[14]After obtaining oral references from his previous employer Trans-Lux employed Mr Sylwester Roszkowski as a driver/mechanic on 23 July 2013.[15]On 9 August 2013 the Vehicle, whilst being driven by Mr Roszkowski and documented as carrying industrial steel rods, was stopped at Dover by UKBF Officers. Mr Roszkowski told the Officers that he had beer but no cigarettes on the Vehicle. The Officers then examined the vehicle. This included drilling a hole in the trailer floor to gain access to the coil well where 199,960 concealed cigarettes were found.[16]As the officers were satisfied that the cigarettes had been improperly imported they were seized under s 139 CEMA as they were liable to forfeiture under s 49(1)(a)(i) CEMA and regulation 88 of the Excise Goods (Holding Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010. The Vehicle was also seized under s 139 CEMA as it was liable to forfeiture.[17]Although Mr Roszkowski was given a form 156 Seizure Information Office and a Notice 12A explaining the procedure for doing so no challenge was made to the legality of the seizure.[18]On 23 August 2013 Adwokat Przemyslaw Kral, acting on behalf of Trans-Lux, wrote to the UKBF requesting restoration of the Vehicle stating “My client needs the vehicle and the trailer to run her business.”[19]UKBF replied on 16 September 2013 requesting information further including copies of any instructions or written procedures that Trans-Lux issued to its drivers or other staff, “including any steps to prevent smuggling.”[20]A copy of Mr Roszkowski’s contract of employment was sent to UKBF by Adwokat Przemyslaw Kral on 30 September 2013. The letter which enclosed the contract also stated: There is no obligation [in Poland] to issue written procedures for drivers to prevent smuggling. Staff is fully informed about Polish, International (including European), and target country law according to duty regulations, smuggling preventions, traffic rules and criminal law. Staff is also trained to handle with load, and take care of it, including its security. These training is ordered once, after employment, and consists mentioned law information and practical matters to take care of the load and a car. There is no individual written regulations issued for drivers.[21]By a letter dated 18 October 2013, after summarising the applicable UKBF restoration policy for commercial vehicles, the UKBF offered restoration of the Vehicle for a fee of £16,400, its value according to Glass’ Guide Valuations.[22]A review of this decision was requested by Trans-Lux on 26 November[2015]This was undertaken by Mr Robert Brenton, a UKBF Officer, who upheld the decision to restore the Vehicle for a fee of £16,400. Adwokat Przemyslaw Kral, acting for Trans-Lux, were notified of the outcome of the review by a letter dated 3 January 2014 (the “Decision Letter”).[23]After summarising the background to the case and correspondence between UKBF and Adwokat Przemyslaw Kral the Decision Letter refers to the UKBF “Restoration Policy for Commercial Vehicles” in the following terms (with emphasis as stated in the letter): The Policy for the restoration of commercial vehicles that have been used for smuggling excise goods is intended to tackle cross border smuggling and disrupt the supply of goods in the illicit market … Each case is considered carefully on its individual merits so as to decide whether exceptions should be made and any evidence of hardship is always considered. A vehicle adapted for the purposes of smuggling will not normally be restored. Otherwise the policy depends on who is responsible for the smuggling attempt: A: Neither the operator nor the driver are responsible; or B: The driver, but not the operator is responsible; or C: The operator is responsible … B. If the operator provides evidence satisfying [UK]BF that the driver but not the operator, is responsible for or complicit in the smuggling attempt then: (1) if the operator also provides evidence that satisfying [UK]BF that the operator took reasonable steps to prevent drivers smuggling then the vehicle will normally be restored free of charge unless: (a) .. (b) … (2) Otherwise: (a) On the first occasion the vehicle will normally be restored for 100% of the revenue involved (or the trade value if lower). (b) On a second or subsequent occasion the vehicle will not normally be restored After stating that he (Mr Brenton) was “guided by the restoration policy but not fettered by it” in that he considered “every case on its individual merits” the Decision Letter continued: Having considered the evidence provided and concluded that paragraph B of the policy applies in that the driver, but not the operator, was responsible or complicit in the smuggling attempt it remains for me to determine whether satisfactory evidence has also been provided that the operator took reasonable steps to prevent drivers smuggling so that the vehicle should be restored free of charge unless the same driver was involved on a previous occasion. I would expect an operator involved in moving goods across international frontiers (not just to and from the UK) to make reasonable checks of the drivers to prevent smuggling and to be very well aware of the risks involved in illicit loads carried by drivers including the smuggling of firearms, explosives and excise goods. As a matter of routine I would expect such an operator to “vet” the drivers extremely carefully and to include extremely strict rules and penalties in their contracts, ensuring that all drivers are covered by these arrangements. … The contract with the driver, as provided to me, contains very little information; no paper references were obtained due to a personal recommendation; there was no formal interview procedure or references requested; nothing about the consequences of gross misconduct, criminal activity or [UK]BF irregularities and certainly nothing about smuggling or UK Customs or [UK]BF. I conclude that reasonable steps to prevent driver smuggling were not taken. I conclude that the operator did not take reasonable steps to prevent drivers smuggling and paragraph B(2) of the policy applies but as this was the first occasion [paragraph B(2)(a)] the vehicle should be restored for 100% of the revenue involved in the smuggling attempt (or the trade value if lower). … I have also paid particular attention to the degree of hardship caused by the imposition of a fee for the restoration of the vehicle. I sympathise with your client’s difficulties in carrying on their business. … Hardship is a natural consequence of having a vehicle seized and it would have to be exceptional hardship for me to withdraw the fee for the restoration of the vehicle under this part of the policy. I do not regard either the inconvenience or expense caused by having to pay the fee for the restoration of the vehicle in this case as exceptional hardship over and above what one should expect. In the circumstances I do not consider that your client has suffered exceptional hardship I conclude that there is no reason to disapply the policy in all of the circumstances.[24]Although Trans-Lux accepted the UKBF decision “in general” it appealed to the Tribunal on 25 January 2014 on the grounds the fee for restoration of the Vehicle is “too high according to financial possibilities of the company” and value of the Vehicle as since its seizure it is not generating income but losses which may lead to the closure of the company. Also that Trans-Lux had no knowledge of the attempt to smuggle the cigarettes and actively cooperated with UKBF following the seizure. Discussion and Conclusion[25]As the Tribunal noted Harris v Director of Border Revenue (see above) our jurisdiction in an appeal such as this is limited. The issue for us to determine is not whether the Vehicle should be restored to Trans-Lux for a fee of £16,400, a lower sum or no fee at all (and it is not sufficient that we might ourselves have reached a different conclusion) but whether, having regard to our findings of fact, the decision taken by the UKBF to restore it for that amount is one that could reasonably have been reached.[26]Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR (as he then was) said in Lindsay v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2002] STC 508 at [40]:
“… the Commissioners will not arrive reasonably at a decision if they take into account irrelevant matters, or fail to take into account all relevant matters”
[27]It is apparent from the Decision Letter that Mr Brenton did take account of all relevant matters, including the representations made on behalf of Trans-Lux by Adwokat Przemyslaw Kral and whether the seizure of the Vehicle result in exceptional hardship for Trans-Lux. There has been no suggestion that irrelevant matters were a factor in the decision of UKBF. It therefore follows that we find the decision not to restore the Vehicle to be reasonable and proportionate having regard to all the circumstances of the case.[28]As such, and for the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Right to Apply for Permission to Appeal[29]This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice. JOHN BROOKS TRIBUNAL JUDGE RELEASE DATE: 13 February 2015