Omolade Netufo v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 10 February 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 121 (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 case concerns two appeals by Mrs Netufo against HMRC refusals to restore beer seized in September 2018 and March 2019. The Tribunal dismissed the March 2019 appeal, accepting the statutory deeming that the beer was held for wholesaling without AWRS and finding HMRC's refusal reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the November 2021 review decision refusing restoration of the September 2018 seizure because the reviewer failed to consider the amount of under-declared duty and remitted that decision for fresh review by a different officer.
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 binding ratio is that a review decision refusing restoration will be unreasonable and quashed where the reviewer fails to consider materially relevant factors — here, the amount of under-declared duty — when assessing proportionality; and where goods are statutorily deemed to have been held for a particular purpose (forfeiture deeming), an appeal tribunal must accept that deeming and restrict its review to whether the restoration decision was one a reasonable officer could have reached.
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 (obiter) that failure to leave an internal HMRC Notice 12A did not render the refusal to restore unreasonable in these circumstances, and that even if the Tribunal would have reached the same substantive conclusion as HMRC, it must not substitute its own discretion for HMRC’s where the original decision-making process was flawed and should remit for a proper review.