TC09627 - [2025] UKFTT 01068 (TC)

Officer Gordon is currently part of HMRC’s Solicitors Office and Legal Services, (“SOLS”) Indirect Excise Review team. She has been employed by HMRC (or its predecessor departments) since 1986 and has worked in SOLS since April 2018. She was the officer allocated to review the Decision.

She said that she examined all documentation provided to CFL, its representatives, and officers from HMRC. After examining all the evidence and following consideration of the events leading to the Decision, she was satisfied that she had been provided with sufficient evidence that HMRC had reasonable cause to refuse restoration of the fuel and vehicle. She concluded that the Decision was legally and technically correct and she did not find sufficient or compelling reasons to offer restoration. She considered the Decision to be both reasonable and proportionate in relation to the circumstances of the case.

She did not review the seizure itself. As there was no challenge to the seizure, the goods were condemned as forfeit, and her review therefore focussed on the decision not to restore the goods.

The fuel was liable to forfeiture on the grounds that the official Eurofins test concluded that two of the three of the samples of fuel taken on the day of the seizure (samples 246106 and 246108) were consistent with laundered UK gas oil and one sample (sample 246107) was found to contain commercial DERV or white diesel. The vehicle is a “singular type tanker” (one where the tanker and tractor unit cannot be separated). As the laundered fuel was being transported in the vehicle, she was satisfied that the vehicle was also liable to forfeiture and as such, it was reasonable and proportionate under the terms of HMRC’s restoration policy, not to restore it.

In coming to her conclusion, Officer Gordon says that she referred to HMRC’s policy for the restoration of goods and considered whether CFL’s case was exceptional so as to warrant a deviation from that policy, as HMRC’s general policy for the restoration of seized road fuel and excise goods is not to return the goods where there has been an attempt to evade payment of any duty.

HMRC’s “disclosable policy” (her phrase) is set out in a document entitled “Forfeiture of Excise Goods (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Oils)” summarised at [19] above. She explained that the policy is that oil and vehicles seized as liable to forfeiture must not generally be restored. Restoration may be offered, but only exceptionally and not as a matter of course. She said that restoration had never been allowed in any case she has been involved with. While this policy must be applied firmly (but not rigidly) it allows for each case to be considered on its merits to determine whether restoration may be offered and under what terms. Officer Gordon was satisfied that the Officer making the Decision had considered all relevant matters and did not ignore any that should have been considered when making the Decision.