SDM European Transport Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 28 March 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 211 (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
SDM appealed a UK excise duty assessment as guarantor for 65 duty‑suspended movements of spirits in 2006, principally disputing whether consignments (notably to Aldi Vaux‑sur‑Sûre) were delivered or diverted and where any irregularity was detected. The Tribunal heard extensive oral and documentary evidence, found most drivers credible, concluded the Aldi consignments arrived and that forgeries/irregularities occurred after arrival in Belgium, and allowed SDM’s appeal except for Movement 65 to Germany.
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
Where HMRC have not shown an irregularity was detected “in the course of movement” (Article 20.2 context), routine EWS/MV enquiries do not suffice as detection; detection requires at least a provisional judgment that an irregularity has occurred. A transporter/guarantor assessed under domestic regulations may rebut liability by proving on the balance of probabilities that consignments arrived at their stated destinations, and the absence of AAD3s is not necessarily dispositive if credible delivery evidence exists.
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 contemporaneous EWS/MV communications and foreign administrative evidence deserve heavy weight but must be assessed in the full evidential context. It also observed that extensive destruction/non‑production of tachograph records invites suspicion but can be explicable and does not automatically overturn credible oral evidence of delivery.