“Summary of the Border Force Policy for the Restoration of 35 Private Vehicles 3 The general policy is that private vehicles used for the improper importation or transportation of excise goods should not normally be restored. The policy is intended to be robust so as to protect legitimate UK trade and revenue and prevent illicit trade in excise goods. However vehicles may be restored at the discretion of Border Force 5 subject to such conditions (if any) as they think proper (e.g. for a fee) in circumstances such as the following: • If the excise goods were destined for supply on a “not for profit” basis, for example, for re-imbursement. • If the excise goods were destined for supply for profit, the 10 quantity of excise goods is small, and it is a first occurrence…”
“29. In addition, it is well established that we can only consider the facts as they were at the time the decision was taken. We cannot take 35 into account subsequent events. We can consider facts which existed at the time the decision was taken but which were ignored by the reviewing officer, either at the time of the decision or at the time of the subsequent review, but we cannot take into account new facts.”
“40. As we have explained above, Mr Dockett had sound 10 explanations for most of the factors which concerned Miss Perkins, and these had nothing to do with the resale of the goods for profit. Indeed, there was no evidence that the goods were even being sold on a “not for profit” basis, eg for simple reimbursement, as envisaged in item (1) of Border Force’s policy on restoration set out at para [19] 15 above.”