HM Customs and Excise, along with defending the UK from illegal immigration,
are the authority tasked with preventing the importation of illegal goods,
the illegal importation of any goods, and what most people would call, in
simple terms, smuggling.With closer integration with the European Union, the controls on cross-border
trade broke down, and the concept of 'Duty Free' imports within the EU
disappeared.
Duty Free importation allowed individuals to bring a limited quantity of goods
back into the UK without having import duty surcharged upon those items.
I've never been too clear as to why Duty Free ever existed, or why it was a
valid concept, available only to the privileged few who could travel abroad
to bring items into the UK cheaper than they could be bought at home.
Non-personal importation did, and still does, attract duty charges.
With internal European borders being torn down, commercially at least, the
concept of Duty Free within the EU became outdated and was at odds with the
concept of free trade within the EU.
Limits on the quantity of goods which could be brought in to the UK were
removed, for items which were for personal use, although limits remain on goods
brought in from outside the EU, and those which are for non-personal use.
The removal of limits, coupled with the excessive levels of duty that the UK
Government levies on UK produced items, has made the one day trip to foreign
lands an opportunity for many people who wish to bring back goods which can be
bought much cheaper abroad than in their own home towns. Alcohol and Tobacco
being the most popular imports, since the UK has such high duty levels on those
items.
The only requirement to achieve importation without the imposition of duty is
that those goods must be solely for personal use, although that includes items
which may then be given away as gifts ( but no form of payment or reward can
be accepted in return ).
The situation does however create a problem for the UK Government. Because of
their high rates of duty, it is an extremely attractive proposition, for someone
who wants to make a quick buck, to go abroad, bring back alcohol and tobacco,
claim it's for personal use, then sell the items on at a profit.
This is of course, non-personal importation, an abuse of the system, it is what
is known as smuggling. It also costs the Government an absolute fortune as it
loses tax revenues.
Customs and Excise therefore have to determine whether any goods being brought
into the UK are actually for personal use or are attempts to smuggle goods in
with the avoidance of paying duty.
In order to simplify the issue, what is considered to be a quantity of goods
that is reasonable to be considered as for personal use has been defined, by
way of EU wide guidelines, with anything above that being treated suspiciously,
as an attempt to smuggle goods into the country.
This is despite the fact that there are no limits as to what can be brought in
for personal use, despite what Customs and Excise may tell the travelling
public, alleging, to the unknowing, that the old duty free limits still remain.
Customs and Excise, using the EU guidelines,
'suggest' that
an acceptable level of personal importation is no more than ...
800 cigarettes ( 3,200 after October 2002)
400 cigarillos
200 cigars
1kg smoking tobacco ( 3Kg after October 2002 )
110 litres of beer
90 litres of wine ( 60 litres of sparking wine : distinction ended in October 2002 )
20 litres of fortified wine ( such as port and sherry )
10 litres of spirits
Anything above these levels, and you are likely to be suspected of having items
which are not solely for personal use and consumption.
The figures Customs and Excise use seem to be arbitrarily created. A moderately
hardened drinker, consuming 4 pints a night ( 2.3 litres ), can bring in
enough beer to last for about 50 days. A heavy smoker, on a packet of 20 a day,
can bring in enough cigarettes to last 40 days.
Quite a reasonable quantity, but shouldn't anyone be allowed to travel abroad
and bring back a year's supply in one go ? It's permitted by law, and there's
no reason that shouldn't be done. Except for the attitude of Customs and
Excise.
Our alcoholic smoker, doing one trip a year, could quite fairly argue
that 7,500 cigarettes ( 9 times the 'limit' ) and 8,500 litres of beer ( 7.5
times the 'limit' ) is entirely acceptable, and reasonable. A family of four
adults would claim that bringing four times that amount back is consequently
acceptable, and still reasonable. Customs are however unlikely to agree.
Confronted with a vehicle, which won't be small, loaded up with 30,000
cigarettes and 35,000 litres of beer, Customs and Excise are going to think
Christmas has come early.
And this is where the real problems begin. Customs and Excise officers are the
arbiter of what is and isn't for personal use, and no matter what the truth of
the matter is, they will decide what is 'reasonable' and what isn't.
Those smuggling goods can get away with the crime by being lucky enough to not
get stopped, keeping to fairly low quantities or by using a large number of
couriers, whilst the innocent family, making a one off trip to save money, can
face the full wrath of officialdom.
Customs and Excise will no doubt argue that they are fair in their application
of determination of 'reasonableness' and will take into account the number of
times a vehicle, or family, has travelled abroad, but there are still great
opportunities for misplaced suspicion.
This is exactly what happened to three daytrippers, Alan and Pauline Andrews,
and their friend George Wilkinson, from Cheshire.
Having borrowed a relative's car, they returned from their overseas trip,
bringing back with them ..
10,200 cigarettes
8kg tobacco
Two bottles of wine
Customs and Excise, in a random stop and search, deemed that this was an
unreasonable amount to bring in for personal use, seized all the goods, and
impounded the car.
I strongly suspect it was the two bottles of wine which slanted their hand.
And that may be more true than the humorous nature of the comment indicates.
Why would anyone bring back so much tobacco and such little wine if they weren't
planning on selling the tobacco based goods ? Obviously this wasn't a
once a year trip, or they'd have bought back more wine, so the
subjectively large quantity of cigarettes is suspicious. Indeed, had they also
brought back an equivalent excess of other goods ( and sold the unwanted items
on later ), they may well have been able to pass through customs with just a
grunt of disapproval of their chosen life-styles.
For whatever reason, or suspicions they had, Customs and Excise officers
decided that the quantities were unreasonable, and consequently, all the goods
and their relative's car were seized.
Of the 15 million travellers who arrive at the Channel Ports every year,
450,000 are stopped, and 30,000 are unable to convince Customs and Excise
that their imports are for personal use.
Amazingly, 10,000 vehicles a year are impounded.
This family was not going to let the matter rest, no doubt spurred on by the
issue of their irate relative wanting to know how they'd lost the car, and
with the help of Hoverspeed, the case was taken to the High Court.
The result was a landmark victory against Customs and Excise.
Lord Justice Brooke and Mr Justice Bell ruled that the methods of
operating used by Customs and Excise were incompatible with European law.
They said there was no proof that there were reasonable grounds for stopping the
car, and therefore, that neither the goods or car should have been seized.
The Court ordered that the seized goods and car must be returned within seven
days, and compensation must be paid if they have been destroyed.
This would appear to be a complete victory for those importing goods for
personal use, however, there are some issues which remain outstanding.
The judgement ruled that the vehicle should not have been stopped, which would
have allowed the family and their goods to pass through unstopped, and there
would have been no intervention which allowed the goods to be seized. There was
not however a ruling upon whether Customs and Excise's application of
'reasonableness' was right or not. It does however, mean that Customs and Excise
will, in future, have to have justification to stop a vehicle in the first
place.
Of course, this probably means, 'reasonable justification',
so a car packed full of 'hippies' is still bound to be full of drugs, an excess
of rolling tobacco and any number of prohibited and smuggled goods, and anyone
going abroad twice in a week is obviously smuggling, in the eyes of Customs and
Excise.
Only time will tell if the case has any bearing on day to day operations of
Customs and Excise. Unfortunately, I think not. They will be as biased, as
prejudiced, and as self-serving as they always have been.
Customs and Excise have already said that the ruling broadly upheld its
existing policies, that the fundamentals of the policy were vindicated, and
there would be no change in its policies, or the way in which its officers
acted. They also indicated that they may appeal on the ruling.
They do, quite rightly, point out that the ruling should not be interpreted by
the public that permission had been granted for travellers to bring back as
much alcohol or tobacco as they liked.
So, in reality, very little has changed. Importers of goods for personal use
are still going to be subject to intense scrutiny, forced into meeting
Customs and Excise's rules of what they consider 'reasonable', and goods and
vehicles are still going to be seized, impounded and destroyed on the basis
of which side of the bed a Customs Officer got out of that day.
The UK public can continue to legally bring any quantity of goods into the
country for personal use, without paying duty, providing they meet the
criteria the Government and Customs and Excise have arbitrarily imposed.
If they decide you're not playing their game, they'll seize your goods,
seize your car, take ownership of your first-born, force the sale of your
house, and have you buried on Dartmoor with only your head above ground,
smeared in mint sauce, and leave you to face your fate as the sheep slowly
approach you, tongues dribbling with saliva.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Vox Populi Victory
After a sustained campaign by pressure groups, individuals and newspapers,
the UK Government has agreed to raise the limit on cigarettes and had rolling
tobacco which shoppers are allowed to bring back into the UK.
Of course, there is actually no restriction on the amount which travellers can
bring back as personal imports, for their own use, but the Minimum Indicative
Levels, which Customs use as a measure of what is acceptable as a personal
amount are increased.
With immediate effect, from October 2002, the number of cigarettes which can be
brought into the UK without automatically triggering suspicion of smuggling is
raised four-fold, from 800 to 3,200, and for rolling tobacco, the limit is
raised three-fold, from 1Kg to 3Kg. The distinction between wine and sparkling
wine is also abolished, although there are no changes in the limits on cigars,
cigarillos or alcohol otherwise.
Customs Officers will allow larger quantities of good through if it can be shown
that they are for personal use, and on the other hand will still target those
bringing in smaller amounts if they believe there is smuggling going on over a
longer period of time.
The newly introduced regulations will also shift the burden of proof from
individuals having to show that goods are for personal use, onto Customs
Officers to show they are satisfied that they are for commercial purposes.
How that translates into grass-roots activity remains to be seen, as Customs
Officers have been repeatedly accused of 'satisfying themselves' that imports
are illegal, no matter what the true circumstances are.
Coupled with the changes announced, comes news that Customs will publish a
step-by step guide to the appeals process, will offer greater opportunities
for first time offenders to reclaim their impounded vehicles, and the appeals
and complaints system is to be overhauled.
Economic Secretary, John Healey, the Minister responsible for Customs and
Excise, announced the changes, saying that this was not backing down in the face
of mounting public pressure, but was all part and parcel of the Government's
ongoing strategy and battle against smuggling.
Healey can wrap his announcement up in whatever, "There is no change in
Government intentions", he wishes, but it is obvious to most that the changes
have come about after sustained pressure from the public, and if that wasn't
the case, the fact that change has been taken so long to arrive, has occurred
at the end of a newspaper 'Witch hunt' of Customs and Excise, and just before
an increase in cross-channel, pre-christmas shopping, makes it suspiciously
so.
Whatever the reasoning behind the move, we must all be grateful that the
Government has seen sense, and thank all those who have continued to push for
reforms and fairness.
We must also hope that Customs Officers at ports and airports change the way
they behave in light of the new recommendations.
