AUNG MOE ZAW

AUNG MOE ZAW

Prosecution established each essential element: the seized beer were prohibited/dutiable goods (supported by chemical and classification reports), the accused had possession/control and the requisite knowledge inferred from circumstances and conduct, and no evidence was produced to rebut statutory presumptions that duties had been paid; defence account was an afterthought and did not raise reasonable doubt; accordingly the accused is guilty on both counts and liable to prescribed fines and forfeiture.

Citation
NA-83-720-06/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Pendakwa Raya; Defendant/accused: Aung Moe Zaw
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 May 2024
Case Number
NA-83-720-06/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Customs and Excise / Trial Judgment (conviction and Sentencing)
Outcome
Accused convicted on both charges (Customs and Excise)
Legal Topics
Possession of Prohibited Goods, Evasion of Duty, Statutory Presumptions and Burden of Proof, Search and Seizure, Knowledge/mens Rea, Sentencing Principles
Source Language
Malay/English
Customs Law Excise Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Immigration Law Possession of Prohibited Goods Evasion of Duty Statutory Presumptions and Burden of Proof +3 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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pendakwa Raya

Prosecution

Aung Moe Zaw

Defendant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Customs and Excise / Trial Judgment (conviction and Sentencing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seized beer constituted prohibited/imported goods under Customs law
  2. 2 Whether the accused was in possession and had knowledge of the prohibited/ dutiable goods
  3. 3 Whether duties/excise had been paid and application of statutory presumptions shifting burden to accused

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution established each essential element: the seized beer were prohibited/dutiable goods (supported by chemical and classification reports), the accused had possession/control and the requisite knowledge inferred from circumstances and conduct, and no evidence was produced to rebut statutory presumptions that duties had been paid; defence account was an afterthought and did not raise reasonable doubt; accordingly the accused is guilty on both counts and liable to prescribed fines and forfeiture.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on both charges (Customs and Excise)

Orders

  • Convicted and fined RM300000 for Count 1; in default of payment to serve 2 years imprisonment
  • Convicted and fined RM200000 for Count 2; in default of payment to serve 1 year imprisonment