LKV Ivica Ltd v Director of Border Revenue
Decision date: 25 April 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 341 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned LKV Ivica Ltd’s challenge to Border Force’s refusal to restore a trailer seized at Dover after 10 kg of cocaine was found concealed in it. The First-tier Tribunal found the seizure had been deemed condemned because it was not challenged in the allocated court, and upheld the non-restoration decision as reasonable on the facts and applying the Respondent’s restoration policy. The appeal was dismissed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The tribunal treated as binding the proposition that where seized goods are not contested in the allocated court and thus are “deemed condemned” under para.5 Schedule 3 CEMA, the FtT cannot re-open the legality of the seizure on a restoration appeal; instead it must assess whether the non-restoration decision was reasonable taking into account the decision-maker’s policy, opportunity given to the appellant to respond, and consideration of hardship and proportionality. A refusal to restore adapted vehicles or vehicles carrying Class A drugs above policy thresholds will be reasonable if those steps were taken and no exceptional circumstances are shown.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal observed that it may receive and consider further evidence not before the original decision‑maker on a restoration appeal, but that this does not displace the deeming provisions as to the legality of the seizure. It also noted as a practical point that the Respondent does not routinely provide translations of correspondence, so appellants should secure translation or legal assistance when correspondence is in English.