Chesterfield Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. The Queen

CACC000434/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 434 OF 1975

-----------------

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 17th June, 1975.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. This is an appeal against a sentence passed by a magistrate for the offence of making a false statement in an application for the issue of a Certificate of Origin contrary to section 36(1) (a) of the Import and Export Ordinance. A Plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the appellant in the Magistrates Court and the magistrate imposed a fine of $8,500 and cost of $20.

2. The appellant company has a factory at 14 Tai Yau Street, Kowloon, which has been registered with the Department of Commerce and Industry as being eligible to apply for the issue of Certificates of Hong Kong Origin. Such a certificate is only issued when it is established that the goods described in the certificate are actually manufactured by a factory which is registered with the Department. In certain cases, if the Department gives permission, one registered factory may sub-contract goods to be made at another factory provided that it is a registrered factory also. In the present case, the Department received an application for a Certificate of Hong Kong origin which stated that the goods which were mentioed on the certificate were made at their factory at 14 Tai Yau Street. This was not true. they were made by another firm, albeit, a firm whose factory was also registered for the purposes of Certificates of Origin.

3. The subject matter of the Certificate of Origin was 2,700 woollen knitted pullovers and the value was $26,500. The reason why the application for the Certificate of Origin contained incorrect information was that the factory was unable, from its own resources, to supply enough pullovers to satisfy an overseas contract. However, no application was made to permit of their being manufactured by a sub-contractor.

4. The appellant company was fined for a similar offence just over a year ago. On that occasion, it was a fine of $7,500 which was in respect of a larger quantity of goods than that involved in this case.

5. It was admitted at the hearing of the appeal that there had been no loss of revenue in this case and that the goods had in fact been manufactured in a factory which was registered with the Department.

6. In the circumstances, I thought the fine of $8,500 was manifestly excessive and I reduced it to $1,500. The order for costs is to stand.

Representation:

J.Kwong (How & Co.) for appellant.

Caird for crown.