Morgan v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 134 (TC) (19 June 2009)

Morgan v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 134 (TC) (19 June 2009)

The tribunal held that Mr Morgan had the opportunity to challenge the legality of the seizure in the magistrates' court condemnation proceedings and chose not to do so. Allowing him to raise the issue in the tribunal would be an abuse of process. The Commissioners' decision not to restore the goods was reasonable and in accordance with their policy, as there were no exceptional circumstances justifying restoration.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 134
Parties
Appellant: John Morgan; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Restoration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Appeal Against Refusal to Restore Seized Goods
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Restoration of Seized Goods, Abuse of Process, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Condemnation Proceedings, Commercial Use of Imported Goods
Tax Law Customs and Excise Law Administrative Law Excise Duty Restoration of Seized Goods Abuse of Process Jurisdiction of Tribunal Condemnation Proceedings +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Morgan

Appellant

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

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Restoration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Appeal Against Refusal to Restore Seized Goods

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal can consider the legality of the seizure of goods in restoration proceedings after condemnation by a magistrates' court
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioners' decision not to restore the seized tobacco was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal held that Mr Morgan had the opportunity to challenge the legality of the seizure in the magistrates' court condemnation proceedings and chose not to do so. Allowing him to raise the issue in the tribunal would be an abuse of process. The Commissioners' decision not to restore the goods was reasonable and in accordance with their policy, as there were no exceptional circumstances justifying restoration.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed