Back to Top

Issue #39/2020
18 September 2020

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

CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

PP v. DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB HJ ABD RAZAK
HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD NAZLAN GHAZALI J
[CRIMINAL TRIALS NO: WA-45-2-07-2018, WA-45-3-07-2018 & WA-45-5-08-2018]
21 AUGUST 2020
[2020] CLJ JT (12)

In a charge against a public officer for using his office or position for gratification under s. 23(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, the fact that the alleged gratification had only materialised long after the corrupt act will not have any adverse consequence on the prosecution's case, and offers no basis for the argument that such gratification cannot amount to "gratification" as spoken of or intended by the subsection. Hence, where the sitting Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of the country is accused under s. 23(1) of participating in a Cabinet decision to provide a guarantee to a Government-linked company in which he has an interest for a loan taken by the latter, and the monetary gratification was remitted by the company to the Prime Minister's bank accounts some three years later, the time lapse is patently inconsequential to the finding of corrupt practice on the accused's part; it must be so as the law considers the sequence of events that transpired between the decision and the sight or appearance of gratification as a single transaction.

The issue of corruptly receiving gratification under s. 23(1) aside, the fact that the accused, as Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, was having an overarching control and authority over the company can only mean that he is for all intents and purposes a director and shadow director of the company, and thus "entrusted with dominion" over the property of the company. What may spring forth from this is that, in so accepting the gratification, and subsequently utilising the same for his own benefit, the Prime Minister could have misappropriated or converted the company's property, and be also guilty of criminal breach of trust under s. 409 of the Penal code. Indeed, having received the gratification, and upon proof of the commission of the offences under s. 23(1) and s. 409, a further offence of money laundering under s. 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 could equally have materialised if the prosecution could additionally prove, firstly, that the gratification received were proceeds of an unlawful activity, and secondly that the accused knew or ought to have known the (unlawful) source of the funds.

CRIMINAL LAW: Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 – Section 23(1) – Public officer – Using office or position for gratification – Ingredients – Accused Prime Minister and Minister of Finance – Whether public officer – Government-linked company – Company owned and controlled by Minister of Finance Incorporated – Whether Minister of Finance Incorporated personified by accused as Finance Minister – Accused as Prime Minister and Advisor Emeritus of Company granted power by company's Memorandum and Articles of Association to appoint or dismiss members of Board of Directors, and control corporate and strategic decisions of company – Whether having overarching authority over company – Whether having 'interest' in company – Company applying for RM4 billion loans from Retirement Fund (Incorporated) – Loans approved following support by accused and guarantees provided by Government – Company transferring monies into accused's personal bank accounts – Whether constituting 'gratification' within meaning of s. 23(1) – Whether accused motivated by gratification in participating in Government decision to grant guarantees to company – Nexus between Government decision to grant guarantees and gratification – Whether needed to be proven – Whether accused suffering from conflict of interest situation vis-à-vis Government decision to grant guarantees – Presumption of existence of 'interest' – Whether applicable – Whether could be invoked against accused – Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, s. 23(1), (2)

CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code – Section 409 – Criminal Breach of Trust – Ingredients – Accused Prime Minister and Minister of Finance – Government-linked company – Company owned and controlled by Minister of Finance Incorporated – Whether Minister of Finance Incorporated personified by accused as Finance Minister – Accused as Prime Minister and Advisor Emeritus of Company granted power by company's Memorandum and Articles of Association to appoint or dismiss members of Board of Directors, and control corporate and strategic decisions of company – Whether having overarching authority over company – Whether treated by law as director and shadow director of company – Whether entrusted with dominion over property of company – Whether an agent of company – Company applying for RM4 billion loans from Retirement Fund (Incorporated) – Loans approved following support by accused and guarantees provided by Government – Company transferring monies into accused's bank personal accounts – Whether transfers actuated and initiated by accused – Whether accused committed misappropriation – Whether monies converted by accused for own use and benefit – Whether criminal breach of trust proven against accused – Penal Code, ss. 405 & 409

CRIMINAL LAW: Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 – Section 4(1) – Money laundering – Ingredients – Accused Prime Minister and Minister of Finance – Government-linked company – Company owned and controlled by Minister of Finance Incorporated – Whether Minister of Finance Incorporated personified by accused as Finance Minister – Accused as Prime Minister and Advisor Emeritus of Company granted power by company's Memorandum and Articles of Association to appoint or dismiss members of Board of Directors, and control corporate and strategic decisions of company – Company applying for RM4 billion loans from Retirement Fund (Incorporated) – Loans approved following support by accused and guarantees provided by Government – Company transferring monies into accused's personal bank accounts – Whether transfers actuated and initiated by accused – Whether monies proceeds of unlawful activity – Predicate offences, commission of – Whether proven – Unlawful activity – Particular and specific unlawful activity giving rise to illegal proceeds – Whether to be specifically identified – Whether accused ought to have but failed to ascertain sources of funds – Whether guilty of willful blindness

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Sentence – Adequacy – Public officer – Prime Minister cum Minister of Finance – Guilty and convicted of offences of using position for gratification, criminal breach of trusts and money laundering – Appropriate and fair sentences


APPEAL UPDATES  
  1. Emanuel (W/N Pakistan) lwn. PP [2019] 1 LNS 1421 (CA) menolak sebahagian kes Mahkamah Tinggi PP lwn. Emanuel [2017] 1 LNS 477

  2. Oscar Canary Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Berhad [2019] 1 LNS 811 (CA) affirming the High Court case of Tenaga Nasional Berhad v. Oscar Canary Sdn Bhd [Suit No: 22 NCVC-607-12/2014]

LATEST CASES

Legal Network Series

[2019] 1 LNS 326

AIROD SDN BHD lwn. KESATUAN PEKERJA-PEKERJA AIROD (KPPA) & SATU LAGI

Kapasiti dan masalah kewangan syarikat bukan merupakan faktor penentu untuk tidak mematuhi klausa berkenaan pelarasan gaji seperti yang dinyatakan di dalam perjanjian bersama.

UNDANG-UNDANG PENTADBIRAN: Semakan kehakiman - Certiori - Pembatalan keputusan Mahkamah Perusahaan yang membenarkan tuntutan kesatuan pekerja berhubung pelarasan gaji pekerja - Ketidakpatuhan perjanjian bersama oleh syarikat - Syarikat gagal mematuhi klausa berkenaan pelarasan gaji pekerja dan faedah persaraan atas sebab masalah kewangan - Sama ada masalah kewangan yang dihadapi oleh syarikat merupakan faktor penentu untuk tidak mematuhi pelarasan gaji - Sama ada pelarasan gaji wajar dibenarkan mengikut terma perjanjian bersama

  • Bagi pihak pemohon - Augustine; T/n Fitzgerald Augustin & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden 1 - VK Raj; T/n P Kuppusamy & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden 2 - Jabatan Peguam Negara

[2019] 1 LNS 397

CANIETE ROBELYN MASTELERO lwn. PP

1. Tertuduh dianggap mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan jenis dadah di dalam beg yang dibawanya apabila beg yang dibawa oleh tertuduh tersebut adalah di bawah kawalan atau jagaan tertuduh seorang semata-mata. Cara dadah disimpan di dalam kotak susu yang ditutup rapi dan bersil yang dijumpai di dalam beg yang dibawa oleh tertuduh merupakan perbuatan nyata atau terang-terang pengedaran dadah.

2. Adalah mustahil bagi pegawai penyiasat untuk menjalankan siasatan ke atas watak-watak yang dicadangkan oleh tertuduh di dalam amaran percakapannya tanpa maklumat yang lebih terperinci terutama apabila watak yang dicadangkan tersebut adalah warga asing.

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Dadah berbahaya - Pengedaran - Pemilikan - Dadah disembunyikan di dalam kotak susu yang ditutup rapat dan bersil yang disimpan di dalam beg yang dibawa tertuduh - Beg dibuka menggunakan anak kunci yang diberi tertuduh - Sama ada beg berada di bawah kawalan dan jagaan tertuduh seorang semata-mata - Sama ada anggapan di bawah s. 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 terpakai - Sama ada tertuduh dianggap mempunyai pengetahuan berkenaan jenis dadah di dalam beg yang dibawanya - Sama ada cara dadah dibungkus di dalam kotak susu merupakan perbuatan nyata dan terang-terang pengedaran

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pembelaan - Pembawa ikhlas - Dadah berbahaya - Dadah disembunyikan di dalam kotak susu yang ditutup rapat dan bersil yang disimpan di dalam beg yang dibawa tertuduh - Tertuduh mendakwa susu kotak diberikan oleh seseorang untuk dibawa ke Malaysia dan diberikan kepada penama lain - Sama ada tertuduh mempunyai pengetahuan dadah yang terkandung di dalam beg dan memilih untuk menutup mata - Sama ada anggapan statutori di bawah s. 37(d) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 telah dipatahkan

PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pengemukaan informasi - Rakaman beramaran - Pengedaran dadah berbahaya - Tertuduh mendakwa kewujudan beberapa watak yang meminta tertuduh membawa barang-barang bersamanya ke Malaysia - Tertuduh tidak membekalkan cara untuk menghubungi atau mengesan watak yang dicadangkan - Watak yang dicadangkan merupakan warga asing - Sama ada tertuduh telah gagal membekalkan sebarang perincian berkenaan watak yang dicadangkan - Sama ada pegawai siasatan boleh menjalankan siasatan berkenaan kewujudan watak yang dicadangkan tanpa maklumat yang lebih terperinci

  • Bagi pihak perayu - Alfred Egin; M/s Alfred Egin & Co
  • Bagi pihak responden - Aslinda Ahad, Timbalan Pendakwa Raya; Jabatan Peguam Negara

[2019] 1 LNS 400

LOI TECK CHAI lwn. KINTA MEDICAL CENTRE SDN BHD

1. Saman penghutang penghakiman perlu diserahkan ke atas pegawai perbadanan yang semasa dan terkini sahaja dan sebarang penyampaian ke atas pegawai yang telah meletak jawatan adalah tidak sah.

2. Oleh kerana kesan proses saman penghutang penghakiman adalah serius, maka saman penghutang penghakiman perlu diserahkan secara kediri. Saman penghutang penghakiman boleh disampaikan secara ganti jika terdapat perintah mahkamah untuk berbuat demikian.

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Pelaksanaan - Saman penghutang penghakiman - Penyampaian - Kesahihan - Penyampaian ke atas perbadanan - Saman penghutang penghakiman boleh diserahkan ke atas pegawai perbadanan yang telah meletak jawatan - Sama ada saman penghutang penghakiman hanya perlu diserahkan ke atas pegawai semasa dan terkini syarikat

PROSEDUR SIVIL: Penyampaian - Saman penghutang penghakiman - Penyampaian kediri atau ganti - Sama ada saman penghutang penghakiman harus diserahkan secara kediri - Sama ada saman penghutang penghakiman boleh diserahkan secara penyampaian ganti - Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012, A. 74 k. 11D(2)

  • Bagi pihak pemiutang penghakiman - T/n Maxwell Kenion Cowdy & Jones
  • Bagi pihak penghutang penghakiman - T/n Elison Wong

[2019] 1 LNS 798

KEMBANG MASYUR SENDIRIAN BERHAD v. PENTADBIR TANAH WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN

Where an appeal is brought merely to challenge a decision of the High Court on the quantum of an award for compensation in respect of an acquisition of land, such ground of appeal is clearly incompetent and the appeal ought to be dismissed in limine.

LAND LAW: Acquisition of land - Compensation - Dissatisfaction over additional compensations for land value, injurious affection and severance - Appeal on ground of quantum of compensation alone - Whether there was breach of ss. 40A and 40C of Land Acquisition Act 1960 ('Act 1960') - Whether appeal to merely challenge award of compensation was competent - Whether High Court had comprehensively and appropriately dealt with grievances listed out by appellant under First Schedule of Act 1960 - Whether High Court had considered opinions and justification of both government and private assessors

  • For the appellants - Wong Chong Wah, Amarjeet Singh, Wong Chun Keat & Yee Wui Khong; M/s Zubeda & Amarjeet
  • For the respondent - SFC Nazran Mohd Sham; Attoney General Chambers

[2019] 1 LNS 808

MOHD DAN ABDUL HAMID v. PP

1. There is no material prejudice to an accused which warrants the setting aside of a conviction and the convening of a new trial where a trial is fractured and heard by three different judges prior to its conclusion.

2. It is in order for a judge to resolve an issue relating to the credibility of a key witness although the said judge did not have the audio-visual advantage of the said witness giving evidence first hand.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Appeal grounded purely on question of law - Fractured trial - Case heard by three different judges before conclusion - Whether accused was materially prejudiced - Whether warrants setting aside of conviction and order for new trial - Whether an order pursuant to proviso to s. 18 of Courts of Judicature Act 1964 ought to be made - Whether it was safe for judge to resolve issue relating to credibility of a key witness without audio-visual advantage of the said witness giving evidence first hand - Whether it was mandatory for fresh judge to recall witness

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Appeal - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Appeal grounded purely on question of law - Basis of conviction unclear - Failure of trial judge to tell accused at the end of the trial whether he was convicted based on presumed trafficking or actual trafficking or both - Whether accused was deprived of fair trial

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Trial - Procedure - Conduct of trial - Evidence in chief - Evidence in chief of witness tendered through witness statement - Whether witness statement should be read aloud in open court - Criminal Procedure Code, s. 402B(6)

  • For the appellant - Hisyam Teh Poh Teik & Naran Singh; M/s Teh Poh Teik & Co
  • For the public prosecution - Jasmee Hamiza Jaafar, Deputy Public Prosecutor; Attorney General's Chambers

ARTICLES

LNS Article(s)

  1. CHANGES UNDER THE FRANCHISE (AMENDMENT) ACT 2020* [Read excerpt]
    by Yap Khai Jian [2020] 1 LNS(A) xcv

  2. [2020] 1 LNS(A) xcv
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    CHANGES UNDER THE FRANCHISE (AMENDMENT) ACT 2020*

    by
    Yap Khai Jian

    In this article, Yap Khai Jian analyses the changes introduced under the Franchise (Amendment) Act 2020.

    Introduction

    The Franchise Act 1998 (“FA”) has been the main source of legislation which governs franchise businesses and the relationship between a franchisor and franchisee in Malaysia for more than 20 years. On 3 December 2019, the Franchise (Amendment) Bill 2019 was passed by the Lower House of the Parliament and received Royal Assent on 20 February 2020. Subsequently, the Franchise (Amendment) Act 2020 (“the Amendment Act”) was gazetted on 6 March 2020. Some of the changes under the Amendment Act are as follows.Introduction The Franchise Act 1998 (“FA”) has been the main source of legislation which governs franchise businesses and the relationship between a franchisor and franchisee in Malaysia for more than 20 years. On 3 December 2019, the Franchise (Amendment) Bill 2019 was passed by the Lower House of the Parliament and received Royal Assent on 20 February 2020. Subsequently, the Franchise (Amendment) Act 2020 (“the Amendment Act”) was gazetted on 6 March 2020. Some of the changes under the Amendment Act are as follows.

    . . .

    *Published with kind permission of M/s Shearn Delamore & Co.


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  3. RESOLVING CONFLICT OF LAWS ISSUES ARISING OUT OF CONVERSION IN MALAYSIA* [Read excerpt]
    by Nur Syakirah Binti Mohd Adnan** [2020] 1 LNS(A) xcvi

  4. [2020] 1 LNS(A) xcvi
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    RESOLVING CONFLICT OF LAWS ISSUES ARISING OUT OF CONVERSION IN MALAYSIA*

    by
    Nur Syakirah Binti Mohd Adnan**

    ABSTRACT

    Conflict caused by conversion of religion has contributed to a number of cases involving the legal status of apostasy and the effect of a child's religion in cases of unilateral conversion to Islam as well as parental child abductions, either within the same country, or internationally.[1] Nevertheless, conversion cases in general have raised particular complexities in navigating jurisdictional issues between the civil courts and the Syariah courts and has been standing unresolved for many years.

    The root cause of this issue is the existence of a grey area between Article 121(1) and Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. This led to the Federal Constitution to be amended in 1988 by inserting a new Article 121(1A) in which the Civil Courts cannot encroach on matters within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court.[2]

    . . .

    * This document is a product of extensive research conducted at the International Islamic University Malaysia - 2020.

    ** G1915632 IIUM, LLM in International Law adnansyakira@yahoo.com


    Please subscribe to cljlaw or login for the full article.
  5. CASTER SEMENYA: PENALISED FOR THE WAY SHE WAS BORN - WHERE DOES MANKIND STAND?* [Read excerpt]
    by Nimalan Devaraja** [2020] 1 LNS(A) xcvii

  6. [2020] 1 LNS(A) xcvii
    logo
    MALAYSIA

    CASTER SEMENYA: PENALISED FOR THE WAY SHE WAS BORN - WHERE DOES MANKIND STAND?*

    by
    Nimalan Devaraja**

    "Mankind has always feared what it doesn't understand" - Magneto

    ORIGINS

    This story has its origins in 2014 when Indian athlete, Dutee Chand (“Dutee”), initiated proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sports (“CAS”) to challenge the IAAF Regulations Governing Eligibility of Females with Hyperandrogenism to Compete in Women’s Competition (“Hyperandrogenism Regulations”).

    The Hyperandrogenism Regulations were introduced by the International Athletics Association Federation (“IAAF”) in 2011 to limit the participation of female athletes with high androgen levels (a group of hormones) in female categories. The most well-known androgen is testosterone which has been shown to have a direct effect on athletic performance. The Hyperandrogenism Regulations set the maximum testosterone limit for females with hyperandrogenism at 10 nmol/L. This was well above the maximum testosterone level in the female population and slightly above the minimum level in the male population.

    . . .

    *© 2020 Skrine. This Article was first published in the July 2020 issue of Alerts, a Skrine publication. Reproduced with permission of Skrine.

    **Partner, Messrs Skrine.


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

Principal Acts

Number Title In force from Repealing
ACT 827 Currency Act 2020 Not Yet In Force -
ACT 826 Food Donors Protection Act 2020 31 March 2020 [PU(B) 166/2020] -
ACT 825 Anti-Fake News (Repeal) Act 2020 31 January 2020 -
ACT 824 Malaysian Health Promotion Board (Dissolution) Act 2019 1 April 2020 [PU(B) 119/2020] -
ACT 823 Finance Act 2019 Income Tax Act 1967 [Act 53] see s 3, Real Property Gains Tax Act 1976 [Act 169] see s 22, Stamp Act 1949 [Act 378] see s 27, Petroleum (Income Tax) Act 1967 [Act 543] see s 29, Sales Tax Act 2018 [Act 806] see s 35, Finance Act 2010 [Act 702] see s 37 and the Finance Act 2018 [Act 812] see s 39 -

Amending Acts

Number Title In force from Principal/Amending Act No
ACT A1617 Franchise (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Force ACT 590
ACT A1616 Central Bank of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Force ACT 701
ACT A1615 Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Force ACT 177
ACT A1614 Labuan Business Activity Tax (Amendment) Act 2020 10 February 2020 - para 2(a) and s 13 and 15; Year of assessment 2020 and subsequent years of assessment - para 2(b) and s 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14; 1 January 2019 - s 8 ACT 445
ACT A1613 Carriage of Goods by Sea (Amendment) Act 2020 Not Yet In Foce ACT 527

PU(A)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(A) 249/2020 Employees' Minimum Standards of Housing, Accommodations and Amenities (Maximum Rental Or Charges For Accommodation) Regulations 2020 28 August 2020 1 September 2020 ACT 446
PU(A) 248/2020 Employees' Minimum Standards of Housing, Accommodations and Amenities (Processing Fees For Application of Certificate For Accommodation) Regulations 2020 28 August 2020 1 September 2020 ACT 446
PU(A) 247/2020 Workers' Minimum Standards of Housing and Amenities (Nurseries) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 28 August 2020 1 September 2020 PU(A) 413/1990
PU(A) 246/2020 Customs Duties (Goods Under The Agreement Establishing The ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand Free Trade Area) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020 28 August 2020 1 September 2020 PU(A) 266/2019
PU(A) 245/2020 Customs Duties (Goods Under The Agreement Establishing The ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand Free Trade Area) Order 2019 - Corrigendum 28 August 2020   PU(A) 266/2019

PU(B)

Number Title Date of Publication In force from Principal/ Amending Act No
PU(B) 392/2020 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 516 Town Putrajaya 17 August 2020 18 August 2020 ACT 56/1965
PU(B) 391/2020 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 474 Town Putrajaya 17 August 2020 18 August 2020 ACT 56/1965
PU(B) 390/2020 Reservation of Land For Public Purpose For Lot 473 Town Putrajaya 17 August 2020 18 August 2020 ACT 56/1965
PU(B) 389/2020 Notice of Contested Election By-Election of State Legislative Assembly of N.58 Slim For The State of Perak 17 August 2020 18 August 2020 PU(A) 386/1981
PU(B) 388/2020 Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Members of The Advisory Board 14 August 2020 10 August 2020 until 9 August 2022 ACT 190; PU(A) 172/1989

Legislation Alert

Updated

Act/Principal No. Title Amended by In force from Section amended
PU(A) 413/1990 Employees' Minimum Standards of Housing, Accommodations and Amenities (Nurseries) Regulations 1990 PU(A) 247/2020 1 September 2020 Regulations 1 and 19
PU(A) 266/2019 Customs Duties (Goods Under the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand Free Trade Area) Order 2019 PU(A) 246/2020 1 September 2020 Second Schedule
PU(A) 266/2019 Customs Duties (Goods Under the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand Free Trade Area) Order 2019 PU(A) 245/2020   Second Schedule
PU(A) 379/2003 Langkawi International Yacht Registry (Registration of Yachts) Regulations 2003 PU(A) 242/2020 28 August 2020 Regulations 8 and 27; First Schedule and Third Schedule
PU(A) 493/1991 Employees Provident Fund Rules 1991 PU(A) 243/2020 1 September 2020 Rule 41

Revoked

Act/Principal No. Title Revoked by In force from
PU(B) 663/2018 Appointment of Member of the Advisory Board PU(B) 388/2020 10 August 2020 until 9 August 2022
PU(B) 140/2020 Appointment and Revocation of Appointment of Deputy Director General of the Board PU(B) 373/2020 1 June 2020
PU(A) 211/2020 Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases (Medical Attendance and Maintenance of Person Removed to Quarantine Station) Regulations 2020 PU(A) 233/2020 24 July 2020
PU(A) 251/2006 Entertainments Duty (Exemption) (No. 24) Order 2006 PU(A) 204/2020 1 August 2020
PU(A) 286/2015 Customs Duties (Goods Under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Co-Operation Among the Governments of the Member Countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Republic of Korea) (ASEAN Harmonised Tariff Nomenclature) Order 2015 PU(A) 202/2020 1 August 2020