SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 MarsdenLR 954

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
PP – Appellant
Versus
SOH WENG THIAM & ORS – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: W-09-456-09/2018 & W-09-457-09/2018]



Petitioner Advocates:Zaki Asyraf Zubir ,Respondent Advocate: MM Athimulan,Hj Ramli Mohd Salleh,Kamini Muniandy

The breach of conditions under the Exemption Order can attract criminal liability under s 138 of the Customs Act 1967.

Headnote:The appeal involves the Public Prosecutor's challenge against the High Court's affirmation of a Magistrates' Court's decision regarding vehicle forfeiture under the Customs Act 1967. The court determined that the respondents' vehicles breached conditions of the Customs Duties (Exemption) Order 1988 and assessed the appropriateness of criminal charges under s 138, affirming the prosecution's right to impose both civil and criminal penalties. The final ruling mandates that the accused must enter their defense regarding the forfeiture and charges under the Customs Act.

Table of Content
1. appeal concerning acquittal and forfeiture of vehicles. (Para 2 , 3)
2. details of vehicle breaches and conditions of the customs act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)

[2] The background facts relevant to the instant appeal and the appeal before the learned High Court Judge were largely undisputed. They are well laid out by the learned High Court Judge in his judgment. We find it convenient to reproduce the following passages of the High Court judgment in which said facts are set out:

[3] The subject matters of this appeals are eight vehicles - all Ferraris (Spider, Scuderia, California and Italia) which had been imported into Port Klang with approved import permits. These Ferraris were then registered in Langkawi in the name of the respondents without payment of import duty pursuant to s 163E of the Customs Act 1967 .

[4] These duty free Langkawi-registered vehicles were allowed to be transported outside Langkawi into where and what is known as a Principal Customs Area (PCA) (which means the whole of Malaysia exclusive of Langkawi, Labuan and Tioman under s 163A) without payment of customs duty under Customs Duties (Exemption) Order 1988 ("the Exemption Order"). One of the conditions specified in the Exemption Order is that the entry and presence of such a vehicle in the PCA without payment of customs duty must not exceed 30 days per trip or 90 days in a year.

[5] The vehicles in this case were found to have been in the PCA for more than the stipulated period. This resulted in the respondents, as the owners of the vehicles being charged under s 138 of the Customs Act 1967 . The respondents were acquitted and discharged by the Magistrate without their defence being called. However, the vehicles were ordered to be forfeited.

[6] Hence the appeal and counter-appeal now before me.

[3] We would only add that the subject matter of the appeals, ie appeal by the Public Prosecutor and cross appeal by the respondents were not the eight luxury vehicles alone. The subject matter includes the order of acquittal and discharge of all the respondents at the end of the case for the prosecution.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top