Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession of prohibited imports

Legal area

Court

27 Feb 2023

HAIRIE AZRUL BIN MAT LAZIM

Citation

TA-83-303-08/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-83-303-08/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the seized cigarettes were prohibited goods and that the defendant was in possession with knowledge: circumstantial evidence (observations of police, defendant pointing out storage locations, lab/classification reports, absence of lawful importation documents or valid stamps, defendant's conduct of crying and pleading) established mens rea; section 119 presumption applied and was not rebutted; conviction under s135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967 followed and sentence and ancillary orders were appropriate.
29 Jan 2023

ROMZI BIN BIDIN @ KAMARULDIN

Citation

TA-83-161-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-83-161-05/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Magistrate convicted the accused on his guilty plea and imposed a non‑custodial good‑behaviour bond of two years with RM12,000 bail and one surety, ordered payment of assessed tax of RM55,048 and forfeiture of seized cigarettes, finding this combination appropriately balances mitigation (guilty plea, no antecedents, family dependents) with the public interest in deterrence and revenue protection under the Customs Act 1967.
7 Dec 2022

SHAFWAN BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

TA-83-311-08/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-83-311-08/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution proved that the seized cigarettes were prohibited imports and properly valued; section 119 placed the burden on the accused to prove lawful import or payment of duties which he failed to discharge; circumstantial evidence (sole access to premises, tossing of remotes/access card, attempted flight, refusal to assist entry) established possession and guilty knowledge and therefore conviction under s.135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967 was warranted.
30 Nov 2022

1. ) MOHAMED SIRAJUDEEN 2. ) FAIZUR RAHMAN BIN NIJAMUDEEN

Citation

PA-83-1898-12/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PA-83-1898-12/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Although prosecution proved the goods were prohibited imports and valuation was accepted, it failed to prove possession, control or knowledge by the two accused and thus failed to make a prima facie case; accordingly the accused were discharged and acquitted, but the seized goods were forfeited to Customs under s127.
18 Aug 2020

MAH TEE HOU

Citation

BA-41S-71-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-41S-71-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Significant and material inconsistencies between pleadings, search lists, exhibits and oral testimony, absence of a factual foundation to apply s120 sampling, gaps and unexplained possibilities of tampering in the chain of custody, and failure to establish admissibility of the chemist report meant the prosecution did not prove possession and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt; conviction and sentence were therefore unsafe and overturned.
10 Oct 2019

PENDAKWARAYA JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA MAH TEE HOU

Citation

BB-M5-83-7-07/2017 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

BB-M5-83-7-07/2017 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the prosecution established all elements of s.135(1)(d) Customs Act 1967 beyond reasonable doubt and the accused's sworn denials and explanations did not raise a reasonable doubt; accordingly the accused was convicted and sentenced and seized goods ordered disposed under s.127.

Malaysia Case Law

HAIRIE AZRUL BIN MAT LAZIM

ROMZI BIN BIDIN @ KAMARULDIN

SHAFWAN BIN ABDULLAH

1. ) MOHAMED SIRAJUDEEN 2. ) FAIZUR RAHMAN BIN NIJAMUDEEN

MAH TEE HOU

PENDAKWARAYA JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA MAH TEE HOU