Tobacco Seizure

[MARTIN3030]

lol yep...actually I got a pull at Manc on the way home.

Had 1000 cigs and 6 litres Vodka ....Was given a slap round wrist and allowed to keep them.Officially its only 200.

Cigs are only 3.9 Grivnas which is approx 40p packet-Vodka is only about 19 grivnas which is 2.00 a bottle-and its Nemerof-premium stuff.

 

But I came back via Amsterdam which I think is never a good option-usually they are looking for more than cigs Vodka and Caviar...

[Thailand]

lol yep...actually I got a pull at Manc on the way home.

Had 1000 cigs and 6 litres Vodka ....Was given a slap round wrist and allowed to keep them.Officially its only 200.

Cigs are only 3.9 Grivnas which is approx 40p packet-Vodka is only about 19 grivnas which is 2.00 a bottle-and its Nemerof-premium stuff.

 

But I came back via Amsterdam which I think is never a good option-usually they are looking for more than cigs Vodka and Caviar...

 

LOL! Do tell me more! [email protected]

 

I think you got lucky with your slap, I would never have dared bringing back more than my entitlement through TWO EU airports!

 

Sorry about the off topic posts OP, It's all Martins fault!

[MARTIN3030]

Its only UK who seems to be worried about it.

In Moscow they wouldnt bat an eyelid.

Just the customs ask how much caviar you have-a couple of hundred roubles usually shuts them up (roughly a fiver)

Off topic digressions over.Ta very kindly.

 

 

oops-forgot....whens the Blackpool meet ?

Edited October 19, 2008 by MARTIN3030

[spikejack]

Does anyone know if there is a EU directive or any law which states that the onus is on customs to prove that the seized goods are for commercial reasons. I've looked but a lot of the material I don't really understand, is there anyone out there with a more delving mind than mine. I can't see how I have to prove they were not for commercial reasons

[Bookworm]

It is the basis of English law: innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, in this instance C&E. In theory, you sole defence could be: "prove it". In reality, you'll have to fight your corner more than that, but it is still up to them to prove that you were having these for commercial use, not for you to prove that you were not.

[spikejack]

thanks for that bookworm. I actually thought that as well, I think I just needed reassuring. All the propaganda You read on the Customs websites etc makes you think that the onus is on yourself.

[Bookworm]

Personally, I would play the "honourable man/fought for my country/how dare they accuse me" line all the way. Seriously. They will play the "we are a reputable govt agency/we know what we're doing" card, so you need to have something as equally convincing on your side. A rigorous breakdown of your and your wife's tobacco usage and your impeccable character record is likely to keep you in better stead than a convoluted defence on something which is so one-sided otherwise. ;-)

[spikejack]

ok cheers for that bookworm. I will have to get my forces records out. re the customs knowing what they are doing, he couldnt even add the ammount up correctly. just a small matter,one of the forms I received hasnt even got an official stamp on it were it should be, maybe I could mention that as well. just a small technicality

[zen4men]

I have read this with interest, as a disabled man I know visited France twice over seven weeks, each time bringing back exactly the supposed allowance of 3 KG of rolling tobacco.

 

He is both physically disabled and dyslexic, and on the second occasion, they seized the tobacco, on the grounds that it could not be for his own use, so he must be selling.

 

Exactly as in your case, great attention was paid to being DLA - the implication being that he could not afford the tobacco, so must be selling.

 

He has appealed, they 'forgot' to let him know about the magistrates, and having appealed to the Crown Court, nothing seems to be happening in reply to emails sent asking for information, and the case is March 17, I think.

 

I am a Mackenzies Friend with some experience of courts, and this man is determined to fight.

 

So what happened in your case, as I see the thread ceased in October 2008.

 

Zen

[spikejack]

I went to a preliminary hearing in February just to sort out a date convenient to both parties. The court hearing is on the 6th May, nearly twelve months after the event which was the 2nd July or if you want to believe a Minister from the Government after I complained about my treatment the 26th April or the Customs themselves the 2nd June. Both these dates have cropped up in correspondence with them but the official court record gives the correct date

[Johnny Holmes]

Quite ridiculous.

 

The great French full back Serge Blanco smoked 100 Camel cigarettes a day during his playing days but has now cut down to 80.

 

I have known chain smokers who get through this amount and maybe even more, my old aunty was never without a fag in her mouth, ever.

 

Customs have to prove that you would not smoke the amount you brought back, clearly not an impossible amount to smoke in whatever time.

 

Besides, the tobacco would not go off even if you declared it was for the next 3 years use.

 

Nazi Germany at work here. Like Council Tax law.

[JonCris]

Thai is correct.

 

In fact this country has been repeatedly rebuked for stopping what amounts to free trade within the EU. They have been warned by the Commission that if they persist in their illegal seizures they risk being heavily fined.

 

I'm sure the computer buffs amongst you can trawl the web & find the evidence

[JonCris]

The UK government was being taken to court & when they promised to stop this nonsense (they lied) the Commission dropped the case

 

ACCESS - Action for Casualties of Customs European Shopper's Seizures. Cross Border Shoppers protest campaign.

 

HM Revenue and Customs - tips from day-tripper.net, the web-zine for channel shoppers.

[needscleaning]

Hi spikejack, new member and I was hoping you could tell me how you got on in court with your tobacco seizure as I am in a similar position.