In Mackle v Northern Ireland ([2014] UKSC 5 – 29 January) the defendants had all pleaded guilty to the offence of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of duty on goods (CEMA 1970 s 170(2)(a)) in relation to cigarettes imported by sea.
They all consented to confiscation orders equal to the amount of duty which had been evaded.
The court noted that a person cannot be liable to pay duty on tobacco imported by sea in a ship unless one of two conditions is satisfied: either he must be ‘holding’ the tobacco at the excise duty point; or he must both have ‘caused’ the tobacco products to reach the excise duty point and he must also have retained a connection with the goods at that point. As these two conditions were not satisfied the defendants were not liable to the duty.
...
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 Mackle v Northern Ireland ([2014] UKSC 5 – 29 January) the defendants had all pleaded guilty to the offence of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of duty on goods (CEMA 1970 s 170(2)(a)) in relation to cigarettes imported by sea.
They all consented to confiscation orders equal to the amount of duty which had been evaded.
The court noted that a person cannot be liable to pay duty on tobacco imported by sea in a ship unless one of two conditions is satisfied: either he must be ‘holding’ the tobacco at the excise duty point; or he must both have ‘caused’ the tobacco products to reach the excise duty point and he must also have retained a connection with the goods at that point. As these two conditions were not satisfied the defendants were not liable to the duty.
...
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:
