Neave v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY CIVIL PENALTY (see also EXCISE HYDROCARBON OIL [DUTY]) : Evasion) [2018] UKFTT 196 (TC) (11 April 2018)

Neave v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY CIVIL PENALTY (see also EXCISE HYDROCARBON OIL [DUTY]) : Evasion) [2018] UKFTT 196 (TC) (11 April 2018)

The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant knew he was not entitled to bring in 17kg of tobacco without declaring it and paying duty, and that his denial to the officer was dishonest by the standards of ordinary, reasonable people. The appellant failed to establish grounds for mitigation.

Citation
[2018] UKFTT 196 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Ian Neave; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Civil Evasion Penalty (excise and Customs Duty) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty Evasion, Customs Duty Evasion, Dishonesty in Tax Matters, Penalty Mitigation, Import VAT
Tax Law Customs and Excise Law Excise Duty Evasion Customs Duty Evasion Dishonesty in Tax Matters Penalty Mitigation Import VAT

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Neave

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Civil Evasion Penalty (excise and Customs Duty) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conduct in bringing 17kg of hand rolling tobacco into the UK from the Canary Islands was dishonest for the purposes of s 8(1) Finance Act 1994 and s 25(1) Finance Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the penalty should be mitigated

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant knew he was not entitled to bring in 17kg of tobacco without declaring it and paying duty, and that his denial to the officer was dishonest by the standards of ordinary, reasonable people. The appellant failed to establish grounds for mitigation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The penalty imposed by HMRC is upheld; no mitigation is granted.