Page 309 - Magistrates Conference 2019

Regardless of whether there is the requirement to establish mens rea, proof of a false
declaration/declaration untrue in any material particular, should, in certain instances, be

established in relation to the good. For example, where a false declaration/declaration untrue in
any material particular exists in relation to the omission to declare a dutiable good (where there

is a positive obligation to declare same to the Customs authorities), the existence of the dutiable

good should be established. In some instances, this would undoubtedly require scientific analysis
or expert opinion though, as in Patel v. Comptroller of Customs and Comptroller of Customs v.

Western Lectric Co. Ltd, the reliance on hearsay is usually tempting.

E. Importing/Exporting any package containing goods not corresponding with the entry

The offence of importing/exporting any package containing goods not corresponding with
41
entry is found in certain jurisdiction and is akin to the offence of making a false
declaration/declaration untrue in any material particular. The difference between the two is, inter
alia, the fact that the former also incorporates the actus rea of importation/exportation into the

offence and is primarily directed to the goods themselves. Inconsistencies between the actual

nature, quality and quantity of goods imported or exported and what has been described and
submitted to the Customs authority on the requisite customs forms is usually central in

determining the existence of the offence. Consequently, in some cases, scientific analysis or
expert opinion may be necessary to establish the inconsistencies. In other cases, such as where

42
there are inconsistencies in quantity and the divergent nature of the goods is apparent , scientific
analysis or expert opinion may be unnecessary.

In the decision of Glendon De Gale v. United Hatcheries [Mag. App. No. 155 of 1986], the

Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago held that the offence was one of strict liability where
mens rea was not required. In this regard, Hamel-Smith J.A., at page 16 of Glendon De Gale v.

United Hatcheries opined that:

“The offence in the case before this Court is similar in all respects to the offence

in Patel and Western Lectric as far as the submission of a false entry is

41 See Barbados: Section 101(c) of the Customs Act, Belize: Section 82 of the Customs Regulation Act,
Guyana: Section 219 of the Customs Act, Jamaica: Section 211 of the Customs Act and Trinidad and
Tobago: Section 214 of the Customs Act.
42 For example, in Glendon De Gale v. United Hatcheries Limited, the entry submitted to the Customs
authority referred to eggs and upon examination motors and calculators were discovered.

Page 20 of 21