By Lynford Simpson, News EditorTHE HOUSE of Representatives last Tuesday approved an amendment to the Customs Act which, among other things, will provide for the seizure and detention of computer equipment believed to contain information relating to uncustomed, prohibited or restricted goods.
Piloted by Dr. Omar Davies, Finance and Planning Minister, the Bill also provides for the seizure of goods, notwithstanding that they are in the hands of a third party, where such goods are reasonably suspected to be uncustomed or prohibited goods and even in the absence of a conviction relating to those goods.
Dr. Davies told the House that the amendment was "attempting to strengthen the evidence-gathering capability of the Customs department in its continuing fight against smuggling, the under invoicing of goods and diminution of the revenues." He explained that two developments one technological and the other relating to international trade agreements had "in a sense made the current Act virtually obsolete in terms of counteracting the efforts at smuggling and under invoicing."
MEMORANDUM
The Bill, according to the memorandum of objects and reasons, was also aimed at securing the right of innocent third parties with an interest in goods seized or forfeited under the customs laws, to compensation or restoration of the goods.
Said Davies: "These changes to the Customs Act are an attempt to respond to what has clearly emerged as an expanding practice whereby the Customs Act is being violated and the revenue is being diminished."
DEFRAUD CUSTOMS
He explained that an officer may apply to a Resident Magistrate or Justice of the Peace for a special warrant in relation to goods, books, documents or computer equipment suspected of being used to defraud the Customs department. The special warrant would authorise the officer to enter and search the house or other place referred to in his application; open the lock of a door, box, safe or other receptacle which the officer has grounds to believe is relevant to the search, using such force as may be necessary. Computer equipment seized shall not be retained for more than 72 hours.
Dr. Davies argued that with the advancing technology, the computer now holds most of the information and records of business transactions. He said it was targeted because of its ability to "generate invoices and provide false documentation which could not be detected some years ago."
While uncustomed goods would also be seized, even if they are found in possession of a third party, provision is made to protect the genuine purchaser. Such persons will be able to appeal the decision of the Resident Magistrate, personally, or with the intervention of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Successful applicants will have goods returned to them, or where the goods are not available, a sum equal to the value of the goods.
SEIZURE WAS NECESSARY
Audley Shaw, Opposition Spokesman on Finance cautioned that with computer equipment being crucial to the operation of a company/business, the officer, seeking to seize such equipment should instead satisfy an officer of the Supreme Court that such seizure was necessary. He argued that the computer can be the "very lifeline of an organisation and if taken out, could shut down some organisations."
Also, he said "highly sensitive and confidential information might very well be in the computer information not necessarily related to the issue which formed the basis for the seizure in the first place." According to Shaw the Minister "had a duty to ensure that fairness is exercised in every way possible to avoid the possibility of unfair advantage being gained by gaining access to information that is of a sensitive or confidential nature."
