How does the RM101,750 fine reflect the severity of importing prohibited goods?

Question

Accepted Answer

The RM101,750 fine reflects the court’s view that importing prohibited goods carries a heavy penalty because the punishment was set at 10 times the goods’ value, with an additional default jail term and customs enforcement actions.

Syed Fazillah Syed Assimie, 41, was convicted for importing prohibited goods: 5,500 bottles of zam-zam water (5 litres each, totalling 27,500 litres) valued at RM10,175. The Magistrate’s Court imposed a fine of RM101,750, calculated as 10 times the value of the goods, and ordered a one-year jail term if the fine was not paid.
The fine was calculated as 10 times the goods’ value
The court’s sentencing framework directly tied the penalty to the assessed value of the imported goods. With the goods valued at RM10,175, the fine was set at RM101,750 (RM10,175 x 10), signalling that the offence was treated as more serious than a standard value-based penalty.
A one-year jail term was ordered if the fine was not paid
The severity was reinforced by the court’s direction that non-payment would trigger imprisonment. The sentence included a one-year jail term in default of payment alongside the RM101,750 fine.
Customs duty and forfeiture were also ordered, not just the fine
The court did not limit punishment to the monetary fine. It ordered customs duty of 20 per cent of the goods’ value, totalling RM2,035, to be paid to the Royal Malaysian Customs Department (JKDM) under Section 119A of the Customs Act 1967, and ordered all 5,500 bottles to be forfeited to JKDM under Section 127 of the same Act.
The charge details placed the offence within the Customs Act’s prohibited-goods framework
The conviction stemmed from an offence committed at about 12 noon on June 2, 2021 at the CFS2 Warehouse, West Port, Klang, involving the joint importation of the 5,500 bottles. The charge cited Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act 1967 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, and it was punishable under Section 135(1)(i)(aa), which is the legal basis the court used to impose the heavy fine and enforcement orders.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How does the RM101,750 fine reflect the severity of importing prohibited goods?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends