Dan Andrei Hagi-Nicovici v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 6 November 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 967 (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 a lorry seizure at Dover on 10 May 2018 where the appellant was driving 26,064 litres of beer with no excise duty paid; HMRC assessed unpaid duty of £32,251 and a schedule 41 wrongdoing penalty of £11,287.85. The First-tier Tribunal found the appellant liable for the excise duty under Regulation 13 as the person in physical possession at the excise duty point and upheld the deliberate wrongdoing penalty, dismissing the appeal.
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 person in physical possession of excise goods at the excise duty point is liable for excise duty under Regulation 13 irrespective of a lack of legal right or interest in the goods; for a schedule 41 wrongdoing penalty based on "deliberate" conduct HMRC must prove on the balance of probabilities that the person knew the goods were dutiable, that duty had become due and that it had not been paid or deferred.
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 but did not decide that recklessness or "Nelsonian blindness" might in some contexts be relevant to establishing deliberate conduct; it also observed that routine informal commercial arrangements (e.g. cash payment, absence of formal contract) do not by themselves determine innocence or guilt and require assessment in the surrounding circumstances.