Home of N2D.

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

Won » Case WON but problem getting money back » 17-7-2015 10:28 pm

mrc
Replies: 28

Go to post

eezyrider wrote:

mrc wrote:

did i also mention i've still got HMRC on my back for the duty on the tobacco, apparantly its for alcohol duty, not tobacco anymore and they've passed it onto a debt collector.

would you class that as harrasment??

Need more info. What alcohol was involved and was it included in your NOC and condems hearing?

 

there was no alcohol, the £ amount is exactly the same they asked for the tobacco duty, they've fucked up somewhere. tobacco isn't even mentioned in the demand, it just says alcohol duty :-/

Won » Case WON but problem getting money back » 17-7-2015 10:17 pm

mrc
Replies: 28

Go to post

did i also mention i've still got HMRC on my back for the duty on the tobacco, apparantly its for alcohol duty, not tobacco anymore and they've passed it onto a debt collector.

would you class that as harrasment??

Won » Case WON but problem getting money back » 17-7-2015 10:12 pm

mrc
Replies: 28

Go to post

so how do you recon i can squeeze a bit more out of them?
what about tripping to and from court ? or even the trip back to belgium to replenish what was destroyed?

Won » Case WON but problem getting money back » 17-7-2015 9:13 pm

mrc
Replies: 28

Go to post

they still owe me money
they just sent a letter today stating they'll give me back the money i paid in belgium for the tobacco

i dont want the money i want the baccy, is there any way they can give me the baccy or recompense me at UK prices instead of EU prices??

Help Section » Solicitors Rogers and Norton sound good (HMRC Duty Demands/Fines) » 20-9-2014 11:06 am

mrc
Replies: 19

Go to post

PP avoid this company at all costs I tried them out after seeing this thread and let's just say I had hundreds of nearly £1000 taken from me for one measly letter, and then they had the cheek to ask for more, did nothing but take money from me.

If I was you I would not instruct any solicitor unless your prepared to lose around £3-4K

Fight it yourself all the way to crown if you want the best chance mate

Court Cases » Crown Court Appeal Maidstone » 12-9-2014 4:52 pm

mrc
Replies: 62

Go to post

Thanks gaz :-)

Tbh I've lost a lot of money through this ordeal in the range of £3k+ that's without the £2k in goods seized, so think it's an insult how they can get away with it, cert 144 my arse, they can protect themselves but the public can't??

I think another letter to my MP to tell them the superb news that were not guilty of being smugglers and that the whole process is are farce to try put people into finically ruin, I shall ask BF to reconsider their offer as I had to buy the goods at uk prices, and if they don't agree then I shall ask for safe passage back to Belgium to repurchase said goods without let or hinderance now it's been proven in the court of law that we are legitimate cross border shoppers.

Court Cases » Crown Court Appeal Maidstone » 12-9-2014 2:09 pm

mrc
Replies: 62

Go to post

Hi guys it's been a while but I've been away for 6 weeks to Malta, bought a few packs back and no bf at Manchester, but came home to a letter from bf saying they have destroyed my goods and they they will pay me compensation for the value of goods seized, obviously at Belgian prices ;-)

Anyway great to be back, do you recon I can ask for more at uk prices and I'll also be checking when said goods were destroyed,

General Discussion » Customs Seizure With A Difference » 26-6-2014 12:28 am

mrc
Replies: 11

Go to post

Imagine flashing that at the border while bringing in copious amounts of HRT?

Yes sir what do you do for a living? I'm a customs officer lol

Won » Won » 21-6-2014 2:07 pm

mrc
Replies: 66

Go to post

Have you actually had a letter saying they're appealing?? Or was this just what the barrister told you when you won?

I was told before a verdict was even given at mags that if they lost they would appeal. But I've heard cases where they say they're going to appeal but don't and the 30 day appeal limit lapses,

Won » Won » 19-6-2014 4:18 pm

mrc
Replies: 66

Go to post

Shouldn't the cert 144 not come onto play now they have appealed to crown??

As it's them who are wrecklessly incurring costs for their own gratification even though they lost??

It also sounds like they may be bluffing about the appeal, see what happens but I can't see them really appealing it.

General Discussion » A posting to say "Thanks..." » 12-6-2014 11:11 am

mrc
Replies: 5

Go to post

Also Anthony was any paperwork signed, or a record kept of your stop?? Out in SAR request if so as if you bring anymore in in the future you have a record of any stops so you can prove what you had at the time.

General Discussion » A posting to say "Thanks..." » 12-6-2014 11:05 am

mrc
Replies: 5

Go to post

Sounds like you caught them off guard, nice one ;-) great for sticking to your guns. Like everyone has said time and time again, the onus is on BF to prove weather your goods are for commercial perposes or not, so your answers were spot on, no doubt if you had answered the questions honestly you would have been walking away empty handed.

I'm off to Malta soon so we'll see what happens when I come through lol

General Discussion » No, we are not dead! » 08-6-2014 9:49 pm

mrc
Replies: 5

Go to post

Greetings, don't be a stranger mate ;-)

General Discussion » Eastenders 2014 » 06-6-2014 7:45 am

mrc
Replies: 6

Go to post

I hope so I know exactly how they feel when goods are stolen and no reasons given.

General Discussion » Cert S144 and unlawful seizures » 31-5-2014 9:57 am

mrc
Replies: 6

Go to post

The source was from a solicitors letter to BF.

Obviously all the case quotes are there so you could dig yourself, but I know it's not really relevant in a court side of things unless you present it to try block the them isuuing a cert 144, I've noticed tribunals lap this sort if stuff up.

General Discussion » officers note book » 31-5-2014 9:54 am

mrc
Replies: 27

Go to post

When I asked one of the officers why they chose me out of a list if cars, their excuse was because you parked on the yellow thatched lines when coming through controls,

Obviously must be a frequent smugglers tactic when coming through pmsl

Won » Won » 29-5-2014 6:14 pm

mrc
Replies: 66

Go to post

As above well done normally Dover is a kangaroo court, you must have had good magistrates

General Discussion » Cert S144 and unlawful seizures » 24-5-2014 8:50 pm

mrc
Replies: 6

Go to post

Yes but eastenders knew why their goods were being detained therefore the seizure was lawful. But in my case reasons were not given at the time, and were added after I had long gone and left, therefore surelyy seizure was unlawful.

General Discussion » Cert S144 and unlawful seizures » 24-5-2014 5:03 pm

mrc
Replies: 6

Go to post

1.     The Customs & Excise Management Act 1979 (“CEMA”), section 139 (1) provides:
 
(1) Any thing liable to forfeiture under the customs and excise Acts may be seized or detained by any officer or constable or any member of Her Majesty's armed forces or coastguard.
 
2.   The phrase “liable to forfeiture” was considered by the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Eastenders Cash & Carry Plc) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] 1 WLR 2067.  The Court concluded that the term “liable to forfeiture” meant that there had to in fact have been a breach of the relevant obligation.  An official could not detain goods unless they were in fact liable to forfeiture:  reasonable belief or suspicion that the goods might be liable would not suffice.
 
3.   There are a multitude of circumstances “under the customs and excise Acts” (s.139(1)) and the Regulations made there under which provide that a thing becomes “liable to forfeiture”.  For example: a bottle of spirits may be “liable to forfeiture” if the “duty stamp” label thereon is defective; a pallat of whisky in transit on a lorry may be “liable to forfeiture” if it is not accompanied by the appropriate paper work; a keg of beer my be “liable to forfeiture” if duty is not paid on that beer.  All manner of “things” can become “liable to forfeiture”, including cigarettes and tobacco.
 
4.   A “seizure” is a formal occurrence.  Schedule 3 to CEMA provides “provisions relating to forfeiture”, and paragraph 1, entitled “Notice of Seizure” states as follows: 
 
(1) The Commissioners shall, except as provided in sub-paragraph (2) below, give notice of the seizure of any thing as liable to forfeiture and of the grounds therefore to any person who to their knowledge was at the time of the seizure the owner or one of the owners thereof.
(2) Notice need not be

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.