Aidinas Ivanavicius v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 83 (TC) (05 February 2010)

Aidinas Ivanavicius v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 83 (TC) (05 February 2010)

The Tribunal found that the decision not to restore the Mercedes Sprinter was not reasonable as the Appellant was not present or involved in the first seizure, and the two incidents were not sufficiently similar to justify applying the Respondents’ policy. However, the decision not to restore the Mercedes Minibus was reasonable and proportionate given the Appellant’s admitted knowledge of excess goods and lack of exceptional hardship.

Citation
[2010] UKFTT 83 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Aidinas Ivanavicius; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Customs and Excise)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
05 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Restoration of Seized Vehicles, Forfeiture, Travellers’ Allowances, Importation of Excise Goods, Review of Administrative Decisions
Tax Law Customs and Excise Excise Duty Restoration of Seized Vehicles Forfeiture Travellers’ Allowances Importation of Excise Goods Review 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aidinas Ivanavicius

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Customs and Excise)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents’ decision not to restore the Mercedes Sprinter and Mercedes Minibus was reasonable
  2. 2 Whether there was reason to dis-apply the Respondents’ policy of not restoring vehicles used for improper importation of excise goods

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the decision not to restore the Mercedes Sprinter was not reasonable as the Appellant was not present or involved in the first seizure, and the two incidents were not sufficiently similar to justify applying the Respondents’ policy. However, the decision not to restore the Mercedes Minibus was reasonable and proportionate given the Appellant’s admitted knowledge of excess goods and lack of exceptional hardship.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • Respondents to further review the decision regarding restoration of the Mercedes Sprinter registration ECU 256 seized on 20 September 2008.
  • No restoration of the Mercedes Minibus registration ECU 182 seized on 4 October 2008.