Back
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
SARMIINA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
GERRY HO & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. continuous seizure of goods by customs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. claims and evidence of agency by appellant. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. high court's dismissal of appellant's claim. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 4. arguments regarding statutory compliance. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. analysis of statutory provisions and their implications. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
[1] This is an appeal by a company, Sarmiina Sdn Bhd ("the appellant") against the Court of Appeal's decision in affirming the High Court's decision which dismissed the appellant's claim against the respondents in this case.
[2] The appellant's claim hinges on the wrongful and unlawful continuous seizure of liquor in 17 containers ("goods") at Port Klang by officers of the Royal Malaysian Customs Department ("RMCD"). In this regard, the appellant in its suit against the respondents is seeking inter alia for a declaration that the continuous seizure of the goods was unlawful and invalid, and for special, general, and exemplary damages.
[3] Respondents
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
