Tax

Rabbani v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY CIVIL PENALTY (see also EXCISE HYDROCARBON OIL [DUTY]) : Evasion)

[2016] UKFTT TC TC05099First-tier Tribunal (Tax)2016

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

EXCISE DUTY � penalty for dishonest evasion � appellant attempting to take through green channel 15,000 cigarettes from outside EU � test of dishonesty to be applied � whether appellant�s conduct dishonest: yes �� reduction for disclosure and cooperation increased � whether penalty correctly calculated: penalty reduced by reference to evidence of UK selling price.

Niall Carlin, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents

This was an appeal against two penalties, one of �333 for evasion of Customs Duty and VAT and one of �1,347 for evasion of Excise Duty (Tobacco Products Duty).� On review these penalties had been reduced to �328 and �1,329 respectively.

We had a bundle prepared by HMRC of documents including the Notebook of a Border Force officer, Notices given to the appellant and correspondence between the appellant and HMRC.� We also had witness statements from Officer Brennan of the Border Force and Ms Easton and Mr Scopelliti of HMRC, and Officer Brennan gave oral evidence.

Officer Brennan�s evidence about what happened at Stansted Airport was questioned by Mr Rabbani and as a result Officer Brennan qualified his evidence.� We comment further on this below.

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