HM Customs stole my tobacco

Are there not limits in the duty free shops? I'm sure that the last few times I've been in duty free, I've seen signs in all the departments saying how much you're allowed to buy. The staff should certainly be able to spot if someone is buying over the limit in one place too.
I think it's a bit harsh losing everything, but at the end of the day I guess it's just another lesson learned.
 
I'm also of the opinion that it's your own fault, as you agree, and therefore you should take whatever they deal out to you, on the chin.
 
I personally believe the law should be changed. I believe the maximum legal limit of how much booze/fags you can import should be: as much as you can carry.

At least that's the rules I used to stick to when I was a young squaddie in the Army during the 80s. Then again, the country was less PC in those days. HM Customs rarely, if ever, checked what soldiers were bringing back with them.

To further enforce that point, some soldiers brought back captured AK47s from the first Gulf War. It was perfectly legal as long as it was either a) kept in an approved armoury for the rest of its life, or b) deactivated.

That's another thing that cannot be done so easily nowadays--war trophies. Which sucks.

I got a knife I pinched off a captured Argie officer during the Falklands. Is actually very good as a carving knife to carve up steaks and stuff.
 
Its funny how they say they "dispose" of the goods, yeah right! More like take em home and sell em themselves
 
zain said:
Its funny how they say they "dispose" of the goods, yeah right! More like take em home and sell em themselves
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure there are ridiculously stringent guidelines for the disposal/destruction of stuff they seize.
 
Custody and disposal of seized goods

Customs’ success in recent years in detecting smuggled goods led to a rapid growth in seizures. In 2001-2002 alone, they seized 1.6 billion cigarettes and 5.4 million litres of beer, wine and spirits, along with other goods such as drugs, vehicles and cash.

The growth in seizures necessitated Customs using private companies to transport and store certain of the goods on their behalf. But Customs’ control over their contractors has not been fully effective due to weaknesses in contract design and performance management. The NAO found: that there were doubts whether all items seized were actually received into a store; that Customs’ staff could potentially amend records of volumes and values of seized goods, or even delete entries inappropriately; and that serious weaknesses existed in stocktaking arrangements.

Without adequate controls and procedures there is a high risk that goods that should be destroyed are not, and may re-enter the market illegally. Customs’ Internal Audit Division found some evidence of goods being misappropriated in this way.

Customs reorganised the Queen’s Warehouse network and in 2002 drew up a strategy to bring their systems under control. They terminated the existing transport and storage contract in June. Under the terms of the new contract, the storage Contractor has introduced a management information system that will enable Customs to carry out independent checks on items held.
Click to expand...

From:
http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/02-03/c&estdrept.htm

So, it appears that quite a lot was going "missing", at least in 2001-2.
 
Vertigo1 said:
My uncle brought a shedload of cigarettes back from the UAE a couple of years back, which was all perfectly legal as they were for personal use, yet the customs officer on duty that day decided they weren't and thus confiscated the lot. Now that's theft! What's needed are some clear guidelines from the government on exactly how much you can bring back from EU countries, rather than leaving it to C&E to decide.
Click to expand...

The UAE is not an EU country so the normal limits (200 cigarettes) apply regardless of whether they are for personal consumption or not.
 
He acted within the law Stan, but the fairness of that law is something else. Although not a police matter, the cops can exercise discression with certain things but I have found that discression is not in the dictionary for HM Customs. Seventy quids worth of baccy does not exactly make you a major smuggler and although it is true that the information is available to check your limits, it is bloody unfair, I think, for the whole amount to be forfeited and no option available to pay back duty if stopped and it is a genuine mistake, and I believe you when you say this.

It hasn't been stolen from you, although you are rightly p'd off about it, but I would say that the law concerning limits can be unfair and while tobacco remains very expensive in this country through excessive taxation, people are going to try to get stuff through and that includes large quantities. The Government have only themselves to blame for the rise in smuggling. I of course, don't mean you here mate. :)
 
Von Smallhausen said:
He acted within the law Stan, but the fairness of that law is something else. Although not a police matter, the cops can exercise discression with certain things but I have found that discression is not in the dictionary for HM Customs. Seventy quids worth of baccy does not exactly make you a major smuggler and although it is true that the information is available to check your limits, it is bloody unfair, I think, for the whole amount to be forfeited and no option available to pay back duty if stopped and it is a genuine mistake, and I believe you when you say this.

It hasn't been stolen from you, although you are rightly p'd off about it, but I would say that the law concerning limits can be unfair and while tobacco remains very expensive in this country through excessive taxation, people are going to try to get stuff through and that includes large quantities. The Government have only themselves to blame for the rise in smuggling. I of course, don't mean you here mate. :)
Click to expand...

Although I have used the words stolen and theft, I do realise that it isn't actually theft but as you rightly point out, I am extremely brassed off about it and that is how I feel.

My main problem is in regards to the whole lot being confiscated without having the opportunity to rectify my mistake. Also, the zeal with which the customs officer carried out his duties was most unseemly. I am all in favour of people enjoying their jobs but to grin and say "it's no big deal mate" whilst taking somebody's stuff away from them is, in my opinion, not the attitude of a fair minded individual.
I appreciate you saying you believe me but then you know me and he didn't. I just wish he hadn't enjoyed it so much :(

I was going to bring the cigars to the next meet too, so it's not just me who will miss out :p

Stan :)
 
A1ex said:
The UAE is not an EU country so the normal limits (200 cigarettes) apply regardless of whether they are for personal consumption or not.
Click to expand...
Actually you're right, I think I was getting confused with this story. Although he lives in the UAE I think he was bringing them back to the UK from a stopover in an EU country. Will have to ask him next time I see him as I've obviously forgotten :D
 
Green Channel: "Nothing to Declare"
Red Channel: "Articles to Declare"

By going through the Green Channel, you are implicitly confirming that you have understood the applicable allowances for entering the UK and confirming that you have "nothing to declare", as it says on the signage. Going through the Green Channel, then getting caught with goods over the limit, then saying "I want to pay the tax" is not "being given opportunities to pay" - it's more like taking a gamble and losing. A gamble that I'm sure the vast majority of people take, and since they can't screen 100% of passengers, a gamble that a lot of people get away with. But when caught, one doesn't have much of a recourse.

By going through the Red Channel, you are acknowledging that you have goods that may be taxable and you are willing to pay the applicable taxes to import those goods into the UK. Thus, the Red Channel is "ample opportunities to pay".

In the end, HM C&E have the right to extend some flexibility, but it is their right and their right only. If you go through the Red Channel, declare to the officer that you have x and y amount over the limit, but the officer still says "That's fine, just go ahead", that is HM C&E exercising their right to extend flexibility. As a traveller going through the "Nothing to Declare" lane, you don't have that flexibility and you have already given up the opportunity to declare the goods and pay the applicable tax.

At Heathrow at least, they have quite large signage with the duty-free limits clearly displayed on the baggage carousel. Maybe Aberdeen Airport is too small, but if in doubt, you should have asked an officer - As with everything else, ignorance of the law and regulations is not a valid defence :)

PPS. I really don't mean this to have a go at you as such, but just trying to clarify the reasoning behind their actions. The daft regulations and stupidly low limits (including the £135 (now £500) limit on non-alcoholic/tobacco/perfume goods, purely based on total value) gets on my boobies too, but in the end, caveat emptor.
 
The limits are harsh for outside of the EU, its not much more then a packet of fags. On the other hand I know of people who've made thousands just filling a suitcase full of cheap cigs, pretty nice earner considering the risk is so low.

Instead of formally taking you to court for such a mistake they just confiscate the goods. You know they take peoples cars and sell/crush them for similar, no offence is even needed just the suspicion of intent to evade taxes.

They are equally unfair to everyone, Iam still smarting from having a 60 pound mp3 player turn into a 110 one thanks to HMC&E.


Were you a single young male travelling alone, probably explains why they searched your bags.
 
I haven't read all of the thread, but my view on this is that you surely can't expect a man to risk losing his job, for not following procedure. If you look at it from what he has to gain and lose, then you can understand why he was so strict in following procedure.

Therefore, I don't think you should've snapped at him. From what you've told me in the opening post, it seems like he was trying to be as nice and genuine as he could, which is obviously difficult when you're taking away someones goods.

I can see how you're annoyed though; I know I would be, too. It's difficult to stop, think and look at things from other peoples' perspective when you're angry.

Shame, but at least now, you've learnt a lesson! :)

Phil.
 
What get's me is the countries that ARE in the EU such as Latvia and Czech Republic but still have limits of 200 ciggies, etc, just like they are not an EU country.

Apparently the reason for this is they are waiting for these new EU members to bring their products in line with EU prices, i.e raise the tax hugely.
 
Think he's a brave man to try and take your baccy off you Stan, imagine if he'd tried to nab your whisky too. :eek:
 
Bad luck, mate, but ultimately entirely your fault. It's your responsibility to know the law.

You'll know better next time, hey?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom