TC09584 - [2025] UKFTT 00866 (TC)

On 23 July 2023, the appellant arrived at the Southampton International Port Ocean Cruise Terminal, having travelled on a cruise around Europe. She initially cleared the Customs area without making a declaration. She had travelled on the cruise with a companion, Mr Christie, who was stopped in the Green Channel by Border Force Officer Nchanji. He stated that he had travelled with the appellant and at the Officer’s request he asked her to return which she did. The officer inspected both of their passports and noted the details.

He posed a number of questions to them both. They confirmed that they had been in the Green Channel and that they knew what that meant.

On being asked if they had purchased or obtained anything whilst they were away which they were bringing back into the UK, the appellant initially said “Nothing really” and then having been prompted in regard to alcohol or tobacco, she said “We bought some cigarettes”.

Mr Christie then said “We only bought our allowance.” On being asked what the allowance was, the appellant said “200 cigarettes each and we have 400 between us”. They were asked if the two pull along cases which the appellant had taken through the Green Channel and the trolley with cases which Mr Christie had been pushing were all of their bags. Mr Christie confirmed that the bags which were present were all of the bags that belonged to them and they had packed them themselves.

In response to the question “Are you fully aware of the contents”, the appellant replied “Yes. We only have 400 fags”. She said that they were not carrying anything for anybody else saying “No, just our stuff”. Mr Christie answered two questions which were unrelated to alcohol or tobacco. He was asked to place the suitcases on the table which he did one at a time. As the search of each case was concluded he closed and removed each case from the table.

A search of the luggage found 1,400 cigarettes branded “Manchester” and 400 cigarettes branded “Kings” in one case. The officer said to the appellant that she had said that she had only had 400 cigarettes between the two of them and that was not 400. Her response was “Hmm, no”. The officer then asked if he would find anymore tobacco products and the appellant responded saying “I don’t know”.

The officer asked for the next case and Mr Christie said “OK”. In another case the officer found 200 Sterling cigarettes, 200 Lambert & Butler cigarettes, 160 Marlboro cigarettes and 3.2kg of Amber leaf handrolling tobacco.

The officer then seized the goods and issued a Seizure Information Notice (BOR 156).

That is headed “This is not a Notice of Seizure”. Underneath that it reads:

“This Notice provides details about the seizure of the things listed below. If they do not belong to you, please give this Notice to their owner as soon as possible”.

The goods are then scheduled. The appellant signed that and the time is noted as being 9.40am.

The officer’s notebook records that the original interception had occurred at 7.22am and his witness statement and notebook record that BOR 156 was issued at 7.40am. The Notice had circled on it the fact that Notice 1 issued, a warning letter issued and Notice 12A issued. The warning letter is signed by the officer but not by the appellant and it records that in the presence of Senior Officer Hickton the appellant had refused to sign or collect the warning letter (BOR 162).

Border Force then sent details of the seizure to HMRC.

On 5 April 2024, Officer Roberts wrote to the appellant notifying her of HMRC’s intention to investigate her conduct.

She was provided with relevant Public Notices and documentation. She was invited to make disclosures and to return a signed and dated copy of the letter as acknowledgement that she had read and understood the documentation.

Crucially that letter includes the following paragraph:-

“If you are going to co-operate with this check, please provide responses to each and every one of the following bullet points within 30 days of the date of this letter:

•

A copy of this letter (copy enclosed), signed and dated by you, as acknowledgement that you have read and understood Factsheet CC/FS9, Public Notice 160, and Public Notice 300. If you have any questions regarding any of these, please contact me on the above number

•

Confirmation of who was involved in the smuggling (attempt)

•

For each person involved, please state exactly what they did

•

For each person involved, please state why they did it

•

A full explanation as to how the smuggling (attempt) was carried out

•

Confirmation as to how many times and when (the dates) alcohol and tobacco products were smuggled (or attempts made to smuggle them) into the UK

•

For each occasion, please state the quantity of goods

•

Details of all international travel during 23 July 2022 to 5 April 2024, including the reasons for travel

•

Any documentation you think will support the information you are providing

•

Any other information or explanations you think may be of use to this check”.

Public Notice 160 explains that penalties might be imposed and explains how they are calculated. It also explains how any penalties might be reduced and the extent to which penalties might be reduced depending upon the level of cooperation.

Sections 2.4 and 3 of Public Notice 300, explain that a reduction, of up to 40% may be made for disclosure where an “early and truthful explanation as to why the arrears arose and the true extent of them” is provided, and/or a reduction of up to 40% may be made if the taxpayer co-operates fully. Examples of co-operation are given such as the attending all interviews where necessary, supplying information promptly, attending meetings and answering questions truthfully, giving the relevant information to establish their true liability and co-operating until the end of the investigation, such that the person has been “fully embracing and meeting responsibilities under the procedure”. Although in most cases the maximum reduction obtainable would therefore be 80%, the Notice indicates that further reductions may be made in “exceptional circumstances” such as a “complete and unprompted voluntary disclosure” by the person concerned.

The letter explained that if she did not reply by 5 May 2024 it would be assumed that she did not wish to cooperate and in that event she might be charged with the maximum penalty.

On 22 April 2024, a reminder letter was issued and asked for a reply by 5 May 2024. On the afternoon of the same day, the appellant emailed Officer Roberts stating that:

On 25 April 2024, Officer Roberts emailed Officer Nchanji seeking clarification as to whether:

Officer Nchanji replied the following day and confirmed that Mr Christie’s account of the interception was correct but that he had not commenced the baggage search until she had returned to the Green Channel. He went on to state “During Initial Questions, Ms Hickling stated the baggage belongs to her and took ownership of the Revenue goods that were found and seized as reflected in my Notebook and the BOR forms”.

She had refused to take the Warning Notice as she said that there was no need to appeal the decision as she had been above the permitted allowance.

On 31 May 2024, Officer Roberts issued the penalty which showed a 20% reduction awarded as to 10% for disclosure and 10% for co-operation.

On 6 June 2024, HMRC returned two missed calls from the appellant on the previous day and discussed the case with her. She again stated that all of the goods belonged to her companion and that she had only signed the Seizure Notice so that she could leave and be helpful to Customs. The officer explained that his decision had been based on the fact that she had been aware that she had tobacco goods in excess of her allowance and she had failed to declare them. He pointed out that that was still her responsibility even if someone else had purchased the goods as she was aware that they were in the luggage and in excess of the allowance. He advised her to provide any additional information in support of what she was saying.

On 9 June 2024, the appellant emailed HMRC requesting a review, arguing that she felt that she had not explained the situation very well to Officer Roberts and after speaking to him on the telephone she realised that further information was required.

She reiterated her argument that her companion had left whilst the bags were being searched and she had been left standing there with his luggage and tobacco. She explained that part of the way through the cruise there had been an argument and she had been pushed out of the cabin and had been forced to get her own cabin. She reiterated that she no longer had any association with her companion.

She sent a further email later that morning, stating that she had not wanted to name her companion previously because of the violence but she realised that she needed to give his name so she disclosed his name and address. She enclosed a copy of a bill from the cruise showing that Mr Christie was no longer paying her bills from 15 July 2023.

On 5 August 2024, HMRC issued the Review Conclusion Letter. That Letter confirmed that all of the facts that I have narrated above had been considered by the Review Officer.

The Review Officer accepted that the appellant and Mr Christie had separated whilst on the cruise but pointed out that in the appellant’s email of 22 April 2024, she had confirmed that Mr Christie had been carrying one of her bags when stopped. He argued that that seemed to demonstrate at least some ongoing contact between them just prior to the seizure of the goods.

He went on to point out that in the interview with Officer Nchanji, she had confirmed that she knew the allowance for tobacco goods. However, in her email of 22 April 2024 she had stated:

“I wasn’t a hundred per cent sure on the rules as I am new to travelling. The customs explained about buying things on the boat like jewellery and designer clothes as they don’t tell you on the ship and my companion bought tobacco that he wasn’t told on the boat he couldn’t buy (sic)”.

The Review Officer stated that given the available evidence, he did not find it credible that the appellant was unaware of the cigarettes and tobacco allowances or that the tobacco goods were present in the baggage. Therefore, the appellant had displayed dishonest conduct by first leaving the Customs area without making a declaration and then making a dishonest declaration to the effect that only the allowance had been utilised.

As far as the reductions were concerned, the Review Officer upheld the level of reduction pointing out that she had repeatedly said that she was not aware of the allowance levels. He had concerns about the credibility of her account of Mr Christies’ whereabouts during the Border Force interview.

On 24 August 2024, the appellant appealed to the Tribunal reiterating the previous arguments and stating that she had only owned 200 cigarettes. She argued that she had been coerced into signing the Seizure Notice.