HKSAR v. WILLTOO CO LTD

HKSAR v. WILLTOO CO LTD

Appellant failed to satisfy the objective limb of s.36(1); evidence established receipt or constructive receipt of Trade & Industry circulars placing the company on notice that origin criteria could change, failure to consult or read the circulars meant the appellant had reason to believe the declarations might be false and the conduct amounted to recklessness; reliance on third‑party advice or claimed ignorance did not discharge the objective requirement, therefore convictions are upheld.

Citation
HKSAR v. WILLTOO CO LTD
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Unnamed appellant company; Respondent/prosecution: HKSAR (Department of Justice)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 March 2004
Case Number
HCMA1222/2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (import/export Offences) / Appeal Against Conviction to Court of First Instance, High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld
Legal Topics
Strict Liability Offences, Statutory Defence (s.36(1)), Recklessness, Origin Labelling and Export Licences, Due Diligence
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Trade and Customs Law Administrative Law Strict Liability Offences Statutory Defence (s.36(1)) Recklessness Origin Labelling and Export Licences Due Diligence

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unnamed appellant company

Appellant/defendant

HKSAR (Department of Justice)

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (import/export Offences) / Appeal Against Conviction to Court of First Instance, High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant satisfied statutory defence in s.36(1) Import & Export Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the objective limb (no reason to believe) of the statutory defence was established on the balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's conduct amounted to recklessness sufficient to negative the statutory defence

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant failed to satisfy the objective limb of s.36(1); evidence established receipt or constructive receipt of Trade & Industry circulars placing the company on notice that origin criteria could change, failure to consult or read the circulars meant the appellant had reason to believe the declarations might be false and the conduct amounted to recklessness; reliance on third‑party advice or claimed ignorance did not discharge the objective requirement, therefore convictions are upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed