Back to Top

Issue #23/2017
08 June 2017

To get the most out of this law bulletin and have full access to judgments and other materials, subscribe to CLJLaw today.

Feel free to forward this bulletin to your colleagues. Sign-up to receive this bulletin directly via email.

New This Week

  1. Case(s) of the Week

    1. NG KONG LING & ANOR v. LOW PECK LIM & ORS [2017] 5 CLJ 651

  2. Latest Cases

    1. Legal Network Series

    2. CLJ 2017 Volume 5 (Part 6)

  3. Articles

    1. LNS Article(s)

  4. Legislation Highlights

    1. Principal Acts

    2. Amending Acts

    3. PU(A)

    4. PU(B)

    5. Legislation Alert

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

NG KONG LING & ANOR v. LOW PECK LIM & ORS [2017] 5 CLJ 651
FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
MD RAUS SHARIF PCA, SURIYADI HALIM OMAR FCJ, AHMAD MAAROP FCJ, ZAINUN ALI FCJ, RAMLY ALI FCJ
[CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-42-07-2016(B)]
17 APRIL 2017

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Jurisdiction – Sessions Court – Whether Sessions Court had competency and duty to dispose of whole matter in controversy – Trust issues raised in re-amended statement of claim – Whether merely defence to claim set off against debt – Whether action brought to enforce trust or defence to determine existence of trust – Whether two different and distinguishable matters – Whether Sessions Court precluded from adjudicating any matter relating to trust – Whether s. 69(e) of Subordinate Courts Act 1948 applicable – Whether s. 66 of Subordinate Courts Act 1948 should be read as exception to s. 69 to enable disposal of matter between parties

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Striking out – Application for – Application to strike out relevant paragraphs contained in re-amended statement of claim – Trust issues raised in re-amended statement of claim – Whether merely defence to claim set off against debt – Whether issues raised had been decided earlier by Sessions Court – Whether findings mere observation, remark or obiter dicta – Whether estoppels and res judicata applicable – Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19 


LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2016] 1 LNS 647

TAN AI LIAN lwn. PP & KES LAIN

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Kanun Keseksaan - Seksyen 408, 465 & 471 - Kesalahan pecah amanah jenayah - Penyalahgunaan cek syarikat - Cek-cek telah dikeluarkan atas nama tertuduh dan cek-cek tersebut telah dimasukkan ke dalam akaun tertuduh untuk kegunaan tertuduh sendiri - Pertikaian berkenaan perlantikan tertuduh di syarikat - Sama ada intipati kesalahan telah dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwaan

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap sabitan - Kesalahan pecah amanah jenayah - Kegagalan pihak pendakwaan memanggil pengurus syarikat sebagai saksi untuk mengesahkan perlantikan tertuduh di syarikat - Sama ada terdapat kelemahan dalam kes pihak pendakwaan

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Kesalahan dibawah s. 408 Kanun Keseksaan ('KK') - Hukuman 14 tahun dijadikan asas pertimbangan hakim bicara - Kesalahan dilakukan sebelum pindaan kepada s. 408 KK - Sama ada hakim bicara telah tersalah arah yang mewajarkan campur tangan Mahkamah Rayuan

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Rayuan - Rayuan terhadap hukuman - Pemenjaraan - Hukuman penjara 9 tahun dijatuhkan bagi kesalahan di bawah ss. 465 & 471 Kanun Keseksaan - Sama ada hukuman yang dinyatakan di bawah s. 465 adalah 2 tahun - Sama ada hukuman yang telah dijatuhkan wajar dikurangkan

[2016] 1 LNS 672

KUM HUI BING lwn. PREMIUM PLAZA SDN BHD & SATU LAGI

PERBANKAN: Bil pertukaran - Penolakan cek - Tuntutan untuk nilai cek yang ditolak - Sama ada plaintif berhak terhadap jumlah cek berdasarkan peruntukan Akta Bil Pertukaran 1949 - Sama ada pembayar nilai cek adalah bertanggungan dibawah s. 27 & 30 Akta Bil Pertukaran 1949 - Sama ada terdapat balasan bernilai daripada plaintif kepada defendan

KONTRAK: Kemungkiran - Perjanjian jual beli saham - Kemungkiran obligasi - Pembeli saham mendakwa penjual saham memungkiri syarat duluan - Pembeli saham gagal memberikan notis penolakan kontrak - Sama ada perlanggaran kontrak telah dibuktikan - Sama ada pembeli saham telah melaksanakan haknya untuk menamatkan perjanjian selepas mendapati perlanggaran perjanjian jual beli saham

[2016] 1 LNS 873

RE: CHAN MIN SHIN; EX-PARTE: HOCK HUA BANK BERHAD

BANKRUPTCY: Discharge - Application - Proper mode of commencement - Application under s. 33 of Bankruptcy Act 1967 - Application filed by way of summons in chambers - Absence of report of Director General of Insolvency - Judgment debtor did not come to court with clean hands - Non-compliance of bankruptcy rules - Whether mode of commencement taken by judgment debtor for application for discharge correct - Whether application for discharge complied with r. 194 of Bankruptcy Rules 1969

[2016] 1 LNS 886

WING FAH ENTERPRISE SDN BHD v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS (M) SDN BHD

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Assessment of damages - Appeal against decision of senior assistant registrar ('SAR') - Damages arising from unlawful termination of contract for supply of goods - Claim for loss of profit - SAR granted nominal damages only - Plaintiff merely relied on projected loss - Failure to produce account sheet detailing sale of goods and profit made - Whether actual loss was proven - Whether nominal damages justified

EVIDENCE: Documentary evidence - Computer print-out - Admissibility - Document downloaded from internet - Downloading information from internet - Whether document admissible - Evidence Act 1950, s. 90A

[2016] 1 LNS 909

JOSLINDA JOSHUA (f) v. GEORGE BALI

FAMILY LAW: Custody - Care and control - Interim custody order - Welfare of children - Application by petitioner wife - Children staying with respondent husband and his parents - Both petitioner wife and respondent husband were working and dependent upon their parents to help to take care of children - Whether there was evidence to negate ability of respondent husband to take care of children - Whether sudden change in custody, care and control may interrupt and cause emotional stress to children - Whether there was urgency for change of custody, care and control of children pending determination of divorce proceedings


CLJ 2017 Volume 5 (Part 6)

FEDERAL COURT

Deepak Jaikishan v. A Santamil Selvi Alau Malay & Ors
Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin CJ (Malaya), Zainun Ali, Abu Samah Nordin, Ramly Ali, Balia Yusof Wahi FCJJ
(Civil Procedure - Notice of appeal - Objection to - Whether in compliance with procedural rules) [2017] 5 CLJ 641 [FC]

Ng Kong Ling & Anor v. Low Peck Lim & Ors
Md Raus Sharif PCA, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop, Zainun Ali, Ramly Ali FCJJ
(Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Whether Sessions Court precluded from adjudicating matter relating to trust) [2017] 5 CLJ 651 [FC]

COURT OF APPEAL

Hong Leong Bank Bhd v. Menteri Sumber Manusia, Malaysia & Ors
Azahar Mohamed, Lim Yee Lan, David Wong Dak Wah JJCA
(Administrative Law - Exercise of judicial functions - Judicial review - Application to quash decision of Minister) [2017] 5 CLJ 675 [CA]

Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Evergrowth Aquaculture Sdn Bhd
Zaharah Ibrahim, Anantham Kasinather, David Wong Dak Wah JJCA
(Utilities - Electricity - Damages - Aggravated damages - Whether pleaded - Procedure to inspect premises) [2017] 5 CLJ 691 [CA]

Wong Kie Chie v. Kathryn Ma Wai Fong & Anor And Other Appeals
Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Ab Karim Jalil JJCA
(Civil Procedure - Recusal from hearing - Whether appellants would be prejudiced by recusal order) [2017] 5 CLJ 707 [CA]

HIGH COURT

Dopag Dosiertechnik Und Pnuematik Ag v. Gamel Nasir Taib & Ors
Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera J
(Civil Procedure - Mareva injunction - Application to extend post judgment - Whether an abuse of process) [2017] 5 CLJ 727 [HC]

Pentamaster Instrumentation Sdn Bhd v. QAV Technologies Sdn Bhd & Ors
Wong Kian Kheong JC
(Civil Procedure; Intellectual Property - Ad interim injunction - Whether would preserve status quo - Affidavits in support of application for injunction - Whether unlawful circumvention of O. 20 r. 8 and O. 32 r. 1 of Rules of Court 2012 - Patent - Infringement - Failure to disclose material facts) [2017] 5 CLJ 736 [HC]

SUBJECT INDEX

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Exercise of judicial functions - Judicial review - Application to quash decision of Minister - Whether Minister's decision making process tainted - Whether all relevant materials available for scrutiny before court - Absence of important report referred to by Minister in making impugned decision - Whether resulted in court's inability to meticulously examine materials - Failure of Minister and/or Director General of Industrial Relations to produce report on which decision was founded on - Whether tantamount to fatal error justifying order of certiorari - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 9(1D)
Hong Leong Bank Bhd v. Menteri Sumber Manusia, Malaysia & Ors
(Azahar Mohamed, Lim Yee Lan, David Wong Dak Wah JJCA) [2017] 5 CLJ 675 [CA]

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Affidavits - In support of application for injunction - Application to amend to join other defendants as parties - Whether shall be made by notice of application pursuant to O. 32 r. 1 of Rules of Court 2012 ('ROC') - Failure to file notice of application - Whether parties deprived of right to oppose amendment application - Whether application would irreparably prejudice other defendants sought to be joined - Whether unlawful circumvention of O. 20 r. 8 and O. 32 r. 1 of ROC
Pentamaster Instrumentation Sdn Bhd v. QAV Technologies Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Wong Kian Kheong JC) [2017] 5 CLJ 736

Appeal - Notice of appeal - Objection to - Whether notice deemed defective by Court of Appeal - Whether objection pertaining to notice being bad in law could be undertaken by preliminary objection - Whether there would be substantial miscarriage of justice if case proceeded - Filing of single notice of appeal in respect of decision on eight separate interlocutory applications - Whether in compliance with procedural rules - Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, rr. 5(3), 27
Deepak Jaikishan v. A Santamil Selvi Alau Malay & Ors
(Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin CJ (Malaya), Zainun Ali, Abu Samah Nordin, Ramly Ali, Balia Yusof Wahi FCJJ) [2017] 5 CLJ 641 [FC]

Injunction - Ad interim injunction - Application for - Pending disposal of interlocutory injunction - Whether would preserve status quo - Whether would cause irreparable harm - Whether defendant would be prejudiced by grant of ad interim injunction - Whether refusal would prematurely frustrate application for interlocutory injunction
Pentamaster Instrumentation Sdn Bhd v. QAV Technologies Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Wong Kian Kheong JC) [2017] 5 CLJ 736 [HC]

Injunctions - Mareva injunction - Pre-judgment Mareva injunction - Application to extend - Whether court seized with power to order extension of interlocutory Mareva injunction post judgment - Whether necessary to aid in execution of judgment - Whether extension of Mareva injunction would be perpetual injunction contravening s. 54 of Specific Relief Act 1950 - Whether application an abuse of process - Whether there was real risk of dissipation of assets - Rules of Court 2012, O. 29, O. 45 & O. 92 r. 4
Dopag Dosiertechnik Und Pnuematik Ag v. Gamel Nasir Taib & Ors
(Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera J) [2017] 5 CLJ 727 [HC]

Judge - Recusal from hearing - Judge unilaterally recused himself from hearing cases based on baseless rumours and likelihood of bias - Appeal against recusal order - Whether recusal order appealable - Whether appellants would be prejudiced by recusal order - Courts of Judicature Act 1964, ss. 3 & 67(1)
Wong Kie Chie v. Kathryn Ma Wai Fong & Anor And Other Appeals
(Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Ab Karim Jalil JJCA) [2017] 5 CLJ 707 [CA]

Jurisdiction - Sessions Court - Whether Sessions Court had competency and duty to dispose of whole matter in controversy - Trust issues raised in re-amended statement of claim - Whether merely defence to claim set off against debt - Whether action brought to enforce trust or defence to determine existence of trust - Whether two different and distinguishable matters - Whether Sessions Court precluded from adjudicating any matter relating to trust - Whether s. 69(e) of Subordinate Courts Act 1948 applicable - Whether s. 66 of Subordinate Courts Act 1948 should be read as exception to s. 69 to enable disposal of matter between parties
Ng Kong Ling & Anor v. Low Peck Lim & Ors
(Md Raus Sharif PCA, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop, Zainun Ali, Ramly Ali FCJJ) [2017] 5 CLJ 651 [FC]

Preliminary objection - Dismissal of - Appeal against - Whether objection pertaining to defective notice of appeal could be undertaken by mere preliminary objection - Whether allowing preliminary objection could prevent miscarriage of justice
Deepak Jaikishan v. A Santamil Selvi Alau Malay & Ors
(Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin CJ (Malaya), Zainun Ali, Abu Samah Nordin, Ramly Ali, Balia Yusof Wahi FCJJ) [2017] 5 CLJ 641 [FC]

Striking out - Application for - Application to strike out relevant paragraphs contained in re-amended statement of claim - Trust issues raised in re-amended statement of claim - Whether merely defence to claim set off against debt - Whether issues raised had been decided earlier by Sessions Court - Whether findings mere observation, remark or obiter dicta - Whether estoppels and res judicata applicable - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19
Ng Kong Ling & Anor v. Low Peck Lim & Ors
(Raus Sharif PCA, Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Maarop, Zainun Ali, Ramly Ali FCJJ) [2017] 5 CLJ 651 [FC]

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Patent - Infringement - Allegation by plaintiff - Application for ex parte injunctions - Whether plaintiff disclosed material facts in obtaining ex parte orders - Failure to disclose material facts - Whether ex parte orders set aside - Whether court could consider a fresh application for inter partes injunction - Whether plaintiff discharged legal burden that there was real risk of destruction or concealment of evidence
Pentamaster Instrumentation Sdn Bhd v. QAV Technologies Sdn Bhd & Ors
(Wong Kian Kheong JC) [2017] 5 CLJ 736

UTILITIES

Electricity - Damages - Aggravated damages - Claim by electricity supply provider for losses resulting from meter-tampering - Whether aggravated damages pleaded in statement of claim - Whether trial judge has discretion to award aggravated damages - Whether calculation for damages to be assessed correct
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Evergrowth Aquaculture Sdn Bhd
(Zaharah Ibrahim, Anantham Kasinather, David Wong Dak Wah JJCA) [2017] 5 CLJ 691 [FC]

Electricity - Electricity supply provider - Contractual relationship between electricity supply provider and customers - Whether regulator or enforcer - Permission to do certain acts consistent with role as electricity supply provider - Entry into consumer's premises - Whether reg. 7 of Licensee Supply Regulations 1990 permit any activity of enforcement or ambush
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Evergrowth Aquaculture Sdn Bhd
(Zaharah Ibrahim, Anantham Kasinather, David Wong Dak Wah JJCA) [2017] 5 CLJ 691 [CA]

Electricity - Inspection - Procedure to inspect premises - Officers of electricity supply provider entered consumer's premises at 5am - Whether reasonable time to conduct inspection - Whether procedure for inspection complied with - Whether there was warrant by Magistrate - Whether police officers present were Inspector or above rank of Inspector - Whether meter-tampering proved - Electricity Supply Act 1990, ss. 4A, 5(2), 37 & 38 - Licensee Supply Regulations 1990, reg. 7
Tenaga Nasional Bhd v. Evergrowth Aquaculture Sdn Bhd
(Zaharah Ibrahim, Anantham Kasinather, David Wong Dak Wah JJCA) [2017] 5 CLJ 691 [CA]


ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. JUSTIFIABILITY OF REMAND DETENTION PROVISION IN SYARIAH CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ENACTMENT (2003): A CASE OF SELANGOR [Read excerpt]
    by: RAMIZAH WAN MUHAMMAD* [2017] 1 LNS(A) xli

  2. [2017] 1 LNS(A) xli
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    JUSTIFIABILITY OF REMAND DETENTION PROVISION IN SYARIAH CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ENACTMENT (2003): A CASE OF SELANGOR
    by
    RAMIZAH WAN MUHAMMAD*

    ABSTRACT

    This paper discusses about the justifiability of including a provision similar in nature and intent with section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) into the Syariah Criminal Procedure Enactment (2003) of Selangor. The provision is significant in terms of procedural laws which gives the power to the authorities to detain and interrogate the suspect, investigate the case and gather as much information as possible so that the question of whether the suspect should be charged or not can be dispensed judiciously. The absence of this provision in the Syariah Criminal Procedure Enactment has actually dampened the significance of any case and as a result the suspect is released from interrogation after the time limit is exhausted. Section 117 of the CPC provides power to the police officer to apply for an extension up to 7 days or 14 days depending on the nature of the offence being investigated. The author also highlighted the reasons as well as justifications for the need for such provision especially in cases related to Muslims' creeds and the sanctity of the Islamic religion since these are delicate matters and need to be scrutinized and investigated thoroughly before one can be charged in the Syariah Court.

    Keywords: Remand; Syariah Court; Islamic law; Enforcement Officers.

    . . .

    * Department of Islamic Law, Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws International Islamic University Malaysia.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. EXCESSIVE PRICING - TO POLICE OR NOT? [Read excerpt]
    by: SUNITHA SIVAKUMARAN*
    SAFINAZ MOHD HUSSEIN**
    [2017] 1 LNS(A) xlii

  4. [2017] 1 LNS(A) xlii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    EXCESSIVE PRICING - TO POLICE OR NOT?
    by
    SUNITHA SIVAKUMARAN*
    SAFINAZ MOHD HUSSEIN**

    Abstract

    Excessive pricing is often perceived as one of the most blatant forms of abuse. An examination of the laws in the US and EU surrounding the implementation of this form of abuse reveals that there are two types of enforcement policies ranging from an interventionist to a non-interventionist approach. A non-interventionist approach is based on the grounds that excessive prices self-correct. Moreover, the non-interventionist believe that there are several difficulties in measuring a correct benchmark and penalising a firm for excessive pricing may remove incentives to reduce costs and innovate. The interventionist on the other hand believe that prohibiting excessive prices is one of the objectives of Competition law because excessive prices can harm consumer welfare and competition authorities should intervene to protect consumers. In Malaysia, s. 10(2) (a) Competition Act 2010, states that an abuse of dominant position may include directly or indirectly imposing an unfair purchase or selling price on suppliers or customers. Unfair pricing may be either unfairly low pricing designed to eliminate a competitor or unfairly high pricing designed to enable a dominant enterprise to obtain larger profits than it would earn in a more competitive environment. It seems that the Act prohibits excessive pricing. However, neither the statute nor its guidelines provide sufficient guide as to how this section should be implemented. This paper reviews the literature regarding the advantages and disadvantages of competition law intervention, the approach adopted by the agencies in the EU and US and finally some guidelines as to how excessive pricing should be dealt with in Malaysia.

    . . .

    * Sunitha Sivakumaran (Phd Candidate), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, sunithasivakumaran@gmail.com.

    ** Assoc Prof Dr Safinaz Mohd, (Deputy Dean, Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, finaz @ukm.my.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 789 Self-Employment Social Security Act 2017 Not Yet In Force -
ACT 788 Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia Act 2017 Not Yet In Force -
ACT 787 Offences Relating To Awards Act 2017 Not Yet In Force -
ACT 786 Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Act 2017 This Act comes into operation on the date the Agreement comes into operation for the Government of Malaysia pursuant to Article 58 of the Agreement -
ACT 785 Finance Act 2017 The Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3; The Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 30; The Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 34; The Labuan Business Activity Tax Act 1990 [Act 445] see s 37; The Goods and Services Tax Act 2014 [Act 762] see s 40 -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1536 Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2017 Not Yet In Force ACT 574
ACT A1535 Private Higher Educational Institutions (Amendment) Act 2017 Not Yet In Force ACT 555
ACT A1534 Bankruptcy (Amendment) Act 2017 Not Yet In Force ACT 360
ACT A1533 Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 2017 Not Yet In Force ACT 599
ACT A1532 Labuan Business Activity Tax (Amendment) Act 2017 19 May 2017 ACT 445

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 161/2017 Co-Operative Societies (Assumption of Control) (Appointment) Order 2017 2 June 2017 3 June 2017 ACT 502
PU(A) 160/2017 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price For Petrol and Diesel) (No. 10) Order 2017 31 May 2017 1 June 2017 ACT 723
PU(A) 159/2017 Goods and Services Tax (Zero-Rated Supply) (Amendment) Order 2017 31 May 2017 1 April 2017 PU(A) 272/2014
PU(A) 158/2017 Child (Child Protection Team and Child Welfare Team) Regulations 2017 31 May 2017 1 June 2017 ACT 611
PU(A) 157/2017 Labuan Business Activity Tax (Exemption) (No. 2) 2013 (Amendment) Order 2017 30 May 2017 Year of assessment 2013 and subsequent years of assessment - subsubparagraphs 2(a), (b), (c) and (d), and paragraph 3; 10 June 2013 - subsubparagraph 2(e) PU(A) 100/2013

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 294/2017 Appointment of Date of Coming Into Operation 6 June 2017 7 June 2017 ACT A1528
PU(B) 293/2017 Notification of Values of Crude Petroleum Oil Under Section 12 5 June 2017 8 June 2017 to 21 June 2017 ACT 235
PU(B) 292/2017 Notice Under Section 70 1 June 2017 2 June 2017 ACT 333
PU(B) 291/2017 Appointment of Lock-Up To Be A Place of Confinement - National Anti-Drugs Agency, State of Johore 1 June 2017 2 June 2017 ACT 537; ACT 638
PU(B) 290/2017 Appointment of Lock-Up To Be A Place of Confinement - Kota Tinggi Narcotics Addiction Rehabilitation Centre, Johore 1 June 2017 2 June 2017 ACT 537; ACT 638

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 272/2014 Goods and Services Tax (Zero-Rated Supply) Order 2014 PU(A) 159/2017 1 April 2017 Paragraph 4 and First Schedule
PU(A) 100/2013 Labuan Business Activity Tax (Exemption) (No. 2) Order 2013 PU(A) 157/2017 Year of assessment 2013 and subsequent years of assessment - subsubparagraphs 2(a), (b), (c) and (d), and paragraph 3; 10 June 2013 - subsubparagraph 2(e) Paragraphs 2 and 5
PU(A) 99/2013 Labuan Business Activity Tax (Exemption) Order 2013 PU(A) 156/2017 Year of assessment 2013 and subsequent years of assessment Paragraph 2
PU(A) 122/2017 Customs (Definitive Safeguard Duties) Order 2017 PU(A) 155/2017 14 April 2017 until 13 April 2020 Schedule
PU(A) 371/2013 Customs Duties (Exemption) Order 2013 PU(A) 146/2017 25 May 2017 Schedule

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(A) 140/2017 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price For Petrol and Diesel) (No. 8) Order 2017 PU(A) 152/2017 25 May 2017
PU(A) 134/2017 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price For Petrol and Diesel) (No. 6) Order 2017 PU(A) 135/2017 11 May 2017
PU(A) 131/2017 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price For Petrol and Diesel) (No. 5) Order 2017 PU(A) 134/2017 4 May 2017
PU(A) 129/2017 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price For Petrol and Diesel) (No. 4) Order 2017 PU(A) 131/2017 27 April 2017
PU(A) 119/2017 Price Control and Anti-Profiteering (Determination of Maximum Retail Price For Petrol and Diesel) (No. 3) Order 2017 PU(A) 129/2017 20 April 2017