Clear establishment of jurisdiction through admissible evidence is crucial for sustaining a conviction in importation offences under the Customs Act.

JUDGMENT

Shahnaz Sulaiman JC:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the decision of the learned Magistrate on 8 November 2020 to acquit and discharge the respondents from a charge under s 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act 1967 .

Background

[2] Succinctly the respondents were charged for an offence under s 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act 1967 for an offence of importing prohibited goods valued at RM20,030.40.

The Charge

[3] The charge against the respondents reads as follows:

"Bahawa kamu, pada 16 September 2019 kira-kira jam 2.45 petang, di perairan Tanjung Penyusop di dalam perairan Malaysia pada koordinat 01019.972"N, 104019.801"E, di dalam daerah Pengerang, di dalam Negeri Johor telah terlibat dalam mengimport barang-barang larangan iaitu:

1. 24 botol minuman keras jenama JOHNIE WALKER GOLD LABEL RESERVE 40% 750 ml

2. 228 botol minuman keras jenama MARTELL V.S.O.P 40% 700 ml

3. 576 botol minuman keras jenama JACK DANIEL'S 40% 750 ml

4. 408 botol minuman keras jenama THE GLENLIVET FOUNDE'S RESERVE 40% 750 ml

5. 156 botol minuman keras jenama Johnie WALKER BLACK LABEL 40% 100 ml

6. 732 botol minuman keras jenama KAHLUA COFFEE LIQUEUR 20% 700 ml

7. 24 botol minuman keras jenama CHIVAS REGAL 40% 750 ml

8. 90 botol minuman keras jenama MIDORI MELON LIQUEUR 20% 700 ml

9. 6 botol minuman keras jenama JAMESON IRISH WHISKEY 40% 700 ml

yang bernilai RM 20,030.40 dengan menggunakan sebuah kapal tongkang kayu KM-Kawan Bersama No. Pendaftaran 2009 RRd No. 1071/L, di mana barang tersebut adalah dilarang pengimportannya kecuali dengan satu permit seperti diperuntukkan di bawah Perintah Kastam (Larangan Mengenai Import) 2017, dan dengan demikian kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 135(1)(a) Akta Kastam 1967 dibaca bersama dengan s 34 Kanun Keseksaan dan boleh di hukum di bawah s 135(1)(iv)(aa) akta yang sama."

The Trial

[4] At the prosecution stage of the trial, 11 witnesses were called to give evidence and 26 exhibits were tendered. The witnesses for the prosecution case are as follows:

The Learned Magistrate's Decision

[5] At the end of the prosecution's case, the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution had failed to satisfy the ingredients of the offence charged. The learned Magistrate therefore found that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case against the respondents. Consequentially, the learned Magistrate proceeded to acquit and discharge the respondents.

[6] Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Magistrate, the appellant has appealed against the decision of the learned Magistrate.

Facts Of The Case

[7] The case is founded on the following facts. On 16 September 2019 at about 2.45pm, based on information received, a team of Royal Malaysian Customs Department marine enforcement officers stopped and detained a vessel registered as KM Kawan Bersama ("the vessel") off the coast at Tanjung Penyusop, Malaysia at the coordinates 01019 9720 N, 104019 8010 E.

[8] As the Royal Malaysian Customs Department ("Customs") team approached the vessel, there was already a team of officers from Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (APMM) in their boat named PETIR 11 alongside the vessel and some of their officers were seen doing a document verification on board the vessel.

[9] Upon inspection of the vessel, the Customs team found a quantity of tied- up black packages. The tied-up black packages were opened to reveal liquor of various brands. All the liquor were found in the cargo hold of the vessel.

[10] The respondents who were the crew on the boat were arrested and charged under s 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act 1967 for the offence of importing prohibited goods.

Principles On Appellate Intervention

[11] With regard to appeals, s 316 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for matters relating to appeal. For ease of reference s 316 of the is reproduced below:

Section 316 . Decision on appeal.

At the hearing of the appeal the Judge may, if he considers there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal,