The High Court has ordered 10,687.50 litres of nitrous oxide seized at Dublin Port to be condemned as forfeited after Revenue brought an unopposed application against Kitchen Kart Limited.
Mr Justice O’Moore also granted Revenue judgment in default of appearance against the company. A solicitor for Kitchen Kart attended the motion hearing on 9 March 2023 and said the reliefs sought were not disputed, but the company had not filed an appearance in the proceedings.
Revenue’s evidence was that Customs and Excise officer Brenda Lunney examined a container at Dublin Port on 15 December 2021. It contained 11,250 canisters of 0.95 litres each, consigned by Netherlands-based ZB International Trading BV to Kitchen Kart. Revenue said the goods were detained and then seized on suspicion that their import breached legal restrictions.
The evidence put forward by Revenue was largely hearsay about the officer’s actions and suspicions. The judge noted that nitrous oxide has legitimate uses, including catering, and that importation can be lawful in some circumstances. Revenue’s solicitor Jennifer McCann said the company’s registered business activity was selling car lighting and that its activities were not consistent with catering. The judge said this evidence would have been more closely scrutinised if challenged. As the company had chosen, with legal advice, not to resist the application, he considered it possible to accept the evidence at face value.
Kitchen Kart had initially contested the seizure by filing a notice of claim under the Customs Act 2015. Its solicitors later withdrew the notice and said the company would not oppose court action or seek costs. Revenue nevertheless brought proceedings, which were issued by plenary summons on 13 June 2022. The judgment explains that Revenue considered court proceedings appropriate because the notice of claim had been made, even though it was later withdrawn.
The judge accepted Revenue’s submissions that the importation contravened the Customs Act and that the goods were liable to forfeiture. He directed that the goods were liable to forfeiture at the time of seizure and ordered their condemnation under section 20(2) of the 2015 Act. The judgment also grants the parties liberty to apply if anything remains outstanding. It does not make a finding of criminal guilt against the company or any individual.