Arulanandom J:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Senior President, Sessions Court, Penang, where the two appellants were convicted for an offence under s. 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act (No. 62 of 1967) and sentenced to a fine of $10,000 each or in default one year's imprisonment.

The charge against the two defendants was as follows:

That you, Koo Cheh Yew, IC No. 1835157 and Khoo Chun Woh IC No. 0953647 at about 8.15am on 5 July 1972 at the Royal Customs & Excise Office, Seberang Prai, were concerned in importing from Cape Town, South Africa, prohibited goods, to wit, 6 'R Gore & Kallman' pianos, valued at $11,606.86 which are the products of the Union of South Africa, such goods being goods absolutely prohibited on import under the Customs (Prohibition of Imports) Order 1969, and thereby committed an offence under s. 135(1)(a) and punishable under s. 135(1)(iii) of the Customs Act, 62/67.

The facts in this case are not in dispute.

The first appellant is the sole proprietor of World Piano Co. and has been in the business for over 30 years and was importing pianos from Germany for the last seven years. In the present instance, he received a letter from his dealers in Germany that their pianos would be manufactured in, South Africa. Ignorant of the existence of Customs (Prohibition of Imports) Order 1969 PU (A) 426/ 1969 whereby there was a prohibition on importing goods made in South Africa, the second appellant prepared two Customs Import Declarations (Exhs. P1 & P11) for the importation of six pianos. The country of origin of the pianos was stated in the declarations to be South Africa. Customs Officers collected the duty payable on them and released them. Subsequently they realised that the importation was prohibited and seized the goods and as a result the appellants were charged.

All the documents produced by the prosecution in respect of the importation support the view that the appellants did not in any way conceal or attempt to conceal the fact that the country of origin of the goods was South Africa. The Certificate of Origin (Exh. P4) states so, and so do the Invoices (Exh. P2), the Bill of Lading (Exh. P3), the Marine Insurance Policy (Exh. P5) and the appellants' application for remittance of money under the Exchange Control Ordinance (Exh. P14). The Customs Declaration also made this clear and in the first instance the Customs Department collected duty on the goods and released them although they subsequently arrested the appellants and seized these goods.

The question of the guilt or innocence of the accused thus becomes purely a matter of law and the section which needs interpretation is s. 135 of the Customs Act (No. 62 of 1967).

Section 135 reads as follows:-

135. (1) Whoever-

(a) is concerned in importing or exporting any uncustomed goods or any prohibited goods contrary to such prohibition whether such uncustomed or prohibited goods be shipped, unshipped, delivered or not; or

(b) ships, unships, delivers or assists or is concerned in the shipping, unshipping or delivery of any uncustomed goods or any prohibited goods contrary to such prohibition; or

(c) illegally removes or withdraws or in any way assists or is concerned in the illegal removal or withdrawal of any goods from any customs control; or

(d) knowingly harbours, keeps, conceals, or is in possession of, or permits, suffers, causes or procures to be harboured, kept or concealed, any uncustomed or prohibited goods; or

(e) is in any way knowingly concerned in conveying, removing, depositing or dealing with any dutiable, uncustomed or prohibited goods with intent to defraud the Government of any duties thereon, or to evade any of the provisions of this Act or to evade any prohibition applicable to such goods; or

(f) being a passenger or other person, is found to have in his baggage or upon his person or otherwise in his possession, after having denied that he has any dutiable or prohibited goods in his baggage or upon his p