A MAN who smuggled millions of cigarettes from China to Bacup has been told to pay back £50,000.

Craig Waterhouse is already serving a two years and four months jail term for his part in the operation.

He told a court he had paid out 30,000 Euros for what he thought would be one million and eight hundred thousand cigarettes.

In fact, around four million cigarettes as well as trainers and flip flops were discovered when the consignment arrived in the Bacup area.

Earlier he told a Proceeds of Crime hearing brought by the Crown that he had no assets.

But Judge Simon Newell made an order for £50,000 to be paid by October 31, with an extra 18 months in prison if teh money is not paid.

The judge found that the defendant had benefited to a total figure of £715,520, which represented £673,520 evasion of duty on the cigarettes, plus a £42,000 purchase price.

The court had been told that Waterhouse, 47, spent periods living and working in Spain and China.

He described himself as being "frustrated" at a lack of success in obtaining bank statements about his accounts.

Defence barrister Simon Gurney told the court: "This is not a man with assets. He doesn't have assets hidden abroad".

He said the cigarette importation had been a "stupid venture".

Mr Gurney added: "On his evidence, that venture ruined him. It used all his assets.”

The judge however said: "I find gaps, inconsistencies and illogicalities which have given me the real impression that not all that could be done to establish his financial position in recent years has been done.

"His legal advisors have worked extremely hard to assist him. But I cannot help but find they have not been given the assistance one would really require".

Judge Newell said: "I have come to the conclusion that it would be wrong to find that the benefit figure is the recoverable amount.

"Although I don't accept his evidence, far from it, there is no evidence, it seems to me, to support the contention that there are substantial recoverable amounts, other than the unavailability and lack of co-operation in producing the two bank accounts and details".

The defendant had insisted to the court: "I have tried very hard. It is in my interests to supply those statements and I have been trying".