Holiday car purchase seized at the border

In the recent case of Adriart Aliaj vs The Director of Border Revenue, a vehicle purchased by an individual while out of the country on holiday and driven into the UK from Albania, was seized by UK Border Force (UKBF) at Cheriton Channel Tunnel outbound tourist control point, when the individual sought to take the vehicle back out of the UK.

The vehicle in question was found to have intricate modifications with the adaptations appearing to have been designed for the purpose of concealing goods or other portable items, potentially for the purposes of smuggling. Upon identifying this unique alteration, the UKBF officer on duty promptly enforced the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA), to seize and subsequently condemn the vehicle as forfeit.

While the appellant did not contest the legality of the seizure, he requested the restoration of the vehicle on the grounds that he was unaware of the adaptation, the vehicle had five previous owners, no illegal goods were found during the search of the vehicle, and he had no previous issues with UKBF, HMRC, or the police. This raised the issue of proportionality and whether UKBF were acting unreasonably. UKBF refused restoration citing the absence of exceptional circumstances related to the seizure. Following the appellant’s request for a review of the decision, the decision to not restore the vehicle was upheld by the reviewing officer and the matter was appealed to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal decided on the issue as follows:

• The legislation provides that Border Force may restore, subject to such conditions (if any) as they think proper, anything forfeited or seized under CEMA.
• Mr Aliaj contended that he was unaware of the adaptation and that no illegal goods were found during the search. However, the Tribunal emphasised that the burden of proof rests on the appellant to demonstrate the UKBF’s decision was unreasonable and that exceptional circumstances exist regarding the seizure.
• After careful consideration, the Tribunal found that Mr Aliaj failed to prove his lack of awareness and knowledge, of the adaptation. He decided to not identify the seller of the vehicle, lacked any payment records or invoices for repairs allegedly performed after purchasing the car and failed to establish exceptional circumstances surrounding the seizure. Consequently, any hardship resulting from the seized vehicle was deemed inevitable, and the UKBF’s decision was upheld as reasonable.

Firstly, from a non-customs perspective, this case emphasises the principle of ‘caveat emptor’. Buyers are responsible for making sure that proper checks and information are gathered before making a purchase. The need for proper documentation and audit trails cannot be overemphasised in cases like this.

Critically this case raises important questions about the authority CEMA provides UKBF in such cases, when it comes to proportionality. Whilst the UKBF’s policy of not restoring seized vehicles except in exceptional circumstances is understandable, there is a valid argument that penalties should align with the severity of the offence. In cases like this, where methods of transport have adaptations with the hallmarks of supporting smuggling, it is essential to consider the context, the intent at the time of seizure, and the individual’s knowledge. While the appellant in this case could not demonstrate his lack of awareness regarding the adaptation, it would be interesting to see proportionality play a role in similar cases rather than relying solely on rigid policies.