Callow J:

This is an appeal from the Sessions Court, Kuala Lumpur, against the conviction and fine of $15,000 or in default rigorous imprisonment for one year imposed on 20 July 1949, for contravening s. 114(1)(e) of the Customs Enactments, 1936.The grounds of appeal are:

The learned President of the Sessions Court erred in not accepting the evidence given by the appellant and his witnesses;

The learned President of the Sessions Court should have held that the explanation given by the appellant discharged the onus, if any, placed upon the appellant by sub-section (ii) of s. 114 Customs Enactment;

The learned President of the Sessions Court was wrong in finding that the tobacco in question was un-customed goods within the meaning of s. 2 Customs Enactment;

The learned President of the Sessions Court drew wrong inferences from the evidence adduced at the trial of the appellant;

The conviction is against the weight of evidence;

The conviction is bad in law and further ground of appeal was later filed, namely:

The learned President of the Sessions Court should not have admitted the statements of the accused and PW 6 as they are inadmissible.

The principal facts are set out at the opening of the grounds of decision a are as follows:

On the 20 April 1949 at about 10 a.m. the motor-lorry B 5639 was stopped by Preventive Outdoor officer 117 on the main road at Selayang while proceeding towards Kuala Lumpur from rawang. A search of the motor-lorry revealed that it was carrying sacks of Siamese Tobacco hidden beneath sacks of copra.The accused, who was travelling in the motor-lorry, was the owner of the tobacco and at the time when the motor-lorry, was the owner of tobacco Stopped had the tobacco in his possession.The tobacco was uncustomed goods within the definition of such given in s. 2 of the Customs Enactment, the particular breach of the Customs Laws, Rules and Regulations alleged being that import duty on such tobacco had not been paid.

The appellant was apprehended on the morning of the 20 April 1949 (I do not know the reason for delay of over two months in trial until the 23 June 1949). Within a few hours the matter was inquired into by a Proper Officer of Customs in accordance with the provisions of s. 126 of the Customs Enactment, 1936, and Exh. P 1 was recorded.The same day a statement (Exh. P 8) was recorded from the direct of the lorry Tah Tham Fong (5 PW), in Exh. P 8 his name is given as Yim Tham Fong, son of Yim Kooi.This statement was followed on the 11 May 1949 by Exh. P 9 which contradicted and refuted Exh. P 8 in material particulars.

Object on was taken to these statements and the first and perhaps most important matter in this appeal is to decide whether statements recorded by Customs Officer are now admissible in evidence.In Rasiah v. PP [1931-32] FMSLR 45 it was held that a statement made by an accused person to a Customs Officer was admissible.This has never been overrule and so still stands, and Counsel inform me that until now the specific point has not since been put to a Court for decision.

Mr Benjamin for the appellant contended that the Customs Enactment, 1936, repealing the Customs Enactment (Cap. 132) restricted the use of a statement made by an accused to a Customs Officer in the same way as the restraint operates against a statement made to a Police Officer (Criminal Procedure Code, s. 113(1) ; therefore Rasiah's case (cited supra ) should not now be followed.Counsel pointed out that Police Officers have powers defined in s. 9 of the Customs Enactment, 1936 and so far as I appreciated this part of his argument it was to the effect that in view of the powers of a Police Officer by virtue of the section being similar to a Customs Officer, and because a statement made by any person to a Police Officer in the course of police investigation cannot be used in evidence (save as provided in s. 113 of the Criminal

Procedure Code), therefore it follows that a statement made to a Customs Officer under ci