CUSTOMS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.23 a.m.

The Financial Secretary (Mr T. M. Hart): Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Customs Ordinance which was introduced in April 1956, consolidated the law of the colony regarding dutiable goods and also introduced certain new provisions. It was to be expected that it would require certain amendments after it had been in operation for some time. This Bill seeks to make the amendments which experience has proved necessary.

The Objects and Reasons for the amendments are explained in considerable detail in the Explanatory Note which appears at the back of the Bill.

Clause 2 of the Bill amends the definition of "intoxicating liquor" in section 3 of the original Ordinance so that it will include "fermented rice mash" which is used in the illicit distillation of samsu. This amendment is necessary in order to enable the Customs Department to bring illicit distillers to book. Hitherto, it has been difficult to obtain conviction in court because the existing definition has been held not to embrace "fermented rice mash".

Section 15 of the Ordinance permits the Comptroller to remit duty in respect of dutiable goods which have been lost or damaged before removal from bond. The second part of the section states that no remission will be allowed in respect of damage or in respect of a claim to pay duty at preferential rates unless the claim is made before the goods are removed from bond. The amendment in clause 4 extends the section to cover claims for remission of duty arising from the fact that the Customs officer responsible may have misdirected himself in determining the amount of duty to be paid. Once goods have been removed from bond, it is difficult to identify them and to make re-calculations of duty payable.

Section 20 of the Ordinance stipulates the conditions under which dutiable goods may be removed from Customs control. Duty must be paid and conditions governing deposits in a Government licensed warehouse must be observed. Any conditions prescribed by the Customs about export must be complied with and so on. The proviso to the section states however that goods can only be removed from a licensed warehouse before payment of duty if adequate security has been lodged in advance. It has been found that the application of this section, as it stands, would cause embarrassment and give cause for considerable dissatisfaction. Clause 6 therefore seeks to amend it so as to give power to the Comptroller to allow goods to be removed from bond without provision of security if he considers it desirable to do so in any particular case. It is considered that the powers already given to the Comptroller under Regulations 15 and 21 are adequate without any additional powers under section 20.

Clause 7 introduces a new section to provide for the import of trade samples. No duty is charged on such samples but if they are of more than token value, a deposit in lieu of duty has to be made. This will be recoverable when the samples are removed from the colony.

Section 40 of the Ordinance prescribes that a warehouse deposit receipt will be issued in respect of all goods deposited in a Government warehouse and further states that the holder or endorsee in due course of such a receipt shall be deemed to be the owner of the goods to which it refers and delivery to such holder or endorsee shall be a good and lawful delivery: in other words, that the goods will only be delivered on production of a deposit receipt. This section was introduced for the first time in the Customs Ordinance, having been taken from the Federation of Malaya Customs Ordinance. It has not previously been incorporated in the law of the colony. It has been found to be impracticable in operation. In many cases, consignments are split up and sales made while the goods are still in bond. It is impossible in every case for the purchaser to present a deposit receipt. To overcome the difficulty, it is proposed to amend section 40 to permit the use of an authenticated delivery order in lieu of a deposit receipt.

Clause 13 seeks to amend section 56 of the Ordinance which permits the sale of beer for "off the premises" consumption without a licence between six in the morning and ten at night. Beer is in fact sold at all hours of the day and night in Singapore and it is quite impossible to stop the practice. In the circumstances, it is desired to amend the law to take account of the facts of the situation.

Clause 14 also deals with the sale of beer and aims at freeing licensed liquor retailers from the obligation to keep elaborate records of beer stocks. Practically every sundry goods shop keeps and sells beer in much larger total quantity without having to keep any records at all.

Section 90 of the Ordinance lays the burden of proof on the defendant in any case arising out of the provisions of the Ordinance. Clause 16 of the Bill extends the scope of the section to cover cases arising out of section 13 which empowers the Governor in Council to exempt goods from duty at his discretion.

Section 96 of the Ordinance makes all goods liable to seizure under the Ordinance liable to forfeiture. Goods for the purpose of this section are defined as including receptacles, packages, vehicles, aircraft and vessels not exceeding 200 tons. The object of clause 17 is to exempt large aircraft from the operation of the section in the same way as large ships are exempted.

Clause 18 is important. It amends the law relating to the forfeiture of goods. At present, where a prosecution has been brought for an offence under the Ordinance in respect of goods and the Court finds that an offence has been committed in respect of the goods, the Court may order the goods to be forfeited even if no person has been convicted of the offence. It is however open to the owner of the goods, it he has not been charged with an offence under the Ordinance or any regulation made hereunder in respect of the goods, to show that the offence was committed without his knowledge, consent or connivance, or otherwise that the goods should not be forfeited. The Court may then, after examination into the matter, make any order it deems fit and may order the return of the goods to the owner. Where no prosecution has been brought but goods have been seized under the Ordinance, the owner may send a notice stating that the offence was committed without his knowledge, consent or connivance, or otherwise that the goods should not be forfeited. The Comptroller may then order the goods to be released but if he decides not to do so, he refers the matter to the Court. The Court will then examine the matter and if the Court is satisfied that an offence against the Ordinance has been committed in respect of the goods, it will order the goods to be forfeited but if it is not so satisfied, it will order the goods to be released. The position is un-satisfactory because the Ordinance appears to give the owner of goods a better case where there has been a prosecution than where there has been no prosecution. The law in the Federation of Malaya is that once the Court is satisfied that an offence has been committed against the Ordinance in respect of the goods, then the Court must order forfeiture of the goods. It is proposed to bring the law in the Colony into line with the law in the Federation. Clause 18 of the Bill proposes amendments to section 97 of the Customs Ordinance which will make it mandatory for the Court to order forfeiture when it is proved that an offence against the Ordinance has been committed in respect of the goods. It is also provided that things forfeited are to be delivered to Customs for disposal. This is the present practice and the clause clarifies this is the position.

The other clauses in the Bill have been explained in the Explanatory Note and do not require further explanation.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr Hart].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time and passed.