---

Treasury

Answer

Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to paragraph 6, part (2) of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in Regina v. Patel, Villiers, Sewell, Hutchinson and Ford, what the policy is of HM Customs and Excise with regard to permitting warehouse owners to allow goods to leave without the payment of duty; and if he will define the reference by HM Customs and Excise in the judgment to bigger fry. [31531] Mr. Boateng: A key approach of the Customs National Investigation Service (NIS) to tackling diversion frauds between 1995 and 1998 was to allow fraudsters to move goods from excise warehouses while under observation. When enough evidence was obtained the perpetrators would be arrested. The co-operation of warehousekeepers with Customs' investigators was an essential part in this approach. As they could have become liable for duty on these consignments, some of these warehousekeepers were given either explicit or implicit indemnities against liability for the duty evaded. In some cases the NIS conducted retrospective investigations, ie after the fraud had been stopped. The Villiers case was a retrospective investigation. This investigative approach was examined by John Roques in his report on the Collection of Excise Duties in HM Customs and Excise. Mr. Roques concluded that there are circumstances where it is constructive and useful to observe the fraudulent movement of goods but made a three part recommendation on the subject of indemnities (Recommendation 30). This was accepted by Customs. Clearly defined authority levels for risking revenue were introduced in November 2000. A copy of the Roques report which includes the Government's response has been laid in the parliamentary Library. Hauliers played a key role in a number of diversion frauds. In some cases the hauliers were the principals behind the fraud, in others they played a lesser though still essential role. Where the haulier was not the principal, Customs would attempt to identify the principals in order to put as complete a case as possible before the courts. It is ultimately for the courts to determine, on the evidence presented, the respective roles of the defendants.

Secondary information

Type

Written question

Reference

31531; 379 c521-2W;379 c517-8W

Session

2001-02

Subjects

Criminal proceedings Customs and Excise Customs Fraud Exports Excise duties Smuggling Warehouses National Investigation Service

Link

View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk