In the case of Adriart Aliaj vs The Director of Border Revenue, a vehicle purchased abroad and driven into the UK from Albania was seized by the UK Border Force (UKBF) at the Cheriton Channel Tunnel outbound tourist control point. The seizure occurred as the individual attempted to take the vehicle back out of the UK, audit, tax and consulting adviser RSM UK reported recently.
The vehicle had intricate modifications suggesting it was designed to conceal goods, potentially for smuggling. Upon discovering these alterations, the UKBF officer enforced the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA), leading to the vehicle’s seizure and forfeiture.
Although the appellant, Adriart Aliaj, did not contest the legality of the seizure, he requested the vehicle’s restoration. He argued that he was unaware of the modifications, that the vehicle had five previous owners, that no illegal goods were found, and that he had no prior issues with UKBF, HMRC, or the police. This raised concerns about the proportionality of UKBF’s actions.
UKBF refused the restoration, citing the absence of exceptional circumstances. After Aliaj requested a review, the decision was upheld, leading to an appeal to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal’s decision highlighted that under CEMA, Border Force may restore anything forfeited or seized, subject to conditions they deem proper. Aliaj contended his lack of awareness of the adaptations and the absence of illegal goods. However, the Tribunal stressed that the burden of proof rested on Aliaj to demonstrate that UKBF’s decision was unreasonable and that exceptional circumstances existed.
The Tribunal found that Aliaj failed to prove his lack of awareness of the adaptations. He did not identify the vehicle’s seller, lacked payment records or repair invoices, and failed to establish exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld UKBF’s decision as reasonable.
This case underscores the principle of ‘caveat emptor,’ emphasising the importance of buyers conducting thorough checks and maintaining proper documentation. The case also raises questions about the proportionality of UKBF’s authority under CEMA.
While UKBF’s policy of not restoring seized vehicles except in exceptional circumstances is understandable, there is a valid argument for aligning penalties with the offence’s severity. In similar cases, considering the context, intent, and individual’s knowledge at the time of seizure could ensure more proportional outcomes.
