E01125
EXCISE DUTY-  800 cigarettes sent through post by sister to appellants – “gift concession” withdrawn 19 July 2007- respondents required £182.26 to forward cigarettes - decision reasonable – no review - case dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

 
 	
					MR and MRS COLLINS	Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR
				HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS	Respondents

Tribunal: David S Porter Chairman
						  Peter Whitehead  member	
					
Sitting in public in Manchester on 26 June 2008

Appellants appeared in person 
 
No one appeared for HM Revenue and Customs 

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2008

DECISION

1.	Mr and Mrs Collins appeal against the review by R Benton contained in a letter dated 5 February 2008 requiring the payment of £182.26 for the release of 800 cigarettes which had been sent through the post to them by Mrs Collin’s sister. Mr and Mrs Collins say that they have regularly received cigarettes through the post from Mrs Collins sister for birthdays and Christmas. The Respondents say that there is no provision for cigarettes to be sent through the post without the payment of the appropriate duty
2.	Mr and Mrs Collins appeared before the tribunal. A representative from the Respondents telephoned the Tribunal to say that they had no one available to present the case and in the circumstances could the case be adjourned. We were not minded to adjourn the case in view of the small sum of money involved and no one appearing for the Responents this tribunal determined to proceed under Rule 26(2) of the Value Added Tax Tribunal Rules 1986 (as amended).
The facts
 3.    Mrs Collins told us that her sister had moved to Spain some seven years ago and had regularly sent cigarettes to her husband and her for birthdays and Christmas. They had received 800 Sterling Super Kings cigarettes in September 2007 - 400 each. There had been no requirement to make any payment by way of duty on that occasion. Mrs Collin’s sister had sent a further 800 cigarettes at Christmas but the packet had been intercepted at Mount Pleasant Parcel Post Depot on 18 December 2007. The Respondents had, on request, sent on the Christmas card but had refused to send on the cigarettes. 
4.    The letter of 5 November 2007 stated that when the goods had been seized a “Notice of Seizure” and Customs Notice 12A (“Goods and/or vehicles seized by Customs”) was issued to the Appellants.  The notice provided that the Appellants could appeal to the Magistrates Court challenging the legality of the seizure. As no such appeal had been made the goods were deemed forfeited.
5.   Mr and Mrs Collins asked for a review on 12 November 2007 and R Benton replied by way of review on 5 February 2008 and stated:-
	“The Commissioners general policy is that seized goods should not normally be restored. The general policy for posted excise goods is modified in respect of first time offences where there are no aggravating circumstances … In such cases , restoration may be offered on payment of the excise duty and VAT due , together with a penalty of 15% of the charges payable.
        On 19 July 2007 the concession allowing the importation of certain gifts free of UK customs charges was withdrawn so that UK duty must now be paid on all postage importations of excise goods.”
        The letter went on to say that the excise goods should be restored to them for the fee of £182.26.
The decision
6.	 As the law has been changed since 19 July 2007 in relation to the “gift concession” we have no alternative on the facts but to confirm that the Respondents acted reasonably in refusing to return the goods and we therefore dismiss the appeal. As the Respondents failed to appear and had requested an adjournment, and in their fax received after the hearing confirmed that they were prepared to pay the Appellants costs, we award costs of £200 to the appellants.

David S. Porter
CHAIRMAN

Release Date: 14 July 2008
MAN/08/8004