Back
FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
EMPAYAR CANGGIH SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
KETUA PENGARAH BAHAGIAN PENGUATKUASA KEMENTERIAN PERDAGANGAN DALAM NEGERI.... – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: 01(f)-21-09-2012(W)]
A challenge to the exercise of the power to seize machinery and equipment under Act 606 should be made by way of an ordinary private law action for damages, not by judicial review under O 53 RHC. (Para 9 , 11 , 13 , 17 , 18 , 25 , 26 )
No. The applicant must establish a right to damages at private law if initiated in an ordinary action. A claim for damages in judicial review cannot succeed on the basis of mere infringement of administrative law principles alone. (Para 5 , 7 )
No. The exercise of statutory power in the course of a criminal investigation is not open to judicial review. Such seizure is part of the investigative process and not an administrative decision reviewable under O 53 RHC. (Para 12 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
[1] This is an appeal by the appellant (the applicant in the High Court) against the judgment of the Court of Appeal given on 5 April 2012 which affirmed the judgment of the High Court. The High Court had, on 9 March 2010, dismissed with costs the appellant's application for judicial review against the respondents. The appellant obtained leave from this Court of Appeal on the following questions ("the leave questions"):
"1. Whether a challenge to the exercise or the purported exercise of any power conferred under the Optical Discs Act 2000 (Act 606) in particular the power to seize any article, optical disc, thing, book or document should be made by way of judicial review or otherwise.
[Sama ada suatu cabaran kepada perlaksanaan atau perlaksanaan yang kononnya dibuat berdasarkan apa-apa kuasa di bawah Akta Cakera Optik 2000 (Akta 606) khususnya kuasa untuk menyita sebarang artikel, cakera optik, barang, buku atau dokumen harus dibuat melalui semakan kehakiman atau sebaliknya.]
2. Whether in a judicial review application which challenges the validity of the respondents' decision, as a raiding party, to seize any article, optical disc, thing, book or document under s 38(7) of the Act 606, it is necessary for the respondents to justify the need for such seizure as being reasonably necessary in the context of the purpose for which the raid was conducted.
[Sama ada di dalam permohonan semakan kehakiman yang mana mencabar kesahihan keputusan responden-responden, sebagai pihak yang menyerbu, untuk menyita sebarang artikel, cakera optik, barang, buku atau dokumen di bawah s 38(7) Akta 606, ianya adalah perlu bagi responden-responden untuk menunjukkan terdapat alasan kukuh untuk penyitaan itu sebagai sesuatu perkara munasabah yang perlu di dalam konteks tujuan yang mana serbuan tersebut telah dibuat.]
3. Whether what constitutes 'reasonable cause' and 'reasonable belief' as described in ss 48 and 52(b) of Act 606 was an objective test.
[Sama ada apa yang menjadi 'sebab yang munasabah' dan 'kepercayaan yang munasabah' seperti mana yang dinyatakan di dalam ss 48 dan 52(b) Akta 606 adalah suatu ujian objektif.]
4. Whether a claim for damages in a judicial review application can be grounded solely on the basis that there has been an infringement of the principles of administrative law."
[Sama ada suatu tuntutan ganti rugi di dalam suatu permohonan semakan kehakiman boleh berasaskan atas dasar bahawa telah terdapat perlanggaran prinsip-prinsip undang-undang pentadbiran semata-mata.]
[2] The background facts leading to this appeal are these. At the material time the appellant was in the business of manufacturing video compact discs. It was licenced under reg 6(6) of the Optical Discs Regulations 2000 ("the Optic Regulations") to manufacture optical discs from 19 March 2005 to 18 March 2006 vide licence No KCO-16/6. The Manufacturer's Code for the two machines stated in the licence were IFPI NM01 and IFPI NM02 respectively. The appellant was licensed to operate at No 200, Jalan 1, Taman Perindustrian Ehsan Jaya Kepong, 52100 Kuala Lumpur ("the licensed premises"). Vide the letter dated 20 June 2005, the Kementerian Perdagangan Dalam Negeri (KPDN) approved the appellant's application to upgrade the following two replicating machines of the appellant:
(i) Nama mesin: Krauss Massei KM80-190 CD94.
No Siri Acuan: 73475/212.
Kod Pengilang: IFPI NM01; and
(ii) Nama mesin: Krauss Massei KM80-190 CD94.
No Siri Acuan: 73475/157.
Kod Pengilang: IFPI NM02.
[3] On 2 March 2006, acting on information received, KPDN officers conducted a raid on the appellant's new factory at SD11, Jalan KIP 11 Taman Perindustrian KIP, 52100 Kuala Lumpur ("the new factory"), and seized the machines and equipment listed in the search list (exh L6). At the time of the raid, the appellant had yet to obtain from the respondents the approval to move its operation to the new factory. The "Staeg HamaTech" machine and "Amwell DVD Smartline" machines seized at the new factory were different from the
R Rama Chandran v. Industrial Court Of Malaysia & Anor
Hong Leong Equipment Sdn Bhd v. Liew Fook Chuan & Other Appeals
Ahmad Jefri Mohd Jahri v. Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors
Sivarasa Rasiah v. Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor
Ooi Ah Phua v. Officer-In-Charge Criminal Investigation, Kedah/Perlis
City Growth Sdn Bhd & Anor v. The Government Of Malaysia
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
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
