Howson v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 248 (TC) (25 September 2009)

Howson v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 248 (TC) (25 September 2009)

The tribunal found that, on the specific facts, it was not an abuse of process to hear Dr Howson’s appeal, but Mrs Hodge’s decision not to restore the tobacco was reasonable and proportionate given the inconsistencies and lack of credibility in Dr Howson’s evidence.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 248
Parties
Appellant: Dr Peter Allan Howson; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
25 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Appeal / Appeal Against HMRC Review Decision Refusing Restoration of Seized Goods
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Forfeiture of Goods, Restoration of Seized Goods, Abuse of Process, Own Use Defence
Tax Law Customs and Excise Excise Duty Forfeiture of Goods Restoration of Seized Goods Abuse of Process Own Use Defence

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Peter Allan Howson

Appellant

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

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Appeal / Appeal Against HMRC Review Decision Refusing Restoration of Seized Goods

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal can consider arguments as to 'own use' after deemed forfeiture
  2. 2 Whether raising 'own use' before the tribunal is an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether HMRC's refusal to restore the tobacco was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that, on the specific facts, it was not an abuse of process to hear Dr Howson’s appeal, but Mrs Hodge’s decision not to restore the tobacco was reasonable and proportionate given the inconsistencies and lack of credibility in Dr Howson’s evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No restoration of the seized tobacco to Dr Howson
  • No order as to costs