Read the full judgment text of FAMV 000006/2002 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 27 May 2002 before Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal – forfeiture – notice of seizure – misdescription – statutory interpretation – Import and Export Ordinance (Cap 60) s.27 – The Commissioner of Customs and Excise seized goods including watches, initially identified as bearing forged trademarks, but trademark owners informed the department that the marks were not forged – A notice of seizure was exhibited with a misdescription regarding forged trademarks – The Court of Final Appeal granted leave to appeal, identifying three issues: (1) whether the notice of seizure can be ignored when calculating the 30-day time limit for challenging forfeiture under s.27(5); (2) whether a misdescription in the notice of seizure affects its validity; (3) the meaning of 'an owner' under s.27(3B) and whether it includes persons eligible to claim under s.27(5) – Leave to appeal granted – Respondent did not appear.
Legal issues: Calculation of time for challenging forfeiture under s.27(5) of the Import and Export Ordinance · Validity of notice of seizure with misdescription · Meaning of 'an owner' under s.27(3B) of the Import and Export Ordinance
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted to the Commissioner of Customs and Excise.