![UT/2019/000009 - [2024] UKUT 00176 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Law
Law
The disputed issues concerning Mr Ali’s liability to the relevant assessment turn on the application of the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010 (“the “Regulations”) which implement Council Directive 2008/118/EC (“the 2008 Directive”), Regulation 5 provides that there is an excise duty point at the time when goods are released for consumption in the UK.
Regulation 6(1) provides so far as relevant:
“6(1) Excise goods are released for consumption in the United Kingdom at the time when the goods-
…
are held outside a duty suspension arrangement and UK excise duty on those goods has not been paid, relieved, remitted or deferred under a duty deferment arrangement;
…”
As far as the person liable to pay the duty when excise goods are released for consumption by virtue of regulation 6(1)(b) is concerned, Regulation 10 provides:
The person liable to pay the duty when excise goods are released for consumption by virtue of regulation 6(1)(b) (holding of excise goods outside a duty suspension arrangement) is the person holding the excise goods at that time. "
- Heading
- Introduction
- Law
- Case-law
- Assessment of earlier duty point
- Meaning of “holding” in the Regulations?
- FTT Decision and background
- Grounds of Appeal
- Discussion
- Does the error mean the FTT’s decision should be set aside?
- Ground 2 – Palm Palace Limited, not Mr Ali, had sufficient control in order to be “holding” for the purposes of Regulation 10(1) of the Regulations
- Ground 3 – the FTT failed to give sufficient reasons for the conclusion that Mr Ali was “holding” tobacco for Regulation 10(1) purposes
- Conclusions