Lawlines Vol 10 Issue 1 - eOASIS - Rajah & Tann LLP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vol 10 Issue 1 June 2008 • Rajah & Tann LLP’s Bi-Annual Journal on articles of current interest, features, and legal developmentsIN THIS ISSUE:A Round-Up Of LatestDevelopments In TheFirst Half Of 2008Rajah & Tann LLP Hosts9 th Lunchtime SeminarSeriesTax, Private Wealth &Trusts PracticeCourt Of Appeal DeliversJudgment On The LTA-Komoco Motors DisputeInsider Trading And TheVexed QuestionOf General AvailabilityCourts And Arbitration -A Question Of Balance?Recent Developments InSingapore LawDisclosure OfConfidential InformationBy ProfessionalIn The Pursuit Of ItsLegitimate InterestsPublic PrivatePartnership Projects– The ProcessCourt Of Appeal Delivers JudgmentOn The LTA-Komoco Motors DisputeIn a judgment handed down on 8 May 2008 in Registrar of Vehicles v Komoco Pte Ltd [2008] SGCA19, the Singapore Court of Appeal set out its reasons for ordering judgment in favour of the LandTransport Authority (‘LTA’) in a rare and landmark administrative law dispute with motor vehicleimporter, Komoco Pte Ltd (‘Komoco’). The dispute concerned Komoco’s refusal to pay outstandingadditional registration fees (‘ARF’) of over S$7 million following its under-declaration of the valueof some 17,488 imported vehicles.BackgroundUnder the relevant statutory framework, importers of motor vehicles declare certain informationbased on which the Customs of Singapore (‘Customs’) calculates the open market value (‘OMV’) ofa vehicle. Pursuant to a policy directive in 1998 by then Minister for Finance, Dr Goh Keng Swee,the ARF is calculated based on the OMV. As a matter of practice, the Registrar of Vehicles, nowunder the LTA, adopts the OMV derived by Customs in its calculation of the ARF.Following an audit in 2001 by Customs, Komoco was found to have under-declared the value ofits vehicles between 1999 and 2003. After a series of negotiations, Komoco accepted an offerof composition by Customs although it continued to protest that there was no under-valuation.Komoco did not seek to challenge Customs’ calculations in court (although such a right is affordedunder the Customs Act).Open Source In ITContracts32 /77
Vol 10 Issue 1 June 2008 • Rajah & Tann LLP’s Bi-Annual Journal on articles of current interest, features, and legal developmentsIN THIS ISSUE:A Round-Up Of LatestDevelopments In TheFirst Half Of 2008Rajah & Tann LLP Hosts9 th Lunchtime SeminarSeriesTax, Private Wealth &Trusts PracticeCourt Of Appeal DeliversJudgment On The LTA-Komoco Motors DisputeInsider Trading And TheVexed QuestionOf General AvailabilityCourts And Arbitration -A Question Of Balance?Recent Developments InSingapore LawDisclosure OfConfidential InformationBy ProfessionalIn The Pursuit Of ItsLegitimate InterestsPublic PrivatePartnership Projects– The ProcessInstead, when Komoco received a letter from the Registrar to pay ARF based on the new OMVcalculated by Customs, Komoco sought to argue that there was no underdeclaration. Havingfailed to convince the Registrar in a series of correspondence, Komoco commenced proceedingsto judicially review the Registrar’s decision. A settlement followed by which the Registrar agreed togrant Komoco a fair, reasonable and just hearing. On 10 March 2006, Komoco and its consultantspresented their arguments and evidence to the Registrar for about two hours. On 18 May 2006, theRegistrar met with Komoco to inform them that, having heard and considered their representations,she would not depart from her practice of adopting Customs’ valuation of vehicles imported.Komoco then proceeded to launch another round of proceedings to quash the Registrar’s decisionand compel her to re-consider her decision. Principally, Komoco argued that the Registrar’s practiceof adopting Customs’ valuations was illegal, irrational and / or unreasonable. It also contended thatthe Registrar, by slavishly following that practice despite Komoco’s representations, had fetteredher discretion and / or abrogated her powers to Customs.Decision Of The High CourtThe High Court found that the Registrar’s practice of adopting Customs’ valuations was perfectlyreasonable. However, the Judge found that the Registrar had not given genuine consideration toKomoco’s representations because she had listened to Komoco’s representations with a frame ofmind predisposed to maintaining her existing practice. The Judge further held that the Registrarhad abrogated her discretion because it appeared from a letter the Registrar wrote that her decisionwhether Komoco had to pay ARF based on Customs’ post-audit valuation was ‘conditional onfurther advice from Customs’.Open Source In ITContracts33 /77
Page 2 and 3: Vol 10 Issue 1 June 2008 • Rajah
Page 8: Vol 10 Issue 1 June 2008 • Rajah

Lawlines Vol 10 Issue 1 - eOASIS - Rajah & Tann LLP

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?