TC09561 - [2025] UKFTT 00761 (TC)

Fecha: 03-Jun-2025

Facts

Facts

We found the following facts:

(1)

On 17 March 2023 at Gatwick Airport, Mr Rahman was stopped by a Border Force Officer (“BFO”) having arrived from Dubai with a friend;

(2)

When questioned by the BFO, Mr Rahman confirmed he lived in the UK and had been on holiday to Dubai;

(3)

Mr Rahman was wearing a Rolex watch and, on examination of his luggage, the BFO found a box and receipt for a Rolex watch purchased on 16 March 2023;

(4)

The BFO issued a Seizure Information Notice (Form 156), calculated the VAT and duty due on the purchase price and then added a ten percent (10%) penalty charge for the restoration of the watch;

(5)

The calculation was that the VAT and duty due was £4,313.94, so with the 10% penalty charge the total owed was £4,745.33 which was paid by Mr Rahman;

(6)

An email dated 30 July 2023 was sent by Mr Rahman to Border Force claiming that the tax was wrongly charged because Mr Rahman was a resident in the UAE. The email also refers to having “tried the relevant way of dealing with this matter but to no avail, no response”;

(7)

In November 2023, when travelling via Gatwick airport, Mr Rahman made contact with an officer of the Border Force and, following that contact, on 25 November 2023, an email was sent from Border Force, Gatwick requesting details of Mr Rahman’s residence and evidence of the re-export of the watch;

(8)

By a letter dated 28 March 2024 Mr Rahman contacted the Border Force claiming that he had contacted the complaints department twice via email when he had first been charged the VAT and penalty on the watch;

(9)

On 25 April 2024, in response to that letter, DRB wrote to Mr Rahman refusing to consider a review of the decision to levy the VAT and penalty charge. That refusal to review is the subject of this appeal.

Save for the question of whether he was issued a Seizure Information Notice (Form 156), these facts were not disputed by Mr Rahman. The issue of whether he had been given the Form was potentially important. Mr Rahman’s evidence was that he did not remember being given the Form 156 and that he had used internet sources to identify how to challenge the Original Decision. However, in cross examination Mr Rahman accepted it was possible he or his friend had been given that Form 156. He explained that there had been a heated debate at the airport involving the friend accompanying him and the BFO and that he and his friend had left in a hurry. We noted that in his letter of 28 March 2024 Mr Rahman stated that “I was given an address to write to appeal… this was within the 30 day timeframe” (although we understood that Mr Rahman’s sister had assisted in writing this letter and she may have misunderstood what had happened at the airport). While the reference to a 30 day timeframe is erroneous, this seems likely to be a reference to Mr Rahman having been given details of how to challenge the Original Decision when he was at the airport. On the balance of probabilities and taking into account that Mr Rahman’s evidence was that it was possible he had been given a form, we concluded that Mr Rahman (or his friend on his behalf) had been given Form 156 at the airport.