Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Import and export regulation

Legal area

Court

10 Jun 2020

HKSAR v. 深圳市泰杰寶珠寶首飾有限公司

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 17
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC43/2018

The Court held that it is not reasonably arguable that 'facilitate' as used in Wong Hon Sun should be confined to an active sense of 'procure' rather than include passive facilitation by negligence; Wong Hon Sun permits forfeiture where the owner, by negligence, facilitated the contravention, and the alternative interpretation in Shenzhen Bada Logistics is inconsistent with that authority, so leave to appeal is refused.
10 Aug 2004

HKSAR v. SWEETMART GARMENT WORKS LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. SWEETMART GARMENT WORKS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA462/2004

The offence is regulatory in nature under the Import and Export Ordinance; accordingly the defence requires an honest and reasonable belief that the statutory provisions had been complied with and the accused must prove that belief on the balance of probabilities. The court is bound by Hong Kong authorities (Fong Chin-Yue and Uniglobe) adopting that approach, and therefore the conviction was properly upheld.
10 Jul 1986

CHEUNG KAI COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Citation

CHEUNG KAI COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA593/1986

The hearsay provisions in Part IV of the Evidence Ordinance were not generally in force in Magistrates' Courts under the 1970 commencement notice; section 34(2) of the Import and Export Ordinance does import the hearsay provisions to Magistrates' Court proceedings only for the specific purposes set out in section 34(1), and the proffered statements did not relate to those specified matters; accordingly the magistrate rightly rejected the hearsay statements and his adverse credibility finding stood, so the forfeiture order was correctly upheld.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. 深圳市泰杰寶珠寶首飾有限公司

HKSAR v. SWEETMART GARMENT WORKS LTD

CHEUNG KAI COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE