KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM, JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA
About KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM, JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA
KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM, JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA appears in 3 reported Malaysia court cases (2020–2025). KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM, JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA is recorded as Respondent (3). These cases were heard before MYCOA (2) and MYHC (1).
On the court record
Marks how a customs authority's enforcement measures — duty assessment, licence conditions and travel restrictions — are tested through judicial review.
Ketua Pengarah Kastam, Jabatan Kastam Diraja Malaysia (the Director General of Customs, Royal Malaysian Customs Department) appears in the reported judgments as a revenue and enforcement authority named as a respondent in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan), in matters concerning customs duties, licensed manufacturing warehouses and the use of a travel ban to enforce tax. Its presence marks disputes at the boundary of customs regulation, judicial review and the powers of the executive over the individual.
In one Court of Appeal matter the office was a respondent where a licensed manufacturing warehouse operator, holding a licence under sections 65 and 65A of the Customs Act 1967, disputed whether deliveries of raw materials from its warehouse to other licensed manufacturing warehouses could be treated as export quota and so free of duty, and whether the authority could impose duties on account of a breach of the licence conditions and the use of the wrong form. The dispute goes to the operation of the licensed-warehouse regime and the documentation central to its regulation.
A second matter engaged the office in a travel-ban dispute. There company directors sought, by certiorari, to quash a decision imposing a travel ban on account of tax assessed against the company, the court considering whether the customs authority's request to the immigration authority to impose a travel ban was amenable to review, whether it committed an error of law, whether there was reason to believe the directors were about to leave Malaysia or abscond without paying tax, and whether section 59A of the Immigration Act 1959/63 ousted the court's review jurisdiction. Across the decisions, the office illustrates how a customs and revenue authority's enforcement measures — duty assessment, licence conditions and travel restrictions — are tested through judicial review, and how the courts balance the collection of public revenue against the reviewability of executive action.
How many Malaysia court cases involve KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM, JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA?
KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM, JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA appears in 3 reported Malaysia court cases (2020–2025).
Which courts does KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM, JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA appear in?
KETUA PENGARAH KASTAM, JABATAN KASTAM DIRAJA MALAYSIA appears before MYCOA (2) and MYHC (1).
What licensed-warehouse question involved the Customs office?
Whether deliveries of raw materials from a licensed manufacturing warehouse to other such warehouses could be treated as export quota and free of duty, and whether the authority could impose duties for a breach of the licence conditions and the use of the wrong form, under sections 65 and 65A of the Customs Act 1967.
How was a travel ban challenged in the Customs matters?
Company directors sought certiorari to quash a travel ban imposed on account of assessed tax, the court considering whether the customs authority's request to immigration was reviewable, whether it involved an error of law, whether the directors were likely to abscond, and whether section 59A of the Immigration Act 1959/63 ousted the court's review jurisdiction.