Uab Migoresta v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 28 August 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1062 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 an excise duty assessment of £235,936 following seizure of 760,220 cigarettes found concealed in a Migoresta-owned vehicle at Dover on 2 August 2020. The Tribunal allowed a late appeal but held Migoresta was the person holding the goods at the excise point and so liable under the relevant excise regulations, and dismissed the appeal against the assessment. HMRC had withdrawn the penalty claim before the hearing.

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: medium

The judgment supports that where excise-liable goods are held in the UK for commercial purposes and the holder can be identified (including an employer/owner of the vehicle in which goods were concealed), that holder may be liable under regulation 13(2)(b), and failure to challenge a seizure within the statutory 30-day period leads to deemed forfeiture under Schedule 3 to CEMA, which underpins a valid assessment of duty.

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 proportionality arguments may be relevant to penalties but, on these facts, do not affect the statutory quantum of excise duty; and that correspondence issued in English only or delays in communications do not, by themselves, negate liability where statutory conditions for duty and forfeiture are met.

Warning

The chunk contains substantial duplication and repetitive passages, which made extraction of discrete points repetitive but did not alter core facts or findings.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML