Edyta Sowa (trading as Nefaria Trans) v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 6 January 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 87 (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 carrier Edyta Sowa (trading as Nefaria Trans) against HMRC refusals to restore vehicles, a trailer and oil seized at Dover in June and August 2015. The First-tier Tribunal was asked to decide whether HMRC’s remade review decisions (after an earlier direction to re‑review) were decisions no reasonable decision‑maker could have reached. The Tribunal found the remade decisions properly took into account relevant factors (including laboratory results, repeated deliveries for the same customer and lack of material due diligence) and dismissed both appeals.
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 Tribunal’s ratio is that, on the evidence before it, a reviewer’s refusal to restore seized goods will be upheld under FA 1994 s.16(4) if the reviewer has taken into account the relevant factors identified by the Tribunal (such as lab results, apparent “flags”, prior deliveries for the same customer and the carrier’s due diligence) and reasonably concludes that non‑restoration is a proportionate outcome; additionally, absent a timely claim under Schedule 3 CEMA, the Tribunal will not re‑open the lawfulness of the seizure and is confined to assessing whether the restoration decision was one a reasonable decision‑maker could reach.
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 if HMRC expects carriers to take a different approach under the CMR Convention, that expectation should be communicated more clearly to carriers; the Tribunal also emphasised that dismissal of the appeals did not equate to a finding that the carrier had knowingly smuggled the goods.