[Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM)] 1. ) LIM CHIN SENG 2. ) OOI GUAT LAY

[Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (KDRM)] 1. ) LIM CHIN SENG 2. ) OOI GUAT LAY

Prosecution proved the goods were prohibited/import-restricted and uncustomed, but failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either accused had possession, control or knowledge of those goods or common intention under s34; statements at scene were inadmissible for want of timely caution and evidentiary gaps (unidentified persons present and unexplained sample/crate discrepancy) created reasonable doubt; therefore no prima facie case and accused discharged, while goods are forfeited under s127.

Citation
PA-83-169-01/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecutor: PENDAKWA RAYA; Accused: LIM CHIN SENG (NRIC: 700414-07-5123); Accused: OOI GUAT LAY (NRIC: 740930-07-5556)
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 April 2022
Case Number
PA-83-169-01/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Customs Act 1967 Offence / Prosecution Case Closed; Accused Discharged (no Prima Facie)
Outcome
Accused LIM CHIN SENG and OOI GUAT LAY discharged and acquitted of amended charge under s135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967 read with s34 Penal Code; no call to defence.
Legal Topics
Import Prohibition, Possession and Control, Knowledge and Presumption, Common Intention (s34), Admissibility of Statements (s116 B), Forfeiture (s127), Forensic Analysis
Source Language
Malay/English
Customs Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Import Prohibition Possession and Control Knowledge and Presumption Common Intention (s34) Admissibility of Statements (s116 B) +2 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 7 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PENDAKWA RAYA

Prosecutor

LIM CHIN SENG (NRIC: 700414-07-5123)

Accused

OOI GUAT LAY (NRIC: 740930-07-5556)

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Customs Act 1967 Offence / Prosecution Case Closed; Accused Discharged (no Prima Facie)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether seized goods constituted prohibited/import-restricted goods under the Customs (Prohibition on Import) Order 2017
  2. 2 Whether the accused had possession, custody or control of the seized goods
  3. 3 Whether the accused had knowledge of the illicit status of the goods (s135(2) deeming)

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution proved the goods were prohibited/import-restricted and uncustomed, but failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that either accused had possession, control or knowledge of those goods or common intention under s34; statements at scene were inadmissible for want of timely caution and evidentiary gaps (unidentified persons present and unexplained sample/crate discrepancy) created reasonable doubt; therefore no prima facie case and accused discharged, while goods are forfeited under s127.

Court Disposition

Accused LIM CHIN SENG and OOI GUAT LAY discharged and acquitted of amended charge under s135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967 read with s34 Penal Code; no call to defence.

Orders

  • Accused LIM CHIN SENG and OOI GUAT LAY are discharged and set free from the amended charge without being called upon to enter defence
  • All seized goods (1080 tins and 5 bottles totalling 444.2 litres, Exhibits P2–P6 and forensic/assessment samples P10–P14, P17–P21) are forfeited and ordered delivered to the Director-General of Customs for disposal under s127 Customs Act 1967