goods. The petitioner's name was never mentioned during the course of investigation and subsequent court proceedings, and when the Director of Trade, Industry and Customs served the notice of forfeiture under section 27(3), the petitioner could have lodged a claim under section 27(5) whereupon the case would be determined by the court. Even in the present petition, the petitioner has furnished no evidence whatsoever to prove his ownership, apart from the bare statement in paragraph 2 of the petition that Mr Soen was engaged by him to carry the goods to Taiwan. (On the basis of this particular statement, the Director of Trade, Industry and Customs, having conducted further enquiries without being able to substantiate the petitioner's claim, is now contemplating bringing charges against the petitioner for giving false information).
9
As regards the petitioner's argument referred to in paragraph 7(a) above, the Director of Trade, Industry and Customs is of the view that the provisions dealing with unmanifested cargo are aimed at regulating international trade and preventing smuggling, not so much at preventing the loss of revenue.
.
Legal Advice
10
Advice has also been obtained from the Attorney General's Chambers to the effect that the Director of Trade, Industry and Customs has acted within his powers under the Ordinance and the sole question to be decided is not the legality of the forfeiture but the "moral" claim.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.