Baser v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY RESTORATION OF VEHICLE (see also EXCISE APPEAL) : Dismissed on facts) [2016] UKFTT 333 (TC) (17 May 2016)

Baser v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY RESTORATION OF VEHICLE (see also EXCISE APPEAL) : Dismissed on facts) [2016] UKFTT 333 (TC) (17 May 2016)

HMRC's refusal to restore the vehicle was reasonable because the vehicle was adapted for smuggling, and the policy not to restore adapted vehicles was correctly applied. The decision was not one that no reasonable panel of commissioners could have reached.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 333 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Ibrahim Baser; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Restoration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Vehicle Seizure, Restoration Policy, Reasonableness of Administrative Decision
Tax Law Customs and Excise Excise Duty Vehicle Seizure Restoration Policy Reasonableness of Administrative Decision

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

Parties

Ibrahim Baser

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Restoration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC's refusal to restore the seized vehicle was reasonable under section 16 Finance Act 1994

Ratio Decidendi

HMRC's refusal to restore the vehicle was reasonable because the vehicle was adapted for smuggling, and the policy not to restore adapted vehicles was correctly applied. The decision was not one that no reasonable panel of commissioners could have reached.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused