TNAG-1214-FCO40-1517-Smuggling-between-Hong-Kong-and-China-1982 — Page 2

As the silver articles and gold ornaments were unmanifested cargo, and as section 27(1) of the Import and Export Ordinance provides for seizure and possible forfeiture of such cargo, the Director of Trade Industry and Customs served notices of seizure on the petitioners under section 27(3) on 26 March 1981. On 12 and 24 April 1981, pursuant to section 27(5), the petitioners (excepting YEUNG Chau-wah) notified the Director of Trade Industry and Customs in writing that these articles were not liable to forfeiture.

6

On 22 December 1981, an application under section 28(1) of the Import and Export Ordinance for the forfeiture of the silver articles and gold ornaments in question was heard before a magistrate's court. The magistrate ordered the for- feiture of all the articles and ornaments.

7

On 2 January 1982, the solicitors acting for the petitioners notified the Director of Trade Industry and Customs that a moral claim would be submitted to the Governor under section 30 (1) of the Import and Export Ordinance. Under this section, the owner of any article forfeited to the Crown may, within six weeks of the forfeiture, give notice in writing to the Director of Trade Industry and Customs of his intention to submit to the Governor a moral claim in respect of the forfeited articles. The petitioners submitted their claims on 1 February 1982, within the specified time.

8

The petition is imprecise as to the amount of gold and silver articles the petitioners want returned to them. The amounts involved were substantiated by evidence produced in court. This amount is stated, incorrectly, in a similar but separate petition (NG Ching-tak and 21 others) which is also being submitted to Members for consideration. The correct quantity of silver articles and gold ornaments that the petitioners wish returned is that stated in the court's records and set out in paragraph 1 above.

Petitioners' grounds for the claim

9

The petitioners have put forward five points in support of their claim:-

G.S. 166

(a)

(b)

the offences of which the petitioners were convicted were of a technical nature. They could easily have complied with the legal requirement for a manifest had they been aware of it;

there is no law prohibiting the importation of silver and gold articles into Hong Kong and the duty payable is not heavy compared with the value of the forfeited articles. The petitioners did not intend to deceive the revenue or to evade the payment of duties;

CONFIDENTIAL