Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Section 128 customs act 1967

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2025

AMBANK (M) BERHAD

Citation

JC-89-183-08/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JC-89-183-08/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court found the applicant failed to produce written evidence of compliance with the mandatory referral procedure in s128(3) and (3A) within the requisite timeframe; because the statutory steps were not shown to have been taken, the continuous seizure was unlawful and the respondent's preliminary objection succeeded. The application for forfeiture was dismissed and the seized vehicle ordered returned to the respondent.
25 Jan 2023

BULLION DELTA SDN BHD 1. ) Hasrul Najib bin Hasim 2. ) Pengarah Kastam (Siasatan) 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

BA-22NCvC-355-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-355-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Section 128 of the Customs Act 1967 does not impose an obligation on Customs or on the Director-General to refer a claimant's application to a Magistrate within one calendar month from the date of the claimant's claim; the Director-General's power to direct referral is discretionary. Therefore the failure or delay to refer the plaintiff's claim within one month did not render the seizure wrongful or unlawful; the plaintiff was held to be the statutory 'owner' but was not entitled to damages because the seizure was lawful; claim dismissed and costs awarded.