Home of N2D.

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



14-11-2014 5:41 pm  #21


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

kizzy wrote:

.by that time he had left without bag it was outside when i saw him.....

doyou mean he was supposed to collect check in bag and did`t do so, did he left it behind as well?they will say his goods were seized because they were in your possesionatthe time and more likely they will say they seized your goods as thosewere transported with the goods liable for seizure.


 

Last edited by piotrek (14-11-2014 5:43 pm)


Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.
 

15-11-2014 12:41 pm  #22


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

thanks everyone for your replies

the plane i was on was from alicante.

i have been looking through the mountain of paper work....i did write a few notes down ..they seem irrelevant ...though and confusing by not being able to show the full letters....what i was going to do was ring customs to ask what stage all this was at.

but i have received today another letter....your tobacco debt...our records show etc etc ...where to pay the money etc etc ...

at the bottom it says you should call us now if you do not believe you owe this amount..call us now unless you have paid in full

its not from the same person as the other and not signed.........i think my best option is to ring on monday and disagree with the amount ...i would be grateful ..for any advice on this.
if i requested a tribunal ...would it be theres.or independent

Last edited by kizzy (15-11-2014 12:42 pm)

 

17-11-2014 5:19 pm  #23


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

i have rang today and spoke to COURTS & TRIBUNAL SERVICES who has emailed me a form [notice of appeal]..that i have down loaded....also have to send any information letters etc

has anyone done this ...or can advise me

 

17-11-2014 8:12 pm  #24


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

kizzy wrote:

i have rang today and spoke to COURTS & TRIBUNAL SERVICES who has emailed me a form [notice of appeal]..that i have down loaded....also have to send any information letters etc

has anyone done this ...or can advise me

It's almost impossible to advise you because we are only getting snippets of unclear information.

Is this referring to an appeal to tribunal?

We can't give you accurate advice because you have still not answered whether or not you sent in a NOC or just restoration request. If you sent in a NOC and it was not dealt with through no fault of yours, then it may have a bearing on how you approach the tribunal as normally the tribunal has very limited jurisdiction.


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
     Thread Starter
 

18-11-2014 3:03 pm  #25


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

Please see this thread  http://n2d.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=1456
Read it through and  then post your answers in a new thread, under the port you arrived or departed from.

We will then answer your questions to the best of our abilities.

Garry


START HERE, By answering these questions. http://n2d.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=1526
Useful documents for download : http://n2d.boardhost.com/viewforum.php?id=34
Goods been seized, Start here.  http://n2d.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=78
SOT Thanks to TBD. http://n2d.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=373
 

19-11-2014 4:08 pm  #26


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

This coyness of the posts and responses is suspect. Has to be stated.

 

19-11-2014 8:49 pm  #27


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

shopperleighonsea wrote:

This coyness of the posts and responses is suspect. Has to be stated.

 
I have to agree. But I would go further and replace the word coyness with the word evasivness.


Please ensure you do not divulge any  information which could identify you as Border Force may take your posts here and attempt to quote parts of them out of context in court in order to try to discredit you.

 
 

29-8-2016 11:24 am  #28


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

not sure now where to put this at the time of the last posts ...i was also experiencing emotional problems regarding my grandchildren 4 months and 26 months coming to live with me....i did no way intend to be coy or evasive

irrelevant now i suppose but i only asked for my own to be restored.was out of time for most of the going to court ect ect

what i did do was go to a tribunal in leeds ....had to apply for a hardship payment as the wanted the money owed payed in front i had to apply for a hardship payment certificate to cover it ...

the tribunal was cancelled twice because of illness...but went a head in may ...i found the judges to be very fair ...they made the customs officer look stupid and show them for what they are [pathetic]..they do have a barrister though ...i represented myself... it was adjourned for six weeks for a decision ...that i received last week ...although i didn't win .[because of things in the process i had failed to do].It was reduced though by £1500 pound ...but still owe them £2000

They are never as arrogant in court as they are when taking bacca off you ...although it has still cost me £2000.at least the did'nt have it all there own way and you show them for what they are ...nothing....I anyone who is just going through this ...take them to court it is not as bad as they try and make out preferebly a magistrates

I have already received a letter asking for my over due payment ........has anyone any advice on the minimum payment i would have to pay in installments .

apologies again for anyone thinking i was wasting there time on my replies

 

 

09-9-2016 4:23 pm  #29


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

According to Article 37 of EU directive 208/118/EC, If the goods were imported duty paid from the EU and were seized in transit and have been destroyed ("irretreviably lost) the goods are not liable to duty in the UK.

This subject has been much discussed on the forum (seehere)

 

10-9-2016 9:38 am  #30


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

just been looking not sure if it applies to me though...do u mean i have already paid duty

.could i  still take this further than the tribunal [without further cost to me]..or just have to pay the duty

would u think it would be worth going to C A B

 

13-9-2016 5:48 pm  #31


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

You have 56 days from the date of decision to request permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (UT).  The costs rules are different in the UT and may be awarded against you if your appeal fails. However, I understand that you can apply to the UT for the appeal to be heard on a "no costs" basis.

This situation does not arise at present - the FTT may refuse leave to appeal or it may decide to review its decision. In either case there are no costs involved.

There may be other grounds of appeal you could try besides Article 37, you might for example  be able to argue that you were not "holding" your companions goods for the purpose of a duty assessment.

You could also argue (in a restoration tribunal) that your goods in your bag were entirely for your own use and were only legally forfeited because they were "mixed, packed or found" with the other person's goods. (See HMRC v Mills)

You could try the CAB or you could contact your local MP, but they are not always very helpful.

If your appeal does reach the UT, it would be wise to seek "pro-bono" representation in which case you will need to be referred by the CAB or by your MP.

 

16-9-2016 8:01 am  #32


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

thank u turbulent upstart for your reply really helpfull

 

26-10-2016 11:58 am  #33


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

hi not sure how this has come about .but really could do with some advice....after recieving this from the judge..the amount was reduced .by around £1500

1. I CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 40 OF TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE [FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL][TAX CHAMBER] RULES 2009 WHETHER TO REVIEW THE DECISION IN THIS APPEAL...BUT DECIDED NOT TO UNDERTAKE A REVIEW AS I WAS NOT SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE DECISION

2. THE HURDLE TO OVERCOME BY THE APPELLANT TO APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE F. T. T. IS LOWER THAN THAT  REQUIRED FOR A REVIEW .  WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT CONSIDER THERE IS AN ARGUABLE CASE THAT I HAVE MADE AN ERROR OF LAW

3. IN RELATION TO THE QUESTION WHETHER I WAS WRONG IN LAW TO HOLD THAT THE RESPONDENTS HMRC HAD NOT DISCHARGED THE BURDEN ON THEM OF SHOWING THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR THE IMPOSITIONS OF A PENALTY UNDER PARAGRAPH 4 [PARA 4]  SCHEDULE 41 FINANCE ACT 2008 HAD BEEN MET  I READILY GIVE PERMISSION OF APPEAL   AS HMRC POINT OUT IN THERE APPLICATION AT ($147) OF THE DECISION I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE THE F T T IN THIS CASE MAYBE WRONG AND THAT I EXPECTED HMRC TO APPEAL  I WOULD NOT HAVE ADDED THE REMARKS OF HMRC APPEALING IF I WAS MINDED TO DENY PERMISSION, SO I GIVE PERMISSION ON THIS ASPECT OF THE APPLICATIONS

4. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT I WAS WRONG TO HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT'S DISCLOSURE TO THE B F WAS "UNPROMPTED". THIS DECISION WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THE APPEAL AGAINST PENALTY AS WE HAD HELD THERE WAS NO LIABILITY TO A PENALTY.

5. IF MY DECISION ABOUT THE APPELLANT'S LIABILITY TO THE PENALTY IS UPHELD BY THE UPPER TRIBUNAL THEN THE SECOND GROUND REMAINS ONE THAT IS UNNECESSARY  TO DECIDE , BUT IF THE U T OVERTURNS MY DECISION ON THE PENALTY THEN THE QUESTION WOULD ARISE WHETHER HMRC ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY SIMPLY STOOD OR WHETHER THE QUESTION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE REDUCTION FOR  DISCLOSURE WOULD BE REVISITED BY THE U TRIBUNAL

6. I NEED TO CONSIDER TO WHAT EXTENT AN APPEAL AGAINST MY DECISION ON THE NATURE OF THE DISCLOSURE IS A AN ON A QUESTION OF LAW OR FACT . I CONSIDER THAT WHEN I SAID THAT THE WORDS THE APPELLANT USED IN THE GREEN CHANNEL ,I AMOUNTED TO A PROMPTED DISCLOSURE OF HER ATTEMPTING TO EVADE DUTY ON COMMERCIAL GOODS , BECAUSE SHE KNEW WHAT OFFICER @@@@@ WAS THINKING, THAT WAS FINDING OF FACT.

7. I ALSO SAID [$165] THAT WE COULD NOT BE SURE THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS PROMPTED BY REFERENCE TO PARA 4 PENALISES .  WE DID NOT THOUGH, MAKE ANY POSITIVE FINDINGS THAT THE APPELLANT "NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT HMRC HAVE DISCOVERED OR ARE ABOUT TO DISCOVER RELEVANT ACT" [IE THE TYPE OF HOLDING ETC PENALISED BY PARA 4];  WE SIMPLY SAID WE HAD DOUBTS.  HAD WE SAID THAT IT WAS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT THE APPELLANT "HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE ETC"  THEN THAT WOULD I CONSIDER HAVE BEEN A FINDING OF FACT

8. BUT GIVEN THAT WE DID NOT EXPLICITLY MAKE THAT FINDING AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT I HAVE GIVEN PERMISSION FOR APPEAL ON THE FIRST [AND BY FAR THE MORE IMPORTANT] GROUND , I CONSIDER IT WOULD BE SENSIBLE FOR THE SECOND GROUND TO BE CONSIDERED IF THE U TRIBUNAL WISHES TO 

9. I ADD THIS.  IT SEEMS TO ME VERY UNLIKELY THAT MRS @@@@ WILL WISH TO TAKE PART IN THE APPEAL TO THE U T , FOR OBVIOUS REASONS OF COST .  I WOULD HOPE THAT IN THE EVENT OF SUCCESS IN THE U TRIBUNAL AGAINST AN UNREPRESENTED APPELLANT, HMRC WOULD NOT SEEK COSTS FROM HER .

10. THIS ALSO SEEMS A CASE WHERE THE U TRIBUNAL MIGHT CONSIDER SEEKING TO ARRANGE pro bono REPRESENTATION FOR THE APPELLANT OR ARRANGING FOR WHATEVER THE MODERN TRANSLATION OF  amicus curiae IS

11. IF THE PERSON WHO APPLIED FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IS DISSATISFIED WITH THE OUTCOME OF THE APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL THE DECISION, THAT PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO APPLY TO THE U TRIBUNAL FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION SUCH APPLICATIONS MUST BE MADE IN WRITING ....NO LATER THAN ONE MONTH AFTER DATE OF THIS NOTICE

Last edited by kizzy (26-10-2016 12:04 pm)

 

26-10-2016 9:07 pm  #34


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

Turbulentupstart is more knowledgeable than most of us here on Restoration and Tribunals. Hopefully he may be along and advise you.

In the meantime my take on the matter is that your case was heard by a tribunal and the judge found in your favour, hence the £1500 reduction. However it seems that HMRC have applied for permission to appeal which the judge has granted.

The appeal would go to the Upper Tax Tribunal which I believe is on a par with the High Court and can be costly. The judge has commented that you are unlikely to attend on grounds of cost. He has therefore requested that HMRC do not apply for costs should they win and he hopes that the UTT might be able to find someone to represent you ''Pro Bono'' which means as a volunteer (for free).

Without seeing a transcript of the tribunal hearing, we don't know what the argument is about so can't comment further.

 


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
     Thread Starter
 

27-10-2016 9:19 am  #35


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

thank you ....at least i know where i am with it ...as i understood it more when typing it out ....and gathered it was hmrc but was not sure ....the transcript is like a minni phone book as complicated as everything they do and would be at a loss as how to put it on here ....

what did seem at the time was ... argued about was the points of stopping me before i entered the nothing to declare tunnel ...and penalised me as a trader 

i am not sure either how to go forward with this .....or what i .have to do now

thanks again eezyrider

 

27-10-2016 4:49 pm  #36


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

It may well be that your case has set a legal precedent and that is why HMRC are appealing. Without more info it is not possible to know. 

If a precedent has been set it may well be of interest to a Pro Bono barrister. You could contact

http://www.barprobono.org.uk/

and outline the case. Tell them it is being appealed to the UTT by HMRC


http://i45.tinypic.com/24uxqug.png
Please ensure you do not divulge any information which could identify you as Border Force will use your posts here as evidence against you in court.

 
     Thread Starter
 

27-10-2016 7:37 pm  #37


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

Kizzy

My understanding of your case is as follows.

1. HMRC charged you duty and a penalty on the seized goods
2. The tribunal confirmed the assessment but discharged the penalty
3. HMRC have appealed against the decision to discharge the penalty.

Please can you confirm if this is correct. (If 2 is correct it would appear completely bizarre as I would have expected the tribunal to do exactly the opposite of this)

Please can you also confirm if you have tried to appeal the decision of the tribunal to confirm the assessment.

 

28-10-2016 11:23 am  #38


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

eezyrider wrote:

Turbulentupstart is more knowledgeable than most of us here on Restoration and Tribunals. Hopefully he may be along and advise you.

In the meantime my take on the matter is that your case was heard by a tribunal and the judge found in your favour, hence the £1500 reduction. However it seems that HMRC have applied for permission to appeal which the judge has granted.

The appeal would go to the Upper Tax Tribunal which I believe is on a par with the High Court and can be costly. The judge has commented that you are unlikely to attend on grounds of cost. He has therefore requested that HMRC do not apply for costs should they win and he hopes that the UTT might be able to find someone to represent you ''Pro Bono'' which means as a volunteer (for free).

Without seeing a transcript of the tribunal hearing, we don't know what the argument is about so can't comment further.

 

thank you in the process ...of looking at the link u gave
 

 

28-10-2016 11:59 am  #39


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

turbulentupstart wrote:

Kizzy

My understanding of your case is as follows.

1. HMRC charged you duty and a penalty on the seized goods
2. The tribunal confirmed the assessment but discharged the penalty
3. HMRC have appealed against the decision to discharge the penalty.

Please can you confirm if this is correct. (If 2 is correct it would appear completely bizarre as I would have expected the tribunal to do exactly the opposite of this)

Please can you also confirm if you have tried to appeal the decision of the tribunal to confirm the assessment.

2. seems so as in para [3and 4] ...in letter from the judge i previously posted....[is that what you ment]

no i did not appeal

I took your previous advice to see about appeal 13/9/2016 spoke with C A B

I got a letter to say there records showed i had not payed the amount i owe and to pay the amount in full £2500]

I rang them to say no way i could pay this money in full and they said they would get back to me....and to be ready with my income and outgoings

.they didn't so i wrote a letter with my income and outgoings.......then received the letter about appeal


what happened with C A B was gone as far as you can go had the amount reduced offer to pay at a realistic amount each month.....or risk occurring more costs 


 

 

01-11-2016 8:59 pm  #40


Re: 2014 duty rates for penalties

Well I'm afraid you have now got the dubious pleasure of being a respondent in proceedings before the UT, a situation in which you cannot gain anything and you might well lose.

Regarding the assessment, it would appear you had bad advice from the CAB. As I mentioned above, the question of costs would only arise if you had been granted permission to appeal.

You will be invited to make some submissions to the UT at some stage so you might still be able to raise the Article 37 argument (or you could, in view of the HMRC appeal, make an application to appeal out of time). It would appear that the Article 37 point is due to be considered by the UT anyway. (See eezyrider's post here)

It would appear that proceedings regarding excise penalties (but not assessments)  are treated as criminal  and as such you might be able to apply for legal aid. Be aware, however, if you do qualify for  legal aid, you will not be entitled to pro-bono representation.

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum

Disclaimer:- This forum is an open forum, and anyone can post their thoughts here (within reason). Therefore the views expressed here are those of individuals and not necessarily those of Nothing 2 Declare. We try to allow as much freedom of speech as possible, including views that some may find objectionable. This includes the views of UKBA, Border Force, HMRC, legitimate cross-border shoppers, non-legitimate importers, general public and anyone else that wishes to post.
Regarding ourselves, we categorically do not condone smuggling and neither do we condone the current tactics used against legitimate cross-border shoppers by UKBA/Border Force and HMRC. The current tactics benefit both Customs and smugglers alike.
Although some people use real names, there is no guarantee that they are who they say they are; it is impossible for us to verify identities of all members.