Attorney-general Of The Federation V Chandrai & Anor (1965)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADEMOLA JSC 

This is an appeal by the Attorney-General of the Federation against the acquittal of the two respondents who were charged in the High Court of Western Region holden at Ikeja under section 145(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act, No. 55 of 1958, that “they on or about the 15th day of September, 1964, at Ikeja Airport knowingly and with intent to defraud the Government of the duty payable thereon acquired possession of one emerald cut diamond and platinum ring valued £16,000 being an article chargeable with customs duty of £8,000 which has not been paid.”

The facts are not in dispute. The 1st respondent bought the ring for £8,000 from Hatton Gardens in London in the proper way under the Export Scheme which exempted him from paying the English purchase tax. Articles so bought are delivered on board ship or on the plane. And so it was that the ring was delivered to the 1st respondent on the plane on 15th September, 1964, which took off from London to Lagos. Meanwhile, the jewelers made due report of the sale, and it would appear that before the arrival of the plane in Lagos the Nigerian Customs and Excise authorities had been duly notified.

On the plane the 1st respondent presented his wife the 2nd respondent with the ring, and she was wearing it on her finger with another ring when they landed in Lagos. The learned judge on the evidence found the following facts:

that the two respondents failed to declare the ring when they were asked by the Customs authorities to declare articles of gold, diamond and other things they had;

(ii) that when the ring was found on the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent was told it was dutiable, he (the 1st respondent) disputed it on the ground that it was personal effects not liable to duty.

(iii)that when originally challenged about the rings the 1st respondent stated that the ring the Area Of Law of the charge, and the other one were rings he and his wife the 2nd respondent exchanged on marriage.

The evidence clearly shows that both have been married for a long time. On the facts as found, it is reasonable to impute knowledge and intent to defraud.

The learned judge however decided the case on the interpretation of section 145(a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act which reads “145. Without prejudice to any other provision of this Ordinance, if any person-

(a)     knowingly and with intent to defraud the Government of any duty payable thereon, or to evade any prohibition with respect thereto, acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in the carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping or concealing or in any manner dealing with any goods which have been unlawfully removed from a warehouse or Government Warehouse, or which are chargeable with a duty which has not been paid, or with respect to the importation, exportation or carriage coastwise of which any prohibition is for the time being in force; or

(b)is, in relation to any goods, in any way knowingly concerned in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable thereon or of any such prohibition as aforesaid or of any provision of this Ordinance applicable to those goods, he shall be liable to a fine of six times the value of the goods or two hundred pounds, whichever is the greater, or to imprisonment for two years, or to both.”

The learned judge in his interpretation of paragraph (a) of this section says it relates to cases where persons are found in possession of, or carrying goods chargeable with duty which has not been paid; that it relates to fraudulent evasion of duty on goods which has not been paid, but does not relate to evasion or attempt at evasion in respect of dutiable goods.

The learned judge goes on to say as follows:-

“Section 145 relates to unaccustomed goods, i.e., dutiable goods which had found their way into possession of persons without payment of duty chargeable on them.