Harrison v HM Revenue & Customs

Excise goods within recommended guideline quantities are not thereby established to be held for private use. Under the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001, quantity is one factor in deciding whether goods are held for a commercial purpose. The decision-maker may consider all relevant circumstances, including repeated journeys, previous seizures and dishonesty in answering questions about earlier trips.

On an appeal on a point of law, the court will not rehear factual issues or assess new evidence afresh. A tribunal’s factual finding will stand where it was properly supported by the evidence and no legal error is shown.

Colin Harrison appealed against a decision of the VAT and Duties Tribunal, which had dismissed his challenge to HM Revenue & Customs’ refusal to restore excise goods and a vehicle seized at Dover after his return from Belgium.

The Tribunal found that the goods had been purchased for commercial purposes. The Applicant challenged the accuracy of interview notes and relied on the fact that the quantities of tobacco and alcohol were within recommended guidelines. The central issues were whether the factual findings were open to the Tribunal and whether compliance with the guideline quantities established private use.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the interview notes were accurate. The notes had been signed by the Applicant as a correct record, and the interviewing officer gave unchallenged evidence confirming their accuracy and contemporaneity. The High Court would not decide the factual issue afresh on the basis of new material put forward on appeal.
2. The fact that the quantities fell within the recommended guidelines did not determine whether the goods were held for a commercial purpose. Regulation 4 of the Excise Goods, Beers and Tobacco Products (Amendment) Regulation 2002 inserted paragraphs (1A) and (1B) into regulation 12 of the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001. Paragraph (1B)(e)(viii) required regard to be had to the quantity of products and whether it exceeded the specified quantities, but that was only one factor to be considered with any other relevant circumstances.
3. The repeated journeys, two previous seizures and the Applicant’s dishonesty when answering questions about his previous trips provided ample circumstances supporting the conclusion that the goods were held for commercial purposes.
4. The Tribunal and the Customs Review Officer had reached their conclusions fairly and properly. No error of law or other basis for appellate intervention was established.

• VAT and Duties Tribunal: dismissed the appeal against the Commissioners’ refusal to restore the seized goods and vehicle.
• High Court (Chancery Division): dismissed the Applicant’s appeal.