Mohammed Sajid Saddique v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, E 01169
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | W Michael S TILDESLEY OBE |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 2009 |
| Respondent | Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs |
| Appellant | Mohammed Sajid Saddique |
| Reference | E 01169 |
| Court | VAT & Duties Tribunal (UK) |
E01169
EXCISE DUTY – NON RESTORATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE – Customs Officers discovered 23,580 duty free cigarettes in the boot of a vehicle parked on a property owned by a Mr Ibrahim – cigarettes and vehicle seized – no Appeal against seizure – Appellant claimed that he was the owner of the vehicle and knew nothing about the cigarettes – Review Officer not satisfied that the Appellant was the owner – Appellant’s evidence on ownership contradictory and unsatisfactory – review decision reasonable – Appeal dismissed
MOHAMMED SAJID SADDIQUE Appellant
- and -
Tribunal: MICHAEL TILDESLEY OBE (Chairman)
ROLAND PRESHO FCMA (Member)
Sitting in public in Leeds on 8 January 2009
Kimberley Evans counsel instructed by Gateway Advisers appeared for the Appellant
Josh Shields counsel instructed by the Solicitor’s office of HM Revenue & Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2009
DECISION
The Appeal
The Appellant was appealing against the Respondents’ decision on review dated 18 August 2008 refusing restoration of a motor vehicle, Mercedes C180 SE registration number R4 WAF (hereinafter referred to as the vehicle).
On 2 April 2008 the Respondents seized the vehicle along with 23,580 duty free and foreign cigarettes discovered in its boot. At the time of the seizure the vehicle was parked on the driveway at 21 Briar Garth, Driffield, the home address of Mr Haydir Ibrahim and his partner. Mr Ibrahim did not appeal against the seizure of the cigarettes.
The Appellant contended that he was the owner of the vehicle which he purchased from a Mr S Mohammed on 8 March 2008. The Appellant was in the business of selling and repairing motor vehicles. He stated that he bought the vehicle for onward sale. The Appellant claimed he had no room on his garage premises to store thevehicle which required repairing before sale, and, therefore, took up Mr Ibrahim’s offer to the park the vehicle on his driveway. The Appellant asserted that he did not give Mr Ibrahim permission to use the vehicle, and knew nothing about the illegal importation of cigarettes. The Appellant argued that the vehicle should be returned to him because he was an innocent third party.
The Respondents were satisfied that the vehicle had been used in the unlawful importation of cigarettes. There had been no appeal to the magistrates’ court against the seizure of the vehicle and the cigarettes. The Respondents were not satisfied that the Appellant was the owner of the vehicle, and, therefore refused restoration of the vehicle to him.
The issue in dispute was whether Mrs Wiggs’ refusal to restore the vehicle was a decision which no reasonable body of Commissioners could have arrived at. In order for the decision to have been reasonable Mrs Wiggs (the review officer) must have considered all relevant matters and must not have taken into consideration irrelevant matters.
We heard evidence from the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting