Hughes v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY - Was the Appellant the owner of 6 seized trailers containing non-duty paid beer?) [2026] UKFTT 369 (TC) (11 March 2026)

Hughes v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY - Was the Appellant the owner of 6 seized trailers containing non-duty paid beer?) [2026] UKFTT 369 (TC) (11 March 2026)

The Tribunal found, on the balance of evidence and in light of the Appellant's oral testimony and supporting circumstances (including medical evidence of cognitive impairment), that the Appellant was not the owner or holder of the trailers at the time of seizure and had no relevant connection to the goods. The assessment against him under Regulation 10(1) could not stand.

Citation
[2026] UKFTT 369 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Mr Brian Hughes; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Ownership of Goods, Assessment of Liability, Tribunal Procedure
Tax Law Excise Duty Ownership of Goods Assessment of Liability Tribunal Procedure

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

Parties

Mr Brian Hughes

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant was the owner or holder of six seized trailers containing non-duty paid beer for the purposes of Regulation 10(1) of the Holding Movement and Duty Point Regulations.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found, on the balance of evidence and in light of the Appellant's oral testimony and supporting circumstances (including medical evidence of cognitive impairment), that the Appellant was not the owner or holder of the trailers at the time of seizure and had no relevant connection to the goods. The assessment against him under Regulation 10(1) could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The assessment of excise duty against the Appellant under Regulation 10(1) is set aside.