CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Bribery and corruption

Customs and Excise - Bribery and corruption - Delivering up goods liable to seizure - Whether prima facie case has been made out - Whether retrial should be ordered

Zahari bin Yeop Baai & Anor v Public Prosecutor [1980] 1 MLJ 160, High Court, Ipoh

The defendants were charged with bribery and corruption under Section 17(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961. The prosecution alleged that the defendants had offered a bribe of RM1,000 to a customs officer in order to prevent the seizure of goods that were liable to seizure under the Customs Act 1967.

The defendants pleaded not guilty. The trial judge found the defendants guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment for two years. The defendants appealed against their convictions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions. The court held that the prosecution had not made out a prima facie case against the defendants. The court found that the evidence of the customs officer was unreliable and that there was no other evidence to support the prosecution's case.

The court also held that the trial judge had erred in law in ordering a retrial. The court found that the trial judge had failed to take into account the fact that the defendants had already served the sentences imposed on them.

Key points

The prosecution must make out a prima facie case against the accused in order to secure a conviction for bribery and corruption. The evidence of a single witness, even if that witness is a police officer or a customs officer, is not enough to prove a prima facie case. The trial judge must take into account the fact that the accused have already served their sentences when deciding whether to order a retrial.



Certificate as to dutiability by Comptroller-General of Customs

Customs and Excise - Certificate as to dutiability by Comptroller-General of Customs - Whether court could go behind certificate

Tan Seng Tin & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1970] 1 MLJ 100, High Court, Penang

The defendants were charged with importing goods without paying customs duty. The prosecution relied on a certificate issued by the Comptroller-General of Customs stating that the goods were dutiable.

The defendants argued that the court could go behind the certificate and decide for itself whether the goods were dutiable.

The trial judge held that the court could not go behind the certificate. The court found that the certificate was admissible evidence and that it was binding on the court.

The defendants appealed against their convictions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court held that the trial judge had been correct in holding that the court could not go behind the certificate. The court found that the certificate was admissible evidence and that it was binding on the court.

Key points

A certificate issued by the Comptroller-General of Customs stating that goods are dutiable is admissible evidence and is binding on the court. The court cannot go behind the certificate and decide for itself whether the goods are dutiable. Certificate as to dutiability by Director-General of Customs





Customs and Excise - Certificate as to dutiability by Director-General of Customs - Burden on prosecution and defence - Presumption

Public Prosecutor v Lim Joo Soon [1978] 2 MLJ 127, High Court, Kuala Lumpur

The defendant was charged with importing goods without paying customs duty. The prosecution relied on a certificate issued by the Director-General of Customs stating that the goods were dutiable.

The defendant argued that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proving that the goods were dutiable.

The trial judge held that the prosecution had discharged its burden of proof. The court found that the certificate issued by the Director-General of Customs was admissible evidence and that it was sufficient to prove that the goods were dutiable.

The defendant appealed against his conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court held that the trial judge had been correct in holding that the prosecution had discharged its burden of proof. The court found that the certificate issued by the Director-General of Customs was admissible evidence and that it was sufficient to prove that the goods were dutiable.

Key points

The prosecution bears the burden of proving that goods are dutiable. A certificate issued by the Director-General of Customs stating that goods are dutiable is admissible evidence and is sufficient to prove that the goods are dutiable.