Aligning with elsewhere in Europe.....

[Taf]

Sneaky Customs and Excise have slipped this one in with not many people noticing:

Announced 29th September:

On Saturday 1 October 2011, the minimum indicative levels (MILs) for tobacco and cigarettes brought into the UK from the European Union (EU) will be reduced, to align them with levels applied elsewhere in Europe.

MILs are guide levels set by EU member states to determine whether imported goods are for travellers' own use. There are no limits to the volumes of tobacco that travellers can bring back from the EU, if the goods are transported by them and are genuinely for their own use.

Travellers bringing tobacco and cigarettes into the UK from the EU will need to comply with new MILs of 800 cigarettes and 1kg of hand-rolling tobacco.

No limits, but there are limits even though there are no limits?

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) spokesperson Bob Gaiger said:

'Law-abiding individuals who genuinely import goods for their own use will not be affected. This change will only affect individuals who are abusing the current limits to avoid paying excise duty on tobacco products which are subsequently resold.'

I have been given hassle over this is the past, an "interview" where you have to PROVE the imports are for your own personal use to their satisfaction, or you lose the lot (and the vehicle you were travelling as well). They demand you tell then what your income is, what you spend each month on utilities, rent, etc., then they ask about savings levels, investments, stocks and shares et al.

"Free and open borders within Europe" ? My rrrrrrrrs


http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/si...-tobacco-limit

[danielf]

Found a background story dated 27 April here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...tobacco-limits

The number of cigarettes holidaymakers may bring back from Europe without attracting questions from Customs officials is to be cut by more than two-thirds as part of a Treasury attempt to claw back some of the £2.2bn in tax lost to tobacco smuggling every year.

The proposed change, which sets a guideline limit of 800 cigarettes and 1kg of rolling tobacco, will reignite a battle with campaigners such as smokers' rights group Forest. Simon Clark, director of Forest, described the move as "shocking", noting that current limits of up to 3,200 cigarettes and 3kg of rolling tobacco were set in 2002 after an attempt to clamp down further met with outrage and legal challenges.

Treasury minister Justine Greening is to set out plans to slash existing guideline limits, bringing them in line with Ireland and many other parts of Europe. "It doesn't actually change the rules," she said. "People who are holidaymakers or travellers from the UK, who maybe want to bring back some cigarettes when they come home for personal use, they are not affected at all. But we do believe this will do is start to deter those people who are actually just using minimum indicative levels as a way of bringing in wholesale amounts of cigarettes."

"The levels people [will still be able to] bring in are more than enough for their own personal use – that is not something we would, or should, challenge."

This claim was immediately challenged by Clark said: "The Labour government was forced to increase the limit from 800 to 3,200 because there was chaos at airports and ports around the country, with goods and vehicles being seized all over the place. We have absolutely been there with the 800 guideline. It didn't work."

800 fags more than enough for personal use? More than enough for about 5 weeks I'd say...

[Ignitionnet]

Seems reasonable - at 20 cancer sticks a day 800 is a 40 day supply. It's supposed to be a bonus stock up for personal use not a way to avoid paying duty routinely on cigarettes.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Seems reasonable - at 20 cancer sticks a day 800 is a 40 day supply. It's supposed to be a bonus stock up for personal use not a way to avoid paying duty routinely on cigarettes.

Hmm, I was under the impression that it was a natural conclusion of free movement of persons and goods within the EU, and the restrictions were only in place to stop traders getting a truckload of fags from Spain to sell here.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by danielf

Hmm, I was under the impression that it was a natural conclusion of free movement of persons and goods within the EU.

To acknowledge that to any extent requires me to care about the EU, which can die in a fire as far as I'm concerned.

Free movement of people or goods haven't been the case, like 'unlimited' broadband there's caveats.

Routine dodging of excise duty or using countries with lower duties has been an 'issue' a few EU states have confronted in a few different ways.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

To acknowledge that to any extent requires me to care about the EU, which can die in a fire as far as I'm concerned.

Free movement of people or goods haven't been the case, like 'unlimited' broadband there's caveats.

Routine dodging of excise duty or using countries with lower duties has been an 'issue' a few EU states have confronted in a few different ways.

Seems to me that Britain is returning to a position that nearly landed them in front of the European Court of Justice for breach of EU internal market regulations a couple of years back.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by danielf

Seems to me that Britain is returning to a position that nearly landed them in front of the European Court of Justice for breach of EU internal market regulations a couple of years back.

Good - one more source of friction to add to the collection and add to the momentum.

As noted in this case though several states have similar guidelines so hauling one in front of the power horny judiciary would require hauling the others in front of it too.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

To acknowledge that to any extent requires me to care about the EU, which can die in a fire as far as I'm concerned.

May i join that club

---------- Post added at 17:30 ---------- Previous post was at 17:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Good - one more source of friction to add to the collection and add to the momentum.

As noted in this case though several states have similar guidelines so hauling one in front of the power horny judiciary would require hauling the others in front of it too.

And if those countries are France or Germany you don't have a hope in hell.