In Logistika Peklaj As v Director of Border Revenue (TC03019 – 29 October 2013) a haulier was appealing against the decision of the Director of Border Revenue (‘Border Revenue’) to restore his vehicle only on payment of the vehicle’s trade value at the time of seizure. The vehicle had been seized under CEMA 1979 s 141(1)(a) following the discovery that it contained smuggled tobacco. In a decision released on 25 May 2012 the FTT had held that there was insufficient evidence that the haulier had been involved in the smuggling and had therefore recommended another review by the Border Revenue. This second review was the subject of the appeal.
The Border Revenue had chosen not to follow the recommendation of the FTT and to demand payment of the vehicle’s trade value before restoring it. This was on the basis that the haulier...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Logistika Peklaj As v Director of Border Revenue (TC03019 – 29 October 2013) a haulier was appealing against the decision of the Director of Border Revenue (‘Border Revenue’) to restore his vehicle only on payment of the vehicle’s trade value at the time of seizure. The vehicle had been seized under CEMA 1979 s 141(1)(a) following the discovery that it contained smuggled tobacco. In a decision released on 25 May 2012 the FTT had held that there was insufficient evidence that the haulier had been involved in the smuggling and had therefore recommended another review by the Border Revenue. This second review was the subject of the appeal.
The Border Revenue had chosen not to follow the recommendation of the FTT and to demand payment of the vehicle’s trade value before restoring it. This was on the basis that the haulier...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
