PENDAKWARAYA Jabatan Kastam DiRaja Malaysia Lee Swee Chee

PENDAKWARAYA Jabatan Kastam DiRaja Malaysia Lee Swee Chee

Prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case on possession because an Alcontara notice that seized goods belonged to the accused's uncle was given and left uninvestigated and the seized goods were found in common areas accessible to others; additionally the chemist report omitted the required 'fit or intended for use as a beverage' limb of the statutory definition of intoxicating liquor, a deficiency fatal to proving the goods were prohibited/intoxicating. On maximum evaluation there was no prima facie case under s.135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967 nor s.74(1)(a) Excise Act 1976; accused acquitted but goods forfeited under s.127(1) Customs Act 1967.

Citation
BH-83-1384-10/19 & BH-83-1518-11/19 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Prosecution: Public Prosecutor; Accused: Lee Swee Chee
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 March 2021
Case Number
BH-83-1384-10/19 & BH-83-1518-11/19 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Magistrate Judgment After Close of Prosecution (acquittal)
Outcome
Accused acquitted and discharged on both charges; seized items ordered forfeited.
Legal Topics
Possession of Uncustomed Goods, Alcontara Notice / Duty to Investigate, Admissibility of Chemist Report, Definition of Intoxicating Liquor, Tariff Classification, Chain of Custody, Forfeiture
Source Language
Malay/English
Customs Law Excise Law Criminal Procedure Evidence Law Possession of Uncustomed Goods Alcontara Notice / Duty to Investigate Admissibility of Chemist Report Definition of Intoxicating Liquor +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 8 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Prosecutor

Prosecution

Lee Swee Chee

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Magistrate Judgment After Close of Prosecution (acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had knowledge and possession of the seized uncustomed goods
  2. 2 Whether the seized liquids were proved to be 'intoxicating liquor' fit or intended for use as a beverage
  3. 3 Whether prosecution discharged duty to investigate claimant uncle (Alcontara notice)

Ratio Decidendi

Prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case on possession because an Alcontara notice that seized goods belonged to the accused's uncle was given and left uninvestigated and the seized goods were found in common areas accessible to others; additionally the chemist report omitted the required 'fit or intended for use as a beverage' limb of the statutory definition of intoxicating liquor, a deficiency fatal to proving the goods were prohibited/intoxicating. On maximum evaluation there was no prima facie case under s.135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967 nor s.74(1)(a) Excise Act 1976; accused acquitted but goods forfeited under s.127(1) Customs Act 1967.

Court Disposition

Accused acquitted and discharged on both charges; seized items ordered forfeited.

Orders

  • Accused Lee Swee Chee acquitted and discharged of charges BH-83-1384-10/19 and BH-83-1518-11/19 dated 4 May 2020
  • Seized items forfeited pursuant to Customs Act 1967 s.127(1)