Hamma v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY CIVIL PENALTY (see also EXCISE HYDROCARBON OIL [DUTY]) : Evasion) [2016] UKFTT 817 (TC) (14 December 2016)

Hamma v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY CIVIL PENALTY (see also EXCISE HYDROCARBON OIL [DUTY]) : Evasion) [2016] UKFTT 817 (TC) (14 December 2016)

The appellant knowingly brought 13,160 cigarettes into the UK from outside the EU through the Green Channel, which by ordinary standards is dishonest and for the purpose of evading duty. The appellant knew the facts making his conduct dishonest, satisfying both the objective and subjective elements of the dishonesty...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 817
Parties
Appellant: Hemin Hamma; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Civil Evasion Penalties (excise and Customs) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Substantive Decision After Oral Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of liability; allowed in part as to quantum (penalty further mitigated)
Legal Topics
Excise Duty Evasion, Customs Duty Evasion, Import VAT, Civil Penalties, Dishonesty Test, Mitigation of Penalties
Tax Law Customs and Excise Law Excise Duty Evasion Customs Duty Evasion Import VAT Civil Penalties Dishonesty Test Mitigation of Penalties

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hemin Hamma

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Civil Evasion Penalties (excise and Customs) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Substantive Decision After Oral Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant engaged in conduct for the purpose of evading excise duty, customs duty, and import VAT
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's conduct involved dishonesty within the meaning of the relevant legislation
  3. 3 Whether the penalties should be further mitigated in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant knowingly brought 13,160 cigarettes into the UK from outside the EU through the Green Channel, which by ordinary standards is dishonest and for the purpose of evading duty. The appellant knew the facts making his conduct dishonest, satisfying both the objective and subjective elements of the dishonesty test. However, due to exceptional personal circumstances and partial cooperation, further mitigation of the penalty is warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in respect of liability; allowed in part as to quantum (penalty further mitigated)

Orders

  • Permission granted for late appeal
  • Civil evasion penalties upheld but further mitigation applied to reduce the penalty in the circumstances