Keen Lloyd Holdings Ltd and Others v. Commissioner of Customs and Excise and Another

HCAL 113/2012 and

HCAL 82/2013

(Consolidated)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 113 OF 2012

____________

____________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 82 OF 2013

____________

____________

(Consolidated by order of the

Honourable Mr Justice McWalters

dated the 22^nd day of May 2013)

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

CORRIGENDUM

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

The paragraph 9 on page 5 Line L,

“The applications for judicial review called for a resolution of a number of factual and legal issues. The factual issues concerned the reasons why the Commissioner, through his officers, made the decisions that are being judicially reviewed. ”

should read

“The applications for judicial review call for a resolution of a number of factual and legal issues. The factual issues concern the reasons why the Commissioner, through his officers, made the decisions that are being judicially reviewed. ”

The paragraph 13 on page 6 Line R,

“The Decision Being Previewed”

should read

“The Decision Being Reviewed”

The paragraph 22 on page 11 Line K,

“Thus the effect of section 21(1) being made subject to section 22 is to confine the exercise of the power in section 21(1) to premises other than domestic premises as that term is defined in section 2.”

should read

“Thus, the effect of section 21(1) being made subject to section 22 is to confine the exercise of the power in section 21(1) to premises other than domestic premises as that term is defined in section 2.”

The paragraph 81 on page 32 Line D,

“In HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai & Anor (2006) 9 HKCFAR 574, Sir Anthony Mason NJP noted that ever since R v Sin Yau Ming [1992] 1 HKCLR 127 a justification provision had been implied in the HKBOR and said that the same approach applies to the Basic Law.”

should read

“In HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai & Anor (2006) 9 HKCFAR 574, Sir Anthony Mason NPJ noted that ever since R v Sin Yau Ming [1992] 1 HKCLR 127 a justification provision had been implied in the HKBOR and said that the same approach applies to the Basic Law.”

The paragraph 119 on page 47 Line M,

“From evidence placed before the court by the respondents it is clear that the C&E has a substantial number of Hong Kong-Mainland cross‑border smuggling cases.”

should read

“From evidence placed before the Court by the respondents it is clear that the C&E has a substantial number of Hong Kong-Mainland cross‑border smuggling cases.”

The paragraph 126 on page 49 Line J,

“The investigation in the current case commenced around June 2011 and was into the syndicated smuggling of precious metals, electronic products, frozen meat, etc resulting in the evasion of PRC Customs tax estimated to be in excess of RMB 600 million.”

should read

“The investigation in the current case commenced around June 2011 and was into the syndicated smuggling of precious metals, electronic products and frozen meat, amongst others, resulting in the evasion of PRC Customs tax estimated to be in excess of RMB 600 million.”

The paragraph 148 on page 56 Line R,

“Nevertheless the respondents argue that the fact the Mainland Customs made derivative use of the materials supplied to them and the fact that they would do so may have been foreseen by the C&E officers does not detract from C&E’s claim that their only purpose in providing these materials was to advance their own investigation.”

should read

“Nevertheless, the respondents argue that the fact the Mainland Customs made derivative use of the materials supplied to them and the fact that they would do so may have been foreseen by the C&E officers does not detract from C&E’s claim that their only purpose in providing these materials was to advance their own investigation.”

The paragraph 155 on page 58 Line T,

“But participating in a joint investigation with each party agreeing to share information that they uncover that may be useful to the other’s investigation is quite a different matter from applying for search warrants for the dominant or primary purpose of assisting the other’s investigation.”

should read

“But participating in a joint investigation with each other and agreeing to share information that they uncover that may be useful to the other’s investigation is quite a different matter from applying for search warrants for the dominant or primary purpose of assisting the other’s investigation.”

The paragraph 157 on page 59 Line Q,

“Even if officers contemplated, at the time they applied for the warrants, the possibility that , in accordance with the provisions of the CCA, they would provide, where relevant, copies of seizures effected under the warrants to their Mainland counterparts, I do not regard that fact on its own as rendering unlawful or improper their applications for the warrants.”

should read

“Even if officers contemplated, at the time they applied for the warrants, the possibility that, in accordance with the provisions of the CCA, they would provide, where relevant, copies of seizures effected under the warrants to their Mainland counterparts, I do not regard that fact on its own as rendering unlawful or improper their applications for the warrants.”

The paragraph 177 on page 67 Line J,

“It is these misconceptions under which in my view C&E officers labored that, when set in the context of a joint investigation, explains their handling of the seized materials.”

should read

“It is these misconceptions under which in my view C&E officers laboured that, when set in the context of a joint investigation, explains their handling of the seized materials.”

The paragraph 182 on page 69 Line R,

“hardly a satisfactory mechanism for effective trans-national criminal investigations in the modern age.”

should read

“hardly a satisfactory mechanism for effective transnational criminal investigations in the modern age.”

Dated this 21^st day of January, 2015.