Tax

Edoo v The Director of Border Revenue (CUSTOMS DUTY : Other)

[2015] UKFTT TC TC04580First-tier Tribunal (Tax)2015

Get the AI brief for this case

Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

CUSTOMS DUTIES � seizure of wedding jewellery � reasonableness of decision to refuse restoration

Mr Rupert Davies of counsel, instructed by the Solicitor for UKBA, Home Office, for the Respondents

The Appellant (�Mrs Edoo�) appeals against a formal internal review decision of the Respondents (�UKBA�) dated 5 September 2014 (�the Disputed Decision�) refusing to restore items of jewellery seized at Birmingham Airport on 24 April 2014.

On 24 April 2014 Mrs Edoo�s sister, Mrs Bibi Farzana Iqbal, and other family members arrived at Birmingham Airport on a flight from Turkey.� They were stopped by a Border Force officer (Officer Ward Westwater) in the Green Channel and the officer identified seven items of jewellery (seven gold bangles) (�the Jewellery�), which had an aggregate value in excess of the maximum allowance of �390 (Travellers� Allowance Order 1994 (SI 1994/955) refers).� The Jewellery was seized (s 78 Customs & Excise Management Act 1979 refers).

On 28 April 2014 Mrs Edoo wrote to UKBA requesting restoration of the Jewellery.� She commenced a challenge to the legality of the seizure by appeal to the magistrates� court but subsequently withdrew that.� On 24 June 2014 UKBA refused restoration.� On 31 July 2014 Mrs Edoo requested a formal review.� On 5 September 2014 the decision not to restore was upheld by the review officer (Ms Helen Perkins) in the Disputed Decision.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Tax cases

Wood & Anor v Revenue and Customs (Stamp Duty Land Tax - rate of SDLT applicable - whether Table A or Table B - whether the house and land included land that was not residential property - whether all of land was, or formed part of, grounds of house - Finance Act 2003, ss 55, 116)

[2026] UKFTT TC 265

New Claire Wine Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Discovery assessments - extended time limit assessments - penalty for inaccuracy in a return - deliberate inaccuracy - whether deliberate inaccuracy necessarily involves dishonesty - whether HMRC required to specifically plead and prove dishonesty - whether the FTT erred in failing to explain how the appellant's conduct might not involve dishonesty)

[2026] UKUT TCC 116

Trees v Revenue and Customs (VAT - penalties - director's liability notice (DLN) - section 60 and 61 VATA 1994 - Kittel appeal in 2020 - HMRC expressly not pleading dishonesty)

[2026] UKUT TCC 92

RSK Cars Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - whether trader was entitled to use the VAT margin scheme for second-hand vehicles)

[2026] UKFTT TC 122

Alesen Direct Solutions Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Company undertaking construction work; VAT assessment; hardship application; company made advances to related entities/persons; hardship denied)

[2026] UKFTT TC 398

Rodrigues v Revenue and Customs

[2026] UKUT TCC 75

Common Room

Discussion

0 comments · About the Common Room →

No comments yet — start the discussion.

Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.

Tax