LI TIM KAM v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AND ANOTHER

LI TIM KAM v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AND ANOTHER

Forms CED-69 are receipts not statutory notices of seizure; no statutory notice was required because seizure occurred in presence of agents under s27(3A); the claimant's written notice of claim was one day late under s27(5) so s27(6) operated to forfeit the goods automatically and the Commissioner had no power to waive or extend the statutory period; leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2965
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; 1st Putative Respondent: Commissioner of Customs and Excise; 2nd Putative Respondent: Chief Executive of the HKSAR
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 October 2021
Case Number
HCAL52/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review; Leave Refused and Application Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused and application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay costs
Legal Topics
Section 27 Import and Export Ordinance, Automatic Forfeiture, Notice of Seizure, Statutory Time Limits, Legitimate Expectation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Fettering of Discretion
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Customs and Excise Law Forfeiture Law Statutory Interpretation Section 27 Import and Export Ordinance Automatic Forfeiture Notice of Seizure Statutory Time Limits +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Commissioner of Customs and Excise

1st Putative Respondent

Chief Executive of the HKSAR

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review; Leave Refused and Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Form CED-69s constituted notices of seizure under s27(3)
  2. 2 Whether notice of claim under s27(5) was given within the prescribed 30-day period
  3. 3 Whether Commissioner had power to waive or extend the time for notice of claim under s27(5)

Ratio Decidendi

Forms CED-69 are receipts not statutory notices of seizure; no statutory notice was required because seizure occurred in presence of agents under s27(3A); the claimant's written notice of claim was one day late under s27(5) so s27(6) operated to forfeit the goods automatically and the Commissioner had no power to waive or extend the statutory period; leave to apply for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused and application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay costs

Orders

  • Applicant to pay costs of the Putative Respondents to be taxed if not agreed