Viktor Mlekanov v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 30 September 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 357 (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 Mr Mlekanov’s appeals against an excise duty assessment and a 35% penalty after cigarettes were seized at Birmingham Airport as imported for a commercial purpose. The First-tier Tribunal struck out the appeal against the duty assessment because a deeming provision treated unchallenged forfeited goods as imported for commercial purposes, removing any realistic prospect of revisiting that factual issue. The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the penalty, finding Mr Mlekanov had a reasonable excuse (an honest mistaken belief, limited English and low means) and reduced the penalty to zero.
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
A deeming provision that treats forfeited, unchallenged goods as imports for a commercial purpose prevents the Tribunal from reopening the factual question of import purpose in an appeal against an excise duty assessment; however, that deeming does not bind the Tribunal when deciding penalty culpability under Schedule 41, where the Tribunal may make its own findings about reasonableness and excuse and can reduce or cancel penalties on that basis.
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 noted (consistent with authorities) that the scope of deeming provisions is limited and does not automatically determine culpability for penalty purposes; personal circumstances such as limited English, genuine belief and low means can be relevant to whether ignorance or mistake of law amounts to a reasonable excuse in penalty appeals.