Инфо За UK Новини Списание Обяви Продавалник Ипотеки Старт Строители Жълти страници Търси
Страница 2 от 2 ПървиПърви 12
Резултати от 26 до 45 от общо 45
  1. #26

    По подразбиране Re: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Мненията извън темата са преместени в Говорилнята. Моля да не се спами в темата.

  2. #27
    The Devil Wears Prada Аватара на rumi_066
    Регистриран на
    Mar 2009
    Мнения
    1 526
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Винаги ще има хора, които ще те нараняват, но, за всеки случай, трябва да продължиш да вярваш в хората. Бъдете щастливи!!!!

    Представяш ли си какъв би бил животът, ако чустваш болката, която причиняваш?
    Светът щеше да е съвсем друг. К. Азарян

    Нищо на този свят, не остава неизплатено....Не искайте много - не можете да му платите цената!


    Хорхе Луис Борхес: Човек помъдрява прекалено късно... Точно когато вече няма време...




  3. #28
    The Devil Wears Prada Аватара на rumi_066
    Регистриран на
    Mar 2009
    Мнения
    1 526
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: Re: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Пише че няма ограничения но имат право ако се усъмнят че са с цел продажба.
    Винаги ще има хора, които ще те нараняват, но, за всеки случай, трябва да продължиш да вярваш в хората. Бъдете щастливи!!!!

    Представяш ли си какъв би бил животът, ако чустваш болката, която причиняваш?
    Светът щеше да е съвсем друг. К. Азарян

    Нищо на този свят, не остава неизплатено....Не искайте много - не можете да му платите цената!


    Хорхе Луис Борхес: Човек помъдрява прекалено късно... Точно когато вече няма време...




  4. #29
    Нов потребител
    Регистриран на
    Sep 2011
    Мнения
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    добре а ако примерно мойте 4 съквартиранта са ми дали пари да им купа цигари от българия (колкото струват в българия) щото там е по ефтино и аз им права услуга, това за бизнес ли се счита и могат ли да ме съдят за това ?

  5. #30
    title removed Аватара на CanBoy
    Регистриран на
    Nov 2010
    Мнения
    6 193
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Цитирай Първоначално написано от theimmortalbg Виж мнението
    добре а ако примерно мойте 4 съквартиранта са ми дали пари да им купа цигари от българия (колкото струват в българия) щото там е по ефтино и аз им права услуга, това за бизнес ли се счита и могат ли да ме съдят за това ?
    не,това вече не е бизнес.това си е чиста контрабанда и влизате в състав на ОПБ/организирана престъпна група/
    от което следва и завишаване на присъдите
    За жалби и оплаквания tel.0696969-Holy Armenian Church.

  6. #31
    Нов потребител
    Регистриран на
    Sep 2011
    Мнения
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    също другия въпрос. На лутън като излизаш от летището първо минаваш през митницата и после отиваш да си вземеш багажа и си тръгваш с багажа без никои да те проверява. Аз ще си взема 4 стека в раницата и ще си взема още 16 в багажа. За раницата няма проблем, а за багажа ок те ще го сканират и ще видят че са 16 и какво ще стане ? Няма да ми пристигне багажа ли или ще ми кажат да отида да си го взема от друго място, където ще има полицаи за проверка които ще ме разпитват, или ще има полицай там където си взимам багажа и ще ме разпитва там. Какво ще стане?

  7. #32
    Нов потребител
    Регистриран на
    Sep 2011
    Мнения
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Цитирай Първоначално написано от CanBoy Виж мнението
    не,това вече не е бизнес.това си е чиста контрабанда и влизате в състав на ОПБ/организирана престъпна група/
    от което следва и завишаване на присъдите
    добре значи за децата и жената не е контрабанда а за приятелите е така ли ? Контрабанда би трябвало да е когато имаш печалба от цялата работа а не когато правиш услуга

  8. #33
    title removed Аватара на CanBoy
    Регистриран на
    Nov 2010
    Мнения
    6 193
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Цитирай Първоначално написано от theimmortalbg Виж мнението
    също другия въпрос. На лутън като излизаш от летището първо минаваш през митницата и после отиваш да си вземеш багажа и си тръгваш с багажа без никои да те проверява. Аз ще си взема 4 стека в раницата и ще си взема още 16 в багажа. За раницата няма проблем, а за багажа ок те ще го сканират и ще видят че са 16 и какво ще стане ? Няма да ми пристигне багажа ли или ще ми кажат да отида да си го взема от друго място, където ще има полицаи за проверка които ще ме разпитват, или ще има полицай там където си взимам багажа и ще ме разпитва там. Какво ще стане?
    ами то като си решил да вземаш риск с 16 стека в багажа слагай в куфара поне 50 и ако минат ще си напред с материала
    За жалби и оплаквания tel.0696969-Holy Armenian Church.

  9. #34
    Нов потребител
    Регистриран на
    Sep 2011
    Мнения
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Цитирай Първоначално написано от CanBoy Виж мнението
    ами то като си решил да вземаш риск с 16 стека в багажа слагай в куфара поне 50 и ако минат ще си напред с материала
    еми не е така щото ако ме хванат с 16 незаконни глобата ще е 16 стека по ценатаа в англия + още 100% а ако ме хвант с 50 цифрите излизат по големи.

  10. #35
    I see you... Аватара на Мила
    Регистриран на
    Mar 2006
    Град
    Шотландия
    Мнения
    29 200
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране Re: За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Цитирай Първоначално написано от theimmortalbg Виж мнението
    добре значи за децата и жената не е контрабанда а за приятелите е така ли ? Контрабанда би трябвало да е когато имаш печалба от цялата работа а не когато правиш услуга
    И ти си мислиш, че като им кажеш "тия 20-30 стека са ми за подаръци", и те ще ти рекат "ми хубу" и ще те оставят на мира, за да чакат някой балък, дето ще им каже "тия цигари са ми за контрабанда" хахаха. Абе вярно ли си толкова наивен?

    Цитирай Първоначално написано от theimmortalbg Виж мнението
    също другия въпрос. На лутън като излизаш от летището първо минаваш през митницата и после отиваш да си вземеш багажа и си тръгваш с багажа без никои да те проверява. Аз ще си взема 4 стека в раницата и ще си взема още 16 в багажа. За раницата няма проблем, а за багажа ок те ще го сканират и ще видят че са 16 и какво ще стане ? Няма да ми пристигне багажа ли или ще ми кажат да отида да си го взема от друго място, където ще има полицаи за проверка които ще ме разпитват, или ще има полицай там където си взимам багажа и ще ме разпитва там. Какво ще стане?
    Предлагам ти да опиташ и после да дойдеш да ни кажеш на кой точно път са те хванали Дали знаеш, че този форум се чете от полицията

    Като те чета, дори и аз оставам с впечатление, че изобщо не става дума за подаръци, както се опитваш да ни убедиш, а че търсиш печалба от цялата работа. Щом аз съм с такова ясно впечатление, какво да говорим за митничарите, които са обучени да надушват такива неща от километри... Що не вземеш да се преориентираш към кокаин, например - много по-лесно можеш да го скриеш, пакетчетата са малки, пъхат се къде ли не, а и печалбата е доста по-голяма, доколкото съм чувала...
    Шегичкааааа - ама има голяма доза истина.
    В този форум споделям опита и мнението си, не убеждавам никого в нищо. Извинявам се предварително, ако случайно убедя някого в правотата си - не е било нарочно.
    Моля потребителите, които не разбират смисъла на някое мое мнение или са потресени или възмутени от него или искат да му вменят някакво свое тълкувание и се дразнят, ако не се съгласявам, че съм искала да кажа това, което те са "прочели", да пропускат коментарите ми, да не ги цитират и по всякакъв възможен начин да спазват дистанция. Благодаря за разбирането.

  11. #36
    Нов потребител
    Регистриран на
    Sep 2011
    Мнения
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: Re: За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Цитирай Първоначално написано от Мила Виж мнението
    И ти си мислиш, че като им кажеш "тия 20-30 стека са ми за подаръци", и те ще ти рекат "ми хубу" и ще те оставят на мира, за да чакат някой балък, дето ще им каже "тия цигари са ми за контрабанда" хахаха. Абе вярно ли си толкова наивен?


    Предлагам ти да опиташ и после да дойдеш да ни кажеш на кой точно път са те хванали Дали знаеш, че този форум се чете от полицията

    Като те чета, дори и аз оставам с впечатление, че изобщо не става дума за подаръци, както се опитваш да ни убедиш, а че търсиш печалба от цялата работа. Щом аз съм с такова ясно впечатление, какво да говорим за митничарите, които са обучени да надушват такива неща от километри... Що не вземеш да се преориентираш към кокаин, например - много по-лесно можеш да го скриеш, пакетчетата са малки, пъхат се къде ли не, а и печалбата е доста по-голяма, доколкото съм чувала...
    Шегичкааааа - ама има голяма доза истина.
    еми знам това ама там и глобите са по големи така че ...
    Тука все пак ако те глобят просто ще си на 0 ама ако те хванат с кокаин ще си назад

  12. #37
    I see you... Аватара на Мила
    Регистриран на
    Mar 2006
    Град
    Шотландия
    Мнения
    29 200
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране Re: За: Re: За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Цитирай Първоначално написано от theimmortalbg Виж мнението
    еми знам това ама там и глобите са по големи така че ...
    Тука все пак ако те глобят просто ще си на 0 ама ако те хванат с кокаин ще си назад
    Е как ще си на 0, като глобата е в пъти по-голяма, че и има затвор? Освен това, съществува вероятност да ти забранят да влизаш в Кралството за определен период от време, година или повече...
    В този форум споделям опита и мнението си, не убеждавам никого в нищо. Извинявам се предварително, ако случайно убедя някого в правотата си - не е било нарочно.
    Моля потребителите, които не разбират смисъла на някое мое мнение или са потресени или възмутени от него или искат да му вменят някакво свое тълкувание и се дразнят, ако не се съгласявам, че съм искала да кажа това, което те са "прочели", да пропускат коментарите ми, да не ги цитират и по всякакъв възможен начин да спазват дистанция. Благодаря за разбирането.

  13. #38
    Нов потребител
    Регистриран на
    Sep 2011
    Мнения
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: Re: За: Re: За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Цитирай Първоначално написано от Мила Виж мнението
    Е как ще си на 0, като глобата е в пъти по-голяма, че и има затвор? Освен това, съществува вероятност да ти забранят да влизаш в Кралството за определен период от време, година или повече...
    глобата е взимат ти цигарите и плащаш стойноста им. Каде пише че има затвор. Пък и за да се стигне до подобни работи те първо трябва да ми докажат че аз съм направил печалба от цялата работа. Как ще стане това ? Ще ми пуснат един сателит от космоса да ме следи ли.

  14. #39
    I see you... Аватара на Мила
    Регистриран на
    Mar 2006
    Град
    Шотландия
    Мнения
    29 200
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране Re: За: Re: За: Re: За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Цитирай Първоначално написано от theimmortalbg Виж мнението
    глобата е взимат ти цигарите и плащаш стойноста им. Каде пише че има затвор. Пък и за да се стигне до подобни работи те първо трябва да ми докажат че аз съм направил печалба от цялата работа. Как ще стане това ? Ще ми пуснат един сателит от космоса да ме следи ли.
    Не, миличък... Къде пише, че има затвор ли? Ами Bus ти го е написал в мнение номер 2, точно под въпроса ти. Очевидно не разбираш английски - прочети темата по-нагоре, нямам намерение да ти превеждам, има си гугъл преводач за тая работа. И ако си мислиш, че някой може да продава цигари и да не бъде хванат, ако някой си постави за цел да го хване.... много ми става смешно от тази тема, благодаря ти, че ме развеселяваш. То аз знам, че има много наивни хора, ама като дойде във форум да пита как да прави контрабанда, че и се ерчи, че не можел да бъде хванат .- голяяяяям майтааааааапппп!!!

    Аз ти казах достатъчно, за да ти обясня, че те не пасат трева. Нямам никакво намерение да те убеждавам в нищо - всеки си има собствен живот и има право да прави с него каквото си иска. Такива като тебе съм ги виждала да реват като заклани и да бършат сополи, кълнейки се, че вече никога няма да им дойде наум да правят такива неща, защото.... Какво да ти кажа повече. Късмет!
    В този форум споделям опита и мнението си, не убеждавам никого в нищо. Извинявам се предварително, ако случайно убедя някого в правотата си - не е било нарочно.
    Моля потребителите, които не разбират смисъла на някое мое мнение или са потресени или възмутени от него или искат да му вменят някакво свое тълкувание и се дразнят, ако не се съгласявам, че съм искала да кажа това, което те са "прочели", да пропускат коментарите ми, да не ги цитират и по всякакъв възможен начин да спазват дистанция. Благодаря за разбирането.

  15. #40
    Старо куче
    Регистриран на
    Apr 2010
    Мнения
    1 085
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Цитирай Първоначално написано от theimmortalbg Виж мнението
    добре а ако примерно мойте 4 съквартиранта са ми дали пари да им купа цигари от българия (колкото струват в българия) щото там е по ефтино и аз им права услуга, това за бизнес ли се счита и могат ли да ме съдят за това ?
    Вече имало такива дела (Case C-296/95 Commissioners of Customs and Excise Ltd v EMU Tabac SARL, the Man in Black Ltd and John Cunningham [1998] ECR I-1605.; Joustra [2006] ECR I-11075),...не можеш да използваш agent. Сам самичък трябва да си ги носиш и никoй друг. Имаш и Евро законодателство което ти позлваолява да внасяш цигари за лична употреба, но имаш и местно което цели да си прибира каквото има да прибира.

    Brief Civil Guide - (2010).
    http://www.criminallawandjustice.co....Goods-–-Part-1
    The Seizure and Forfeiture of Excise Goods – Part 1

    Date: 30th April 2010
    Iain MacWhannell, Mark Sutherland Williams and Thomas Jaggar write on the statutory framework

    This article provides an overview of the law in relation to what some still describe as “bootlegging”. Cigarette and tobacco smuggling has been successfully deployed by criminal organizations to raise funds for many years and the extremes to which individuals will go to in order to evade the authorities are becoming increasingly sophisticated.

    The condemnation of goods covers a vast area in terms of legislation and, as a result, this article concentrates on those areas that are typical of matters that regularly come before the courts.

    The UK Border Agency (UKBA) took over the role of Customs at airports and ports throughout the UK on August 5, 2009. While the force and application of the condemnation provisions remain unchanged, the switch will involve the handing over of responsibility from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to the UKBA for seizures and investigations found in possession of excise goods at ports. Inland seizures will still be dealt with by HMRC. In the first part of this article we consider the statutory framework that governs the seizure and forfeiture of excise goods. In the second part, the authors examine procedural steps that lead to condemnation in the magistrates’ courts.

    The Condemnation of Goods – The Forfeiture of Goods

    The statutory basis for the forfeiture of goods improperly imported derives from s.49 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA). Section 49(1) sets out the circumstances under which goods shall be liable to forfeiture when they have been imported contrary to HM Revenue and Customs restrictions and where the goods in question are chargeable with duty.

    These broad ranging provisions cover, subject to their own particular legislative provisions, the forfeiture of cigarettes and tobacco [see, s.2 of the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979] and alcohol. [Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979, particularly s.5 (spirits), s.36 (beer), s.54 (wine) and s.62 (cider.)] They also cover a multitude of other excise goods, including bullion and coins, [see, Allgemeine Gold-und Silberscheideanstalt v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [1980] 2 All ER 138 (CA)] pornography, vehicles, as well as goods prohibited from importation by virtue of matters as diverse as trade descriptions, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and UN sanctions orders.

    Duty Payable, Unless for Own Use

    UK excise duty is generally payable at the point of importation. [See, reg.12(1) of the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001, SI 2001/1712 for tobacco; reg.15(1) of the Beer Regulations 1993, SI 1993/1228 for beer and reg.4(1) of the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/3135 for wines and spirits.] As a result of the Divisional Court’s decision in R (Hoverspeed and Others) v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [2002] 4 All ER 912, the regulations governing the point at which duty becomes payable were amended in 2002 [see, Excise Goods, Beer and Tobacco Products (Amendment) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2692 and the Channel Tunnel (Alcoholic Liquor and Tobacco Products) (Amendment) Order 2002, SI 2002/2693] to insert subreg.(1A), which makes provision for the cross channel shopper (amongst others) who acquires and transports goods for his own use.

    This provides that no duty will be payable unless and until the goods are held or used for a commercial purpose by any person. Sub-regulation (1B) provides the definitions and criteria to be applied when considering whether subreg.(1A) applies.

    Importations for a Commercial Purpose

    Excise duty only becomes payable if the goods are being imported for a commercial purpose (ie, forward sale or for money’s worth). Article 8 of Council Directive (EC) 92/12 provides:

    “As regards products acquired by private individuals for their own use and transported by them, the principle governing the internal market lays down that excise duty shall be charged in the member state in which they are acquired.”

    The amendment regulations confirm that duty and tax must be paid on the goods in the member state in which they are acquired. [See subreg.(1B(d)).] Article 9(1) of the same Directive adds:

    “Without prejudice to art.8, excise duty shall become chargeable where products released for consumption in a member state are held for a commercial purpose in another member state.”

    Civil Proceedings

    Actions for forfeiture and condemnation are actions in rem (against the property as opposed to the individual). Nobody stands in jeopardy and the action is by way of complaint heard, in the first instance, usually before a magistrates’ court. Paragraph 8 of sch.3 to CEMA confirms that the proceedings are civil and corresponding case law confirms the same [see, Goldsmith and Anor v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (2001) The Times June 12, and Mudie v. Kent Magistrates’ Court [2003] EWCA 237.] Condemnation matters do not involve the determination of a criminal charge and therefore none of the usual consequences of a criminal conviction apply.

    This is therefore one of the rare examples of the magistrates’ court’s civil jurisdiction and because the proceedings are civil, the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities and not the higher criminal test of “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    Civil rules of evidence apply, including the admissibility of hearsay evidence and there is no necessity for compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

    Legislative Background

    As stated above, the Excise Goods, Beer and Tobacco Products (Amendment) Regulations 2002, came into force on December 1, 2002. They sought to correct any deficiency in the previous regulations by amending the existing Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing, and REDS) Regulations 1992, SI 2002/3135, by inserting a specific provision in relation to “own use”: subreg.(1A).
    In the case of excise goods acquired by a person in another member state for his own use and transported by him to the United Kingdom, the excise duty point is the time at which those goods are held or used for a commercial purpose by any person.

    In other words, excise duty only becomes payable on the goods when they are held for a commercial purpose, or at the point in time when they become held or are used for a commercial purpose. This applies to both the traveller who imported them and/or by any other person who has possession or control of them.

    The Excise Goods, Beer and Tobacco Products

    (Amendment) Regulations 2002 also amended the Beer Regulations 1993, SI 1993/1228, and the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001, SI 2001/1712, in identical terms. The effect of these amendments is to reassert that goods being brought into the UK for a traveller’s “own use” are not subject to excise duty. This should ensure that goods purchased on cross-border shopping trips for an individual’s own personal use are not subject to the payment of any excise duty. [See, R (Hoverspeed and Others) v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [2002] 4 All ER 912 at paras.107-109.]

    Gifts

    The Excise Goods, Beer and Tobacco Products (Amendment) Regulations 2002, also altered the pre-existing regulations to define “own use” as including use as a personal gift. [See, para.(1B)(b).]

    It is therefore permissible for a traveller to bring in larger than expected consignments of excise goods, if he intends to give them away as personal gifts. Much will depend on the credibility of the traveller’s story, the likelihood of the assertion, and the evidence the traveller is able to produce to support the claim.

    Transfers for Money’s Worth

    The Excise Goods, Beer and Tobacco Products (Amendment) Regulations 2002 [see para.(1B)(c)] establish a comprehensive provision that has the effect of catching any importation where the goods concerned are passed on in return for any payment, including any travel expenses. The transaction does not have to be for profit (indeed the legislation is broad enough to cover receiving payment at a loss), and it could be for money’s worth, eg, payment as a “thank you”, such as a dinner out, would make the transfer commercial.

    What Factors Define “Commercial Purpose”?

    Paragraph (1B)(e) of the Excise Goods, Beer and Tobacco Products (Amendment) Regulations 2002, sets out a list of matters that should be taken into account by both Revenue and Customs (now the UKBA) and, ultimately, the magistrates’ court, in making their determination as to whether the goods in question were being imported for a commercial purpose. These considerations are:

    (1) the person’s reasons for having possession or control of the goods;
    (2) whether or not the person is a Revenue trader (as defined in s.1(1) of CEMA 1979);
    (3) the person’s conduct, including his intended use of the goods or any refusal to disclose his intended use of the goods;
    (4) the location of the goods;
    (5) the mode of transport used to convey the goods;
    (6) any document or other information whatsoever relating to the goods;
    (7) the nature of the goods, including the nature and condition of any package or container;
    (8) the quantity of the goods; and in particular whether the quantity exceeds the guideline quantities;
    (9) whether the person personally financed the purchase of the goods in question; and
    (10) any other circumstance which appears to be relevant.

    Revenue traders, in the context of (b) above, are persons carrying on a trade or business involving the buying, selling, importation, exportation or dealing in or handling of excise goods. If the person importing the goods had an obvious outlet through which he could sell the goods then that would clearly be a matter that the court/authorities may wish to take account of.

    Regard should be particularly given to (h), the quantity of the goods. If an individual is importing into the UK 100,000 cigarettes (eg, in the boot of their car), there is a strong inference that they will not all be for personal use. Although that inference may be rebutted if the individual is a heavy smoker, rarely travels abroad, or has sufficient means or another legitimate non-commercial reason for bringing the
    cigarettes in, eg, gifts for family members at Christmas. In R. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners ex parte Mortimer and Anor [1999] 1 WLR 17, see especially p.22, the court held that Customs officers must take account of the above criteria, regardless of the imported quantity, and give the importer a “fair opportunity” to explain the importation when considering whether or not they should seize goods. As a result, in practice, what is commonly referred to as an “A to J interview” (or “one to 10” interview) will take place at the initial point of interception.

    Mortimer was decided under the now defunct Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992. As a result the mandatory presumption referred to therein no longer applies. Under the new regulations, the fact that the goods in question now exceed the minimum indicative levels (the quantity guidelines) is something which HMRC/the UKBA and the court are merely entitled to have “regard to”. The assertion, however, that the importer must have a “fair opportunity” to satisfy the authorities of his case remains, it is suggested, good law.

    In the Divisional Court’s judgment in Hoverspeed, Brooke LJ stated that:

    “if no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming, then the national official may well conclude that the goods were indeed held for ‘commercial purposes’”. A refusal to provide an explanation, or a misleading explanation, may both be factors that a court may ultimately take into account in deciding the issues it has to determine. [See (3) in the one – 10 list.]

    What are the Minimum Indicative Levels?

    The “minimum indicative level” is now a fairly dated term that relates to the guideline quantities set by the EU. When travelling within the EU the quantities are: [see, subreg.(1B)(e) of the Excise Goods, Beer and Tobacco Products (Amendment) Regulations 2002.]

    10 litres of spirits.
    90 litres of wine.
    20 litres of ‘intermediate products’.
    110 litres of beer.
    3200 cigarettes.
    400 cigarillos.
    200 cigars.
    3kg of any other tobacco products.
    The levels set out mirror the minimum levels that may be adopted by member states in EC Directive (EC) 92/12, (except those for cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco, which are four and three times respectively above the levels set out in the original Directive).

    While difficult to quantify, the cigarette and tobacco levels represent around six months usage for an average smoker (20 cigarettes a day x 182 days = 3,640 cigarettes). It should be emphasized that these levels are only a guide. There are no limits. Genuine shoppers are entitled to bring back greater quantities for their own use. Nor is it unheard of for bootleggers to bring back quantities below the guidelines or matching the guidelines, in an attempt to avoid having their goods being seized.

    Travelling to the UK from Outside the EU

    Similar, albeit more restrictive, levels exist when travelling from a non-EU country (including the Canary Islands and the Channel Islands). Gibraltar is part of the EU, but is outside the EU customs territory, and therefore the “outside the EU” levels apply. Similarly, although Cyprus is a member of the EU, any importation from an area not deemed under the control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus is treated as a non–EU import. From January 1, 2009 the “outside the EU” levels are, [see, the schedule attached to the
    Traveller’s Allowance Order 1994, SI 1994/955, as amended by the schedule to the Travellers’ Allowances (Amendment) Order 2008, SI 2008/3058.]

    200 cigarettes or 100 cigarillos or 50 cigars or 250g of tobacco.
    4 litres of still table wine.
    16 litres of beer.
    1 litre of spirits or strong liqueurs over 22 per cent in volume or 2 litres of fortified wine, sparkling wine or other liqueurs.
    £340 worth of other goods, including perfumes, gifts, and souvenirs.
    Detention, Seizure and Condemnation

    Section 139 of CEMA details the provisions as to detention, seizure and condemnation of goods, with s.139(6) referring to sch.3 to the Act as having effect for the purpose of forfeiture and condemnation proceedings.

    The Forfeiture Provisions

    Schedule 3 of CEMA sets out the relevant provisions relating to forfeiture, including notice of seizure, notice of claim and condemnation. Paragraph 7 of sch.3 states that the forfeiture shall have effect as from the date when the liability to forfeiture arose.

    What Does “Liable to Forfeiture” Mean?

    The expression “liable to forfeiture” denotes something different to “shall be forfeited” or” shall automatically be forfeited”. “Liable” implies some form of discretion by those considering forfeiture, either at the time of seizure or later at court.

    However, that initial elasticity may be somewhat illusory. Paragraph 6 of sch.3 to CEMA states that if the court finds that the thing was at the time of seizure “liable to forfeiture”, the court shall (meaning presumably must) condemn it as forfeit. The Draconian nature of these provisions appears to be analogous to strict liability/absolute offences in the criminal jurisdiction, where intention or state of mind is irrelevant. This was confirmed in the case of De Keyser v. British Railway Traffic and Electric Co Ltd [1936] 1 KB 224 where it was held that the justices’ were bound to condemn prohibited goods and that they possessed no discretion to refuse to do so, eg, on the grounds of hardship of an innocent owner.

    Secondary Forfeiture

    Section 141(1) of CEMA states where anything has become liable to forfeiture under the Customs & Excise Acts:

    (a) any ship, aircraft, vehicle, animal, container (including any article of passengers’ baggage) or other thing which has been used for the carriage, handling or concealment of the thing so liable to forfeiture, either at a time when it was so liable or for the purposes of the commission of the offence for which it later became so liable; and
    (b) any other thing mixed, packed or found with the thing so liable, shall also be liable to forfeiture.

    This section once again highlights the Draconian nature of the forfeiture provisions by setting out the consequences for property found and used in connection with goods liable to forfeiture – hence the term “secondary forfeiture”. Any vehicle used in the transportation of excise goods where no duty has been paid will itself be liable to forfeiture. Many travellers’ motorcars have been forfeited as a result. Similarly, smaller quantities of goods that accompany larger importations of, eg, tobacco or cigarettes, are themselves liable. So, where for example, 60,000 cigarettes are being imported, together with 3 litres of gin and 1 litre of Bacardi, although the 3 litres of gin and the 1 litre of Bacardi may be understandably considered for personal use, because of s.141(b) the spirits are also liable to forfeiture. In Travell v.Customs and Excise Commissioners (1997) 162 JP 181, the Divisional Court held that ss.141(a) and (b) are to be read disjunctively.

    The reference to “any other thing” should be interpreted to include only things of a like kind. For example, where 90kgs of hand rolling tobacco are discovered in the suitcase of an individual, together with their travel alarm clock, the alarm clock is not an excise good, nor is it sufficiently similar to justify its forfeiture. [see, R. v. Uxbridge Magistrates’ ex parte Webb (1998) 162 JP 198 (DC).]

    The application of the “mixed, packed or found” rule must always be a question of fact and degree upon which the court must find. This is illustrated by Travell, where the Crown Court held that 365 obscene magazines found “all over the defendant’s one bedroom flat” were also liable to forfeiture because they had been “found with” 15 imported magazines containing indecent pictures of children. In Webb, the defendant had imported six obscene videos in a suitcase. The magistrates’ fast forwarded through two of them and concluded that their content was obscene. They condemned all six videos on the basis that the other four were “packed with” the two videos liable to forfeiture that had been viewed.

    In Customs and Excise Commissioners v. Jack Bradley (Accrington) Ltd [1959] 1 QB 219, the court held that where kerosene oil had been discovered in the fuel tanks of vehicles, the vehicles themselves would be liable to forfeiture since they had been “used for the carriage” of the oil.

    In the second part of this article we go on to consider the practical steps that lead to seizure and the consequences that flow from the same.


    his is the second of two articles on the condemnation and forfeiture of excise goods. In the first part, the authors considered the statutory framework which permitted the seizure of goods leading to condemnation. In this second article, the authors consider practice and procedure in relation to the condemnation process, including at the magistrates’ court stage.

    Initial Seizure

    In the case of Mortimer and Anor [1999] 1 WLR 17, it was determined that:

    Fairness required Customs officers to give the importer a full opportunity to satisfy them that the importation was not for a commercial purpose; and to alert the traveller to the consequences of his failure to take that opportunity.
    Officers were obliged to make plain the purpose of any interview they conducted.
    Where their purpose was both to investigate the possible commission of crime and to form a judgment for the purposes of forfeiture, they were required to inform the suspect accordingly, (including cautioning him and informing him of his right to remain silent in respect of the criminal investigation).
    Officers should explain that under the forfeiture regulations, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of the traveller’s intentions, the goods might be seized.
    In Mortimer, the court held that giving the traveller a fair opportunity meant two things:

    (1) That the importer must have a full opportunity to say anything he wanted about his intentions in relation to the goods with a view to showing that his intentions were non-commercial, either because he proposed to use them himself or give them to friends or relations as the case may be.
    (2) That he must be alerted to the possible consequences if he does not take advantage of the opportunity to satisfy Customs that the goods are not being imported for a commercial purpose.

    This should mean, in practice, that he is told in general terms of the existence of the guideline quantities and of the consequence that the goods will be seized if Revenue and Customs, (now the United Kindom Border Agency (UKBA) are not satisfied with the explanation they are given. These requirements are usually adhered to when the UKBA or intercepting officer reads to the traveller what is referred to as the “Commerciality Statement”, which states: “You have excise goods in your possession (control) which appear not to have borne UK duty.

    Goods may be held without payment of duty providing they have been acquired and are held for your own use. I suspect that you may be holding goods for a commercial purpose and not for your own use. I intend to ask you some questions to establish whether these goods are held for a commercial purpose.

    If no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming or if you do not stay for questioning it may lead me to conclude that the goods are not held for your own use but held for a commercial purpose and your goods (and vehicle) may be seized as liable to forfeiture.

    You are not under arrest and are free to leave at any time. Do you understand?”

    If yes, the officer should proceed to the “A-J interview” or “1 to 10” interview (see p. 260 ante), or explain the commerciality statement again. Furthermore, the person intercepted will also be issued with a Public Notice 1, which sets out the guidelines in terms of the minimum indicative levels.

    Notice of Claim ?The One-Month Time Limit to Appeal

    Paragraph 3 of sch.3 to Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA) states that any claim against liability to forfeiture shall be made in writing within one month of the date of notice of seizure or, where no such notice has been served, within one month of the date of the seizure. Paragraph 4 states that any notice under para.3 should specify the name and address of the claimant and, in the case of a claimant who is outside the UK, shall specify the name and address of a solicitor in the UK who is authorized to accept service of process and to act on behalf of the claimant.

    Six –Month Time Limit on HM Revenue and Customs/UK Border Agency Once Notice Lodged

    Paragraph 6 of sch.3 to CEMA states that where a notice of claim in respect of anything is duly given in accordance with paras.3 and 4 of the same schedule, the Commissioners shall take proceedings for the condemnation of that thing, and if the court finds that the thing was at the time of seizure liable to forfeiture, the court shall condemn it as forfeited. This is consistent with s.127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.

    Preparation for the Hearing – Service of Evidence

    There are no rules for service of evidence in the magistrates’ court in respect of civil complaints. The Civil Procedure Rules do not apply. In the absence of such rules the court is able to regulate its own procedure (Simms v. Moore [1970] 3 All ER 1). If legally relevant, all evidence is admissible, unless excluded by some other rule. Prior to the hearing of any application for forfeiture at the magistrates’ court, it is open to Revenue and Customs/ UKBA to either make voluntary disclosure of the evidence upon which it seeks to rely (although they are not obliged to do so), or, by correspondence with the defence, to ask for and arrange mutual disclosure.

    Voluntary disclosure is useful in cases where, for example, the issues are straightforward, little is challenged or where the witness in question, giving the statement, is unavailable to attend court. It enables his evidence to be agreed prior to the hearing.

    Mutual disclosure can equally be of assistance where the issues are not straightforward and matters are challenged, so as to expedite matters at court and crystallise the arguments. This entails both parties agreeing to mutually exchange cases and evidence in advance of the hearing.

    In more complicated cases and/or in cases where mutual disclosure cannot be agreed, the parties are at liberty to apply to the relevant magistrates’ court to have the matter listed for mention.

    Preparation for the Hearing – Dutiable Goods

    In Boxall, R. v .Customs and Excise Commissioners ex parte Kenneth Stephen Boxall (February 15, 1996) (CO 1902/95) at para.6E, the court held that para.6 of sch.3 made it clear that it is for the court to consider whether the thing seized was at the time “liable to forfeiture”. Read with s.49(1), para.6, obliges the court to decide whether the goods are dutiable. On this question, the burden lies on the UKBA or HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and, the proceedings being civil, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities (in the majority of cases there is little issue over the fact that the goods are dutiable, as they generally relate to excise products like cigarettes and tobacco).

    The Hearing – Commercial Purpose Versus Own Use

    It will be incumbent upon the court to consider the evidence and determine the issue, namely whether the goods were imported for a commercial purpose or for personal use. In so doing they should consider the “1 – 10” criteria outlined in part 1 of this article.

    The inclusion of criterion (10), “any other circumstance that appears to be relevant”, covers a multitude of matters, including frequency of travel. On one view an individual who travels abroad frequently does not need to “stock up” on dutiable goods such as cigarettes because they know they will have the opportunity to purchase more cigarettes on their next trip.

    Similarly, an individual who makes regular day trips with the sole purpose of bringing back excise goods may have difficulty persuading a court that they are not for a commercial purpose, particularly if, for example, they do not smoke heavily or are purchasing a variety of brands of cigarettes (smokers tend to stick to the same brand); or if they are using a hire car (in the knowledge that it will avoid their own vehicle being seized).

    The court may also consider whether the defendant has been stopped before or had knowledge of the minimum indicative levels (as set out in part 1 of this article), whether there had been any attempt to hide or conceal the items in question; and whether the traveller’s story had changed since the initial stop.

    Conversely, if the “aggravating” matters outlined above do not feature in the defendant’s case, or, for example, he has receipts for the purchases, it is a first time stop, and he has verification that the goods are intended for a family party or similar, the court may consider that the importation lacks commerciality.

    As was observed in the first part of this article, the wording of the provisions is mandatory, akin to a strict liability office, and no discretion is afforded to the court in relation to the goods themselves if the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities they were imported for a commercial purpose, (as per Fox v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (2002) 166 JP 578 at para.16, where Lightman J held: “… the statutory language is mandatory: where the goods are liable to forfeiture the court is bound to condemn them.”)

    However, in relation to secondary forfeiture under s.141, ie, a traveller’s vehicle, the court is entitled to reach its independent judgment on proportionality, weighing up the evidence and the facts. In Customs and Excise Commissioners v. Newbury [2002] 2 All ER 964 (DC), para.35, the court held:

    “… whether forfeiture would be so disproportionate as to be in breach of the particular claimant’s rights under art.1, protocol 1, to the Convention … can be resolved by the court. This is not strictly a question of discretion, but a matter upon which the court is entitled to reach its own independent judgment.”

    Court Procedure: Preliminary Matters

    Paragraphs 10(1) and (3) of sch.3 of CEMA require that the claimant of the goods, ie, the defendant, swears on oath that the thing seized was, or was to the best of his knowledge and belief, his property at the time of the seizure (his solicitor may also take the oath on his behalf for the purposes of this section). Paragraph 10(3) states that if any part of that procedure is not complied with, the court shall give judgment for the Commissioners.

    This means that if the defendant is not prepared to state on oath that the goods seized in fact belonged to him andwere his property, then the application for forfeiture on behalf of Revenue and Customs/UKBA must succeed. There is no discretion to continue the hearing. It is, therefore, advisable that para.10(1) of sch.3 to CEMA be dealt with at the outset of proceedings.

    In giving judgment for Revenue and Customs/UKBA in such circumstances, the court will not have considered the facts of the matter. It, in effect, becomes condemnation by default. A question therefore arises whether or not s.141 would apply, it only having application where there is a finding that the goods are liable for forfeiture. In such circumstances, it will be necessary to invite the court to consider the facts and decide whether any of the goods were so liable, in order for the secondary forfeiture provisions of s.141 to bite. See, Fox v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (2002) 166 JP 578.

    Court Procedure – Condemnation by Complaint

    The procedural rules in relation to the hearing of a complaint and the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ court are set out at s.51 et seq of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.

    Order of Speeches

    Once ownership of the goods has been established, the court procedure to be followed is set out in the Magistrates’ Court Rules 1981 at r.14.

    The Revenue and Customs/UKBA only has one opportunity to address the court on the facts (without further leave); and that is at the beginning of their case. It should be noted that either party may, with the leave of the court, address the court a second time or, as in any proceedings, either party may address the court on a point of law at any stage.

    Although the defendant is free to make a submission of no case to answer after the applicant’s case, some caution should be exercised, because if it fails and the defendant has been asked to choose between calling evidence and making a submission, he will not be entitled to call evidence thereafter. [Boyce v. Wyatt Engineering (2001) The Times June 14.] It should also be noted that Revenue and Customs/ UKBA has the opportunity to call evidence in rebuttal should it wish to do so.

    This may occur in forfeiture cases where something has been suggested during the course of the defence case that is either new or was not put to the case officer at the first opportunity, and where the officer in the case knows that that aspect of the defence’s evidence must be corrected.

    The Burden and Standard of Proof

    It is for Revenue and Customs/UKBA to satisfy the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the goods were imported for a commercial purpose. R (Hoverspeed and Others) v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [2002] 4 All ER 912 (DC) atpara.130/10.

    This was illustrated in the VAT and Duties Tribunal case of Bevins and Pyrah v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [2005](EO00903) (reported on Lawtel as LTL 11/10/2005; unreported elsewhere) where the Tribunal held that Customs had misapplied the law by incorrectly imposing the burden of proof on the travellers.

    Both the decision to seize the goods and the decision not to restore had been made on the basis that the travellers had not made out a satisfactory case that the goods were for their own use. It was held that following the decision in R (Hoverspeed) v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [2002] 4 All ER 912, such a positive burden could no longer apply; the burden in the first instance was on Customs to show that the goods were for a commercial use.

    It follows that the defendant does not have to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that the goods were for his personal use, but only that it is more likely than not that they were. Equally however, HM Revenue and Customs/ UKBA does not need to make them sure that the goods were being imported for a commercial purpose, but only satisfy them that it was more likely than not that that was the case.

    Hearsay in Civil Cases

    The Magistrates’ Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceedings) Rules 1999, SI 1999/681, set out the rules applying to hearsay in magistrates’ courts. The Rules provide that a failure to give notice of an intention to rely on hearsay is not a bar to the admission of that hearsay evidence. The justices would, however, have to conduct a determination of what weight should be attached to the hearsay evidence. The rules helpfully set out the criteria for the court to consider.

    Previous Convictions

    In Halford and Brooks [Senior] (1991) The Times, October 3, the court confirmed that in civil proceedings a different approach to allegations of criminal behaviour may be taken,in that there is no right to silence and evidence of bad character can be admitted, [see, Ali v. Best (1997) 161 JP 399H]

    Previous convictions can be proved by the production of a certificate of conviction, which is admissible by virtue of ss.11 and 12 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968. [In force by virtue of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 (Commencement No.1) Order 1968, SI 1968/1734 and not repealed by the Civil Evidence Act 1995.]

    Where an individual is acquitted in criminal proceedings the evidence of those proceedings is admissible. [See, Customs and Excise Commissioners v. T (1998) 162 JP 193, citing Hunter v. Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529 (HL).]

    Reasons for Stopping the Traveller

    The only issue before the court is that concerning commercial or personal use. The action is against the goods, in rem, and not against the individual. As a result, the reason why an individual was stopped falls away as being irrelevant to the matter the court has to decide.

    Similarly, the seizure of the goods cannot be regarded as axiomatically invalid, merely because it occurred as a result of a check that was invalid or unlawful. [See, Customs and Excise Commissioners v. Atkinson, Dore and Binns [2003] EWHC Admin 421; Customs and Excise Commissioners v. Newbury [2002] 2 All ER 964 (DC) (at para.5) and Hoverspeed v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [2002] EWCA Civ 1804 at paras.44-49.]

    The Court of Appeal ruled in the case of Hoverspeed that no link between the legality of the stop and the legality of any subsequent seizure “can or should in our view be read into the provisions of CEMA” (para.48).

    In so finding, the court held that it did not, “see any unfairness in the seizure of the goods liable to forfeiture, even though their presence happens only to be discovered in the course of an unlawful check. That may be bad luck, but it is not unfair.”

    Power to Stop the Traveller

    The power of Revenue and Customs to stop and search an individual and their vehicle derives from ss.78, 163A and 164 of CEMA.

    Costs and Compensation Costs

    Pursuant to s.64(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, the justices’ have a discretion to order costs. Pursuant to s.62(2) the amount ordered to be paid shall be specified in the Order and s.62(3) confirms that the costs ordered shall be enforceable as a civil debt. In other words, it is not administered by the magistrates’ court.

    It is always advisable to deal with costs on the same day and at the same time as the hearing of the forfeiture application. This is because such an order has to be made by the same bench who made the order in relation to the forfeiture application.

    Like all civil matters, ordinarily costs follow the event, unless there are justifiable reasons why they should not do so. It is suggested that defence solicitors should advise their clients very cautiously about this aspect of the proceedings. Revenue and Customs/UKBA are known to seek their full commercial costs in forfeiture proceedings which can amount to several thousand pounds.

    Clearly it will sometimes be advisable to take a commercial view on whether to pursue litigation in cases where the value of the goods is not particularly high or where any prospective costs order is likely to make pursuing the claim prohibitive.

    Equally, if the Revenue and Customs/UKBA application is not successful, the defendant will be able to ask for his legal costs in defending the matter. Again, some caution should be exercised when advising on this aspect, as Revenue and Customs/UKBA would be entitled to object to such an order if, for example, the defendant had raised matters in the magistrates’ court for the first time in dealing with the application for forfeiture which he had not previously mentioned, either at the time of seizure or subsequently in correspondence.

    Even if the defendant is successful, it will not necessarily follow that he will obtain a costs award if the court finds that the UKBA have acted honestly, reasonably and properly, and in the public interest (following Perinpanathan v. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and two others [2009] EWHC 762 (Admin)), confirmed by the Court of Appeal in, R (on the application of Amaravathari Perinpanathan) v. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (2) Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2010) [2010] EWCA Civ 40.

    In exercising its discretion the court can take into account that Revenue and Customs/UKBA are exercising their statutory function in condemnation matters. [See, R. v. Uxbridge Justices ex parte Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1981] 1 QB 829; Bradford City Metropolitan District Council v. Booth (2000) The Times May 31; and R (Chief Constable of Northamptonshire) v. Daventry Magistrates’ Court [2001] EWHC 446.]

    Importantly, costs must not be used as a device to overcompensate the successful party or punish the unsuccessful party. [See, R. v. Highgate Justices’ ex parte Petrou [1954] 1 All ER 406.]

    The power of the magistrates’ court to make a wasted costs order is governed by s.145A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 and SI 1991/2096.

    LSC Funding

    Legal Service Commission funding is not generally available for civil proceedings, although pursuant to the Access to Justice Act 1999 (AJA), a person may apply for public funding through the Community Legal Service. Section 6(6) of the AJA however does not permit the funding of services within sch.2, and para.2(3) prohibits the funding of advocacy in any proceedings in the magistrates’ court. Condemnation proceedings in both the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court therefore appear to be excluded.

    In R (Mudie) v. Kent Magistrates’ Court [2003] 2 All ER 631, the Court of Appeal confirmed that condemnation proceedings could not be extended to be classed as criminal proceedings, and therefore Criminal Defence Service funding was not available.

    Although, as Laws LJ observed in Mudie, there was nothing to prevent solicitors entering into conditional fee agreements in condemnation proceedings, [para.6]

    Compensation

    Pursuant to s.144 of CEMA, in the event that the Commissioners are unsuccessful, “… the court may, if it sees fit, certify that there were reasonable grounds for the seizure.” The result of this is that the claimant will not be able to seek compensation from the authorities.

    In the event of not succeeding with a forfeiture application, Revenue and Customs/UKBA will always be anxious to ensure that the “s.144 certificate” as to the reasonableness of their original seizure is signed, to preclude any claim for compensation. This is equally so where the court has condemned (for example) tobacco, but refused to condemn the vehicle that was used to transport it (secondary forfeiture).

    Appeals

    Both Revenue and Customs/UKBA and the defendant may appeal from the magistrates’ court decision to the Crown Court, or in the alternative invite the court to state a case for the High Court on a matter of law. [See, para.11 of sch.3 to CEMA.] The Crown Court’s jurisdiction and powers of disposal are set out in ss.45-48 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, (not the Senior Courts Act 1981.)

    Procedure

    On appeal to the Crown Court the hearing is de novo [see, s.79(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981] and involves a complete rehearing of the original case, including oral evidence. Rule 63.2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, [2005 SI 2005/38] which sets out the time limit (21 days) and the procedure (written notice to the magistrates’ court), appears to have been adopted for use in complaint appeals, albeit the appeal is civil.

    The procedure adopted at the hearing is the same as set out in the Magistrates’ Courts Rules. Pending the rehearing, there is no restriction on either the UKBA or the defence obtaining more evidence and adducing new evidence at the appeal.

    In R (Customs and Excise Commissioners) v. Maidstone Crown Court [2004] EWHC 1459, Customs sought judicial review of two decisions of the Crown Court in relation to granting permission to appeal out of time. The original applications had been made without notice and were made after several months of delay.

    There was no proper explanation as to why there had been a delay and the Judge granted permission without giving any reasons. Newman J held that it was incumbent on a Judge in the proper exercise of his discretion to consider the reasons given for any delay and to address the proposed merits of the appeal in the light of said delay. Furthermore, a Judge should, in the interests of justice, give reasons for the grant or refusal of permission and communicate that decision to any affected party.

    Pre-hearing Review

    It is advisable to have some form of Pre-hearing Review at the appeal stage. There are a multitude of reasons for this, including assisting the court with a time estimate, determining the requirement of witnesses and whether or not an interpreter is required, establishing points of law and narrowing the issues.

    Pending the Hearing of an Appeal

    It should be noted that para.12 of sch.3 to CEMA states that pending the final determination by way of appeal of the matter, the goods in question should be left with Revenue and Customs/UKBA.

    Condemnation and the ECHR

    The legitimacy of forfeiture proceedings was considered in Goldsmith and Anor v Customs and Excise Commissioners. (2001) The Times June 12.

    In that case, the Divisional Court considered what application, if any, art.6(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights had in relation to sch.3 of CEMA. The court found that because proceedings for the condemnation of goods as liable to forfeiture do not involve the determination of a criminal charge, none of the usual consequences of criminal convictionfollow from such proceedings. Therefore, even if the proceedings were proceedings to which the presumption of innocence in art.6(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights applied, the burden of proof imposed on the importer of excise goods to rebut Customs’ assertion that the importation was for a commercial purpose was proportionate, reasonable and justified.

    This issue was also considered in Salabiaku v. France (1988) 13 EHRR 378, where the court held that there was nothing unfair in imposing a burden of proof on someone where the subject matter was something that he was particularly well placed to prove.

    It will be noted that pursuant to art.1 of Protocol 1, the right to property is not absolute and the State is permitted to secure property in order to control the use of it in accordance with the general interest or securing the payment of taxes and other contributions or penalties. Condemnation proceedings have also been found to be compliant with the ECHR and art.6 in Air Canada v .UK. (1995) 20 EHRR 150, para.61-63.

    In relation to the condemnation of a vehicle and art.1, see, Hopping v. Customs and Excise Commissioners. [(EOO 170) (2001) LTL 16/11/2001.]

    Conclusion

    As established in the opening paragraphs of part 1 this article, the law of condemnation covers a vast array of both domestic and European legislation.

    For this reason, this article provides only an overview of the matters that typically come before the courts. Furthermore, this article does not consider the second part of the bifurcated jurisdiction that the legislature has adopted in relation to the seizure of goods and articles upon importation into the country - restoration.

    The law surrounding the two strands of jurisdiction is settled, but the bifurcated jurisdiction itself was criticized in Customs and Excise Commissioners v. Weller [2006] EWHC 237, at para.24, in which Evans-Lombe J called for a “statutory rationalization of the procedure governing the forfeiture of goods by the Commissioners” [para.24] on the basis that the systems is “... pregnant with the possibility of substantial injustice.”

    One proposed reform would be to introduce a unified condemnation and restoration procedure, which is less formal, less associated with the criminal courts and operates under the auspices of the Tribunals Service. Restoration and the law of condemnation are considered in more detail in ch.23 of Millington and Sutherland Williams on The Proceeds of Crime (third edition published by OUP in March 2010) from which this article is derived.


    Последно редактирано от Bus.F****.Bus : 21-02-2015 на 21:25

  16. #41
    Старо куче
    Регистриран на
    Sep 2011
    Мнения
    2 668
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: Re: За: Re: За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Цитирай Първоначално написано от Мила Виж мнението
    Е как ще си на 0, като глобата е в пъти по-голяма, че и има затвор? Освен това, съществува вероятност да ти забранят да влизаш в Кралството за определен период от време, година или повече...
    Какво плашите хората сега пък и с затвор...

    Може да си закупите колкото си искате цигари и да си ги вземете във вкъщи щом са за лична употреба. Акцизна стока са и ако препродавате то тогава е друга работа. За улеснение са въведени стойности които е смешно и излишно натоварващи администрацията с проверки, да доказвате че са за лична употреба. Количества над тези стойности трябва да можете да докажете, че са за лична употреба, ако друг твърди обратното, разбира се и той трябва да доказва твърдението си.
    Не виждам проблем с цитираните и станали повод за тази тема количества. Ако касовите бележки (фактури) например са от България, а Вие сте се прибирали и преди и ли пак ще си ходите, то количеството сте решили сега да си го закупите защото сте заклет пушач, на предните ходения не сте си взимал, а и не мислите в следващи да го правите, тогава си планирате да си закупите хубаво червено българско вино в доволни количества защото цигари вече си имате, а обичате покрай камината и винце да си попийвате...

  17. #42
    title removed Аватара на CanBoy
    Регистриран на
    Nov 2010
    Мнения
    6 193
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: Re: За: Re: За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Цитирай Първоначално написано от Arthur Sword EXCALIBUR Виж мнението
    Какво плашите хората сега пък и с затвор...

    Може да си закупите колкото си искате цигари и да си ги вземете във вкъщи щом са за лична употреба. Акцизна стока са и ако препродавате то тогава е друга работа. За улеснение са въведени стойности които е смешно и излишно натоварващи администрацията с проверки, да доказвате че са за лична употреба. Количества над тези стойности трябва да можете да докажете, че са за лична употреба, ако друг твърди обратното, разбира се и той трябва да доказва твърдението си.
    Не виждам проблем с цитираните и станали повод за тази тема количества. Ако касовите бележки (фактури) например са от България, а Вие сте се прибирали и преди и ли пак ще си ходите, то количеството сте решили сега да си го закупите защото сте заклет пушач, на предните ходения не сте си взимал, а и не мислите в следващи да го правите, тогава си планирате да си закупите хубаво червено българско вино в доволни количества защото цигари вече си имате, а обичате покрай камината и винце да си попийвате...
    ми българската цигарена мафия в УК плаши шанаджиите с по 10-20 стека дето и ядат от пазара
    За жалби и оплаквания tel.0696969-Holy Armenian Church.

  18. #43
    I see you... Аватара на Мила
    Регистриран на
    Mar 2006
    Град
    Шотландия
    Мнения
    29 200
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: Re: За: Re: За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Цитирай Първоначално написано от Arthur Sword EXCALIBUR Виж мнението
    Какво плашите хората сега пък и с затвор...

    Може да си закупите колкото си искате цигари и да си ги вземете във вкъщи щом са за лична употреба. Акцизна стока са и ако препродавате то тогава е друга работа. За улеснение са въведени стойности които е смешно и излишно натоварващи администрацията с проверки, да доказвате че са за лична употреба. Количества над тези стойности трябва да можете да докажете, че са за лична употреба, ако друг твърди обратното, разбира се и той трябва да доказва твърдението си.
    Не виждам проблем с цитираните и станали повод за тази тема количества. Ако касовите бележки (фактури) например са от България, а Вие сте се прибирали и преди и ли пак ще си ходите, то количеството сте решили сега да си го закупите защото сте заклет пушач, на предните ходения не сте си взимал, а и не мислите в следващи да го правите, тогава си планирате да си закупите хубаво червено българско вино в доволни количества защото цигари вече си имате, а обичате покрай камината и винце да си попийвате...
    Не ми е ясно защо си ме цитирал. Това, което пишеш е точно така и аз нищо различно не съм казала. Въпросът е не за тези, които са заклети пушачи и при всяко пътуване си взимат цигари за лична употреба. Въпросът е за тези, които пренасят цигари за продажба. Потребителят ясно си е казал за какво става дума... Разликата обикновено е доста ясна и лесно се доказва - само че много често това става в съда. Не се сещам кой "плаши" хората със затвор. Питали са за законовите мерки - отговорено им е за законовите мерки. С линк. Който иска - да се информира, който иска - да се плаши...
    В този форум споделям опита и мнението си, не убеждавам никого в нищо. Извинявам се предварително, ако случайно убедя някого в правотата си - не е било нарочно.
    Моля потребителите, които не разбират смисъла на някое мое мнение или са потресени или възмутени от него или искат да му вменят някакво свое тълкувание и се дразнят, ако не се съгласявам, че съм искала да кажа това, което те са "прочели", да пропускат коментарите ми, да не ги цитират и по всякакъв възможен начин да спазват дистанция. Благодаря за разбирането.

  19. ХАРЕСВАМ! steve liked this post
  20. #44
    Нов потребител
    Регистриран на
    Jul 2008
    Мнения
    24
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: Re: За: Re: За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Здравейте , намерил съм едно много готино сайтче . Ако ви се занимава може да го разгледате. http://nothing-2-declare.blogspot.co...lsseizure.html
    Хората разказват какви са последствията ако ви хванат и какво точно да се направи , за да нямате проблеми и да си вземете цигарите обратно. Може и 200 стека да са .

  21. #45
    Старо куче
    Регистриран на
    Jan 2014
    Град
    Bulgaria
    Мнения
    728
    Post Thanks / Like

    По подразбиране За: въпрос за хванати цигари на летището

    Искрено се радвам за твоя приятел , най- после един селски тарикат от Чалгария да си намери майстора. Дай боже повече такива позитивни новини.

Страница 2 от 2 ПървиПърви 12

Информация за темата

Потребители разглеждащи тази тема

В момента има 1 потребител(и) разглеждащ(и) тази тема. (0 регистрирани и 1 гости)

Подобни теми

  1. обществен транспорт до летището в лутън?
    От captain caveman във форум Авто-мото, транспортни, пътуване
    Отговори: 12
    Последно мнение: 28-07-2013, 18:21
  2. Взрив на летището в Бургас
    От deijei във форум ТОП НОВИНИ
    Отговори: 69
    Последно мнение: 26-07-2012, 07:33
  3. Кувейтски входните визи за българи ще се дават на летището
    От Decatur във форум Авто-мото, транспортни, пътуване
    Отговори: 0
    Последно мнение: 02-01-2010, 13:41
  4. Задължителен ли е паспорт на летището?
    От m_maggy19 във форум Авто-мото, транспортни, пътуване
    Отговори: 2
    Последно мнение: 15-02-2009, 11:00
  5. Обслужват ни два пъти по-бързо на летището
    От Suzanne във форум Други новини
    Отговори: 0
    Последно мнение: 27-12-2006, 07:18

Етикети за тази тема

Отметки

Правила за публикуване

  • Вие не можете да публикувате теми
  • Вие не можете да отговаряте в теми
  • Вие не можете да прикачвате файлове
  • Вие не можете да редактирате мненията си
  •  
Top Worktops
eXTReMe Tracker