7
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1989
MEMBERS ALSO EXPRESSED RESERVATION OVER THE PROVISION UNDER CLAUSE 14(4) WHICH STIPULATED THAT ANYTHING SEIZED BASED ON REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT AN OFFENCE HAD BEEN COMMITTED UNDER THE ORDINANCE WAS LIABLE TO FORFEITURE.
"IT WAS CONSIDERED UNACCEPTABLE TO FORFEIT THINGS SO SEIZED THERE WAS NO BREACH OF THE ORDINANCE. THE ADMINISTRATION AGREED AN AMENDMENT WOULD BE MADE TO CONFINE THE POWER OF FORFEITURE THINGS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF AN OFFENCE, PROF POON SAID.
+1
IF
AND то
MEMBERS NOTED THAT THE REGULATIONS ΤΟ BE MADE UNDER THE ORDINANCE COULD, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IMPOSE A MAXIMUM FINE OF UP $1,000,000 AND A MAXIMUM PRISON SENTENCE OF TWO YEARS FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES.
IN VIEW OF THE HEAVY PENALTIES INVOLVED, MEMBERS CONSIDERED THAT THE REGULATIONS SHOULD BE SUBJECT ΤΟ AN AFFIRMATIVE APPROVAL PROCEDURE RATHER THAN THE NEGATIVE PROCEDURE PROPOSED IN THE BILL.
THE ADMINISTRATION AGREED THAT REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THIS ORDINANCE, OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH ONLY PRESCRIDED FEES AND HAD TO BR MADE BEFORE JULY 1 THIS YEAR, WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
MEMBERS WERE, HOWEVER, PLEASED TO LEARN OF GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO MINIMISE THE USE OF THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, PROF POON ADDED.
TURNING TO THE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING SCHEME UNDER THE BILL, HE SAID MEMBERS HAD SOUGHT CONFIRMATION FROM THE ADMINISTRATION THAT FLEXIBILITY WOULD BE ADOPTED IN DEALING WITH COMPANIES WHICH HAD PROBLEMS AT THE TIME WHEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE QUOTA SYSTEM BECAME EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1, E.G. FAILURE TO OBTAIN A LICENCE TO COVER THE DELAYED ARRIVAL OF A SHIPMENT OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO ARRIVE BEFORE THAT DATE.
SECONDLY, TO ENSURE FAIRNESS ΤΟ ALL APPLICANTS, THE ADMINISTRATION AGREED THAT UNLESS UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, A UNIFORM PERIOD OF VALIDITY WOULD BE GIVEN TO ALL REGISTRATIONS.
THIRDLY, THERE WAS A DRAFTING AMBIGUITY IN CLAUSE 7(1) AS TO WHETHER AN ERROR OF THE DIRECTOR COULD ALSO RESULT IN A CANCELLATION OF A REGISTRATION OR LICENCE. MEMBERS STRONGLY FELT THAT THIS COULD CAUSE FINANCIAL LOSSES TO THE COMPANY THROUGH NO FAULT OF ITS OWN, AND WHOSE DECISION TO IMPORT WAS BASED ON THE REGISTRATION AND LICENCE BEING ISSUED.
ON THIS, THE ADMINISTRATION HAD AGREED THAT
AN ERROR OF THE DIRECTOR WOULD NOT BE USED AS A MEANS TO PLACE ANY FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO IMPORT OR EXPORT THE SCHEDULED SUBSTANCES BEYOND THOSE RESTRICTIONS WHICH SHOULD APPLIED.
HAVE
/LASTLY, MEMBERS