Low Han Siang v Public Prosecutor: Customs Act & Road Traffic Act Offences
In Low Han Siang v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Low Han Siang against the sentence imposed by the District Court for offences under the Customs Act and the Road Traffic Act, specifically for fraudulent evasion of excise duties and Additional Registration Fees (ARF). The District Judge had imposed a global sentence of nine months’ imprisonment and a fine of $6,000,500, along with a repayment order. Justice Vincent Hoong dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to disagree with the District Judge's assessment and emphasizing the need for a deterrent sentence given the large amounts of excise duty, GST, and ARF evaded.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex tempore judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Low Han Siang appeals against his sentence for evading excise duties and Additional Registration Fees (ARF). The High Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the original sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment Upheld | Won | Lim Shin Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Low Han Siang | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lim Shin Hui | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Victor David Lau Dek Kai | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Low Han Siang pleaded guilty to five charges in the District Court.
- The charges included fraudulent evasion of excise duties on cars in 2020 and 2021.
- Low Han Siang gave incorrect information regarding the value of motor vehicles in 2017 and 2021, causing a shortfall to the ARF.
- Low Han Siang failed to cause a notice of defect to be given to the relevant parties as required under the RTA.
- The District Judge imposed a global sentence of nine months’ imprisonment and a fine of $6,000,500.
- A repayment order of $16,256,433 was issued under s 11(9) of the RTA, corresponding to the total amount of ARF evaded.
- Low Han Siang appealed against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.
5. Formal Citations
- Low Han Siang v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9015 of 2024/01, [2024] SGHC 217
- Public Prosecutor v Low Han Siang, , [2024] SGDC 53
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Incorrect information given regarding the value of 34 motor vehicles | |
| Fraudulent evasion of excise duties on 611 cars | |
| Fraudulent evasion of excise duties on 530 cars | |
| Incorrect information given regarding the value of 704 motor vehicles | |
| Singapore Customs raided residence | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Evasion of Excise Duties
- Outcome: The court upheld the sentences imposed by the District Judge for the First and Second Excise Duty Charges.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2023] 5 SLR 1666
- [2024] 4 SLR 364
- Giving Incorrect Information Regarding Additional Registration Fee
- Outcome: The court upheld the sentences imposed by the District Judge for the First and Second ARF Charges.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2023] SGDC 44
- Failure to Cause Notice of Defect to be Given
- Outcome: The Appellant did not challenge the sentence imposed for the Car Defect Charge.
- Category: Substantive
- Totality Principle in Sentencing
- Outcome: The court found that the District Judge had applied the totality principle in determining the global sentence and that no further reduction was required.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Reduction of Sentence
- Reduction of Fine
- Reduction of Default Imprisonment Term
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraudulent Evasion of Excise Duties
- Giving Incorrect Information
- Failure to Cause Notice of Defect
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Customs Law
- Traffic Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Automotive
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Teck Leong Melvin | High Court | Yes | [2023] 5 SLR 1666 | Singapore | Established the sentencing framework for offences concerning the fraudulent evasion of excise duty payable on imported goods, where no harmful goods are involved. |
| Ng Nicholas v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2024] 4 SLR 364 | Singapore | Extended the sentencing framework established in Public Prosecutor v Tan Teck Leong Melvin to offences concerning the fraudulent evasion of excise duty payable on imported goods, where no harmful goods are involved. |
| BPH v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 764 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of antecedents is not mitigating but neutral in the sentencing process. |
| Public Prosecutor v BWJ | High Court | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 477 | Singapore | Cited regarding a clean record indicating law-abiding behavior, with the index offence being an aberration. |
| Chen Weixiong Jerriek v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 334 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellant not being entitled to be regarded as a “first offender”. |
| Chua Ya Zi Sandy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 204 | Singapore | Cited regarding the threshold for circumstances to attract mitigating weight. |
| Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406 | Singapore | Cited regarding the threshold for circumstances to attract mitigating weight. |
| Chia Kah Boon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 1163 | Singapore | Cited regarding ensuring that the fine imposed is sufficiently high to achieve the objectives of deterrence and retribution. |
| Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited regarding the purpose of a default imprisonment term is to prevent evasion of the fine imposed and not to serve as a proxy for the punishment imposed for the original offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Tian Chye | District Court | Yes | [2024] SGDC 124 | Singapore | Mentioned in relation to the aggregate default imprisonment term to be imposed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sim Tze Ching, Andrew | District Court | Yes | [2023] SGDC 44 | Singapore | Cited by the appellant in arguing that the sentences imposed for the ARF Charges are manifestly excessive. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Customs Act (Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 128D of the Customs Act | Singapore |
| s 128L(2) of the Customs Act | Singapore |
| Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 11(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act | Singapore |
| s 11(9) of the Road Traffic Act | Singapore |
| s 23A(5)(a) of the Road Traffic Act | Singapore |
| s 23A(5)(i) of the Road Traffic Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 124(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 119 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Excise Duty
- Additional Registration Fee
- ARF
- Customs Act
- Road Traffic Act
- Sentencing Framework
- Totality Principle
- Mitigating Factors
- Aggravating Factors
- Default Imprisonment Term
15.2 Keywords
- excise duty
- ARF
- fraud
- customs
- road traffic
- criminal
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Customs Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Statutory offences | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Road Traffic Act | 75 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Transportation Law
- Tax Law