Sarmiina Sdn Bhd v Gerry Ho (B-01(NCvC)(W)-102-02/2020)

6.KERAJAAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDENTS [In the High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam Civil Suit No. BA-21NCVC-55-08/2018 Between Sarmiina Sdn Bhd (No. Pendaftaran Syarikat 150035-K) ….Plaintiff And

1.Gerry Ho 2.Ahmad Shukri Bin Zolkiflee 3.Nur Amin Binti Abdullah 4.Pengarah Kastam Negeri Johor 5.Ketua Pengarah Kastam Malaysia 6.Kerajaan Malaysia …Defendants] 08/12/2022 16:07:23 B-01(NCvC)(W)-102-02/2020 Kand. 31 S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 2 | P a g e CORAM: HANIPAH BINTI FARIKULLAH, JCA AZIZAH BINTI HAJI NAWAWI, JCA S. NANTHA BALAN, JCA JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Table of contents Introduction ........................................................................................................... 3 The Background Facts .......................................................................................... 4 RMCD’s Police Report ......................................................................................... 5 NSTE’s Position .................................................................................................. 14 The Issues for Trial ............................................................................................. 17 Witnesses at Trial ................................................................................................ 17 High Court – Grounds of Judgment .................................................................... 18 The Memorandum of Appeal .............................................................................. 23 Plaintiff’s Submissions ....................................................................................... 27 Defendants’ Submissions .................................................................................... 41 Our Decision ....................................................................................................... 48 S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 3 | P a g e Introduction [1] This is an appeal by Sarmiina Sdn Bhd (No. Pendaftaran Syarikat 150035-K) (“Plaintiff”) against the decision of the learned Judge (“Judge”) of the High Court at Shah Alam dated 17 January 2020 after a full trial, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim with costs of RM25,000.00. [2] The appeal arises out of the action taken by officers from the Royal Malaysian Customs Department (“RMCD”) on 10 August 2017 to seize 17 containers which were located at the Free Zone West Port, Port Klang, which contained imported liquor which was (allegedly) to be trans-shipped to foreign destinations. The Plaintiff filed High Court Shah Alam Suit No. BA-21NCVC-55-08/2018 (“Suit 55”) and sought the following reliefs against the Defendants: a. Satu deklarasi bahawa penyitaan barang kepunyaan plaintif oleh defendan-defendan secara berterusan mulai 10.8.2017 sehingga kini adalah menyalahi undang-undang dan dengan demikian adalah tidak sah; b. Gantirugi khas berjumlah RM 2,889,035.30 yang merangkumi nilai barang tersebut, kos penahanan dan kos penyimpanan ; c. Gantirugi am; d. Gantirugi Teladan ; e. Faedah pada kadar lima peratus (5%) atas jumlah bayaran yang diperintahkan dibayar dibawah Perenggan 1,2, 3 dan 4 diatas dari tarikh pemfailan Writ ini sehingga penyelesaian penuh ; f. Kos tindakan ini: dan g. Lain-lain relif dan selanjutnya yang dianggap sesuai dan manafaat oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 4 | P a g e [3] On 2 August 2021, we heard the appeal. We were satisfied that there were no merits in the appeal. We, therefore, affirmed the decision of the Judge and dismissed the appeal accordingly. Our reasons for dismissing the appeal now follow. For convenience, we shall refer to the Appellant and Respondents by their titles in the High Court, namely as “Plaintiff” and “Defendants” respectively. Where the context requires, the Investigating Officers from RMCD, i.e. 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants shall be referred to by their abbreviated titles as “D1”, “D2” and “D3” respectively. During the trial, D1, D2 and D3 testified as “DW4”, “DW1” and “DW2” respectively. To avoid confusion, they will be referred to as D1, D2 and D3 respectively. The Background Facts [4] The Plaintiff’s case is that between June and July 2017, (1) JGL Pte Ltd, Singapore (2) Zaac Holding Pte Ltd, Singapore, (3) Apollon Enterprise, Singapore, (4) Bavaria NV, Netherlands and (5) Brouwerij Martens NV, Belgium (“consignors”) had appointed them to act as their “agent” in respect of the alcoholic beverages contained in 17 containers (“the said goods”) which were sent from abroad to the Free Zone in West Port, Port Klang, allegedly for the purpose of re-exportation to other countries. [5] At all material times, the Plaintiff did not possess the requisite import permit pursuant to Item 67 of Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule – Customs (Prohibition of Imports) Order 2017 (“the import permit”) to bring imported liquor into Malaysia. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 5 | P a g e [6] The Plaintiff claims that they had brought in the said goods using the import permit belonging to an entity with a curious name - “No Signboard Too Enterprise” (“NSTE”). The relevant Bills of Lading states that NSTE is the consignee of the said goods. On 10 August 2017, customs officers from the Enforcement Division of the RMCD Johore Bahru seized the 17 containers containing the said goods at the Container Yard of Westport, Port Klang. D1, D2 and D3 were the investigating officers who carried out the investigations and seizure of the said goods in the 17 containers. Around the same time, officers from RMCD Selangor had also seized 8 containers which were brought into the Free Zone West Port containing imported liquor. These 8 containers were also brought in via Bills of Lading which state that NSTE is the consignee. The 8 containers are not the subject of Suit 55. However, the 8 containers are nevertheless relevant as these containers were later released after the name of the consignee was changed from NSTE to a related company, namely Sarmiina Trade Ventures Sdn. Bhd. (“STV”). This is dealt with elsewhere in the judgment. RMCD’s Police Report [7] On 11 August 2017, Mohd. Nasir Bin Mohd. Nor (Senior Customs Officer) (“Nasir”) (RMCD Johore Bahru) lodged a police report in regards to the seizure of the said goods. Nasir did not testify at the trial. Nasir’s police report reads as follows: Tarikh: 11/08/2017 Nama: MOHD NASIR BIN MOHD NOR No. K/P: 590227085655 Pekerjaan:PEGAWAI KANAN KASTAM S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 6 | P a g e Pada 08/08/2017 kira-kira jam 11.00 pagi, sepasukan anggota kastam dari Unit Operasi JKDM Johor Bahru bersama-sama dengan anggota pasukan NNRET telah membuat pemeriksaan keatas 17 buah kontena di Container Inspections Centre (CT7) Westports Malaysia Sdn Bhd, Pelabuhan Klang Selangor. Pemeriksaan telah dibuat bersama-sama wakil Shipping Line dari Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, Maersk (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., Cosco Shipping Lines (M) Sdn Bhd, Asian Shipping Freight Liner (M) Sdn Bhd, Evergreen Marine Corp (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, dan Hapag-Llyod (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd. Semua Shipping Line tersebut adalah pemilik kontena box yang diperiksa. Hasil daripada siasatan awalan yang dibuat keatas shipping line tersebut mendapati consignee untuk 17 kontena tersebut iaitu No Signboard Too Enterprise tidak mengaku yang mereka adalah consignee untuk konsaimen tersebut. Pasukan turut mendapat pengesahan dari pengarah syarikat No Signboard Too Enterprise yang menafikan 17 kontena tersebut adalah milik mereka. Hasil pemeriksaan yang dibuat di hadapan wakil shipping line terlibat pasukan dapati semua kontena tersebut berisi minuman keras. Pasukan telah merujuk hasil pemeriksaan yang dibuat kepada Timbalan Ketua Pengarah Kastam Penguatkuasaan dan beliau mengarahkan pasukan agar menyita semua kontena yang diperiksa bersama muatannya dan dibawa balik kapejabat bagi siasatan selanjutnya. Pada 10/08/2017 pasukan telah menyita kesemua 17 kontena terlibat dan notis penyitaan telah diserahkan kepada semua shipping line yang terlibat. Kontena yang disita adalah MOAU0571950, TEMU0586026, MOAU0507652, CKU2333038, MRSU0099501, MRKU9307413, MRKU9551760, BHU5671111, SEGU3168867, UNXU3002751, EISU3683214, GLDU2895400, LTIU3031112, TEMU3942429, EITU0390469, TCLU3374194 dan HLXU3451720. Semua kontena serta muatannya telah dibawa balik kepejabat dan diserahkan kepada pegawai penyiasat bertugas untuk tujuan siasatan selanjutnya. Sekian laporan saya. [Emphasis added] S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 7 | P a g e [8] Essentially, the investigations which were carried out by the RMCD through D1, D2 and D3 revealed that liquor was brought into Malaysia via the 17 containers wherein the name of NSTE was used as “consignee” but NSTE maintained that they are not the consignee of the said goods and are not the owners of the said goods. NSTE had the requisite import permit to import liquor. But it is necessary to mention that the brands of liquor listed in NSTE’s import permit did not tally with the brands of liquor in the 17 containers. At any rate, the Plaintiff maintains that they had “used” NSTE’s import permit to bring in the said goods via the 17 containers. [9] The Plaintiff was made aware or become aware of the seizure and promptly instructed their solicitors to make a claim in writing to the investigating officers for the release of the 17 containers and the said goods. By way of letters dated 5 September 2017, 27 October 2017 and 13 November 2017, the Plaintiff’s previous solicitors, Messrs Azamuddin & Co (“Azamuddin”) gave written notice to the Defendants seeking the release and return of the said goods and the 17 containers. According to RMCD, they had asked the solicitor from Azamuddin to attend at their office to assist in the investigations, but no one from Azamuddin turned up at RMCD’s office. There was no witness from Azamuddin during the trial. [10] At any rate, Azamuddin’s letter dated 5 September 2017 [with emphasis added] reads as follows: S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 8 | P a g e AZAMUDDIN & CO. ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS PEGUAMBELA & PEGUAMCARA Tingkat Satu, No.23, Jalan Unggul 25/40, Seksyen 25, Taman Sri Muda, 40400 Shah Alam Selangor Tarikh 5.9.2017 Ruj. Kami: ANC/FL/1 Ruj Tuan: Penolong Kanan Pengarah Kastam Jabatan Kastam DiRaja Kompleks Penguatkuasaan Kastam Sg Pulai 81560 Gelang Patah Johor Tuan Notis Sitaan kepada Sarmiina Sdn Bhd Dengan segala hormatnya perkara diatas dirujuk dimana kami telah dilantik untuk mewakili Sarmiina Sdn Bhd.

Atas arahan anak guam kami, kami dimaklumkan sebanyak 17 kontena telah ditahan di West Port sekitar bulan Ogos 2017 dan sehingga kini tiada sebarang tindakan dari pihak tuan untuk mengeluarkan Notis Sitaan kepada Sarmiina Sdn Bhd.

Kami memohon agar pihak tuan dapat mengeluarkan Notis Sitaan keatas kontena-kontena tersebut kepada penama diatas yang telah di lantik oleh 5 syarikat perkapalan iaitu: 1) Brouwerij Martens 2) Zaac Holdings Pte Ltd 3) Bavaria N.V 4) JGL Pte Ltd 5) Apollon Enterprise

Untuk kesenangan pihak tuan, disenaraikan 17 kontena yang terlibat seperti di bawah: 1)MOAU0571950 2)TEMU0586026 3)SEGU3168867 4)TCLU3374194 5)TCKU2333038 6)CBHU5671111 7)HLXU3451720 8)MOAU0507652 9)MRKU9307413 S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 9 | P a g e 10)MRKU9551760 11)MRSU0099501 12)EISU3683214 13)GLDU2895400 14)LTIU3031112 15)UNXU3002751 16)EITU0390469 17)TEMU3942429 Sekian Terima Kasih AZAMUDDIN & CO [11] Sometime in December 2017, the Plaintiff’s representative, one Saravanan a/l Chellappan (“PW1”) met with D1 at his office to inquire about the status of the Plaintiff’s claim with respect to the said goods in the 17 containers but was informed by D1, who was also speaking on behalf of D2 and D3, that they (Plaintiff) were not the consignees per the Bills of Lading and that they had no right to claim for the release of the said goods and therefore the said goods cannot be released to the Plaintiff. [12] As mentioned earlier, around the same time the Enforcement Division from RMCD Selangor had seized 8 containers of alcoholic beverages (“said consignment”) which had been brought into Port Klang from overseas (apparently) by the Plaintiff using NSTE’s import permit. In February 2018, the Enforcement Division from RMCD, Selangor allowed the Plaintiff’s claim for the release of the said consignment (the 8 containers). Thereafter, the Plaintiff was allowed to re-export the said consignment by changing the consignee’s name in the Bill of Lading from NSTE to STV. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 10 | P a g e [13] It is material to note that PW1 is a director of the Plaintiff and STV. The Plaintiff is aggrieved that RMCD Johor Bahru’s stance vis-à-vis the 17 containers and the said goods was diametrically opposite to the stance taken by RMCD Selangor. [14] In April 2018, the consignors received seizure notices dated 1 April 2018 and 15 April 2018 pertaining to the said goods from the Defendants. By letters dated 25 April 2018 and 4 May 2018 the consignors purportedly notified the Defendants that the Plaintiff is acting on their behalf to claim the said goods and had appointed STV as the valid import permit holder in Malaysia for the said goods. [15] The Plaintiff further avers that the continuous seizure of the said goods by the Defendants since 10 August 2017 without referring the Plaintiff’s claim to the Magistrate’s Court upon the expiry of 1 calendar month from the date of the claim is unlawful and illegal. Therefore, it is alleged that the seizure of the said goods in the 17 containers is unlawful and in contravention of Article 13 of the Federal Constitution. It is alleged that as a direct result of the seizure of the said goods, the Plaintiff has suffered losses. The Plaintiff contends that they are lawfully entitled to claim for the value of the said goods and incidental costs such as detention, demurrage and storage costs. [16] On 1 June 2018, the Plaintiff’s solicitors Messrs J R Ravendren & Associates sent a Letter of Demand (“LOD”) to the Defendants claiming damages amounting to RM 2,889,035.30. The LOD reads as follows: S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 11 | P a g e Tarikh: 1 Jun 2018 Pengarah Kastam Negeri Johor Tingkat 13, Menara Kastam Larkin, Karung Berkunci 780 80990 Johor Bahru Johor Darul Takzim Tuan, PER: NOTIS TUNTUTAN PIHAK YANG MENUNTUT: SARMIINA SDN BHD ________________________________________________ Kami merujuk kepada perkara diatas. Kami mewakili Sarmina Sdn Bhd yang beralarnat di No. 40-01, Jalan Setia Tropika 1/24, Taman Setia Tropika, 81200, Johor Bahru, Johor Darul Takzim (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai 'anakguam kami') didalam perkara diatas. Kami diarah oleh anakguam kami bahawa anakguam kami telah memohon untuk pelepasan 17 buah kontena yang mengandungi minuman keras (‘barang tersebut’) melalui surat bekas peguam nya Tetuan Azamuddin & Co bertarikh 5.9.2017, 27.10.2017 dan 13.11.2017 tetapi sehingga hari ini barang tersebut masih belum dilepaskan kecuali kontena-kontena kosong sahaja. Kami diarah memaklumkan bahawa penyitaan minuman keras tersebut secara berterusan oleh pihak tuan sehingga kini adalah menyalahi undang-undang walaupun anakguam kami telah membuat satu tuntutan yang sewajarnya Akibat daripada penyitaan barang tersebut oleh pegawai-pegawai luan iaitu En. Gerry Ho dan En Ahmad Syukri Bin Zolkiflee, anakguam kami telah mengalami kerugian sebanyak RM 2,889,035.30 yang merangkumi nilai barang, caj pelabuhan dan caj penahanan kontena setakat kini dan yang masih berterusan. SILA AMBIL PERHATIAN bahawa adalah arahan anakguam kami untuk menuntut RM 2,889,035.30 sebagai pampasan/gantirugi akibat tindakan penyitaan barang tersebut dengan menyalahi undang-undang. Jika pihak tuan gagal dan/enggan membayar jumlah tuntutan tersebut dalam tempoh masa 14 hari dari tarikh surat ini, maka adalah arahan anakguam kami untuk merujuk tuntutan nya ke Mahkamah untuk menuntut gantirugi khas, gantirugi am, gantirugi teladan serta faedah dan kos. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 12 | P a g e Sekian, terima kasih. Yang benar Tetuan JR. Ravendren & Associates, [17] RMCD Johore Bahru responded to the LOD via letter dated 12 June 2018 which reads as follows: TETUAN JR RAVENDREN & ASSOCIATES PEGUAMBELA & PEGUAMCARA SUITE 8717, 7TH FLOOR BLOCK B, KELANA SQUARE NO 17 JLN SS7/26, KELANA JAYA, 47301 PETALING JAYA SELANGOR Tetuan, PER: NOTIS TUNTUTAN PIHAK YANG MENUNTUT: SAMIINA SDN BHD Saya dengan segala hormatnya diarah merujuk surat tuan rujukan JR/903/18 bertarikh 1 Jun 2018 mengenai perkara di atas.

Adalah dimaklumkan bahawa satu notis sitaan dibawah s.114 Akta Kastam 1976 telah dikeluarkan kepada pengurus syarikat NO SIGNBOARD TOO ENTERPRISE beralamat di No. 40, Jalan PSK 8, Pusat Perdagangan Sri Kembangan, 43300 Sri Kembangan, Selangor pada 10 Ogos 2017 iaitu nama consignee didalam Bil of lading dan Manifes Kastam.

Pihak Jabatan mempunyai alasan-alasan yang munasabah untuk membuat penyitaan 17 kontena yang mengandungi minuman keras dibawah s. 114 Akta Kastam 1967 yang berbunyi seperti berikut: S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 13 | P a g e

3.1. (1) 'Semua barang-barang yang berkenan dengannya telah terdapat, atau terdapat, sebab munasabah untuk mengesaki bahawa telah dilakukan ap-apa kesalahan terhadap Akta ini atau mana-mana peraturan yang dibuat di bawahnya, atau apa-apa pelanggaran mana-mana peruntukan Akta ini atu mana-mana peraturan yang dibuat di bawahnya atau apa-apa sekatan atau syarat yang tertakluk kepada atau ke atasnya apa-apa lesen atau permit telah diberi, bersama-sama dengan apa-apa bekas, bungkusan, kenderaan, vesel yang tidak melebihi dua ratus tanan bersih berdaftar atau pesawat udara selain daripada pesawat udara yang digunakan dalam pengangkutan antarabangsa, yang mana di dalamnya barang-barang itu mungkin dijumpai atau yang digunakan berhubungan dengan kesalahan atau pelanggaran itu, dan apa-apa buku atau dokumen yang dengan munasabah di percayai sebagai mempunyai kaitan terhadap kes itu, boleh disita oelh man-man pegawai kastam dalam mana-mana tempat sama ada di darat atau dlam perairan wilayah".

Berkaitan dengan anakguam kamu yang mengalami kerugian sebanyak RM 2,889,035.30 pihak jabatan ingin menarik perhatian tetuan kepada s. 132 Akta Kastam 1967 seperti berikut:

4.1. Tiada kos bagi kerosakan yang berbangkit daripada penyitaan boleh didapatkan melain jika penyitaan dibuat tanpa sebab yang munasabah atau sebab yang mungkin. "Tiada seorang pun dalam mana-mana prosiding di mana-mana mahkamah berkenaan dengan penyitaan apa-apa barang pada menjalankan atau merupa sebagai menjalankan apa-apa kuasa yang diberi dibawah Akta ini, berhak terhadap kos prosiding itu atau apa-apa gantirugi atau relief lain selain daripada suatu perintah bagi pemulangan barang-barang itu atu pembayaran nilainya melain jika penyitaan itu dibuat tanpa sebab yang munasabah atau sebab yang mungkin."

Sehubungan dengan itu, adalah dimaklumkan anakguam kamu tidak mempunyai "LOCUS STANDI" ke atas kes ini dan tidak layak membuat tuntutan atau mewakili mana-mana syarikat untuk menuntut barang-barang didalam 17 kontena atas sebab tidak mempunyai nama di dalam Bill Of Lading dan Manifes Kastam semasa dan selepas pengimportan. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 14 | P a g e

Sebarang pertanyaan berkenaan tarikh dan masa pejumpaan ini, boleh diajukan kepada Penolong Kanan Pengarah Kastam

(P), Tuan Ali Bin Abdullah di talian telefon bimbit 0137949800. Sekian, terima kasih "BERKHIDMAT UNTUK NEGARA" (ALI BIN ABDULLAH) Cawangan Siasatan b.p. Pengarah Kastam Negeri JOHOR BAHRU 12/6/18 NSTE’s Position [18] On 4 August 2017, a Director of NSTE, Visvalingam A/L Balakrishnan (“SD3”) lodged a police report which reads as: Tarikh: 04/08/2017 Nama: VISVALINGAM A/L BALAKRISHNAN Pekerjaan: PENGARAH SYARIKAT Alamat Tempat Tinggal: NO SIGNBOARD TOO ENTERPRISE NO. 74 LORONG SANGGUL 1E BANDAR PUTERI 41200 KLANG SELANGOR Pengadu Menyatakan: PADA 10/07/2017 @ JAM LEBIH KURANG 1000 HRS SEMASA SAYA BERADA DI PEJABAT DIALAMAT NO SIGNBOARD TOO ENTERPRISE NO.74 LORONG SANGGUL 1E BANDAR PUTERI 41200 KLANG SELANGOR, SAYA TELAH MENERIMA BANYAK EMAIL DARI SYARIKAT SHIPPING LINE YANG MENGHANTAR NOTICE OF ARRIVAL (NOA) MENGATAKAN TERDAPAT 20 CONTAINER YANG MENGGUNAKAN NAMA SYARIKAT SAYA. SENARAI CONTAINER TERSEBUT IALAH:

MOAU 0571950 J S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 15 | P a g e

LTIU 3031112 J SAYA DATANG KEBALAI BUAT LAPORAN ADALAH UNTUK MENAFIKAN SEMUA CONTAINER TERSEBU BUKAN MILIK SYARIKAT SAYA DAN SAYA TIDAK MAHU BERTANGGUNGJAWAB TERHADAP CONTAINER TERSEBUT JIKA BERLAKU APA-APA KERUGIAN. SEKIAN LAPORAN SAYA. [19] DW3 also gave a sworn statement via a Statutory Declaration dated 28 August 2017 which reads as follows: SURAT AKUAN Saya...... VISVALINGAM A/L BALAKRISHNAN... (No K/P: ... 791231-14-6095...) yang bekerja di No Signboard Too Enterprise sebagai Pengarah Syarikat beralamat...No 74 Jalan Sanggul 1E, Bandar Puteri 41200 Klang Selangor....dengan sesungguh dan sebenarnya mengaku bahawa:- Pada 10/07/2017 @jam lebih kurang 10.00 pagi semasa saya berada dipejabat dialamat No. SIGNBOARD TOO ENTERPRISE. No. 74, Lorong Sanggul 1E, Bandar Puteri 41200 Klang, Selangor. Saya telah menerima banyak email dari syarikat shipping line yang menghantar Notice Of Arrival (NOA) mengatakan terdapat 20 container yang menggunakan nama syarikat saya. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 16 | P a g e Senarai container tersebut ialah:- CLHU 3718462 TCLU 2646810 MOAU 0571950 TEMU 0586026 SEGU 3168867 TCLU 3374194 CBHU 5671111 CXDU 1597592 TCKU 2333038 HLXU 3451720 MOAU 0567652 MRKU 9307413 MRKU 9551760 MRSU 0099501 UNXU 3002751 EITU 0390469 TEMU 3942429 EISU 3683214 GLDU 2895400 LTIU 3031112 Saya datang membuat akaun sumpuh dan menafikan semua container tersebut bukan milik syarikat saya.Saya tidak mahu bertanggungjawab terhadap container tersebut jika berlaku apa-apa kerugian. [20] In the High Court, the Plaintiff claimed for damages which included RM2,016,960.60 being the value of the said goods, RM 510,665.70 for detention of the containers and demurrage up to 11 April 2018 and RM361,409.00 for port charges. The Plaintiff further claimed that its reputation and credibility as an agent to the consignors has been damaged due to the continuous seizure till to-date. According to the Plaintiff, the consignors were dissatisfied with the services offered by the Plaintiff because they (the Plaintiff) had failed to obtain the release of the said goods from the Defendants within the stipulated time. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 17 | P a g e The Issues for Trial [21] The issues for determination at trial were as follows:

Samada penyitaan barang-barang oleh defendan-defendan semenjak 10.8.2017 sehingga kini adalah tanpa sebab-sebab yang munasabah dan mungkin dan dengan demikian menyalahi undang-undang serta tidak sah.

Adakah plaintif mempunyai locus standi untuk menuntut barang-barang yang telah disita oleh defendan-defendan.

Jika penyitaan oleh defendan-defendan adalah tidak sah, adakah plaintif layak menuntut gantirugi am, gantirugi khas dan gantirugi teladan daripada defendan-defendan.

Adakah plaintif berjaya membuktikan quantum gantirugi seperti yang diplidkan dalam Pernyataan Tuntutannya bertarikh 18.7.2018. Witnesses at Trial [22] The following witnesses testified at the trial. Plaintiff’s witnesses Saravanan a/l Chellapan (Plaintiff) PW1 Muhammad Sallehuddin bin Ramli PW2 Sritharan a/l Nadarajah PW3 Sugumaran a/l Govendasamy PW4 Alex Lim Jia Min PW5 Md. Halim bin Md. Yusop @ Yusof PW6 S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 18 | P a g e Hew Fook Yoong PW7 Tai Mee Yong PW8 Defendants’ witnesses Ahmad Syukri bin Zolkiflee (D2) DW1 Nur Amin bin Abdullah (D3) DW2 Visvalingam a/l Balakrishnan (NSTE) DW3 Gerry Ho (D1) DW4 High Court – Grounds of Judgment [23] The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim are encapsulated in the Grounds of Judgment. For convenience, the relevant parts of the Grounds of Judgment (with emphasis added) are reproduced hereinbelow. It is obvious enough from a reading of the Grounds of Judgment that the Judge founds various parts of the Plaintiff’s evidence to be doubtful or unconvincing. [20] Di dalam pliding, plaintif memohon deklarasi bahawa penyitaan barangan kepunyaan plaintif oleh pihak defendan salah di sisi undang-undang dan tidak sah. Bagi membuktikan tuntutan, plaintif telah memanggil 8 orang saksi. Daripada 8 orang saksi tersebut, seorang saksi adalah pengarah plaintif sendiri iaitu Saravanan all Chellapan (SP1). Lima orang saksi daripada Jabatan Kastam iaitu SP2 hingga SP6 dan 2 orang saksi daripada konsainor-konsainor tersebut, iaitu SP7 dan SP8. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 19 | P a g e [21] Menurut keterangan SP1, plaintif tidak mempunyai lesen import minuman keras pada bulan Mei 2017. SP1 secara jeIas’menyatakan bahawa plaintif telah menggunakan lesen import kepunyaan orang lain untuk membawa masuk minuman keras ke Pelabuhan Klang. Semasa disoal balas oleh Peguam Kanan Persekutuan (PKP) yang mewakili pihak defendan, SP1 tahu dan mengakui bahawa mengimport barangan menggunakan lesen pihak Iain adalah satu kesalahan di bawah undang-undang. [22] SP1 telah menamakan NSTE sebagai pemegang lesen yang digunakan plaintif untuk membawa masuk kontena-kontena tersebut yang mana termasuklah 17 buah kontena tersebut, selari dengan apa yang di plid di perenggan 8 pernyataan tuntutan. Menurut pliding, perkhidmatan NSTE digunakan untuk menguruskan kemasukan minuman keras pelbagai jenama ke kawasan zon bebas, Pelabuhan Barat, Pelabuhan Klang, termasuk menyediakan perkhidmatan logistik. [23] lroninya, NSTE secara tegas menyatakan sebaliknya. Malahan SD3, iaitu pengarah dan pemilik NSTE menafikan sebarang kaitan dengan pengimportan minuman keras di dalam kontena-kontena tersebut. SD3 telah membuat satu laporan polis seperti mana yang dapat dilihat di muka surat 146 Ikatan Dokumen Bersama (Ikatan B). SD3 secara jelas menafikan penglibatan NSTE dan tidak mahu bertanggungjawab terhadap kontena-kontena tersebut. [24] Bukan setakat buat laporan polis, SD3 juga turut menghantar sepucuk surat bertarikh 10.7.2018 kepada Jabatan Kastam Johor seperti mana yang dapat dilihat di muka surat 240-241 Ikatan B. Di dalam surat tersebut, SD3 dengan jelas menyatakan bahawa terdapat beberapa individu yang telah menggunakan nama syarikatnya serta menafikan pengetahuan dan milikan ke atas 17 buah kontena tersebut. [25] Bagi menguatkan penafian, SD3 turut mengikrarkan satu surat akuan bersumpah bertarikh 28.8.2017 seperti mana yang dapat dilihat di muka surat 242-243 Ikatan B. SD3 tidak pernah menyatakan sama ada menerusi keterangan dokumentari atau pun melalui keterangan di mahkamah bahawa plaintif adalah individu yang telah menggunakan lesennya untuk mengimpox kontena-kontena tersebut. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 20 | P a g e [26] Selain daripada itu, adalah didapati bahawa keterangan SP1 berhubung dengan pemilikan minuman keras di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut sangat meragukan. Terdapat percanggahan yang nyata di dalam keterangan yang dikemukakan semasa plaintif cuba membuktikan tuntutan. Plaintif buat dakwaan bahawa minuman keras di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut adalah miliknya dengan cuba kemukakan dokumen pembelian. Pada masa yang sama, plaintif turut mendakwa bahawa dia adalah agen atau wakil kepada konsainor-konsainor bagi tujuan membuat tuntutan dan pelepasan minuman keras yang disita pihak defendan. [27] Menurut SP1, setelah menerima notis-notis sitaan daripada pihak defendan pada sekitar bulan April 2018, konsainor-konsainor telah mengutus surat memberi notis kepada pihak defendan menyatakan bahawa mereka melantik plaintif sebagai agen mereka dan STVSB sebagai pemegang lesen import di Malaysia bagi tujuan membuat tuntutan dan menguruskan pelepasan minuman keras di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut. Surat-surat pelantikan tersebut dapat dilihat di muka surat 183 hingga 192 Ikatan B. [28] Plaintif tidak sepatutnya berdolak-dalik (blow hot and cold) di dalam mengemukakan dan membuktikan tuntutan. Sekiranya benar plaintif telah membeli kesemua minuman keras di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut, sudah tentulah kesemua minuman keras tersebut menjadi milik plaintif. Oleh itu, adalah didapati bahawa tidak ada keperluannya untuk konsainor-konsainor tersebut melantik plaintif bagi membuat tuntutan bagi pelepasan minuman keras yang ada di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut. [29] Berdasarkan percanggahan keterangan tersebut, timbul keraguan ke atas dakwaan plaintif yang mendakwa bahawa dia ialah pemilik minuman keras di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut. Adalah didapati bahawa alasan berkenaan pelantikan plaintif sebagai agen kepada konsainor-konsainor tersebut jelas bertentangan dengan pliding plaintif sendiri. Harus diingat, di dalam permohonan untuk mendapatkan perintah deklarasi plaintif telah menyatakan bahawa minuman keras yang disita pihak defendan adalah miliknya dan bukannya mewakili konsainor-konsainor tersebut untuk buat tuntutan pelepasan. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 21 | P a g e [30] Tambahan pula, mahkamah turut membuat penelitian ke atas keterangan SP1, SP7 dan SP8 serta bukti dokumentari yang dapat dilihat di muka surat 183 hingga 192 Ikatan B. Hasil penelitian, adalah didapati bahawa alasan berkait dengan perwakilan plaintif juga meragukan. Ini adalah kerana kesemua surat daripada 5 konsainor yang berbeza mempunyai ungkapan yang sama sekali serupa. Setiap surat di dua perenggan terakhir berbunyi: We had appointed our agent Sarmiina Sdn Bhd and Sarmiina Trade Venture Sdn Bhd in Malaysia to secure the release of the seized goods. We confirm that they had sent a few letters through their solicitor on 5/8/2017, 27/10/2017 and 13/11/2017 to claim and secure the release of the seized goods but however there was no response from you to our agents claim. We are deeply disappointed that you had not responded to our agent’s request for the release of the seized goods. Please take note that Sarmiina Sdn Bhd and Sarmiina Trade Venture Sdn Bhd are our appointed and authorised agents on record to claim and secure the release of the seized goods in the containers. [31] Daripada fakta tersebut, bolehlah dibuat inferens bahawa surat-surat tersebut datangnya daripada penghantar yang sama walau pun menggunakan kepala surat yang berbeza. Adalah mustahil atau tidak akan wujud kebarangkalian untuk lima syarikat daripada pelbagai negara akan menggunakan perkataan-perkataan atau ayat-ayat yang sama sekali serupa ketika melantik plaintif sebagai wakil mereka. Daripada inferens tersebut, besar kebarangkaliannya surat-surat perwakilan tersebut adalah rekaan semata-mata dan ianya lebih kepada suatu tindakan yang difikirkan semula (afterthought) untuk menyokong tuntutan yang dibuat plaintif. [32] Begitu juga dengan keterangan tentang pelantikan STVSB sebagai agen oleh konsainor-konsainor. Walau pun STVSB mempunyai lesen import pada masa perwakilan dibuat, tindakan tersebut tidak sama sekali boleh mengesahkan bahawa minuman keras di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut adalah milik plaintif. Lagi pun, penggunaan lesen import tidak boleh dikebelakangkan kesannya. Suatu lesen import diperlukan pada masa barangan diimport dan bukannya selepas barangan di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut tiba dan berada di pelabuhan. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 22 | P a g e [33] Seperkara lagi, SP1 di dalam keterangannya telah merujuk kepada ‘No Objection Letter’ yang dikatakan dikeluarkan NSTE kepada D4 dan Pengarah Kastam Selangor untuk pertukaran nama konsaini pada borang ’Manifest’ daripada nama NSTE kepada STVSB seperti mana yang dapat dilihat di muka surat 175 hingga 176, 181 dan 182 Ikatan B. Susulan daripada surat tersebut, Kastam Selangor dikatakan telah melepaskan 8 buah kontena yang turut disita di Pelabuhan Barat, Pelabuhan Klang kepada plaintif. Lihat jawapan kepada soalan 13, 16 dan 17 pernyataan saksi SP1. Sekali lagi, keterangan SD3 sangat relevan diberikan perhatian. Di dalam keterangannya, secara jelas menafikan telah menurunkan tandatangan pada ketiga-tiga ‘No Objection Letter’ tersebut. SD3 dengan tegas menyatakan bahawa tandatangan-tandatangan yang ada pada ketiga-tiga surat tersebut bukan miliknya. [34] Setelah diteliti, ternyatalah bahawa keterangan SD3 benar. Tanda tangan SD3 seperti yang dapat dilihat pada laporan polis di muka surat 147 Ikatan B, surat kepada D4 di muka surat 241 Ikatan B dan surat akuan bersumpah di muka surat 243 Ikatan B adalah sama sekali berbeza dengan tanda tangan yang ada pada ketiga-tiga ‘No Objection Letter’ yang dikemukakan plaintif. Perbezaan tersebut sangat ketara walaupun hanya dilihat dengan mata kasar dan tidak perlu kepada analisis pakar tulisan untuk dibuktikannya. Dengan itu, jelaslah bahawa plaintif bergantung kepada dokumen yang di sengaja ada-adakan bagi membuktikan tuntutan. Penggunaan dokumen yang dipalsukan adalah suatu kesalahan di bawah perenggan 133(1)(c) Akta Kastam 1967 dan sudah tentulah akan memudaratkan tuntutan plaintif. [35] Akhirnya, SP1 juga mendakwa bahawa plaintif terlibat membawa masuk 17 buah kontena tersebut ke dalam zon bebas Pelabuhan Barat, Pelabuhan Klang untuk tujuan transit dan akan dieksport semula kepada pelanggan di negeri-negeri Iain. Lihat jawapan kepada soalan 2 dan 3 pernyataan saksi SP1. Namun begitu, menurut keterangan dokumentari iaitu pengikraran dagangan dalam semua dokumen ’inward manifest' yang dikemukakan jelas menunjukkan bahawa konsainan adalah untuk diimport masuk ke Malaysia dan bukannya untuk tujuan transit dan eksport semula. Keterangan tersebut jelas berlawanan dengan keterangan SP1. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 23 | P a g e Keputusan [36] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan tersebut, adalah didapati dan diputuskan bahawa di atas imbangan kebarangkalian, plaintif gagal membuktikan tuntutannya terhadap pihak defendan. Tuntutan plaintif ditolak. Plaintif diperintahkan membayar kos sebanyak RM25,000.00 kepada pihak defendan. The Memorandum of Appeal [24] The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal are as per the Memorandum of Appeal which reads (in Bahasa Malaysia and followed by the corresponding English translation) as follows:

(i) Hakim yang bijaksana telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta dalam menolak tuntutan Perayu apabila berpegang bahawa Perayu tidak mempunyai locus standi untuk memohon deklarasi tersebut bahawa penyitaan barang di dalam 17 buah kontena oleh Responden-Responden secara berterusan mulai 10.8.2017 sehingga kini adalah menyalahi undang-undang walaupun Perayu telah membuktikan bahawa Perayu sebagai agen mempunyai kepentingan benefisial ke atas barang yang disita.

(i) The learned Judge erred in law and fact in dismissing the Appellant's claim when he held that the Appellant had no locus standi to apply for the declaration that the seizure of goods in 17 containers by the Respondents since from 10.8.2017 until it is now unlawful even though the Appellant has proved that the Appellant as an agent had a beneficial interest in the goods seized.

(v) Hakim yang bijaksana telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta apabila menolak tuntutan Perayu apabila berpegang bahawa keseluruhan keterangan SP1 adalah meragukan dan tidak menyokong tuntutan Perayu walhal ada keterangan dokumentari yang cukup untuk membuktikan kes Perayu pada tahap imbangan kebarangkalian.

(v) The learned judge erred in law and fact in dismissing the Appellant's claim when he held that the whole evidence of SP1 was dubious and did not support the Appellant's claim even though there was sufficient documentary evidence to prove the Appellant's case on the balance of probabilities.

(x) Hakim yang bijaksana telah terkhilaf dari segi undang-undang dan fakta dalam menolak tuntutan Perayu tanpa menentukan isu yang perlu diputuskan adalah samada penyitaan barang tersebut adalah menyalahi undang-undang apabila Responden-Responden telah melupuskan barang tanpa merujuk ke Mahkamah untuk satu keputusan apabila satu tuntutan dibuat oleh Perayu dan/atau konsainor-konsainor mengikut undang-undang.

(x) The learned Judge erred in law and fact in dismissing the Appellant's claim without determining the issue to be decided i.e. whether the seizure of the goods was unlawful when the Respondents had disposed of the goods without referring to the Court for a decision when a claim is made by the Appellant and/or the consignors in accordance with the law.

(a) Based on the facts/evidence obtained by D1, D2 and D3, from the Plaintiff's representative at the material time, there was no need for Plaintiff's purported claim to be referred to court under s.128 of the Customs Act 1967.

(b) In this regard, although the Plaintiff showed an intent to claim the seized goods, there was no need for D1, D2 and D3 to refer to the matter to the Magistrate’s Court as the Plaintiff did not fall within the definition of ‘any person asserting that he is the owner of such goods’ set out in s.128 (2) of the Customs Act 1967. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 47 | P a g e

(c) As far the case of Modern Freight Express, the SFC pointed out that in that case, the Court of Appeal ruled that RMCD should refer to the court in circumstances where the “… the respondents did not object to or dispute the notice of claim from the Plaintiff at any time”.

(d) However, in this appeal, based on the results of the investigation, D1, D2 and D3 took the joint decision that the Plaintiff's claim did not fall under the claim of s.128 of the Customs Act 1967.

(e) In other words, RMCD Johor Bahru disputed the Plaintiff's claim.

(f) Further, it was also pointed out that in Modern Freight Express (supra), the Court of Appeal found that the Plaintiff in that case, had made the necessary declaration as to the relevant goods, whereas in the present case there was no such declaration by the Plaintiff. [87] The SFC emphasized that the documents (whose authenticity is questioned) purportedly linking the Plaintiff to the seized goods, and the letters allegedly linking the Plaintiff as the consignor’s “agent”, turned out to be false. [88] In the present case, all Invoices, Purchase Orders and Official Receipts included in the Plaintiff's Bundle of Documents were only submitted by the Plaintiff after the case was filed and after the trial began. These documents were not brought to the attention of D1, D2 and D3 for research, and authentication at the material time when investigations were afoot. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 48 | P a g e [89] Consequently, it was argued on behalf of the Defendants that it is the responsibility of the Plaintiff (during the investigation conducted by RMCD Johor Bahru) to prove their interest whether legal or beneficial in respect of said goods, including as the owner so as to be recognized under s.128 of the Customs Act 1967. [90] Hence, as far as the Defendants are concerned, the Plaintiff failed to prove their interest because the documents that allegedly proved the interest (beneficial interest) of the Plaintiff in the seized goods, turned out to be fabricated documents. And after a full trial and having seen and heard the respective witnesses, the Judge found as a fact that the so-called documents in support of the Plaintiff’s claim were indeed, dubious and doubtful. In the circumstances, the SFC argued that the Judge’s findings of fact are unimpeachable and were not “plainly wrong” such as to warrant appellate interference. Our Decision [91] As far as the Judge was concerned, the sole issue to be determined was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to the declaration that was sought arising out of the seizure and forfeiture of the said goods which were in the 17 containers. At paragraph [18] of the Grounds of Judgment, the Judge said the issue was, “sama ada plaintif berhak kepada perintah deklarasi dan seterusnya berhak mendapatkan ganti rugi seperti mana yang dipohon akibat daripada penyitaan dan lucut hak kan minuman keras yang ada di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut oleh pihak defendan”. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 49 | P a g e [92] As to the veracity/authenticity of the purported letters from consignors the Judge opined as follows at paragraph [31]: “[31] Daripada fakta tersebut, bolehlah dibuat inferens bahawa surat-surat tersebut datangnya daripada penghantar yang sama walau pun menggunakan kepala surat yang berbeza. Adalah mustahil atau tidak akan wujud kebarangkalian untuk lima syarikat daripada pelbagai negara akan menggunakan perkataan-perkataan atau ayat-ayat yang sama sekali serupa ketika melantik plaintif sebagai wakil mereka. Daripada inferens tersebut, besar kebarangkaliannya surat-surat perwakilan tersebut adalah rekaan semata-mata dan ianya lebih kepada suatu tindakan yang difikirkan semula (afterthought) untuk menyokong tuntutan yang dibuat plaintif.” [93] In our view, this was a finding of fact based on an audio-visual advantage which was available to the Judge and which this Court is deprived of. The Judge’s finding was one which was reasonable in all the circumstances. [94] In the present case, the notice of seizure was not sent to the Plaintiff. Rather, it was sent to NSTE and the consignors. The letters in reply from the consignors were found by the Judge to be fake. The net result is that the Plaintiff has failed to connect the dots to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that they are the “agent” or “owner” (per s.2 of the Customs Act 1967) vis-à-vis the said goods. In the result, the Plaintiff had failed to establish their locus standi to make a claim on the said goods. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 50 | P a g e [95] In answer to the question of whether the seizure of the 17 containers and the said goods on 10 August 2017 was lawful, we are of the view that in light of the circumstances and facts then prevailing, the actions of the Defendants in seizing the said goods were lawful. This is particularly so in light of the fact that the named consignee (NSTE) was denying that they are the real consignee or owner of the said goods and disowned the authenticity of the so-called “No Objection Letter”. In the result, it is quite apparent that when the seizure was conducted on 10 August 2017, the Defendants had reasonable and probable cause for doing so. They were not flippant or reckless in their conduct. [96] Thus, in light of the Judge’s adverse finding in regards to the impugned letters which the Plaintiff was relying upon, it can only be concluded that the Judge was implying, without saying so in so many words, that the said letters were “produced in circumstances which would not vouch for its authenticity”. See: Raja Azlan Shah C. J. (Malaya) in P.J.T.V. Denso (M) Sdn. Bhd. v Roxy (M) Sdn. Bhd. [1980] 2 MLJ 136 at p.137 (FC). [97] In our view, it cannot be said that the Judge’s conclusion on this point was one which no reasonable tribunal similarly circumstanced would have arrived at. It is not a finding which is “plainly wrong” in any sense. [98] In so far as the Court of Appeal’s decision in Modern Freight Express is concerned, it needs to be highlighted that the facts there were quite different. What happened in that case is this. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 51 | P a g e [3] On or about 16 September 2015 and 17 September 2015, the plaintiff was appointed and instructed by six different consignors to take possession and to manage the declaration, clearance and shipping of the consignments of ‘Beer and Apple Cider’ (‘the said goods’). [4] The said goods, conveyed in 40 containers, were shipped by the consignors from Vietnam to the Northport, Port Klang to be shipped in stages to the respective consignees in Singapore. [5] Pursuant to the Free Zone Act 1990, Northport, Port Klang is a free zone area where the said goods is not subjected to payment of any customs duty or taxes when the said goods were brought into the free zone area from outside Malaysia. The authority responsible for the administration, management and operation of all activities in the Northport free zone including permitting the movement of goods into and out of the free zone area is the Port Klang Authority or Lembaga Pelabuhan Klang (‘LPK’). [6] For purposes of removing the said goods in stages to Singapore based on the availability and confirmation of the vessels, the plaintiff had made the necessary declaration of the said goods in the prescribed forms which was duly approved by the LPK. [7] On 13 November 2015, the plaintiff, upon making an enquiry with the customs officer at the enforcement division, was informed that the said goods in the 40 containers had been seized by the enforcement division of the customs department on 9 November 2015. At the material time, the first defendant was the senior officer of customs, holding the post of an assistant director in the Enforcement Division, Customs Department, Selangor. [8] By a letter dated 19 November 2015, the plaintiff through its solicitors, made a claim to the State Director of Customs, Selangor (‘the second defendant’) pursuant to s 128(1) of the Act, demanding the release of the said goods. The defendants did not release the goods. Neither did the defendants refer the plaintiff’s claim to the magistrate’s court for decision after the expiration of one month from the date of the notice of claim. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 52 | P a g e [9] On 30 November 2015, the plaintiff however received a notice of seizure dated 27 November 2015 issued by the first defendant pursuant to s 114 of the Act. The notice which was specifically addressed to the plaintiff, stated among others that ‘sebarang tuntutan hendaklah dikemukakan secara bertulis dalam tempoh satu bulan dari tarikh penerimaan notis ini’. [10] Vide a letter dated 30 November 2015, the plaintiff through its solicitors made a claim for the release of the said goods. The defendants failed to release the said goods and failed to refer the matter to the magistrate court. There was no prosecution preferred against the plaintiff in respect of the said goods. [11] The plaintiff contended that the continuous seizure of the said goods was made without any reasonable and probable cause and that the defendants have a statutory duty to refer the plaintiff’s claim to the magistrate court for decision on the expiry of one calendar month from the date of seizure of the said goods. [Emphasis & underlining added] [99] We agree with the submission that was made by the SFC in that unlike Modern Freight Express, the Plaintiff here was quite “incognito” and surfaced only after the seizure was carried out. This looks very nefarious and sinister to say the least and has all the makings and trappings of an illicit practice within the shipping industry. But that is a matter for the RMCD to address in the appropriate way. In so far as we are concerned, the release of the 8 containers and the said consignment to STV (which purportedly replaced NSTE as consignee) which was done by the top management of RMCD Selangor is not a precedent which has to be followed as the so-called release is not in our view, free from controversy. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 53 | P a g e [100] Having regard to the factual matrix as manifested by the oral and documentary evidence and upon a true perspective of the facts as they presented themselves at trial, the Judge found that the so-called clutch of letters which were said to have been issued by the consignors were contrived (“rekaan semata-mata”) (see paragraph [31] – Grounds of Judgment). The Judge also concluded that the so-called NSTE “No Objection Letter” was fake in that the signature which purports to be that of DW3 was a forgery. (See paragraph [33] and [34] of the Grounds of Judgment). The Judge also opined (rightly in our view) that the use of STV’s import permit to “sanitize” the importation of the said goods could not be countenanced. [101] In this regard, the Judge was of the view that an import permit cannot be used ex-post facto to bring in the said goods. He said relevantly, “[32] Begitu juga dengan keterangan tentang pelantikan STVSB sebagai agen oleh konsainor-konsainor. Walau pun STVSB mempunyai lesen import pada masa perwakilan dibuat, tindakan tersebut tidak sama sekali boleh mengesahkan bahawa minuman keras di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut adalah milik plaintif. Lagi pun, penggunaan lesen import tidak boleh dikebelakangkan kesannya. Suatu lesen import diperlukan pada masa barangan diimport dan bukannya selepas barangan di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut tiba dan berada di pelabuhan.” S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 54 | P a g e [102] In so far as the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said goods were brought into the Free Zone, West Port, Port Klang and were meant to export to foreign destinations, the Judge found this to be incorrect as the inward manifest showed that the consignment was meant for import into Malaysia and not merely in-transit for re-export. In this regard, the Judge said, “[35] Akhirnya, SP1 juga mendakwa bahawa plaintif terlibat membawa masuk 17 buah kontena tersebut ke dalam zon bebas Pelabuhan Barat, Pelabuhan Klang untuk tujuan transit dan akan dieksport semula kepada pelanggan di negeri-negeri Iain. Lihat jawapan kepada soalan 2 dan 3 pernyataan saksi SP1. Namun begitu, menurut keterangan dokumentari iaitu pengikraran dagangan dalam semua dokumen ’inward manifest' yang dikemukakan jelas menunjukkan bahawa konsainan adalah untuk diimport masuk ke Malaysia dan bukannya untuk tujuan transit dan eksport semula. Keterangan tersebut jelas berlawanan dengan keterangan SP1.” [103] Having undertaken an analysis of the evidence, the Judge concluded that the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff were doubtful. In so far as PW1’s evidence is concerned, the Judge implied that PW1’s evidence was incredible and unbelievable. This may be gathered from the following parts of the Grounds of Judgment where the Judge said, [26] Selain daripada itu, adalah didapati bahawa keterangan SP1 berhubung dengan pemilikan minuman keras di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut sangat meragukan. Terdapat percanggahan yang nyata di dalam keterangan yang dikemukakan semasa plaintif cuba membuktikan tuntutan. Plaintif buat dakwaan bahawa minuman keras di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut adalah miliknya dengan cuba kemukakan dokumen pembelian. Pada masa yang sama, plaintif turut mendakwa bahawa dia adalah agen atau wakil kepada konsainor-konsainor bagi tujuan membuat tuntutan dan pelepasan minuman keras yang disita pihak defendan. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 55 | P a g e [27] Menurut SP1, setelah menerima notis-notis sitaan daripada pihak defendan pada sekitar bulan April 2018, konsainor-konsainor telah mengutus surat memberi notis kepada pihak defendan menyatakan bahawa mereka melantik plaintif sebagai agen mereka dan STVSB sebagai pemegang lesen import di Malaysia bagi tujuan membuat tuntutan dan menguruskan pelepasan minuman keras di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut. Surat-surat pelantikan tersebut dapat dilihat di muka surat 183 hingga 192 Ikatan B. [28] Plaintif tidak sepatutnya berdolak-dalik (blow hot and cold) di dalam mengemukakan dan membuktikan tuntutan. Sekiranya benar plaintif telah membeli kesemua minuman keraG di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut, sudah tentulah kesemua minuman keras tersebut menjadi milik plaintif. Oleh itu, adalah didapati bahawa tidak ada keperluannya untuk konsainor-konsainor tersebut melantik plaintif bagi membuat tuntutan bagi pelepasan minuman keras yang ada di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut. [29] Berdasarkan percanggahan keterangan tersebut, timbul keraguan ke atas dakwaan plaintif yang mendakwa bahawa dia ialah pemilik minuman keras di dalam 17 buah kontena tersebut. Adalah didapati bahawa alasan berkenaan pelantikan plaintif sebagai agen kepada konsainor-konsainor tersebut jelas bertentangan dengan pliding plaintif sendiri. Harus diingat, di dalam permohonan untuk mendapatkan perintah deklarasi plaintif telah menyatakan bahawa minuman keras yang disita pihak defendan adalah miliknya dan bukannya mewakili konsainor-konsainor tersebut untuk buat tuntutan pelepasan. [104] Essentially, the Defendants’ position may be gathered from D1’s evidence, per his witness statement (at trial) which reads relevantly as follows: iii. Dalam tempoh siasatan, Plaintif melalui Tetuan Azamuddin & Co. ada menghantar dua pucuk surat pada 5 September 2017 (rujuk m/s 114) dan 13 November 2017 (rujuk m/s 116), masing-masing meminta pihak Kastam mengeluarkan notis sitaan kepada Plaintiff. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 56 | P a g e Permintaan ini tidak dibenarkan atas sebab siasatan saya menunjukkan nama konsaini bagi kesemua kontena tersebut adalah syarikat No Signboard Too Enterprise. (rujuk muka surat 54, 58, 60, 70 & 75) Sehingga hari ini Plaintiff tidak ada mengemukakan bukti bahawa mereka adalah pemilik barangan di dalam kontena tersebut.

5.

6.

Adakah konsainor-konsainor tersebut dihubungi? Saya telah menghantar surat-surat notis sitaan kepada konsainor-konsainor tersebut. (rujuk m/s 24, 27 & 29) bagaimanapun saya percaya surat-surat jawapan yang kononnya daripada konsainor tersebut adalah tidak sahih kerana: i. Bagi syarikat Zaac Holding, Bavaria NV, Brouwerij Martens NV (rujuk m/s 184,185,186,190,) surat jawapan daripada syarikat tersebut diserah kepada Penguasa Kastam Ahmad Syukri Bin Zolkilfee oleh seorang lelaki india yang mendakwa mewakili syarikat Plaintiff. Oleh itu serahan surat jawapan tersebut bukan diterima daripada konsainor tersebut. Penelitian surat jawapan daripada Brouwerij Martens NV menunjukkan bahawa surat tersebut bukan ditujukan kepada saya tetapi sebaliknya kepada Penguasa Kastam Ahmad Syukri Bin Zolkiflee. Ini telah menimbulkan keraguan bahawa surat tersebut benar-benar daripada Brouwerij Martens NV kerana Penguasa Kastam Ahmad Syukri Bin Zolkiflee tidak pernah berurusan dengan mereka. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 57 | P a g e ii. Penelitian mendapati surat-surat tersebut (rujuk m/s 184,185,186 & 190) seolah-olah disediakan oleh pihak yang sama.

Dalam kes ini Plaintiff mendakwa telah menggunakan lesen import daripada syarikat No Signboard Too Enterprise untuk tujuan pengimportan minuman keras. Adakah amalan ini dibenarkan? Plaintif tidak dibenarkan menggunakan lesen import daripada mana-mana syarikat kecuali dengan izin Ketua Pengarah Kastam Malaysia di mana dalam kes ini tidak ada bukti keizinan tersebut diperolehi. (rujuk butiran 1 di m/s 80) Tambahan pula lesen import Syarikat No Signboard Too Enterprise yang kononnya diguna pakai oleh Plaintif tidak meliputi jenama minuman keras yang disita.(rujuk m/s 81-111 yang merupakan lampiran kepada lesen import) Minuman keras yang disita boleh dirujuk di m/s 238. Minuman keras yang terlibat di dalam siasatan saya adalah di Bil. 1,2,3,4 dan 5.

Apakah kesimpulan siasatan Tuan? i. Tiada bukti menunjukkan bahawa Plaintif adalah pihak yang sah bagi menuntut minuman keras yang disita di dalam kelima-lima kontena tersebut. ii. Plaintif gagal menunjukkan kaitan syarikat Plaintif dalam mana-mana manifes dan bill of lading. iii. Surat-surat (kononnya daripada konsainor-konsainor) yang dikemukakan oleh Plaintif diragui kesahihannya. iv. Pada masa pengimportan minuman keras tersebut Plaintif tidak mempunyai lesen import minuman keras dan tiada bukti telah mendapat izin Ketua Pengarah Kastam bagi menggunakan lesen import syarikat lain. [105] And in re-examination, D1’s evidence was as follows: Apa tujuan notis-notis sitaan dikeluarkan kepada konsainor-konsainor, Tuan Gerry? SD4: Yang Arif, tujuannya adalah untuk makluman kepada... sebagai satu makluman kepada konsainor-konsainor tentang barangan mereka telah disita oleh pihak Kastam. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 58 | P a g e Tuan telah ditanya tentang surat-surat yang kononnya daripada konsainor. Kenapa Tuan tak anggap surat tersebut sebagai Notis Tuntutan? SD4: Boleh ulangi? Sebab Tuan telah menerima surat-surat daripada konsainor, daripada oversea itu. Surat-surat itu di muka surat 186 untuk kes Tuan, 184, 185, 186. Dan surat tersebut kononnya melantik Plaintif sebagai ejen untuk menuntut? Kenapa Tuan tidak menganggap surat tersebut sebagai Notis Tuntutan yang sah daripada Plaintif? SD4: Yang Arif, I doubt all these letters has been fabricated with all the signatures are the same and... the way that letters are been written, to me is all... with all the same body and same font and all that, I feel that we don't have to take action on this part, to inform the ... and to me to appoint Sarmiina sebagai seorang ejen, at this moment of time, he doesn't have any license, his name doesn't appear in any of the Bill of Lading, manifest and from the shipping company that we recorded the statement from, all the point point to No Signboard. And I believe that No Signboard is a real owner of all these goods. P/D : Tuan yakin No Signboard adalah pemilik barangan disita dan Tuan tidak Tuan meragui surat-surat daripada konsainor. Dengan kepercayaan sedemikian, with that believe, adakah keperluan untuk Tuan merujuk kes ini ke Mahkamah? SD4 : Yang Arif, selepas kes ini dibawa kepada satu round table discussion bersama IO dan Ketua Jabatan Unit Penguatkuasaan, kami berpendapat surat yang dikeluarkan adalah tidak benar. So dari itu kes ini adalah dianggap sebagai kes rampasan. Dan barang dibuat lucut hak saja. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 59 | P a g e [106] In all the circumstances, the Plaintiff has not satisfied us that the learned Judge had mis-appreciated the evidence and was “plainly wrong” in arriving at his decision. We find that the learned High Court Judge has considered and evaluated the evidence before him and found that the Plaintiff has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities of its claim. We find no error that warrants an appellate intervention. Indeed, as an appellate court, we should be slow in interfering with the Judge’s finding of facts unless the Judge is plainly wrong. In our view, the Judge’s finding was not plainly wrong. [107] In this case, the Judge had carefully examined the entire matrix of facts and based on the documents and contemporaneous conduct of the parties and oral testimony of the witnesses. Having considered the matter carefully, and having due regard to the comprehensive written submissions and the extensive oral clarification before us, we find that there is no appealable error to warrant any appellate interference in this case. [108] In our view, the Judge, having considered all the evidence, was fully entitled to reach his evaluative judgement as per the Grounds of Judgment. Although the Plaintiff criticised the Judge's approach and reasoning, we are not persuaded that the Judge’s approach was erroneous, the reasoning flawed or the conclusions wrong. In the result, we agreed with the Judge that ultimately the Plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they had requisite locus standi to make a claim with respect to the said goods. As stated earlier, the Defendants had reasonable and probable cause for seizing the 17 containers and the said goods. S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 60 | P a g e [109] We conclude by referring to the reminder by the Federal Court in Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors. [2020] 10 CLJ 1, [2020] 1 LNS 1060 [2020] 12 MLJ 67, [2020] MLJU 1469, [2020] 8 AMR 227 (FC): “As long as the trial judge’s conclusion can be supported on a rational basis in view of the material evidence, the fact that the appellate court feels like it might have decided differently is irrelevant. In other words, a finding of fact that would not be repugnant to common sense ought not to be disturbed. The trial judge should be accorded a margin of appreciation when his treatment of the evidence is examined by the appellate courts.” [110] Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the decision of the High Court is affirmed. We further awarded cost of RM15,000.00 to the Defendants (Respondents). S. Nantha Balan Judge Court of Appeal, Putrajaya, Malaysia Date: 2 August 2021 S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 61 | P a g e Legal representation For the Plaintiff Datuk J. R. Ravendren Agalya J. Munusamy Messrs. J. R. Ravendren & Associates Suite B717, Tingkat 7, No. 17, Jalan SS 7/26, Kelana Jaya, 47301 Petaling Jaya. Tel: 03 -78042580 , 03-78044580 Ref: JR/903/18/COA. For the Defendants Noerazlim Bt Saidil (SFC) Natrah Bt Mazman (FC) Pejabat Kamar Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Selangor D.E. Kompleks Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah Tingkat 4, Podium Utara, 40512 Shah Alam, Selangor D.E. Tel: 03 - 55212248 (Guaman),03-55447183 (Sivil) Ref: PN.SEL.UG1.11.20.1.2020 (2018). Legislation Section 108 Customs Enactment 1937 Section 114 (g) Evidence Act 1950 Section 2 Customs Act 1967 Section 128 Customs Act 1967 Section 132 Customs Act 1967 Cases Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng, Administrator of the Estates of Tan Ewe Kwang, Deceased & Ors. [2020] 10 CLJ 1, [2020] 1 LNS 1060 [2020] 12 MLJ 67, [2020] MLJU 1469, [2020] 8 AMR 227 (FC). Janagi v Ong Boon Kiat [1971] 2 MLJ 196 (HC) S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw 62 | P a g e Modern Freight Express v. Afzarizzal Bin Abdul Wahab & Ors [2017] 6 MLJ 83 (CA) Soong Chee Kong v. Public Prosecutor [1951] 1 MLJ 5 (HC) Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia & Ors v. Apple International Co Ltd (Japan) [2017] 3 MLJ 421 (CA) Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd v. Tinjar Co. [1979] 1 LNS 119, [1979] 2 MLJ 229 (FC) P.J.T.V. Denso (M) Sdn. Bhd. v Roxy (M) Sdn. Bhd. [1980] 2 MLJ 136 (FC) S/N uSuvs6Ovck2uutSHvSJdw