Back
2026 MarsdenLR 1287
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
ABDUL FAREED ABDUL GAFOOR, JC
PHILLVIN GUACHIN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: JA-44-39-10/2025]
The 30-day timeline for seizing goods under customs legislation relates strictly to forfeiture proceedings and does not restrict the Public Prosecutor's constitutional discretion to initiate criminal charges, which remains independent of forfeiture timelines.
Headnote:(A) Customs Act 1967 - Sections 115(1)(a)(b)(c), 119, 127(1), 128(1)-(5), 135(1)(e) and 135(1)(v)(aa) - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 376 - Federal Constitution - Article 145(3) - Seizure of prohibited goods - Prosecution of offence - Whether failure to initiate prosecution within 30 days of seizure notice renders charges invalid. (Paras 1, 8-10, 11-13)
(B) Criminal Prosecution - Discretion of Public Prosecutor - Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution vests unfettered discretion in the relevant authority to initiate, conduct, or discontinue criminal prosecutions - Courts rarely intervene to quash charges before trial unless the charge is defective, unsustainable, or an abuse of process. (Paras 9, 16, 18-22)
(C) Statutory Interpretation - Forfeiture proceedings vs Criminal prosecution - Clear distinction exists between property forfeiture for seized goods and criminal prosecution of an individual - Section 128 of the Customs Act does not prescribe a time limit for initiating criminal prosecution, and failure to meet forfeiture timelines does not invalidate criminal charges. (Paras 13-14, 23)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was detained along with prohibited goods and a vehicle. A formal seizure notice was issued subsequently. Following a lapse of 39 days from the date of the seizure notice, the applicant was charged with an offence regarding the illegal transport of prohibited goods. The applicant move to quash the charges, claiming that the failure to initiate prosecution within the 30-day period stipulated for seized goods rendered the charges invalid.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the 30-day period under Section 128 of the Act relates specifically to the forfeiture of seized goods and the rights of a claimant therein, not the initiation of criminal prosecution against an individual. The Public Prosecutor is not precluded from initiating criminal proceedings by the timelines governing forfeiture.
Issues: Whether the failure to initiate criminal prosecution within 30 days of the issuance of a seizure notice under the relevant customs legislation renders the criminal charges invalid or necessitates dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to initiate criminal prosecution is a constitutional discretion vested in the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor, which is distinct from the statutory mechanism for the forfeiture of seized goods. Section 128 of the Customs Act does not impose a time limit on criminal prosecutions, and forfeiture proceedings are independent of the validity of the criminal charge.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of charges and applicant's claim regarding the 30-day seizure limitation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's limited intervention powers in quashing criminal charges before trial. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. distinction between property forfeiture proceedings and criminal prosecution under customs act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. public prosecutor's unfettered constitutional discretion to initiate and conduct criminal prosecutions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. failure to satisfy procedural requirements for claiming seized goods renders motion untenable. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] By way of a Notice of Motion dated 17 October 2025, the applicant had sought for the following orders:
a) That the charges against the applicant at the Johor Bahru Magistrate's Court case no: JA-83-1014-02/2025 be quashed/set aside on grounds that they are defective and invalid;
b) That the seizure of goods made on 18 January 2025, including the vehicle, an Isuzu lorry with registration number VCR 7739, is invalid on grounds that the applicant was only charged on 26 February 2025, which is after the 30-day period provided under s 128(4) of the Customs Act 1967;
c) All further proceedings against the applicant in this case are null and void.
The Charge Against the Applicant
[2] The Amended charge against the applicant at the Magistrate's Court are as follows:
"Bahawa kamu, bersama-sama dua individu yang masih bebas, pada 18 January 2025 kira-kira jam 1.00pm di Bay Pemeriksaan 06, Cawangan Eksport, Kompleks Sultan Abu Bakar, 81560 Gelang Patah, di dalam Negeri Johor yang dalam apa-apa cara dengan disedarinya terlibat dalam mengangkut barang larangan import iaitu:
1. 22 mastercase x 50 karton x 10 paket x 20 batang rokok putih jenama Manchester United Kingdom (Blue - American Blend)
2. 1 mastercase x 49 karton x 10 paket x 20 batang rokok putih jenama Manchester United Kingdom (Blue - American Blend)
Yang bernilai RM45,960.00, dengan menggunakan sebuah lori jenama Isuzu bernombor pendaftaran VCR 7739, yang mana barang tersebut adalah dilarang pengimportannya di bawah Perintah Kastam (Larangan Mengenai Import) 2023 dan dengan demikian telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah s 135(1)(e) Akta Kastam 1967 dan boleh dihukum di bawah s 135(1)(v)(aa) Akta yang sama, dibaca bersama s 34 Kanun Keseksaan.
PERUNTUKAN DENDA PI BAWAH s 135(1)(v)(aa) Akta Kastam 1967
• Denda minimum: RM459,600.00 (10 kali nilai barangan)
• Denda maksimum: RM919,200.00 (20 kali nilai barangan)
• Penjara: Penjara tidak kurang dari enam bulan dan tidak melebihi lima tahun atau kedua-duanya sekali
PERUNTUKAN LUCUTHAK DI BAWAH s 127(1) AKTA KASTAM 1967
1. 22 mastercase x 50 karton x 10 paket x 20 batang rokokputih jenama Manchester United Kingdom (Blue - American Blend)
2. 1 mastercase x 49 karton x 10 paket x 20 batang rokok putih jenama Manchester United Kingdom (Blue - American Blend)
3. Sebuah lori Isuzu bernombor pendaftaran VCR 7739
4. 1 gugus kunci lori bernombor pendaftaran VCR 7739
PERUNTUKAN TUNTUTAN AMAUN YANG DITUNTUT DI BAWAH s 119 AKTA KASTAM 1967
Jumlah Duti Import Yang Dituntut: RM45,960.00"
The Applicant's Case
[3] On 18 January 2025, the applicant was detained by customs officers along with two (2) crew members and a Isuzu brand lorry bearing registration number VCR 7739 on suspicion of carrying 22 boxes of prohibited goods containing cigarettes.
[4] On the same date, 18 January 2025, a seizure notice was issued by the Customs Department under s 128(1) of the Customs Act 1967. However, the charge against the applicant was only filed on 26 February 2025, at the Criminal Magistrate's Court 2 in Johor Bahru.
[5] The period between the seizure on 18 January 2025, and the date of prosecution in the Magistrate's Court was 39 days, which was after a lapse of 9 days from the 30 days time limit provided for under s 128 of the Customs Act 1967, which stipulates that any prosecution must be initiate
