Transfer of Residence relief denied where invoices and shipping evidence failed to prove required user period for household goods.

Transfer of Residence relief for household articles depends on proof that the goods were used, or were capable of being used, for the requisite period. Purchase and possession alone did not suffice here, because the invoices showed delivery to a shipping agent for export rather than immediate use in England, rebutting any ordinary inference of user. A supporting shipping certificate was treated as unreliable since it was prepared much later and did not satisfactorily establish actual delivery or use by the appellant's father. On these facts, the appellant failed to prove the required period of user or a sufficient right to use the goods, and the concession was denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the Transfer of Residence Rules for the imported household articles, including whether the goods had been used, or were capable of being used, for the requisite period so as to qualify for the concession.

Analysis: The goods were purchased on the dates shown in the invoices, but the invoices disclosed that delivery was to a shipping agent for export and not for immediate use in England. That circumstance rebutted the normal inference of user that might otherwise arise from purchase and possession. The supporting shipping certificate was found unreliable because it was made much later and did not satisfactorily establish actual delivery and use by the appellant's father. On the facts, the appellant could not show either actual user for the requisite period or a sufficient right to use the goods for that period.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the Transfer of Residence Rules, and the denial of the concession was upheld.

---