Taylor & Lodge v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 228 (TC) (28 August 2009)

Taylor & Lodge v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 228 (TC) (28 August 2009)

HMRC's refusal to restore the cloth was unreasonable as the irregularity was not attributable to Taylor & Lodge or its agents, and the interpretation of Article 15 should follow its plain wording, allowing for retrospective permits in exceptional circumstances. The prior incident was not relevant to the determination. The appeal was allowed and HMRC directed to review its decision.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 228
Parties
Appellant: Taylor & Lodge; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
28 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Restore Seized Goods
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Import Licensing, CITES Compliance, Retrospective Permits, Seizure and Forfeiture, Restoration of Goods
Customs and Excise Environmental Law Administrative Law Import Licensing CITES Compliance Retrospective Permits Seizure and Forfeiture Restoration of Goods

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

Parties

Taylor & Lodge

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Restore Seized Goods

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC's refusal to restore seized cloth was reasonable
  2. 2 Interpretation of Article 15 of Regulation EC 865/2006 regarding retrospective import permits
  3. 3 Attribution of irregularity in import process

Ratio Decidendi

HMRC's refusal to restore the cloth was unreasonable as the irregularity was not attributable to Taylor & Lodge or its agents, and the interpretation of Article 15 should follow its plain wording, allowing for retrospective permits in exceptional circumstances. The prior incident was not relevant to the determination. The appeal was allowed and HMRC directed to review its decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • HMRC directed to carry out further review of decision not to restore cloth to Taylor & Lodge
  • HMRC directed to pay Taylor & Lodge's costs on standard basis