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.

Accordingly, if his evidence is not accepted by the magistrates or the Crown Court, there is a reflection upon his character. However, in such circumstances there is a presumption that the goods are being brought in for commercial purposes and the onus is placed upon someone in the appellant's position to rebut that presumption. The presumption is rebuttal by giving evidence which, on the balance of probabilities, satisfies the courts that they are required for private purposes.

However, reference must also be made to the fact that the legislation categorises the proceedings as civil. Reference is also to be made to the fact that none of the usual consequences of a criminal conviction follow from condemnation and forfeiture proceedings. Under domestic law the person concerned is not treated as having a conviction. The person concerned is not subject to any other penalty, apart from the consequences of the forfeiture and loss of the goods.

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.