RevenueCustoms and excise - importation of dutiable goods - condemnation proceedings civil not criminalGoldsmith and Another v Customs and Excise Commissioners: DC (Lord Woolf CJ and Mr Justice Poole): 25 April 2001The appellants were stopped on entering the UK and their car was found to contain 26 kilos of hand-rolling tobacco on which no duty had been paid.

That exceeded the amount specified in the schedule to the Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 as the quantity to be regarded as for personal use, on which no duty was payable, and therefore the presumption under paragraph 5 was that the goods were being brought into the country for a commercial purpose.

The appellants were unable to prove to the satisfaction of the Customs and Excise Commissioners that the tobacco was for their personal use and it was seized.

The commissioners then applied to the justices who granted an order under section 139 of and schedule 3 to the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 for condemnation of the forfeited tobacco.

The appellants appealed to the Crown Court but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed by way of case stated, arguing that forfeiture and condemnation proceedings involved the determination of a criminal charge and, therefore, the reversal of the burden of proof in relation to whether the goods were for personal or commercial use infringed the presumption of innocence in article 6(2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998.Nigel Van der Bijl (instructed by Bradleys, Dover) for the appellants.

John Anderson (instructed by Solicitor, Customs and Excise) for the commissioners.Held, dismissing the appeal, that, in considering whether condemnation proceedings were criminal proceedings for the purposes of article 6(2) of the convention, full weight had to be given to the consequences of goods being forfeited and condemned as forfeited; but that regard must also be had to the fact that the legislation categorised the proceedings as civil and that none of the usual consequences of a criminal conviction followed from condemnation proceedings, there was no conviction or finding of guilt and the person concerned was not subject to any other penalty, apart from the consequences of the forfeiture; that, taking into account all the relevant characteristics, condemnation and forfeiture proceedings were not proceedings to which article 6(2) applied; and that, even if the proceedings were criminal for the purposes of article 6(2), the reverse burden of proof could be justified on the basis that it was proportionate, reasonable and justifiable.

(WLR)