Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Export licences

Legal area

Court

11 Jul 2006

HKSAR v. TALISGAIN LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. TALISGAIN LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA285/2006

The appeal was dismissed because the agreed facts and documentary evidence showed the PN and CHKO relied upon were sham or did not cover the exported goods, the appellants as exporters had a duty and a comparatively light burden to ensure their licence applications were supported by valid PN/CHKO, and the trial magistrate correctly found the offences proved beyond reasonable doubt and that placing that burden did not breach Articles 11 or 22 of the Bill of Rights.
12 Jul 2005

FARANRAH LTD v. CHERRY GARMENTS CO LTD

Citation

FARANRAH LTD v. CHERRY GARMENTS CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV163/2004

Majority (Le Pichon JA and Barma J): imply term that licences supplied must be usable upon immediate presentation to US customs because business efficacy required it in circumstances where defendant knew the plaintiff's urgent need and the plaintiff did not know of the specific verification system; therefore defendant liable for cost of licences and loss of profits; appeal dismissed.
11 Jun 1997

R. v. ORIENTAL KING LTD. (as CHINA LINK TRADING (GARMENT) CO.)

Citation

R. v. ORIENTAL KING LTD. (as CHINA LINK TRADING (GARMENT) CO.)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA369/1997

The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate was entitled to conclude the appellant was more culpable — it procured and used a false agency agreement and stood to benefit — and the magistrate properly considered the appellant's financial capacity and reasonably rejected inadequate financial statements before imposing fines.
10 Jan 1992

TUNG GUAN CO. PTE. LTD. v. JIH DONG ENTERPRISES CO

Citation

TUNG GUAN CO. PTE. LTD. v. JIH DONG ENTERPRISES CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8278/1988

The court held that no Force Majeure clause was incorporated because the phrase 'usual Chinese soyabean extraction business terms and conditions' was void for uncertainty and the contemporaneous evidence supported the plaintiff's construction; the defendant breached by failing to deliver the outstanding 1,800 metric tons and repudiated the contract (accepted by plaintiff on 13 December 1988); damages were assessed by the market/contract price difference totaling US$117,000; the plaintiff reasonably refused the defendant's post-breach offer and was not obliged to mitigate by accepting goods on…
7 Jun 1988

THE QUEEN v. DUTTON TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. DUTTON TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA189/1988

The court held that although the offences were strict liability and committed through the director, the company derived minimal benefit (10% commission) and the Marvels 40% guideline was inappropriate in this unusual factual context; accordingly the company's fines were reduced to reflect its culpability while the director's appeal was dismissed.
2 Dec 1986

THE QUEEN v. LAM VENG-CHAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAM VENG-CHAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1109/1986

The Magistrate correctly applied the 40% guideline to the three offences under section 36(1)(a) and the fines of $5,000 each were not disturbed; however the Magistrate erred in applying the same approach to seven offences under regulation 12 without regard to the lower statutory maximum. Applying the Marvels profit-based formula (net profit multiplied by 2) and the Crown's accepted estimate reduces the seven regulation fines to $1,500 each, resulting in a revised total fine of $25,500.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. TALISGAIN LTD AND ANOTHER

FARANRAH LTD v. CHERRY GARMENTS CO LTD

R. v. ORIENTAL KING LTD. (as CHINA LINK TRADING (GARMENT) CO.)

TUNG GUAN CO. PTE. LTD. v. JIH DONG ENTERPRISES CO

THE QUEEN v. DUTTON TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER

THE QUEEN v. LAM VENG-CHAN