Case Details
- Citation: [2004] SGHC 246
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2004-11-05
- Judges: Yong Pung How CJ
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Chew Gim Ser
- Defendant/Respondent: Public Prosecutor
- Legal Areas: Criminal Law — Statutory offences, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing
- Statutes Referenced: Customs Act, Evidence Act, Goods and Services Tax Act
- Cases Cited: [1950] MLJ 200, [2004] SGHC 246
- Judgment Length: 13 pages, 7,202 words
Summary
This case involves the appeal of Chew Gim Ser against his conviction and sentence for offenses related to the importation of cigarettes from Malaysia into Singapore without paying customs duty and goods and services tax (GST). Chew was convicted on two charges concerning cigarettes found in his home, and two charges concerning cigarettes found in a lorry he was connected to. He was sentenced to a total of 15 months' imprisonment. Chew appealed his conviction and sentence, and also filed a criminal motion seeking to adduce additional evidence on appeal.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
On October 23, 2003, officers from the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority inspected a Malaysian-registered refrigerated lorry at the Tuas Checkpoint and found 250 cartons of 200 sticks (50,000 sticks) of Marlboro brand cigarettes hidden among consignments of frozen fish. The unpaid customs duty on the cigarettes was assessed at $12,359.85, and the unpaid GST was $690.39.
The driver of the lorry, Khairu Nazri bin Husain, was arrested and admitted to importing the cigarettes. Khairu worked as a driver for Bintang Hikmat Sdn Bhd, a Malaysian company of which the appellant Chew Gim Ser was a director. Khairu's job was to deliver fish to two Singapore businesses, one of which was owned by Chew.
Later that day, customs officers searched Chew's home and found one unopened packet containing 20 sticks of duty-unpaid Marlboro cigarettes bearing Singapore Health Warnings, similar to those found on the lorry. Chew was arrested.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
- Whether Chew was "concerned in" the importation of the cigarettes found in the lorry, without paying customs duty and GST, under Section 130(1)(c) of the Customs Act.
- Whether Chew should be allowed to adduce additional evidence on appeal, satisfying the conditions for doing so.
- Whether the sentences imposed on Chew were excessive.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the first issue, the court found Khairu to be a truthful and candid witness, while Chew was not a credible witness. Chew had given inconsistent and evasive testimony about the company's operations and his involvement. The court drew an adverse inference under the Evidence Act that the evidence of Chew's brothers and employees, who were not called as witnesses, would have been unfavorable to Chew.
The court also found that Chew was in overall charge of the company's operations in Singapore and Johor Baru, and was therefore "concerned in" the importation of the cigarettes. Chew had called his brother the day before the lorry was seized, went to the checkpoint to make enquiries, but did not subsequently check with his brother about what was loaded onto the lorry.
On the second issue, the court analyzed the requirements for adducing fresh evidence on appeal, including that the evidence must be credible, relevant, and capable of belief, and that it must be in the interests of justice to allow it to be adduced. After hearing lengthy submissions from Chew's counsel, the court dismissed the motion to adduce additional evidence.
On the third issue, the court allowed Chew's appeal against sentence. While the district judge had sentenced Chew to a total of 15 months' imprisonment, the same as the driver Khairu, the High Court found this sentence to be excessive. The court reduced Chew's total sentence to 12 months' imprisonment.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed Chew's appeal against conviction, but allowed his appeal against sentence. Chew's total sentence was reduced from 15 months' imprisonment to 12 months' imprisonment.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides guidance on the legal principles and evidentiary requirements for establishing criminal liability under the Customs Act for the importation of contraband goods without paying duties and taxes. It highlights the importance of credible witness testimony and the adverse inferences that can be drawn from a defendant's failure to call relevant witnesses.
The case also demonstrates the high threshold for adducing fresh evidence on appeal, and the court's discretion in determining whether it is in the interests of justice to allow such evidence. Finally, the case illustrates the court's role in reviewing and adjusting sentences to ensure they are proportionate to the offenses committed.
Legislation Referenced
- Customs Act (Cap 70, 2001 Rev Ed)
- Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)
- Goods and Services Tax Act (Cap 117A, 2001 Rev Ed)
Cases Cited
- [1950] MLJ 200
- [2004] SGHC 246
Source Documents
This article analyses [2004] SGHC 246 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.