“Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes-- (a) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues, the anticipated costs and the resources of the parties; (b) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings; (c) ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully in the proceedings; (d) using any special expertise of the Tribunal effectively; and (e) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues.”
“It is plainly inappropriate to extend the excise duty regime to the entire weight of the Gutka whereby only a minority component is tobacco; to do so would make it commercially unviable to import into the United Kingdom and result in a situation whereby there is an unintended windfall arising based on the quantity, density and weight of substances other than tobacco which are not subject to excise duty. “In light of the above, it is submitted that the Appellant has correctly declared and paid excise duty and VAT on the weight of the mixed goods which is tobacco product.”
“(3) The Tribunal may strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if- […] (c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding.”
"Although the summary in Fairford Group Plc is very helpful, we prefer to apply the more detailed statement of principles in respect of application for summary judgment set out by Lewison J, as he then was, in Easyair Ltd (t/a Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd[2009] EWHC 339 (Ch) at [15]. This was subsequently approved by the Court of Appeal in AC Ward & Sons v Caitlin Five Limited[2009] EWCA Civ 1098 . The parties to this appeal did not suggest that any of these principles were inapplicable to strike out applications. "i) The court must consider whether the claimant has a 'realistic' as opposed to a ‘fanciful’ prospect of success: Swain v Hillman[2001] 1 All ER 91 ii) A 'realistic' claim is one that carries some degree of conviction. This means a claim that is more than merely arguable: ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel[2003] EWCA Civ 472 at [8] iii) In reaching its conclusion the court must not conduct a 'mini-trial': Swain v Hillman iv) This does not mean that the court must take at face value and without analysis everything that a claimant says in his statements before the court. In some cases it may be clear that there is no real substance in factual assertions made, particularly if contradicted by contemporaneous documents: ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel at [10] v) However, in reaching its conclusion the court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it on the application for summary judgment, but also the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial: Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No 5)[2001] EWCA Civ 550 vi) Although a case may turn out at trial not to be really complicated, it does not follow that it should be decided without the fuller investigation into the facts at trial than is possible or permissible on summary judgment. Thus the court should hesitate about making a final decision without a trial, even where there is no obvious conflict of fact at the time of the application, where reasonable grounds exist for believing that a fuller investigation into the facts of the case would add to or alter the evidence available to a trial judge and so affect the outcome of the case: Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd[2007] FSR 63 vii) On the other hand it is not uncommon for an application under Part 24 to give rise to a short point of law or construction and, if the court is satisfied that it has before it all the evidence necessary for the proper determination of the question and that the parties have had an adequate opportunity to address it in argument, it should grasp the nettle and decide it. The reason is quite simple: if the respondent's case is bad in law, he will in truth have no real prospect of succeeding on his claim or successfully defending the claim against him, as the case may be. Similarly, if the applicant's case is bad in law, the sooner that is determined, the better. If it is possible to show by evidence that although material in the form of documents or oral evidence that would put the documents in another light is not currently before the court, such material is likely to exist and can be expected to be available at trial, it would be wrong to give summary judgment because there would be a real, as opposed to a fanciful, prospect of success. However, it is not enough simply to argue that the case should be allowed to go to trial because something may turn up which would have a bearing on the question of construction: ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v TTE Training Ltd[2007] EWCA Civ 725 ."
“The issue concerning section 225 ITEPA 2003 gave rise to a short point of construction. The FTT, correctly in our judgment, was satisfied that it had before it all the evidence necessary for the proper determination of the question and that the parties had an adequate opportunity to address it in argument. The Appellants' evidential case was, in our view, hopeless, based on the evidence before the FTT. The FTT was right to conclude it is not enough simply to argue that the case should be allowed to go to trial because something may turn up which would have a bearing on the question of construction.”
“There shall be charged on tobacco products imported into or manufactured in the United Kingdom a duty of excise at the rates shown in the Table in Schedule 1 to this Act.”
“Subject to regulations 7(2) and 7A, there is an excise duty point at the time when excise goods are released for consumption in the United Kingdom.”
“(1) Excise goods are released for consumption in the United Kingdom at the time when the goods— (a) leave a duty suspension arrangement; (b) are held outside a duty suspension arrangement and excise duty on those goods has not been paid, relieved, remitted or deferred under a duty deferment arrangement; (c) are produced outside a duty suspension arrangement; or (d) are charged with duty at importation unless they are placed, immediately upon importation, under a duty suspension arrangement. (2) In paragraph (1)(d) “importation” means— (a) the entry into the United Kingdom of excise goods, unless the goods upon their entry into the United Kingdom are immediately placed under a customs suspensive procedure or arrangement” (a) leave a duty suspension arrangement; (b) are held outside a duty suspension arrangement and excise duty on those goods has not been paid, relieved, remitted or deferred under a duty deferment arrangement; (c) are produced outside a duty suspension arrangement; or (d) are charged with duty at importation unless they are placed, immediately upon importation, under a duty suspension arrangement. (a) the entry into the United Kingdom of excise goods, unless the goods upon their entry into the United Kingdom are immediately placed under a customs suspensive procedure or arrangement”
“(1) The person liable to pay the duty when excise goods are released for consumption by virtue of regulation 6(1)(d) (importation of excise goods) is the person who declares the excise goods or on whose behalf they are declared upon importation.”
“an assessment to excise duty which has become due is not a matter of discretion. We also do not see it in any way as a penalty: it is due because, for the reasons we have given, a duty point has occurred regardless of any wrongdoing…”
“9. Heading 2403 is the customs tariff code heading entitled "Other manufactured tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes; 'homogenised' or 'reconstituted' tobacco; tobacco extracts and essences" and contains the customs tariff code under which the tobacco product component of the Goods was declared, namely, 2403 9910 00 "Chewing tobacco and snuff (nasal tobacco)". 10. Tobacco products include chewing tobacco section 2(1) of TPDA. Chewing Tobacco is defined as a product which consists of or includes tobacco and has been prepared so that it can be chewed. The tobacco that is added to Gutkas is chewing tobacco that has already reached its Production Account Point (PAP) and removed from the factory as it can be chewed on its own or added to Gutkas. It follows that the duty payable at the exercise duty point is the weight of tobacco products (other than cigarettes) is their weight at the time of time of their entry into the productions account which is only the net weight of tobacco that is added to the Gutkas and not the net weight of the Gutka. 11. Applying a purposive interpretation to the excise duty regime, it is plainly inappropriate to extend the excise duty regime to the entire weight of a product of which a minority component is tobacco; to do so would result (as here) in a perverse situation where there is an unintended windfall arising based on the quantity, density and weight of substances other than tobacco which would not otherwise be subject to excise duty. It would make it commercially unviable to import Gutka into the UK.”
“As directed by the Tribunal, we, on behalf of the Appellant, write to object to the application of the Respondent dated24 March 2025 to amend their application of27 December 2024 for this appeal to be struck out. Such application comes after the Appellant's response to their application of27 December 2024 and the Respondent should have anticipated such response when filing their original application and should not be allowed to adjust their application after the Response of the Appellant. This will put the Appellant at further costs of providing another response.”
“The tobacco that is added to Gutkas is chewing tobacco that has already reached its Production Account Point (PAP) and removed from the factory as it can be chewed on its own or added to Gutkas. It follows that the duty payable at the exercise duty point is the weight of tobacco products (other than cigarettes) is their weight at the time of time of their entry into the productions account which is only the net weight of tobacco that is added to the Gutkas and not the net weight of the Gutka.”
“Tobacco products intended for chewing include both the traditional type (originally used by miners) which is basically moist plugs of tobacco and the Asian type of chewing tobacco products. Whereas the first consists mostly of tobacco, the Asian products such as tulsi mix and guhkta may contain only a small percentage of tobacco. In either case the duty is based on the weight of the whole product i.e. excluding packaging but including any other ingredients such as nuts, leaves spices etc. This can make the product subject to an amount of duty which may seem disproportionate but that is the legal position and there is no policy to apportion duty to the tobacco content only. There have been instances of significant amounts being imported under misdescribed tariff headings and large assessments have resulted.”