WEGROW GLOBAL SDN BHD v 1. ) KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA 2. ) PENGARAH KASTAM NEGERI WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR

Case Significance

Confirms that leave for judicial review does not entitle an applicant to a stay, and that where a public authority's revenue-enforcement decision is challenged the balance of convenience is weighed broadly in favour of the public interest, so a travel ban tied to outstanding duties will not lightly be suspended.

This High Court decision in the Special Powers Division at Kuala Lumpur concerns an application to stay the enforcement of a travel ban pending judicial review. The applicant, a company, had been granted leave to commence judicial review challenging bills of demand issued by the customs authorities for import duties and sales tax, and sought a stay suspending all enforcement action in relation to those bills, including action under the Customs Act 1967 and the Sales Tax Act 2018, pending the final disposal of the review; the enforcement measures included a travel ban affecting the applicant's directors. The Court considered whether the applicant had established the requirements for a stay and whether the application was an abuse of process. It emphasised that the grant of leave for judicial review does not itself entitle an applicant to a stay, and that a party who challenges the decision of a public authority must ordinarily obey the impugned decision pending the court's determination. Where the respondent is a public authority performing duties for the public, the court must weigh the balance of convenience more broadly, taking into account the interests of the public as well as those of the applicant. The Court was persuaded that public interest was the paramount consideration and that it outweighed the applicant's interest, observing that to allow the applicant's directors to leave the country while substantial amounts of import duties and sales tax remained outstanding would set an undesirable precedent for travel-ban cases. Balancing the public interest in the enforcement of the revenue laws against the potential harm to the applicant, the Court declined to grant the stay. The decision reflects the principle that the enforcement of tax and duty obligations is a matter of general public importance, and that measures such as a travel ban imposed to secure payment of sums said to be owing to the revenue will not readily be suspended at the instance of the party challenging the underlying demand, whose remedy lies in the judicial review itself rather than in a stay of enforcement in the meantime.