COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE v. 深圳華達隆珠寶有限公司

DCMP 3123/2023

[2024] HKDC 63

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 3123 OF 2023

________________

________________

________________

_________________________

DECISION

__________________________

1.  This is an application for forfeiture by the Commissioner of Customs and Excise (the Applicant) for forfeiture of 20 gold bullions (total weight 20,000.1g) (the gold bullions) under sections 27 and 28 of the Import and Export Ordinance, Cap 60 (the Ordinance).

2.  The gold bullions were involved in a criminal case, DCCC 870/2021, [2022] HKDC 936. On 30 August 2022 DENG Rixin (D) pleaded guilty to, inter alia, a Charge of Importing unmanifested cargoes, contrary to S.18(1)(a) of the Ordinance. The facts revealed that on 3 September 2020, D, a cross-border goods vehicle driver, was found trying to smuggle the gold bullions into Hong Kong by hiding them under the passenger seats compartment. He was sentenced to 1 year 8 months imprisonment for this offence.

3.  On 21 September 2020, the Applicant received a Notice of Claim from Messrs. KCL & Partners (KCL), solicitors acting for 深圳華達隆珠寶有限公司 (the Respondent), who purportedly was the owners of the gold bullions. KCL also requested for inspection of the gold bullions. However, despite repeated subsequent attempts by the Applicant for follow-up actions and to clarify the matter, KCL, nor the Respondent, gave any further response to the Applicant.

4.  The current application was heard on 28 September and 24 October 2023. The Applicant was represented by Mr. Alvin HOR, SGC (Ag.). D or KCL did not appear. By a letter dated 13 September 2023 KCL informed the Court that they “had no instructions to act for the Respondent to attend the Hearing on 28 September 2023”.

5.  Having read the written submissions of Mr. HOR and the Affirmation of Mr. IP Wing Chi for the Applicant, and having heard the oral submissions by Mr. HOR, there being no evidence from the Respondent to establish otherwise, I am satisfied that the gold bullions should be forfeited.

6.  The Applicant seeks costs against the Respondent. Costs normally follows the event. In this case, there is nothing to justify departure from this principle. The Respondent had never given any notice, through its lawyer or otherwise, of abandonment to the authorities, obliging the Applicant to proceed with the current forfeiture proceedings. To save time, I adopt the summary assessment of costs submitted by the Applicant.

7.  In the circumstances, I make the following Orders:

(a)  The 20 gold bullions, the subject matter of this application, be forfeited; and

(b)  Costs in the sum of HK$14,481 be paid by the Respondent to the Applicant.