Andrzej Osmolski v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 23 October 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 905 (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 liability for excise duty and a Schedule 41 wrongdoing penalty after Border Force seized three pallets of hand-rolling tobacco from Mr Osmolski’s van at Coquelles Freight. The Tribunal found he was holding/transporting the tobacco at the excise duty point and thus strictly liable for the duty, and that his conduct was deliberate and concealed (alternatively exhibiting "blind-eye" knowledge), so the penalty was upheld with HMRC’s mitigation left intact. The appeal was dismissed.

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 applied the Regulations to hold that a carrier in physical possession of excise goods when they are first held for a commercial purpose in the UK is liable for excise duty even if unaware of the goods’ excise status; for Schedule 41 penalties deliberate conduct can be established by actual knowledge or by "blind-eye" knowledge where the person suspects wrongdoing and intentionally refrains from inquiry.

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 judgment noted (obiter) that inconsistencies between contemporaneous statements and later accounts undermine credibility and can support findings of deliberate or concealed conduct; and that features such as absent delivery addresses, inconsistent sender details, vague paperwork, cash on delivery, and refusal or omission to inspect consignments are circumstances indicative of turning a blind eye to illegal goods.