Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Import prohibition

Legal area

Court

26 Nov 2025

1. ) MURUGAN A/L MUNIANDY 2. ) VIKNESVARAN A/L MURUGAN

Citation

JA-83-1100-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-83-1100-04/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

OKT1: conviction affirmed because he absconded and all material prosecution evidence remained unchallenged such that, under s.425A KTJ and relevant inferential reasoning, elements of offences under s.135 Customs Act and s.74 Excise Act read with s.34 were proved beyond reasonable doubt. OKT2: acquitted because prosecution failed to prove knowledge and common intention; presence in vehicle without supporting evidence did not satisfy required elements and statutory presumption s.135(2) was not activated.
10 Jun 2025

1. ) MOHAMED ABUBAKKAR JAHUBAR ALI 2. ) NASURUN IBRAMSHA JAHIR HUSSAIN

Citation

NA-83-1296-10/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NA-83-1296-10/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on both charges because it did not prove that OKT1 had possession of or knowledge about the prohibited/dutiable goods; investigative gaps (unsealed rear access, failure to seize keys, no evidence from the registered business owner, presence of other patrons) left reasonable doubt; therefore OKT1 is acquitted and released and OKT2 was previously discharged not amounting to acquittal (DNAA).
28 May 2024

LAI CHEE KEONG

Citation

NC-83-85-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NC-83-85-12/2021 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the offence and to establish a prima facie case because ownership/control and knowledge of the seized goods were not shown and there were material defects and inconsistencies in the identification and chain of custody of the exhibits; accordingly the accused was discharged and acquitted without being called to enter defence.
7 Apr 2023

1. ) HIEW KA HING 2. ) WONG MUN LOONG

Citation

CB-83-65-03/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CB-83-65-03/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Although prosecution established seizure, classification, valuation and an unbroken chain of custody, it failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that both accused had knowledge and the requisite joint intent to evade the import prohibition; the defence raised a credible reasonable doubt (transport-for-hire explanation, owner SD4 admitted placing goods), therefore accused are acquitted and discharged.
31 Oct 2022

1. ) CHENG GUAN 2. ) CHENG AH HUAT

Citation

JA-83-1021-03/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

JA-83-1021-03/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to prove the essential first element — the actual existence, precise quantity, type and alcoholic content of the goods as charged — and there were material discrepancies and breaks in the chain of custody and documentary evidence; those failures defeated the prima facie case and, therefore, the accused must be acquitted and discharged without calling their defence.
21 Apr 2022

CHAI MEE CHEE

Citation

TA-83-117-04/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-83-117-04/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the seized cigarettes were prohibited imports and that the accused was knowingly conveying them with intent to defraud customs; statutory presumptions under s.119 and s.135(2) applied and the accused failed to rebut them on the balance of probabilities; accused convicted under s.135(1)(e) Customs Act 1967 and sentenced accordingly.
15 Apr 2022

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

Citation

PA-83-169-01/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

PA-83-169-01/2019 (Mahkamah Majistret)

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.
21 Mar 2022

Noriha Binti Daud

Citation

DA-83-13-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

DA-83-13-01/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court accepted the accused's unreserved guilty plea, weighed mitigating factors (first offence, plea, cooperation, health, family dependants, low means) against aggravating factors and public interest, concluded that a rehabilitative non-custodial order better serves public interest than immediate imprisonment or imposing the statutory minimum fine, and accordingly convicted the accused and imposed a 2-year bond under s294 CPC with one surety and RM5,000 bail, and ordered payment of assessed duty RM5,177.60 with 6 months imprisonment in default.
27 Apr 2021

PENDAKWARAYA PENDAKWARAYA LEONG CHIN KEAT (K/P NO. 900720-05-5055)

Citation

NF83-66-6/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

NF83-66-6/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Prosecution failed to discharge the burden of establishing a prima facie case because it did not prove quantity and value as charged, failed to establish accused's conscious possession and knowledge of the prohibited imported goods, and left unresolved gaps in chain of custody and identity of exhibits together with investigative failures to probe leads provided by the accused (Alcontara notice); accordingly accused was acquitted without being called to enter defence.
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.