Susan Moss v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise, E 00819
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Miss Jean WARBURTON |
| Judgment Date | 03 November 2004 |
| Respondent | The Commissioners of Customs and Excise |
| Appellant | Susan Moss |
| Reference | E 00819 |
| Court | First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
RESTORATION OF VEHICLE — owner not user — reasonable view of decision not to restore — appeal allowed
MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE
SUSAN MOSS Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents
Tribunal: Miss J Warburton (Chairman)
Mrs M Crompton (Member)
Sitting in public in Manchester on 6 May 2004 and 7 October 2004
The appellant appeared in person
6 May 2004- Mr J Shields of Counsel, instructed by the solicitor of the Customs and Excise for the Respondents
7 October 2004 - Miss L Walmsey of Counsel, instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004
DECISION
-
This is an appeal by Susan Moss against a decision to refuse to restore a Ford Mondeo vehicle registration number L452 LA0, seized at Coquelles on 13 March 2001. The decision on review not to restore is contained in a letter dated 6 October 2003. This review was directed at an earlier hearing before the Tribunal on 9 September 2003.
-
The Commissioners were originally represented by Mr J Shields of Counsel and on the resumed hearing, by Miss L Walmsley, both of counsel, instructed by the solicitor for Customs and Excise. The Commissioners put in a bundle of copy documents. The Appellant appeared in person.
-
We originally heard evidence on oath from the Appellant and Christopher Bond, the driver of the vehicle. During the course of Mr Bond’s evidence it became clear that there was a conflict of evidence as to events at the time of seizure and the Commissioners were granted an adjournment to enable the seizing officer to be called to give evidence. At the resumed hearing we heard further evidence on oath from Christopher Bond and from Martin Bond, his son, who was a passenger. We also heard evidence on oath from John Mark Round and Brian Anthony Rayden, both officers of HM Customs and Excise. There was an agreed witness statement from Gordon Smith a supervisor with P & O Portsmouth Ltd. From the oral and written evidence we find the main facts to be as follows.
-
The Appellant’s partner is Christopher Bond. He has properties in France but stayed with the Appellant when in the UK On 13 March 2001 Christopher Bond took the Appellant’s vehicle, a Ford Mondeo estate, with her permission to take furniture to his house in France. His son, Martin Bond, and friend Stephen Clark were passengers in the car. They went via Euro tunnel. On the return journey the vehicle was stopped at Coquelles. In the vehicle were 21.75kg of tobacco, 87 litres of beer and 60.75 litres of wine.
-
Christopher Bond deals in militaria. In the vehicle, covered with coats on the back seat of the vehicle, were a deactivated pistol, ammunition belts and a bayonet. When the gun was discovered first the police and then Special Branch were called. Christopher Bond was arrested but no subsequent action was taken by the police in respect of the pistol and other items.
-
The excise goods and vehicle were seized by John Round, an officer of Customs and Excise. His notebook, which is not signed, records initial questions and answers and then states that the passengers declined to stay for interview. The Appellant made a request for restoration of the vehicle of 15 March 2001. The Appellant was requested to attend for interview, which she did on 26 April 2001 The request for restoration was refused by letter on 27 April 2001 Reasons for that decision were given in a letter dated 16 May 2001, which contained the reason ‘the vehicle contained bodywork concealments’. On 26 June 2001, the Appellant’s solicitors wrote requesting a review of that decision enclosing a statement from the Appellant, details of trips booked by the Appellant with Euro Tunnel and a letter from Kent Police stating that no action was being taken against Christopher Bond. Through lapse of time, the decision not to restore was deemed upheld on 22 July 2001. Following appeal to the Tribunal, the Commissioners were directed to carry out a review on 9 September 2003. No condemnation proceedings took place in relation to...
To continue reading
Request your trial