appellants' withdrawal from condemnation proceedings, given their misunderstanding and personal circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Respondents directed to carry out a new review of the decision not to restore the seized excise goods and vehicle, taking into account the Tribunal's findings that the goods were not for commercial purpose and were not liable to seizure.