A party claiming ownership of seized goods under the Customs Act must be afforded due process, including a referral to the court, if a valid claim is made within the specified timeframe.

[1] This appeal concerns s 128 of the Customs Act 1967 (the Act) which reads:

"128. Goods seized in respect of which there is no prosecution, or the proceeds of sale thereof, are forfeited if not claimed within one month.

(1) If there be no prosecution with regard to any goods seized under this Act, such goods or the proceeds of sale of such goods which are held pursuant to para 115(1)(c) shall be taken and deemed to be forfeited at the expiration of one calendar month from the date of seizure of the goods unless, before such expiration:

(a) a claim to such goods or the proceeds of sale of such goods is made under subsection (2);

(b) a written application is made for the return of such goods under para 115(1)(a) or (b); or

(c) such goods are returned under the said para (a) or (b).

(2) Any person asserting that he is the owner of such goods or the proceeds of sale of such goods, as the case may be, and that they are not liable to forfeiture may give written notice to a senior officer of customs that he claims the same.

(3) On the expiration of the period mentioned in subsection (1), or, if a decision is made earlier that there be no prosecution with regard to the goods, on the making of the decision the senior officer of customs shall, if such goods or the proceeds of sale of such goods are not taken and deemed to be forfeited under that subsection, refer the claim to the Director General who may direct that such goods or the proceeds of sale of such goods or the security furnished under para 115(1)(a) or (b), as the case may be, be released or may direct such senior officer of customs, by information in the prescribed form, to refer the matter to a Magistrate of the First Class for his decision.

(4) The Magistrate of the First Class shall issue a summons requiring the person asserting that he is the owner of the goods or the proceeds of sale of such goods, and the person from whom the goods were seized, to appear before him, and upon their appearance or default to appear, due service of such summons being proved, the Magistrate of the First Class shall proceed to the examination of the matter, and upon proof that an offence against that Act or any regulations made thereunder has been committed and that such goods were the subject matter, or were used in the commission, of such offence, shall order such goods or the proceeds of sale of such goods or the amount secure under para 115(1)(a) or (b), as the case may be, to be forfeited, or in the absence of such proof, may order the release of such goods or the proceeds of sale of such goods or the security furnished under para 115(1)(a) or (b), as the case may be.

(5) In any proceedings under subsection (4), s 119 shall apply to the person asserting that he is the owner of the goods and to the person from whom they were seized as if such owner or person had been the defendant in a prosecution under this Act."

The Background Facts

[2] The chronological events leading to the dispute in this appeal, as disclosed in the affidavits filed by the respective parties are as follows.

[3] On or about 16 September 2015 and 17 September 2015, the plaintiff was appointed and instructed by six different consignors to take possession and to manage the declaration, clearance and shipping of the consignments of 'Beer and Apple Cider' ("the said goods").

[4] The said goods, conveyed in 40 containers, were shipped by the consignors from Vietnam to the Northport, Port Klang to be shipped in stages to the respective consignees in Singapore.

[5] Pursuant to the Free Zone Act 1990, Northport, Port Klang is a free zone area where the sa