(Not quite a) UKAPU win

[DanBow]

This popped up on my faceache feed, thought I'd share.

 

????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????

UKAPU has recently supported one of our members with regards to an import of airsoft replicas into the UK that turned out to be a rather difficult case, which shockingly spanned nearly two years from the date of seizure to resolution.

Our member approached us almost a year after the consignment was seized by Border Force, after they had experienced difficulties attempting to prove to Border Force that our member had good reason to import realistic imitation replicas into the UK.

Whilst we supported our member by means of comprehensive written submissions both to Border Force and the First-tier Tribunal (Tax), ultimately the Tribunal Judge decided the case in favour of our member due to procedural issues unconnected with our written submissions. We were left in no doubt however that our written submissions had a positive outcome on these proceedings and possible future proceedings.

Sadly due to the considerable time delay between the seizure and when the cause was concluded, Border Force had destroyed our member’s consignment however Border Force swiftly and fully compensated them for their financial losses.

We at UKAPU would like to commend our member, for their resilience with dealing this matter.

If you have any issues with importing replicas into the UK, then UKAPU is here to help.

 

In their own words, they didn't win the case but it's good to see some positive involvement.

Edited February 24, 2024 by DanBow
link no worky

[Pseudotectonic]

Quote

 

We supported X to win

 

We wrote a long post, but it wasn't read, but we think it had a positive outcome, and we are sure for future cases as well

 

 

so they tried to help, it didn't help, but "let's post it on facebook anyway just to show we are doing something"

 

lol how useless

[DanBow]

1 hour ago, Pseudotectonic said:

so they tried to help, it didn't help, but "let's post it on facebook anyway just to show we are doing something"

 

 

Yes, its shows that they are actively trying to help, which is good.  

[Cannonfodder]

I like the way that they're saying they helped even though the judgement had bugger all to do with their "help".

4 hours ago, DanBow said:

ultimately the Tribunal Judge decided the case in favour of our member due to procedural issues unconnected with our written submissions. We were left in no doubt however that our written submissions had a positive outcome on these proceedings and possible future proceedings.

 

[typefish]

On 24/02/2024 at 16:44, Cannonfodder said:

I like the way that they're saying they helped even though the judgement had bugger all to do with their "help".

 

Apologies for reviving a dead thread (haven't been here for a while) however I thought I'd explain what happened here. I didn't wish to explain it in detail at the time but seeing how it's been misinterpreted here, I thought I'd clear things up

 

A long while before the member contacted UKAPU, he had attempted to import airsoft replicas into the UK however poorly explained his defence to Border Force. Off the back of that misunderstanding they seized his entire consignment, and it turns out that one crucial letter that was supposed to be sent by BF didn't make its way to the member. That'll be important later.

 

Several months later he gets in touch with us, fails to win the appeal with BF so off he went to the tax tribunal.

 

Several more months after that, we're all in what basically is a Zoom call with a judge, his clerk, a couple of folks from the Home Office and their solicitor.

 

Rather than deal with legislation related to the airsoft defences, the judge quite rightly spotted the procedural issue (the missing letter) and directed the Home Office (so, BF) to reconsider the member's condemnation appeal, in full consideration of any valid defences.

 

The judge remarked how complicated legislation related to airsoft was (the written submission I put together was rather extensive), so I suspect he was rather very happy to find a procedural issue he immediately issue a judgment against, rather than needing to dive into figuring out intended meanings of statutory instruments.

Edited July 25 by typefish