Raw Tobacco Consultation Questions and Answers

8/10/2019 Raw Tobacco Consultation Questions and Answers

1/6

ForewordWe were asked to do a reply to this consultation by a number of readers asthey all felt it was quite daunting, which indeed it is. The questions in our

honest opinion are loaded to

agree

with what HMR propose.

!ou can add, delete any of our answers as you wish or you can lea"e them asthey are. We ha"e taken note of all our readers had to say and included themin our answers.

For the benefit of any doubts held by the HMR onsultation Team, thereplies you recei"e will be from pri"ate indi"iduals and not companies. #ll ouranswers are to that effect $although pri"ate indi"iduals may alter ouranswers%.

HMR intend to reply to this consultation with one answer. We ha"e the rightto do the same albeit the answers may differ slightly depending upon theindi"idual.

onsultation &uestionsQuestion 1: Does the proposed definition encompass all forms of rawtobacco, which could be used to manufacture tobacco products?

#s members of the '(, there should be no changes unless the '( )irecti"esand Regulations change. Raw Tobacco is defined as an agricultural productwithin the '(.

Question 2: Should plants which have not been harvested but are still growing in containers such as pots or bags also be included to prevent an alternativeroute to evade duty?

#s members of the '(, there should be no changes unless the '( )irecti"esand Regulations change. Raw Tobacco is defined as an agricultural productwithin the '(.

Question 3: e would very much li!e to hear from businesses and individualswho use raw tobacco for purposes other than manufacturing tobacco


2/6

products on which duty is payable, including manufacturers of e"cigarettefluids# $t would be e%tremely helpful to !now:

the nature of your usage&

There are many uses for raw tobacco, other than smoking. This rangeincludes but is not limited to e*cig liquid, whole leaf "apourising, potpourri,insecticide, animal bedding, snuff, cosmetics, alternati"e medicine, dietarysupplements and fragrances.

. where and in what 'uantities you currently source raw tobacco,including

+nternet, small quantities for personal use.

. the appro%imate 'uantities used&

+ find this question intrusi"e and unnecessary.

. how you feel these proposals would impact you&

+ belie"e that they would seriously "iolate my Human Rights and my right asan '( citi en to legitimately purchase an '( defined legal product. HMRalready ha"e powers to in"estigate indi"iduals should they ha"e a "alid

reason. These proposals are likely to destroy a legitimate trade and lea"e mewith fewer $or no% suppliers to choose from. The lack of competition willine"itably result in increased prices.

is there an alternative substance that you could use in place oftobacco?

-o.

Question (: hat are your views on a simplified scheme for low volume usersfor non"smo!ing purposes:

Do you thin! there should be a simplified scheme for low"volume usersand if so, why?

!es, the current one that e ists within the '( )irecti"es and Regulations.These are already adequate if they were implemented properly. Requiringpurchasers of a legal product to register is unprecedented.

. #t what le"el do you belie"e that the threshold should be set for a low*

"olume user of raw tobacco for non*smoking purposes/


3/6

There should be no threshold for own use. #ny indi"idual purchasing otherthan for own use would be running a business that would need to be declaredto HMR for ta purposes.

How could HMR ensure that such a scheme was not e ploited to

a"oid

Tobacco 0roducts )uty/

HMR ha"e access to all 1#T records and especially purchases2mo"ementwithin the '( for raw tobacco where only companies 1#T registered canpurchase it. + as a pri"ate indi"idual cannot. + can from outside of the '( butthen it is sub3ect to import duty etc from HMR . HMR can then follow up anyenquiry they deem necessary. The data and records are there.

)lease supply any evidence you have of usage to support your view#

-o l do not feel comfortable gi"ing anyone access to my personal data and itis not a "iew but fact.

Question *: $f you would be re'uired to register under this scheme, for whichother ta%es and duties are you already registered?

-one, pri"ate indi"idual, not a business

Question +: )aragraph 1 includes factors that will be considered as part of afit and proper test:

hat is your view on the suggested factors that would be includedin a fit

and proper test?

They are outrageous. +t would be seriously contrary to my Human Rights as aciti en of the '( that l could be refused registration merely on someone4sunsubstantiated suspicions or any unspent con"ictions etc. The Ho"erspeedruling $ - ./overspeed0 v omrs 567768 'WH 9:;7 % confirmed that it was notup to pri"ate indi"iduals to pro"e their innocence, but for HMR to pro"e theirguilt.

The criteria HMR suggest for registration are draconian to say the least.HMR include in these criteria that they should be satisfied that there are


4/6

The remaining criteria are 3ust as bad.

+t seems that HMR do not wish for anyone to ha"e registration. + reali e thatthere will be an appeals2tribunal process but if this is anything like that of the=order Force then one cannot 3ustifiably ha"e any faith in them.

Why are 3ust importers2users of raw tobacco being asked to register to thisproposed HMR scheme when cross*border shoppers who bring back non(> duty paid smoking products are seemingly e empt. / The cross bordershoppers ha"e no limits2threshold set either. #ll they ha"e is guidelines.

4re there any additional items you thin! should be considered as part ofthis fit and proper test?

-one, see pre"ious answer.

Question 5: hat record !eeping re'uirements do you consider would benecessary to assure /6- that raw tobacco is being used for a legitimate

purpose, i#e# is not being used to illegally manufacture tobacco products?

#ll my purchases are by bankcard and thus show on my bank statements andthose of the +nternet companies that l purchase from. -othing else is

3ustifiable, gi"en l am a pri"ate indi"idual end user, not a business.

Question 7: )aragraph 2* states that /6- will establish at the point ofimportation that raw tobacco is destined for a registered holder# $t maytherefore be necessary for the carrier or owner of raw tobacco being imported to provide proof of destination at the border# 4re there any issues you canidentify with this re'uirement?

To suggest that my supplier $or others like them% would ha"e to wait until theyha"e enough orders from such as myself before they can import a shipment of fully allocated raw tobacco is ridiculous. + could be waiting months for my

order. + am certain that organised crime would welcome your proposal though,as they would not be incon"enienced whereas legitimate businesses would beruined.

Question : 4re there any potential wider conse'uences of this system thatwe have not identified here?

!es, companies within the (> would either ha"e to close or relocate toanother '( country. This would lea"e a "oid that organised crime would "ery

quickly fill. #lso any pri"ate indi"idual could still purchase from other '(+nternet companies that ha"e mo"ed and take the small risk of any shipment


5/6

they purchase being sei ed. '"en if this happens HMR cannot issue apenalty for duty e"aded as raw tobacco will still remain non dutiable.

-o doubt +nternet companies outside the '( will still operate as usual, withsmaller but more frequent shipments. Whether HMR would be able to

intercept all these parcels is "ery doubtful indeed. Regardless, gi"en the lowbase price of raw tobacco, those +nternet companies will in"ariably 3ust sendout a replacement free of charge.

Question 18: 4re there any e'uality issues raised by these proposals, such asa disproportionate impact on any particular group of the population such asethnic groups or disabled people, for e%ample?

-one l can see.

Question 11: Do you have any views on the potential impact of this schemeon businesses affected, including potential costs and burdens and anysuggestions for how these can be !ept to a minimum?

?ee answer to &uestion @. To keep costs and burdens to a minimum l imploreyou to use the data and records you already ha"e. #ny irregularities can beeasily spotted. ?uch as 9 tonne going to an ice cream factoryA$httpB22www.bailii.org2uk2cases2(>FTT2T 2679;2T 76@:C.html %

Question 12 : hat documentation do you consider it reasonable andnecessary for an importer or consignee to provide to prove that aconsignment of raw tobacco is destined for a legitimate end use?

HMR already ha"e access to all 1#T records and especiallypurchases2mo"ement within the '( for raw tobacco where only companies1#T registered can purchase it. + as a pri"ate indi"idual cannot. + can fromoutside of the '( but then it is sub3ect to import duty etc from HMR , who canalready follow up any enquiry they deem necessary.

-oteB* it is impossible to pro"e that raw tobacco is destined for a legitimateend user. !our legal department will no doubt confirm this, if you cannot see it.

Question 13: hat are your views on broadening the sei9ure powers,including any issues, potential costs and burdens# )lease supply anyevidence you have to support your view#

=order Force are widely considered

unfit for purpose

and in my and many

others "iew 3ustifiably so. + can foresee many problems gi"ing =order Forcee tra powers of sei ure.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2013/TC02964.htmlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2013/TC02964.html


6/6

+t is well factually documented that some =order Force officers are o"erealous, bend the rules2regs and sometimes actually lie in order to get asei ure. Di"ing them e tra powers will only allow them to "ictimise morelegitimate pri"ate indi"iduals and companies.

?ee httpB22nothing*6*declare.blogspot.co.uk for many factual e amples.

Question 1(: 4re there any potential wider conse'uences of increasinge%isting powers that we have not identified here?

!es we should always be working towards harmonising with the '( and notcreating different rules2regs that will make matters far worse. !our point that 6countries ha"e created different rules calls for closer scrutiny. 0oland hasintroduced e cise duty on raw tobacco in direct contradiction to '()irecti"es2Regs and is facing a legal challenge.

+reland on the other hand continually introduces e"erything they can think ofregardless of the consequences. +n 679; +reland was ;rd $in 6799 it was=ulgariaA% in the table re tobacco duty a"oidance $smuggling%. The only 6countries ahead of them were Eat"ia and Eithuania $ $rish obaccomanufacturers 4dvisory ommittee %. !et, Eat"ia and Eithuania are actuallyreducing this tobacco duty a"oidance year by year. +reland is not, and looksodds on for becoming number 9 in the table "ery soon. ?urely it is not theintention of HMR to compete for this embarrassing position/

rganised crime will be waiting eagerly for proposals such as those in thisconsultation to come into force. They already operate outside of anyregulations HMR ha"e. #ll they ha"e to do is increase their trade to fill thegap created by these proposals that will destroy legitimate businesses.

Question 1*: Do you have any alternative proposals for the control of rawtobacco and the prevention of avoidance of obacco )roducts Duty?

!es, harmonise with '(, use the data and records you already ha"e. )o notdri"e the raw tobacco trade underground into the hands of organised crime.

Work with the public, not against them. ertainly do not suggest that "irtuallyno end users are legitimate, as you ha"e done in this consultation. +f pri"ateindi"iduals are condemned out of hand then what ha"e they to lose bybecoming what you accuse them of/
http://nothing-2-declare.blogspot.co.uk/http://nothing-2-declare.blogspot.co.uk/

Documents

Raw Tobacco Consultation Questions and Answers