A High Court judge has called for the review of the local Customs Act which came into being in 1938 and has provisions that were statutorily introduced in England in 1876. Justice Devindra Rampersad made the call while delivering a judgment in favour of Tamash Enterprises Ltd, an importer and distributor of alcoholic and non-alcoholic products, against the Comptroller of Customs and Excise.

Attorney Kelvin Ramkissoon, leading Kiel Taklalsingh, represented Tamash, while state attorney Dexter Byam appeared for the Comptroller. According to the 33-page judgment delivered in the Port-of-Spain High Court yesterday, Tamash placed two orders for separate consignments of liquor and non-alcoholic wines from its US supplier. The orders were placed on March 3, 2005. The smaller consignment was for 40 cases of 750-millilitre (ml) bottles of Johnnie Walker Black Scotch whiskey and 40 cases of 750ml bottles of non-alcoholic wine. The second and larger order contained 117 cases of one-litre bottles of Absolut Vodka, 48 cases of one-litre bottles of Johnnie Walker Black, 112 cases of 750ml bottles of Absolut and 120 cases of 750ml bottles of Johnnie Walker Black. It was intended that the smaller consignment would have been shipped first, but because of an error on the supplier’s part, the larger order arrived first. Tamash had declared to Customs that it had imported the smaller order. “There was no evidence from the respondent (Customs) to controvert this allegation and is therefore deemed to be the accepted position,” Rampersad said.

“Therefore, both the applicant (Tamash) and the respondent seem to agree that it was a genuine mistake and/or inadvertent error on the part of the supplier which resulted in the mismatch of the entry/invoices and the corresponding goods,”. But, on March 21, 2005, the larger consignment of goods was seized after Customs claimed that Tamash had breached the Customs Act. Managing director of Tamash Indarjeet Rambarransingh was out of the country between March 21 and April 29, 2009, and met with two Customs officials on May 3, 2005. Rambarransingh, the judge wrote, was unaware that the goods had arrived and was then told that there was a discrepancy with his goods and he was served with a notice of seizure. He was then told that he had a choice of either pleading guilty to breaching the act or have the matter taken to court. He did not plead guilty, but contacted the supplier who admitted to an error on his behalf. Rambarransingh filed for judicial review in June 2005. The matter was determined yesterday.

In his ruling, Rampersad said the error “was an innocent one and one which ought to have been considered by Customs in deciding whether or not to exercise their discretion to seize the goods.” He said Customs should have take into account the “misdescription.” Rampersad said a fresh look and perspective need to be taken with respect to the Customs Act. He said the act needed to take into account the modern needs of the market. “Now, the world has become increasingly smaller and the whole ‘global village’ approach has taken on new proportions with different demands than those which prevailed in colonial days,” Rampersad said. “It is my respectful view that a comprehensive rethink is in order.” The judge ordered that the goods be sent back to Tamash and set aside November 17, to deal with the assessment of damages occasioned by the seizure.