Back
2024 MarsdenLR 135
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
TRANS COASTAL SDN BHD & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal Nos: B-09-180-04/2022 & B-09-231-09/2023]
The court affirmed that under the Customs Act, a defendant can establish a defence of lack of knowledge regarding incorrect declarations, despite the strict liability nature of the offence.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act 1967 - Sections 119 and 133(1)(a) - Appeal against conviction - The court found that Trans-coastal Sdn Bhd made a bona fide declaration based on information from the shipper, without the ability to verify the contents of the sealed container - Prosecution's appeal dismissed in Appeal 180, while the fine imposed in Appeal 231 was set aside. (Paras 28, 30, 51)
(B) Strict liability offences - The court acknowledged that under s 133(1)(a), the prosecution must prove that the declaration was untrue or incorrect, but also recognized defenses available to the accused. (Paras 29, 30)
Facts of the case:
Trans-coastal Sdn Bhd was charged for making incorrect declarations regarding the contents of shipping containers, which were found to contain liquor instead of the declared goods. (Paras 11-12, 25)
Findings of Court:
The learned trial judge's decision that the defense cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case was upheld, affirming the acquittal in Appeal 180 and allowing the appeal in Appeal 231. (Paras 51)
Issues: The main issues included whether the declaration made was untrue and the extent of liability under strict liability provisions. (Paras 28, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the shipping agent could not verify the contents of the containers and acted in good faith based on the information provided by the shipper. (Paras 30, 51)
Result: Appeals allowed; fine set aside.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] Trans-coastal Sdn Bhd in Appeal 180 was charged under s 133(1)(a) of the Customs Act 1967 for each container vide Klang Magistrate Court Criminal Cases No: BL-87-4490-09/2017 and BL-87-4625-10/2017. Although both cases were similar in nature, the cases were not consolidated and were tried consecutively.
[2] At the end of the defence's case, on 11 November 2019, the learned Sessions Court Judge exercising his powers as a Magistrate, pronouncing two separate decisions acquitted and discharged Trans-coastal Sdn Bhd of both the charges.
[3] Aggrieved, on 12 November 2019 the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal to the High Court wherein one appeal was before His Lordship and the other before Her Ladyship. Both appeal were heard at the Klang High Court.
[4] In Appeal 180 by the Public Prosecutor, His Lordship agreed with the findings of the trial judge and on 12 April 2022 dismissed the prosecution's appeal whereas Her Ladyship on 24 May 2023 in Appeal 231 allowed the prosecution's appeal and imposed a fine of RM30,000.00 against the respondent.
[5] Being dissatisfied with the decision by His Lordship in Appeal 180, on 22 April 2022, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal to this Court.
[6] Being dissatisfied with the decision by Her Ladyship in Appeal 231 Trans-coastal Sdn Bhd thereafter applied for and obtained leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
[7] With the leave granted by the Court of Appeal, on 21 September 2023, Trans-coastal Sdn Bhd filed a separate appeal to this Court.
[8] Since there were two conflicting High Court decisions based on similar factual and legal matrices, an application was made and an order obtained for both appeals (Appeal 180 and Appeal 231) to be heard together before us for determination.
[9] To facilitate the determination of this two (2) appeals, we find it more convenient to decide both the appeals in a single judgment as they are interrelated.
[10] For ease of reference, the Respondent (in Appeal 180) / Appellant (in Appeal 231) would be referred to as "Trans-coastal Sdn Bhd" whereas the Appellant (in Appeal 180)/Respondent (in Appeal 231) would be referred to as "the Prosecution."
The Charges
[11] The charge in Appeal 180 preferred against Trans-coastal Sdn Bhd reads as follows:
Klang Magistrate Court Criminal Cases No: BL-87-4625-10/2017
"Bahawa kamu Trans-coastal Sdn Bhd (No Pendaftaran Syarikat B-259149M) lebih kurang 4.16 petang pada 8 Oktober 2015 di Pejabat Trans-coastal Sdn Bhd Yang beralamat di B-9-2, North Tower, BBT One, Lebuh Batu Nila 1, Bandar Bukit Tinggi, 41200 Klang, dalam Daerah Klang, dalam Negeri Selangor telah membuat pengikraran manifest masuk bernombor pendaftaran 41000268 yang dikehendaki oleh Akta 1967 yang mana pengikraran tersebut iaitu "1026 ct Window Frame" manakala sebenarnya dan pada hakikatnya 1182 kotak x 24 botol x 300 ml Heineken Lager Beer' dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 133(1)(a) Akta Kastam 1967 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 133(1) Akta yang sama."
[12] The charge in Appeal 231 preferred against Trans-coastal Sdn Bhd reads as follows:
Klang Magistrate Court Criminal Cases No: BL-87-4490-09/2017
"Bahawa kamu, Trans-coastal Sdn Bhd (No Pendaftaran Syarikat B-259149M) lebih kurang pukul 4.16 petang pada 8 Oktober 2015 di Pejabat Trans-coastal, Sdn Bhd yang beralamat di B-9-2, North Tower, BBT One, Lebuh Batu Nila 1, Bandar Bukit Tinggi, 41200 Klang dalam Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan telah membuat pengikraran manifest masuk bernombor pendaftaran 41000268 yang dikehendaki oleh Akta Kastam 1967 yang mana pengikraran itu tidak benar dalam satu perkara iaitu ternyata dalam pengikraran tersebut "425 CT High Pressure Cleaner" manakala sebenarnya dan pada hakikatnya 1376 kotak x 12 botol x 650ml Heineken Lager Beer dan dengan itu kamu telah melakukan satu kesalahan di bawah s 133(1)(a) yang boleh dihukum di bawah s 133(1) Akta yang sama."
Facts Of The Case
[13] Trans-coastal Sdn Bhd is a Non-Vessel Owning Common Carrie
