Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Fiji Law Reports

Comptroller of Customs v Patel [1964] FJLawRp 2; [1964] 10 FLR 82 (18 March 1964)

[1964] 10 FLR 82

SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

Appellate Jurisdiction

THE COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS

v

CHAGAN BHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER

Knox-Mawer Ag. P.J.

February 7th, March 18^th, 1964

Revenue — Customs — Licensed Agent authorised by importers under section 113 of Customs Ordinance — clerk of Licensed Agent transacting business under section 11 — importers not criminally liable for false declaration signed by clerk — Customs Ordinance (Cap. 166) ss.11, 113, 116.

Criminal law — agency — Licensed Agent authorised by importers under section 113 of Customs Ordinance (Cap. 166) — Licensed Agent not a limited company — no section in Customs Ordinance renders importers liable for false declaration signed by clerk of Licensed Agent.

The respondents, who imported goods in the course of their business, authorised a Licensed Agent under section 113 of the Customs Ordinance to sign (inter alia) declarations required under the Customs Ordinance. Under section 11 of that Ordinance the Licensed Agent had appointed a clerk to transact business on his behalf.

Held –

As the Licensed Agent carried on his business personally and was not a limited company the respondents were not criminally responsible for a false declaration signed by his clerk.

Appeal by case stated from a decision of a Magistrate's Court.

G.N. Mishra for the appellant.

A.D. Patel for the respondents.

KNOX-MAWER Ag. P.J.: [18^th March, 1964] –

This is a case stated from the Magistrate's Court of the First Class, Lautoka. The respondents were charged before the lower Court with the following offence: -

Statement of Offence

Making a false declaration contrary to section 116 of the Customs Ordinance (Cap. 166).

Particulars of Offence

Chagan Bhai Patel s/o Maoji Bhai Patel, Chotabhai Patel s/o Chagan Bhai Patel trading as C. M. Patel & Sons carrying on business at Vetari St. Lautoka in the Colony of Fiji did on 20th day of August, 1963, at Lautoka make a false declaration in the Customs Import Entry Form A, relative to 10 Bags Corriander Seeds imported by the Vessel HOUTMAN which arrived at Lautoka on the 24th day of August, 1963, on which was endorsed the said declaration purporting to confirm that the country of origin for 10 Bags Corriander Seeds was India subject to duty under the preferential tariff such declaration being in fact false, contrary to section 116 of the Customs Ordinance (Cap. 166), the said 10 bags Corriander Seeds being of Morocco origin subject to duty under the general tariff.

It is common ground that the respondents had, under section 113 of the Customs Ordinance (Cap. 166) authorised one R.V. Patel to sign forms etc. required under the Customs Ordinance. Section 113 provides that any documents so signed shall be valid and binding upon the persons (or person's firm or company) granting such authority. The allegedly false declaration in an Import Entry Form giving rise to this charge was signed not by R. V, Patel but by one Bhagauti Prasad. Under section 11 of the Customs Ordinance R. V. Patel, as a Licensed Agent, had appointed Bhagauti Prasad to transact business on his behalf.

It fell to be decided, therefore, whether the respondents could be held criminally liable for a false declaration made by Bhagauti Prasad. The learned Senior Magistrate held that they could not. The Comptroller of Customs has appealed against this decision, stating the following question for the opinion of this Court: —

"Was this Court correct in holding that the defendants, having authorised an individual person to sign declarations for them in accordance with section 113 of the Customs Ordinance, could not be criminally liable for declarations signed by the Clerk to such person authorised only to sign for such person by virtue of section 11 of the Customs Ordinance?"

Learned Crown Counsel for the appellant has referred me to a number of authorities, and in particular to those case cited in Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol. 1, pp.170-171. These cases, it should be noted, are mainly concerned with the civil liability of a principal for the act of his agent. In my view, criminal liability can only attach to the respondents in this case if the Ordinance specifically provides as much. I cannot see how any section of the Ordinance can be read in such a way as to render the respondents criminally liable for the act of Bhagauti Prasad. It would be a different matter if R. V. Patel were an incorporated company, for such a company can only perform the physical act of completing a false declaration through its servants. Thus, where an importer has specifically authorised a limited company to sign declarations on his behalf, the importer will be criminally liable for false declarations signed by the authorised servants of the company acting in the ordinary course of the company's business. This is not however the position here. Of course, had R.V. Patel signed the false declarations himself then the respondents would be criminally responsible for his act. This he did not do. If the Legislature wishes to make the importer criminally liable in a case of this sort, then the Ordinance must be amended to provide for this specifically.

The answer to the question stated is that the lower Court was correct in holding that the respondents were not criminally liable for the declaration signed by the clerk in this case.

Appeal dismissed.