Govindasamy v. Attorney General – sllr 1980 volume 2 page 278

The case between Govindasamy (Plaintiff) and the Attorney‑General (Defendant) concerned whether garlic seized from the plaintiff’s premises was imported unlawfully or grown locally, and the correct application of the burden and standard of proof under the Customs Ordinance (sections 152 and 155). The court examined discrepancies in the plaintiff’s records, inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the origin and source of the garlic, and the credibility of witness statements. It was determined that, in accordance with the strict requirements imposed by the penal nature of the Customs Ordinance, the State had sufficiently discharged the burden to prove the garlic was imported. The plaintiff failed to establish either lawful importation or ownership. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with