(ii) that the declaration was untrue or incorrect in any particular. In Public Prosecutor v. Yong Nam Seng & Anor. [1964] MLJ 85 at p. 87, Azmi J (as he then was) held that “for the purpose of s. 129(1) of the Customs Ordinance it is sufficient for the prosecution to prove that a declaration has been made and that the particulars in such declaration are untrue or incorrect.” Section 129(1) referred to in that judgment has been renumbered as s. 133(1)(a) in the re-enacted Customs Act 1967. From the evidence adduced, fresh fruits when they entered the Federation from Singapore. However, upon examination 5 cartons of Kodak photographic processing papers were conveyed in the said car. S/N mpwzcvrisUuse3aWEYeFUw [29] The prosecution contended that section 133(1)(a) and section 52 of the Customs Act 1967, is a strict liability offence. Hence, the manifest declaration must be a truthful declaration and the prosecution is only required to prove that the declaration made is untrue or incorrect for the respondent to be implicated of the charge based upon the provision of section 133(2) of the same Act. [30] We agreed that section 133(1)(a) and section 52 of the Customs Act 1967 is a strict liability offence. However, there are still defences available to Trans-Coastal Sdn Bhd to rely on to prove its innocence by establishing that it had no knowledge nor could it verify the accuracy of the information provided by the shipper, vide the shipping instructions, used in the inward manifest. To deprives Trans-Coastal Sdn Bhd from relying on a valid defence will certainly cause prejudiced and injustice to the Trans-coastal Sdn Bhd if their right to do is completely shut. [31] More so when Trans-Coastal Sdn Bhd has proof by way of documentary and oral evidence given by DW2 that the declaration made was based on the representation from the information provided by the consignor agent based in Vietnam with the information believed to be true, DW2 hence filled up P4 in accordance with information provided and declared to the customs as such. Trans-Coastal Sdn Bhd had relied entirely upon the information provided by the agent to make the declaration as found in P4 and not being aware of whether the information provided by the consignor agent to be true or not. [32] If the shipping agents and/or freight forwarders are required to verify the contents of each container prior to sealing, this will certainly impose unnecessary burden on the shipping agent (Trans-Coastal Sdn Bhd) to S/N mpwzcvrisUuse3aWEYeFUw verify the contents of the container to ensure that the consignment brought in, is imported or exported legally before making the declaration in the manifest. To us, placing such additional burden on the shipping agent will certainly be in conflict with accepted international shipping industry norms, even though we fully realised that industry norms cannot supersede statutory requirements. [33] With great respect, Her Ladyship's erred when she had failed to conduct a detailed consideration of Trans-Coastal Sdn Bhd’s defence in coming to her finding whether Trans-Coastal Sdn Bhd knew that the contents of the container were the same as what was declared, was not a defence. [34] Further, there is no dispute that Trans-Coastal Sdn Bhd had made the manifest declaration in Form K4 nor did they deny being aware of or the contents of the declaration. However, in our considered view Trans-Coastal Sdn Bhd were not in a position to confirm the accuracy of the contents of the inward manifest as the information therein was provided by the shipper in Vietnam. Hence to say that Trans-Coastal Sdn Bhd’s defence was an afterthought and incredible, with respect cannot hold water. [35] Reliance is made in the Singapore case of The "Axel Maersk" Atlas Electronics (Mal) Sdn Bhd v MV "Axel Maersk", Owners & Others Interested [1980] 1 MLRH 80, where Rajah J accepted the evidence of the witness and said as follows:- S/N mpwzcvrisUuse3aWEYeFUw "On the Bill of Lading I accepted the evidence of Mohamed bin Hamzah, the Operations Engineer of the Maersk Line. He said, “I am familiar with this form of bill of lading. On the fact of it the shipper has shipped a container the cargo of which appears to be stated therein. This is a CY/CY bill of lading (Container Yard/Container Yard). It is an FCUFCL (Full Container Load). A CY/CY equates to an FCUFCL. In this situation the container would belong to or be leased by the carriers. Maersk Line only undertakes to send an empty container to the shipper when the shipper himself will stuff the container without any representative from Maersk Line being present. We will also give one of the Maersk seals to the shipper. On completion of stuffing the shipper will seal up the container. From the shippers' premises to the ship is the responsibility of the shipper. From the quay side the container is loaded on to the ship. We ourselves would not know what the contents of the container are or the condition of the contents. We accept what is given by the shipper as the contents. Shipped in apparent good order and condition, this only refers to the container and not what is inside it..." [36] This was also similarly confirmed by an independent witness from the Shipping Association of Malaysia, Seah Eng Hwa (SD 3), wherein he gave the following evidence:- “... Apabila hari semakin hampir ketibaan kapal, shipper akan kosongkan satu kontena daripada shipping line depot. They will use their agent and bring the container to the shipper/consignor and this empty container will be fill by the consignor/shipper. Once the container is fill they will seal it and made arrangement with the landed container to truck into the terminal where the ship will be berthing at the port. Meanwhile the shipping S/N mpwzcvrisUuse3aWEYeFUw consignor will submit a shipping instruction to the carrier. This shipping instruction is the description of the cargo that they have put into the container. This information also consists of the seal number that they seal the container..." (see Enclosure 8 page 91 Volume 3 Record of Appeal) SD3 further said: “Whereby the empty container will be park at the shipper premises for stuffing of their cargo. Once this cargo has been stuffed, the shipper will seal the container with the seal provided. Subsequently the shipper will arrange for the landen container to be delivered to port / terminal for loading on to the vessel. Consignor/ shipper will provide shipping instruction (SI) to the shipping line, This SI contains description, quantity, weight and volume of the cargo (Enclosure 8 page 140 Volume 3 Record of Appeal).” [37] The above evidence obviously shows that Trans-Coastal Sdn Bhd was in no position to verify the contents of the container nor the accuracy of the information provided and further according to SD3 no party would be able to confirm the content of the container with only the shipper having the capacity to do so. [38] This is illustrated by the industry practice of the notation “S.T.C" or “Said to Contain" on the Bills of Lading (Enclosure 9 page 31 and page 39 Volume 4 Record of Appeal) and recognised by the Courts as reflected in the case of QEL Shipping Services Sdn. Bhd. v. Syed Embramsha & Co [2016] 1 LNS 1134 wherein the Court held as follows: S/N mpwzcvrisUuse3aWEYeFUw “Selain itu, defendan tidak mempunyai pengetahuan berhubung kontena yang mengandungi barangan plaintiff tersebut kerana ianya bermeterai dan defendan tidak bertanggungjawab memeriksa kuantiti dan jenis barangan berkenaan. Oleh itu, juga catatan pada 'Bill of Lading' iaitu Shipper Load & Count S.T.C (said to contain') adalah jelas menunjukkan bahawa defendan hanya mengambil maklum apa yang dicatatkan pada 'Bill of Lading' tersebut tanpa memeriksa kuantiti dan kandungan sebenar barangan berkenaan." (emphasis added). [39] This view was further propounded by the case of The American Astronaut'; 'American Astonaut' Owners & Ors v Kian Hin Hang (Pte) Ltd [1979] 2 MLJ 220 wherein the Singapore Court of Appeal through the judgment delivered by Wee Chong Jin C.J. (as he then was) held as follows: Page 221 of the case report: “The notation 'Shipper's load, stowage and count' means the shippers themselves packed the container, stow them and count them without any representatives from the shipping line concerned and the subject container is sealed by the shippers themselves". Page 222 of the case report: “In these circumstances the master or his agent would have no opportunity of examining or finding out anything about the contents of the said container. Hence, the notations by the carrier as they appear on the said bill of lading." S/N mpwzcvrisUuse3aWEYeFUw Page 222 of the case report: “The two qualifying notations used on the said bill of lading are now well understood recognized and acted upon by banking, shipping and trading communities throughout the commercial and shipping world. The said notations are used in connection with container transport and do not relate to goods which the master or his authorized agent could reasonably see and check before the bill of lading is signed either by him or his authorized agent. The learned trial Judge failed led to appreciate that the notation used here were in respect of a container packed, sealed and loaded on the vessel by either the shipper or his agent and not in connection with cargo which could have been seen and checked." [emphasis added] [40] The Singapore Court of Appeal had then proceeded to cite from Tetley on Marine Cargo Claims (Second Edition) which reads as follows: "The phrase 'Shippers load stowage and count' used in reference to containers, however, is a proper form of qualification where the carrier cannot verify the contents of the container packed and sealed by the shipper". [41] On the approach to be taken in dealing with this kind of situation that has arisen, the learned Sessions Court Judge recognised the role of Trans-Coastal Sdn Bhd when he briefly held as follows: S/N mpwzcvrisUuse3aWEYeFUw “Berasaskan kepada ikrar tidak benar OKS dalam Borang K4 (P4) maka Mahkamah telah putuskan bahawa pendakwaan telah berjaya membuktikan satukes prima facie terhadap OKS dan OKS telah diarah untuk membela diri terhadap pertuduhan yang dikenakan ke atas beliau. Pada peringkat ini pihak pembelaan telah mengemukakan 3 orang saksi dan 13 eksibit. Di dalam pembelaannya OKS menerusi SD2 iaitu kakitangan yang dipertanggungjawabkan oleh OKS untuk membuat pengikraran Borang K4 (P4) kepada Kastam memberitahu Mahkamah bahawa bagi membolehkan beliau mengisi butir-butir yang diperlukan di dalam Borang K4 (P4), beliau telah memperolehi maklumat. Maklumat berhubung kandungan kontena tersebut daripada agen konsignor yang berada di Vietnam. Berasaskan emel yang diterima dariapda agen konsignor yang berada di Vietnam, beliau dengan suci hati tanpa ragu-ragu kesahihan maklumat yang diberikan oleh agen konsignor telah mengisi maklumat yang diberi oleh agen tersebut ke dalam Borang K4 (P4) sebelum mengisytiharkan Borang K4 (P4) kepada Kastam tanpa mengetahui/melihat isi kandungan yang diisi ke dalam kontena tersebut. Pada sepanjang masa OKS yang bertindak sebagai agen kepada konsignor telah bertindak dengan sud hati dan mempercayai bahawa butir-butir yang diberikan oleh agen konsignor daripada Vietnam itu adalah benar, telah mengisi Borang K4 (P4) dan mengikrarkannya kepada Kastam. Malah SD2 sendiri telah hadir semasa seal kontena itu dipecahkan oleh Kastam untuk melihat sendiri kandungannya yang ada di dalam kontena tersebut. Fakta ini tidak langsung dicabar oleh pihak pendakwaan. S/N mpwzcvrisUuse3aWEYeFUw Berasaskan fakta bahawa SD2 yang mengikrarkan Borang K4 (P4) berdasarkan representasi daripada maklumat yang diberikan oleh agen konsainor yang berada di Vietnam dan maklumat yang diberi oleh agen tersebut dipercayai oleh SD2 adalah benar maka berasaskan mak!urnat itu maka SD2 telah mengisi butir-butir yang diberikan oleh agen konsignor daripada Vletnam itu ke dalam Borang K4 (P4) dan mengikrarkannya kepada Kastam atas andaian bahawa maklumat itu adalah benar. Berdasarkan hujah ini Mahkamah mendapati pihak pembelaan telah berjaya membuktikan satu kes keraguan yang munasabah terhadap kes pendakwaan di mana kesahihan maklumat yang diberikan oleh agen daripada Vietnam itu boleh dipertikaikan dimana pihak OKS tidak tahu samada maklumat yang diberi oleh agen daripada konsalnor yang berada di Vietnam itu benar atau tidak. OKS bergantung sepenuhnya kepada maklumat yang diberi oleh agen itu untuk mengikrarkan Borang K4 (P4). Oleh yang demikian Mahkamah mendapati OKS tidak bersalah dan dl!epaskan dan dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan [42] In short, the learned trial judge relied upon the evidence of DW2 who was entrusted with the responsibility to fill up the details in Form K4 (P4). DW2 hence filled up P4 in accordance with the information provided and gathered from the consignor agent based in Vietnam and declared to the customs as such. The details in the manifest declaration was made in the belief that they were true, hence Trans-Coastal Sdn Bhd in the role of agent should be absolved from blame. S/N mpwzcvrisUuse3aWEYeFUw [43] The learned trial judge had made the finding of fact and was satisfied and convinced of the truth of the statement made by DW2. Hence, his decision should rightly be maintained and not to be disturbed by this Honourable Court. [44] In Herchun Singh & Ors v. PP [1969] MLRA 382, Ong Hock Thye CJ (as he then was) said as follows: "An appellate Court should be slow in disturbing such finding of fact arrived at by the Judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witness, unless there are substantial and compelling reasons for disagreeing with the finding.” [45] In PP v. Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2005] 2 MLRA 590, the Federal Court held as follows: “Now, it settled law that it is no part of the function of an appellate Court in a criminal case - or indeed any case - to make its own findings of fact. That is a function exclusively reserved by the law to the trial Court. The reason is obvious an appellate Court is necessarily fettered because it lacks the audio-visual advantage enjoyed by the trial Court." [46] Further, it was also proven through the evidence of SP1 (Gun Kee Sin) that when the container was opened by the Royal Malaysian Customs Department the seals affixed by the shipper was not tampered with. [47] SP1 in his Witness Statement (PSP1) below said as follows: S2: Pada 8/12/2015 encik ada bertugas dan bertugas di mana? S/N mpwzcvrisUuse3aWEYeFUw J2: Pada masa tersebut saya bertugas di Cawangan Operasi Bahagian Penguatkuasaan Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia, Selangor. S4: Boleh beritahu Mahkamah apa tugas-tugas yang encik lakukan pada hari itu? J4: Atas arahan pegawai penyiasat Tuan Rabinderanath, saya bersama - sama Pik (P) 10438, 12566, 7879 dan 12489 telah pergi ke stor Penguatkuasaan di Pelabuhan Barat bertujuan membuat pemeriksaan ke atas Kontena TEMU5109535. S5: Boleh ceritakan tentang pemeriksaan tersebut? J5: Semasa membuat pemeriksaan, saya telah memecahkan seal pada kontena tersebut dan membuka pintu hadapan kontena. Apabila pintu dibuka, saya tengok di dalamnya bermuatan kotak-kotak yang mengandungi beer jenama Heineken. Saya buka dan tengok dalam 1 kotak mengandungi 12 botol x 650 ml beer jenama Heineken. (see Enclosure 8 page 2 Volume 3 Record of Appeal) [48] During cross-examination, SP1 said: “Seal kontena dalam keadaan sempurna tanpa di ceroboh (tempered)” (see Enclosure 8 page 45 Volume 3 Record of Appeal) S/N mpwzcvrisUuse3aWEYeFUw [49] DW2 was also in fact present when the seal of the container was broken to observe the content of the container and this fact was not challenged by the prosecution. In this respect, we find it material to reproduced below the answer given by DW2 (Mohd Saufi bin Mohd Said) in his Witness Statement (PSP2): S3: Adakah encik mempunyai pengetahuan mengenai kes ini? J3: Ya, sebelum Encik Kim menyertai SKT, saya telah mengendalikan kes ini bagi pihak SKT. Saya juga adalah wakil SKT yang hadir apabila meterai (‘seal') kontena-kontena yang disita, iaitu DRYU 2502021, TEMU 5109535 and TEMU 5156100, telah dipecah untuk memeriksa kandungannya. S4: Berapa kontena yang disita oleh pihak Kastam Diraja Malaysia yang dimiliki oleh SKT? J4: Melalui surat bertarikh 24.11.2015, Kastam Diraja Malaysia telah menyita tiga (3) kontena yang dimiliki oleh SKT iaitu kontena DR.YU 2502021, TEMU 5109535 and TEMU 5156100. Kes ini melibatkan kontena TEMU 5109535. S5: Apakah sebab kontena tersebut telah disita? J5: Semasa kami menerima surat tersebut, kami tidak tahu sebab kontena tersebut disita. Kami hanya dimaklumkan untuk menghadiri pemecahan meterai kontena untuk pemeriksaan kandungannya. Hanya selepas kontena tersebut dibuka bahawa kami mendapati bahawa kontena tersebut tidak mengandungi S/N mpwzcvrisUuse3aWEYeFUw "High Pressure Cleaner" seperti yang dinyatakan dalam Bil Muatan ('Bill of Lading') tetapi sebaliknya mengandungi karton-karton minuman keras/bir. S6: Pada masa pemecahan meterai kontena, adakah meterai tersebut diusik? J6: Pada masa pemecahan meterai kontena, meterai asal tidak diusik dan/atau dipecah dan masih berada adalam keadaan asalnya. S7: Siapakah yang hadir semasa pemecahan meterai kontena tersebut? J7: Pada masa itu, terdapat lebih kurang lima (5) pegawai-pegawai Kastam Diraja Malaysia tetapi wakil penerima konsainan ('consignee'), iaitu Worldwise Freight (M) Sdn Bhd, tidak hadir pada masa itu memandangkan bahawa ia merupakan perkara biasa untuk semua pihak yang terlibat untuk hadir untuk pemecahan meterai oleh pihak Kastam. Akan tetapi, saya tidak ingat nama pegawai-pegawai Kastam yang hadir pada hari itu. S8: Boleh encik terangkan apa yang telah berlaku pada masa meterai kontena-kontena tersebut dipecah? J8: Pada masa itu, pegawai Kastam telah mengambil gambar meterai kontena-kontena tersebut Setelah habis mengambil gambar, pihak Kastam telah memecah meterai tersebut dan membuka kontena-kontena tersebut dan mengambil gambar kandungan kontena tersebut. Pihak Kastam seterusnya mengeluarkan satu S/N mpwzcvrisUuse3aWEYeFUw karton dan mengambil satu sampel untuk ujian dan pengesahan daripada Jabatan Kimia. Kontena-kontena tersebut ditutup dan dimeterai semula. Susulan daripada itu, kami dipanggil semula untuk memecah meterai yang dipasang selepas pemecahan meterai asal untuk menyaksikan pengeluaran kandungan kontena-kontena tersebut dimana selepas itu, kontena-kontena tersebut ditutup dengan mangga pihak Kastam. S9: Adakah kandungan kontena tersebut dikeluarkan secara keseluruhannya semasa pemeriksaan kontena? J9: Pemeriksaan secara keseluruhan kandungan kontena tersebut tidak dijalankan semasa pemecahan meterai asal kontena-kontena tersebut. Selepas meterai asal kontena tersebut dipecah, pegawai Kastam telah memeriksa kontena tersebut sekadar melihat dan mengambil satu sampel sahaja. Pegawai Kastam lain telah mengambil gambar dari pintu kontena tersebut ke dalam kontena tersebut dan selepas itu kontena tersebut dimeterai semula. [50] In this context, it is significant to emphasise that DW2’s evidence undoubtedly speak volume, truly acceptable and credible. A scrutiny of His Lordship judgment revealed that he had judicially considered the defence and weigh all their evidence before coming to a definite conclusion that the learned trial judge had not erred in facts and law in arriving at the decision that the defence has cast reasonable doubt in the S/N mpwzcvrisUuse3aWEYeFUw prosecution case. In this regard, we find ourselves in agreement with His Lordship’s decision. Conclusion [51] Having appraised ourselves of the relevant documentary evidence before us the oral and written submission made by both parties, we unanimously find that there was no misdirection on the part of the learned trial judge that warrants appellate intervention.