Tan Ki Peng v Public Prosecutor: Extension of Time to Appeal Against Sentence for Customs Act Offence
Tan Ki Peng, Ng Woei Koon, and Ang Boon Kian applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for an extension of time to appeal against their sentences for evading excise duty and Goods and Service Tax under the Customs Act. Tay Yong Kwang JCA dismissed the applications, finding no substantial injustice to justify the extension, as the difference of two days in the commencement of their imprisonment terms was insignificant in the context of their 34-month sentences. The court noted that their sentences were in line with their Defence Counsel's request and that backdating to the date of remand instead of the date of arrest was not an illegal sentence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Applications for extension of time to appeal against their sentences were dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Applications for extension of time to appeal against sentences for evading excise duty and GST were dismissed due to lack of substantial injustice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application Dismissed | Won | Kong Kuek Foo of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Ki Peng | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ng Woei Koon | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ang Boon Kian | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kong Kuek Foo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The applicants were arrested on 8 April 2021 for involvement in loading cigarettes with unpaid duty.
- Each applicant pleaded guilty to evading excise duty of $732,732 and admitted to evading GST of $58,786.73.
- The Defence Counsel requested a sentence of no more than 32 months, backdated to 10 April 2021.
- The District Judge sentenced each applicant to 34 months’ imprisonment from 10 April 2021.
- A co-accused, Ching, received the same sentence but it was backdated to the date of arrest.
- The applicants sought an extension of time to appeal, aiming to have their sentences backdated to the date of arrest.
- The applicants claimed the two-day difference in sentence commencement would significantly benefit their families.
5. Formal Citations
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicants arrested for being concerned in loading into a truck 1,585kg of cigarettes for which duty was not paid. | |
| Accused persons remanded. | |
| Joint written mitigation plea dated. | |
| Decision rendered in BWM v PP [2021] SGCA 83. | |
| Applicants pleaded guilty to one charge under the Customs Act for the evasion of excise duty of $732,732. | |
| Applicants admitted to one charge under the same Act for the evasion of Goods and Service Tax amounting to $58,786.73. | |
| DJ sentenced each of the three applicants to 34 months’ imprisonment with effect from 10 April 2021. | |
| Ching Jia Sheng pleaded guilty before another DJ to the same evasion of excise duty charge. | |
| Ching was sentenced to 34 months’ imprisonment backdated to 8 April 2021. | |
| The three applicants filed applications in the General Division of the High Court to seek an extension of time to file their respective notices of appeal against sentence. | |
| Hearing of applications. | |
| Applications for extension of time to appeal against their sentences were dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time to Appeal
- Outcome: The court dismissed the applications for extension of time to appeal, finding no substantial injustice.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2022] SGCA 61
- Backdating of Imprisonment Term
- Outcome: The court held that backdating an imprisonment term to the date of remand instead of the date of arrest was not an illegal sentence.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2021] SGCA 83
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of Time to Appeal
- Backdating of Imprisonment Term to Date of Arrest
9. Cause of Actions
- Evasion of Excise Duty
- Evasion of Goods and Service Tax
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adeeb Ahmed Khan s/o Iqbal Ahmed Khan v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA 61 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a higher threshold of substantial injustice must be met before an application for extension of time to appeal could succeed where the delay suggests that an applicant did not intend to challenge the decision at first instance. |
| BWM v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 83 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in the absence of special reasons, imprisonment terms should be backdated to the date of arrest rather than the date of remand for cases where the accused person remains in custody after arrest. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Customs Act (Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extension of Time
- Appeal Against Sentence
- Customs Act
- Excise Duty
- Goods and Service Tax
- Backdating of Imprisonment Term
- Substantial Injustice
15.2 Keywords
- criminal
- appeal
- sentence
- customs act
- excise duty
- GST
- backdating
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Extension of Time | 85 |
| Appeals | 80 |
| Criminal Revision | 70 |
| Customs Act | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Tax Law
- Customs Law
- Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure