Reading room

Get in touch with our resolution solicitors in the UK and call us on 0330 107 0106 to arrange a free no-obligation call or request a free quote.

UK Border Force enforces strict customs and excise regulations at all ports of entry, with particular scrutiny on commercial vehicles suspected of carrying undeclared goods. This case study outlines how IMD Corporate successfully secured the free-of-charge restoration of a Romanian haulier’s specialist pharmaceutical van, despite the discovery of a substantial quantity of smuggled excise goods. The outcome demonstrates the value of early legal advice, a clear compliance history, and a practical strategy our Litigation Team can assist you with.

Case Background

Our client is a Romanian-based logistics operator specialising in cross-border transport of temperature-controlled pharmaceutical products. In February 2025, one of the company’s vehicle , leased and equipped for high-value, sensitive cargo was seized at the Port of Dover by UK Border Force. The vehicle seizure followed the discovery of approximately 476,600 illicit cigarettes, with a total excise and VAT liability of over £255,000.

Although the operator had no knowledge of the illicit cargo, the presence of undeclared excise goods rendered the vehicle liable to forfeiture under Section 141(1)(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA 1979).

Following legal consultation, the client chose not to challenge the legality of the seizure in the circumstances, and instead instructed us to submit a restorationrequest.

What Did Border Force Consider?

Border Force follows a tiered discretionary policy when considering vehicle restoration. According to its official guidance:

1. Knowledge or Complicity
   • If the driver or haulier is found to have knowingly facilitated smuggling, restoration may be refused outright, particularly where the revenue involved is significant.
2. Lack of Basic Checks
   • If Border Force is not satisfied that the haulier or driver carried out basic reasonable checks (such as verifying packaging, markings, or consignment documentation), the vehicle may be seized and restoration may be offered for a fee equal to 20% of the revenue involved or the trade value of the vehicle – whichever is lower.
3. Good Faith and Preventive Measures
   • If Border Force detects undeclared goods but is satisfied that the haulier and driver took reasonable steps to ensure the legitimacy of the load, the vehicle may be seized but restored free of charge or at a low charge.

Our submission outlined the company’s comprehensive internal controls, which included:

• Pre-employment screening and driver training;
• Sealed vehicle protocols and policies explaining preventative measures in place;
• Door-opening sensors and GPS tracking;
• Four-hourly temperature checks and secured overnight parking;
• Internal escalation procedures and board-level compliance oversight.

Supporting evidence included sensor logs, consignment documentation, employment policies, a criminal complaint filed with Romanian police of suspected fraud, and voice recordings verifying that the client had been misled by a third party in the transport chain.

Compliance with International Law: The CMR Convention

Border Force drew attention to the operator’s partial non-compliance with the CMR Convention (Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road), which governs international road freight operations. Under Article 8 of the Convention, carriers are expected to:

• Check the number of packages;
• Assess the apparent condition and packaging of the goods;
• Verify how the packages are marked;
• Note any irregularities or concerns on the CMR consignment note.

A common misconception among hauliers — particularly in specialist sectors like pharmaceuticals — is that drivers should not inspect or handle packages for fear of breaching client confidentiality or damaging the integrity of sealed consignments. While this cautious approach may reflect customer preferences, it does not override a carrier’s legal obligations under international transport law.

In this case, the client’s policy explicitly prohibited drivers from opening or disturbing sealed loads, in line with the expectations of pharmaceutical manufacturers. However, Border Force clarified that hauliers are still expected to carry out basic, non-invasive checks, such as verifying external markings, the number of packages, and their condition. Where inspection is restricted by the nature of the goods or client instructions, this must be clearly documented, and any inability to inspect should be recorded on the CMR note.

The client’s policy prohibited drivers from opening sealed pharmaceutical loads (in line with customer requirements). We acknowledged this openly at the time of our submission arguing that the client had otherwise followed procedures and had initiated a post-incident review. Board-approved updates to driver protocols and client communication processes were already underway to ensure CMR compliance could be achieved in future shipments without breaching client trust or regulatory duties.

Outcome: Restoration Granted Free of Charge

After reviewing the full set of submissions and compliance evidence, Border Force restored the vehicle free of charge. The decision acknowledged the operator’s good faith, robust procedures, and lack of any intent to smuggle.

However, the letter included two key recommendations:

• Future driver protocols should include sample inspection of goods, where not contractually prohibited.
• Employment contracts should be updated to clearly define consequences of involvement in smuggling and reinforce the driver’s duty to comply with customs and transport regulations.

Financial and Operational Impact

Had the application failed, or if Border Force had required a restoration fee, the operator could have faced costs equal to the vehicle value or revenue lost. The successful outcome avoided both financial penalties and the operational downtime associated with prolonged proceedings or loss of fleet capacity. It also helped safeguard the operator’s reputation.

Key Takeaways for International Hauliers

• Know Your CMR Responsibilities: Even where sealed goods are standard, carriers must confirm package counts and condition unless expressly excused in writing.
• Focus on Prevention: Restoration is more likely if you can show a comprehensive system of controls, even if the breach was caused by a third party.
• Choose the Right Legal Route: Challenging legality is not always the way to go; a well-argued restoration request can lead to good results.
• Update Driver Training and Contracts: Formalise drivers’ duties to inspect, report, and comply, and include smuggling clauses in employment agreements.
• Act Quickly: Requests for restoration must be made within 45 days of seizure, or the goods may be disposed of without compensation.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates that even in significant excise duty cases, restoration of commercial vehicles can be achieved when the operator acts transparently and can prove reasonable steps were taken to prevent wrongdoing.

IMD Corporate continues to assist hauliers travelling to the UK with compliance, seizure mitigation, and restoration applications, helping clients protect their assets and maintain operational continuity in a high-risk regulatory environment.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.

To find out more about our services, visit Dispute Resolution section of our website.

Call us now to discuss your case 0330 107 0106 or email us at business@imd.co.uk.