Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2010] All ER (D) 45 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2010] EWCA Crim 978
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Judge:

Hooper LJ, Swift and Hamblen JJ

Representation Richard Kovalevsky QC and Conor Quigley QC (EC Issues only) (instructed by EBR Attridge) for the first defendant, W.
  Conor Quigley QC (EC issues only) and Peter Corrigan (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the second defendant, D.
  John Wainwright Evans (instructed by Owen Nash & Co) for the third defendant, P.
  Andrew Jackson (instructed by Grove Tompkins Bosworth) for the fourth defendant, R.
  David Anderson (EC issues only) and Martin Evans (instructed by the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office) for the Crown in W's appeal.
  David Anderson (EC issues only), Andrew Bird and Gideon Cammerman (instructed by the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office) for the Crown in D's appeal.
  James Puzey (instructed by the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office) for the Crown in P's appeal.
  Andrew Bird (instructed by the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office) for the Crown in R's appeal.
Judgment Dates: 5 May 2010

Catchwords

Proceeds of crime - Confiscation order - Customs offences - European legislation - Domestic regulations - Defendants involved in smuggling of tobacco into United Kingdom - Point at which excise duty chargeable on tobacco products smuggled into UK by sea from member state of European Union - Whether domestic regulations compatible with European directives - Who owing duty - Finance (No 2) Act 1992 - Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992, - Tobacco Products Regulations 2001, - Council Directive (EEC) 92/12.

The Case

Proceeds of crime Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, gave judgment in four appeals by defendants against confiscation orders to which they had been made subject. All defendants had involved the smuggling of tobacco into the United Kingdom for resale and had been listed together because they raised similar issues. The issues which arose included: (i) when excise duty became chargeable on tobacco products smuggled into the UK by sea from a member state; (ii) whether reg4(1) of the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement, Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992, (1992 Regulations) and reg12(1) of the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001, (the 2001 Regulations) were compatible with art6(1)(c) of Council Directive (EEC) 92-12 (on the general arrangement for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (the 1992 Directive)(the 1992 Directive); (iii) who owed the duty; and (iv) whether regs5(1) and (3) of the 1992 Regulations were compatible with art7(1)(c) of the 1992 Directive.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.