AMBANK (M) BERHAD

AMBANK (M) BERHAD

The court held the reference by Customs did not comply with the procedural requirements of s.128(3) and (3A) read with the amended timing scheme; absence of specific affidavit deposition of the date of referral and the protracted delay meant the reference was irregular and the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
JK-89-18-08/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Pengadu: Pegawai Penyiasat (Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia); Responden: AmBank (M) Berhad
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 June 2025
Case Number
JK-89-18-08/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Application for Forfeiture Under Customs Act 1967 / Preliminary Objection Hearing (challenge to Jurisdiction/compliance With S.128)
Outcome
Preliminary objection allowed; forfeiture application dismissed; vehicle released to respondent
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Goods, Statutory Compliance and Time Limits, Jurisdiction of Magistrate, Delegation of Administrative Power, Right to Property (article 13), Reasonable Time/interpretation Act
Customs Law Constitutional Law Property Law Procedural Law Forfeiture of Goods Statutory Compliance and Time Limits Jurisdiction of Magistrate Delegation of Administrative Power +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pegawai Penyiasat (Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia)

Pengadu

AmBank (M) Berhad

Responden

Procedural Posture

Application for Forfeiture Under Customs Act 1967 / Preliminary Objection Hearing (challenge to Jurisdiction/compliance With S.128)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reference to the Director General under s.128(3) was valid and complied with statutory timing requirements
  2. 2 Whether delegation to a Deputy/Assistant (under s.3(3)) suffices for s.128(3) decisions
  3. 3 Whether delay in referring or prosecuting deprived respondent of property contrary to Article 13

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the reference by Customs did not comply with the procedural requirements of s.128(3) and (3A) read with the amended timing scheme; absence of specific affidavit deposition of the date of referral and the protracted delay meant the reference was irregular and the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the forfeiture. Preliminary objection succeeded and the forfeiture application was dismissed; vehicle ordered released to respondent.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection allowed; forfeiture application dismissed; vehicle released to respondent

Orders

  • Preliminary objection by AmBank (M) Berhad allowed
  • Application for forfeiture of Toyota Estima registration WUG 3138 dismissed