FTU Pod Trans v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY AND WRONGDOING PENALTY - cigarettes smuggled into UK - whether the haulier holding the cigarettes and therefore liable for the excise duty) [2025] UKFTT 753 (TC) (17 June 2025)

FTU Pod Trans v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY AND WRONGDOING PENALTY - cigarettes smuggled into UK - whether the haulier holding the cigarettes and therefore liable for the excise duty) [2025] UKFTT 753 (TC) (17 June 2025)

The appellant, as haulier and employer, had de facto control over the goods through its employee and vehicle, and thus was 'holding' the cigarettes for excise purposes under r13(2)(b) HMDP, regardless of knowledge or intent. The penalty was properly imposed but the appellant's conduct was not deliberate and concealed, only prompted but not deliberate, warranting a greater reduction for quality of disclosure.

Citation
[2025] UKFTT 753
Parties
Appellant: F. T. U. Pod Trans; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of the excise duty assessment; penalty assessment affirmed but varied.
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Wrongdoing Penalty, Liability of Hauliers, Reasonable Excuse, Quality of Disclosure, Holding of Excise Goods
Tax Law Customs and Excise Excise Duty Wrongdoing Penalty Liability of Hauliers Reasonable Excuse Quality of Disclosure Holding of Excise Goods

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. T. U. Pod Trans

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was 'holding' excise goods intended for delivery where excise duty was unpaid under r13(2)(b) Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was liable for a wrongdoing penalty under Schedule 41 Finance Act 2008
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse for the penalty

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, as haulier and employer, had de facto control over the goods through its employee and vehicle, and thus was 'holding' the cigarettes for excise purposes under r13(2)(b) HMDP, regardless of knowledge or intent. The penalty was properly imposed but the appellant's conduct was not deliberate and concealed, only prompted but not deliberate, warranting a greater reduction for quality of disclosure.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in respect of the excise duty assessment; penalty assessment affirmed but varied.

Orders

  • Excise duty assessment of £472,378 upheld against the appellant.
  • Penalty assessment affirmed but reduced to reflect non-deliberate, prompted behaviour and greater reduction for quality of disclosure.