AGM DUTY FREE (TENGAH) SDN BHD v 1. ) MOHAMAD HAFIZ BIN ISHAK 2. ) MOHD NOR HASYIMI BIN ADAM 3. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 4. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Case Significance

Frames the safeguards in section 65 of the Customs Act 1967 for goods seized from a duty-free shop: prosecution must be commenced within thirty days of the notice of seizure, failing which the authorities must release the goods or refer their disposal to a magistrate rather than holding them indefinitely.

This Court of Appeal matter concerns the return of goods seized from a duty-free shop under the Customs Act 1967 and the time limits that govern what the customs authorities must do with seized property. The appellant operated a duty-free shop. During an inspection, goods and a lorry were seized. The appellant sought the return of the goods that had been seized, complaining of a failure to release them, and the dispute was brought by originating summons. The respondents included two named customs officers, the Director-General of the Royal Malaysian Customs Department, and the Government of Malaysia.

The case is framed around section 65 of the Customs Act 1967, which governs the procedure following a seizure. The catchwords record the essential factual and legal landscape: consent to prosecute had been obtained; the lorry had been temporarily released; and, importantly, the prosecution must be commenced within thirty days of the notice of seizure of the goods, failing which the authorities must either release the goods or refer the matter to a magistrate for a decision on their disposal. The controversy therefore concerns the interaction between the thirty-day period tied to the notice of seizure, the obtaining of consent to prosecute, and the obligation to release seized goods or place their fate before a magistrate rather than retaining them indefinitely.

The matter is significant for the way it engages the safeguards built into section 65 of the Customs Act 1967. Those safeguards are designed to ensure that seized property is not held in limbo: once goods are seized, the authorities are put to an election within a defined period — to prosecute, to release the goods, or to refer the question of forfeiture to a magistrate — so that the owner of goods seized in a customs inspection has a clear statutory route to their return where the prescribed steps are not taken in time.