General Transport SPA v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Richards,Judge Brannan |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKUT 0004 (TCC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Tax,22 January 2019 |
| Date | 22 January 2019 |
| Published date | 22 January 2019 |
[2019] UKUT 0004 (TCC)
Appeal number: UT/2018/0025
EXCISE DUTY – penalty - goods released for consumption in Italy and held
for commercial purposes in the UK – Goods seized and destroyed – whether
goods still chargeable with excise duty for purposes of Schedule 41 of
Finance Act 2008 – yes – HMRC v Jones and Jones considered – whether
specific knowledge required for penalty to be chargeable – no – whether
penalty issued in time – yes – appeal dismissed
UPPER TRIBUNAL
(TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER)
GENERAL TRANSPORT SPA Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents
TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JONATHAN RICHARDS
JUDGE GUY BRANNAN
Sitting in public at The Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London on 1-2 November 2018
and having reviewed written submissions subsequent to the hearing dated 4 December
2018
Tristan Thornton, of TT Tax, for the Appellant
Daniel Sternberg, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and
Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019
2
DECISION
1. With the permission of Judge Roger Berner, the appellant company (the
“Company”) appeals against the decision (the “Decision”) of the First-tier Tribunal
(“FTT”) dated 3 November 2017 reported at [2017] UKFTT 0790 (TC). In the
Decision, the FTT determined that the Company was liable to a penalty of £9,000 that
HMRC had imposed pursuant to paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 41 of Finance Act 2008
(“Schedule 41”).
The Decision
Relevant facts
2. There was no challenge to the FTT’s findings of primary fact although, as noted
further below, the Company argues that the FTT should have found additional facts,
going to the extent of its knowledge of the smuggling of goods. The FTT did not set
out all of its factual findings in a single section of the Decision, but rather included
some factual findings together with a discussion of the issues and therefore the
summary below is drawn from all sections of the Decision.
3. The Company is incorporated in Italy. It provides containers and logistics services
across Europe. As part of its business, it contracts with customers to transport goods
from the loading point to the goods’ destination. The Company then determines the
means by which the goods are to be transported and sub-contracts the actual
transportation to third party hauliers. While the Company does not effect the
transportation itself, it does own a substantial number of containers and makes those
available when arranging the transport of goods for its customers.
4. On five occasions between 13 December 2013 and 19 February 2014, the UK
Border Force seized goods and containers in connection with transports of goods that
the Company had arranged for its customer, Giesse Bev Trade (“GBT”), a Romanian
company. The proceedings before the FTT and before us are concerned with the fifth
such seizure that took place on 19 February 2014. The CMR for that shipment detailed
the load as consisting of 30 pallets of foodstuffs. However, the load also contained a
quantity of wine
1
on which UK duty had not been paid. It was common ground before
the FTT and before us that this wine had been released for consumption in Italy before
reaching the UK and that, when it arrived in the UK, it was not in the course of a duty
suspended movement.
5. Since the Company does not itself transport the goods, but rather arranges the
transportation of goods by others in containers that the Company provides, none of the
Company’s agents or employees was present when the goods referred to above were
loaded or unloaded. The FTT made no express finding that the Company was unaware
1
The FTT did not make a specific finding as to the precise quantity of wine seized, but
contemporaneous documentation suggests that it was 168.725 hectolitres, although as noted below the
figure of 168.75 hectolitres appeared in some early penalty and assessment calculat ions.
To continue reading
Request your trial