Ma Hoa Trading Co. Ltd v Public Prosecutor

Court of Appeal · · Intellectual Property Law, Commercial Law

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This digest provides AI-generated summaries of recent Malaysian legal judgments and is provided for general informational purposes only. The digest may contain errors, omissions, or inaccuracies, and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. For complete and authoritative information, always consult a qualified legal professional and refer to official court sources (here) or the full text of original judgments. The providers of this digest accept no responsibility or liability for any loss and/or damage resulting from reliance on its contents.

Ma Hoa Trading Co. Ltd v Public Prosecutor
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date14 October 2025
Date Uploaded19 January 2026
Legal TopicsIntellectual Property Law, Commercial Law
Parties

Appellant(s): Ma Hoa Trading Co. Ltd

Respondent(s): Pendakwa Raya

Bench
  • YA Dato' Lim Chong Fong
  • YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin
  • YA Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Abdul Hamid
Facts & Background
  • The respondent initially seized 21 containers of cigarettes from the Container Yard in the Free Zone of Port of Tanjung Pelepas, Johor, for an alleged offence under the Trademarks Act 2019 (TMA).
  • Subsequently, the respondent applied to the Sessions Court under section 47 of the Trade Description Act 2011 (TDA) to forfeit the cigarettes for an alleged offence under section 5(1)(c) read with section 6(1)(g) of the TDA, pertaining to false trade description.
  • The cigarettes were consigned by the appellant from Vietnam to a consignee in the Philippines, with Songkhla, Thailand, as the next port of discharge, indicating they were bona fide goods in transit and transshipment, not intended for importation into Malaysia.
Issues for the Court
  • Whether the appellant was a person who exposed the cigarettes for supply or had possession, custody, or control of the cigarettes for supply in Malaysia under section 5(1)(c) of the TDA.
  • Whether the cigarettes, being bona fide goods in transit and transshipment, can be subject to seizure and forfeiture enforcement under section 47 of the TDA.
  • Whether the High Court erred in equating ownership with possession, custody, and control for supply, without evidence of intent to supply in Malaysia.
Decision
  • The Court unanimously allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and affirming the Sessions Court's order to release the cigarettes to the appellant.
  • The Court held that there was no evidence the appellant exposed the cigarettes for supply or had possession, custody, or control for supply *in Malaysia*, as "supply" under the TDA implies a commercial activity intended for the Malaysian market.
  • The Court further ruled that bona fide goods in transit are excluded from seizure and forfeiture under the TDA, aligning with the spirit of section 82(8) of the TMA and Malaysia's TRIPS obligations, unless they become "unaccustomed goods" under the Customs Act.
Link to JudgmentView Full Judgment

Related judgments

📬 Found this useful?

Get daily AI-generated summaries of Malaysian legal judgments from the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal straight to your inbox, free!