top of page


Updated: Sep 12, 2018

SIGITO EKSPRESO TRANSPORTAS - Appeal number: TC/2017/03684

The appeal concerned the reasonableness of the review officer's decision to uphold the decision to restore a seized vehicle for a fee which amounted to 30% of the value of the vehicle.

The appeal was brought pursuant to Section 16(1) of the Finance Act 1994.

The review letter set out the terms on which the Respondent is prepared to restore to the Appellant a DAF tractor unit that was seized at Dover Docks. The Vehicle was seized because certain modifications had been made to its fuel tank. The Respondent has offered to restore the Vehicle to the Appellant for a payment of £18,548.00, of which £548.00 is attributable to the cost of removing the modifications. The Appellant was prepared to pay the £548.00 that is necessary to remove the modifications but considered that the balance of the payment required by the Respondent - £18,000.00 – is excessive.

The Tribunal concluded that the offer made in the review letter was reasonable in the Wednesbury sense.

Hammad is experienced in the challenging the legality of a seizure and in requesting restoration of seized items. A prompt and a measured action is required following any seizure.

bottom of page