Express Food and Drinks Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 15 February 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 116 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: low
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: low
Express Food and Drinks Ltd appealed excise duty and VAT assessments and revocation of its registered-owner status after duty-suspended consignments left Gold Spot Ltd but did not reach the French consignee and accompanying AADs were falsified. The Tribunal found the excise duty point arose on removal from Gold Spot (Regulation 4) and that Express, by retaining legal ownership/responsibility and directing release and transport, "caused" the duty point within Regulation 7(2). The Tribunal upheld the excise and VAT assessments and dismissed the appeal against revocation.
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
Where a duty-suspended movement originating in the UK is irregular and fails to arrive at its destination, the excise duty point is at removal under Regulation 4; a person who, by virtue of ownership, responsibility and control or direction over release and transport, causes that duty point falls within Regulation 7(2) and can be held jointly and severally liable. Knowledge of or actual participation in the irregularity is not a required precondition to liability where causation is established by such ownership/control.
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 indicated that commercial indicia—cash payments, couriered cash, weak due diligence and similar suspicious practices—can support an inference that a trader "closed his eyes" to irregularities and thereby assisted their creation; contemporaneous notes and conduct may be probative evidence of arranging or directing movements even where a party denies commissioning transport.