Customs and Excise in UK Law

If the terms of the legislation are clear and unambiguous, they must be given effect to whether or not they carry out Her Majesty' treaty obligations, for the sovereign power of the Queen in Parliament extends to breaking treaties (see Ellerman Lines v. Comerford, 1931 Appeal Cases, p. 126), and any remedy for such a breach of an international obligation lies in a forum other than Her Majesty's own Courts.

In such cases it is customary for an appellate court to show some circumspection before interfering with the decision of the tribunal merely because it would have put the case on the other side of the line.

The Commissioners' policy does not, however, draw a distinction between the commercial smuggler and the driver importing goods for social distribution to family or friends in circumstances where there is no attempt to make a profit. Of course even in such a case the scale of importation, or other circumstances, may be such as to justify forfeiture of the car.

While the division of jurisdiction between the courts and the Tribunal may arguably be curious, and is probably retained because of the long standing jurisdiction of the courts in proceedings for condemnation, the division is clear and it is not intended that the Tribunal should have jurisdiction to reconsider the condemnation of goods as forfeited.

They seem to me to point to a very reasonable principle that if through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrong-doing he may incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers.

I would therefore hold that money paid by a citizen to a public authority in the form of taxes or other levies paid pursuant to an ultra vires demand by the authority is prima facie recoverable by the citizen as of right.