107
v. Carbour regulations
ft.
was
is whether
concerned that called for any enrichment beyond the finding of security. He questioned whether the Government should take advantage of the very heavy penalty imposed for failing to obtain a port clearance. I presume no difficulty would be felt if the junk had been proceeding on an ordinary trading voyage; difficulty arises from the belief that under the circumstances she was bound for an illicit purpose.
but it is alleged that the junk was employed for the purpose of smuggling and that the cargo was intended to be smuggled into China. If she had obtained clearance before leaving Hong Kong Harbour - although bound on a smuggling expedition - she would not have been liable to forfeiture under the Ordinance. There is no law prohibiting smuggling into China that I am aware of, and it would seem to me to be wrong in principle to impose penalties upon persons for an act that is not illegal.
If the Government insist upon the forfeiture in this case, it would be, whilst ostensibly for breach of Harbour regulations, in reality imposing a very heavy penalty because of the cargo. The cargo is being forfeited because it was considered that it was intended for smuggling.