Court stops customs from seizing imported rice in markets, seaports

Customs had arrested Mohammed after seizing a truck carrying
613 bags of foreign rice and 80 bags of millet belonging to the businessman on
June 14, 2019, along the Kaduna-Zaria expressway.

Mohammed was charged and arraigned on a two-count charge.

However, in a judgment delivered on November 10, 2021, Z. B.
Abubakar, trial judge, acquitted the defendants of the charges.

Abubakar held that the plaintiffs (customs) failed to adduce
enough evidence to prove that the defendant imported the goods.

The judge also held that there is no subsisting blanket ban
on the importation of foreign rice as claimed by the plaintiffs.

“…the evidence led by the prosecution through PW1, PW2, PW3
and the Exhibits tendered has not established that the Defendant imported
Exhibit ‘NCS B1-B612’. Even the investigation conducted by the complainant
(Nigeria Customs Service Board) on Exhibit ‘NCS B1-B612,” the judge held.

“As a matter of fact, Exhibit ‘NCS D’ could not reveal who
imported the said Exhibits or where they imported from.

“It should be borne in mind that importation of foreign rice
is not absolutely or totally prohibited. It is only importation of the product
through the land borders of this country that was proscribed by the Federal
Government vide Circular No. NCS/TXT/1XE/045/S.416/VOL.1X of 18th March, 2016.
The circular provided that foreign rice only be imported into the country
through seaports.”

The trial judge held that the prosecution failed to show
that the goods were imported through land borders, adding that “the said
exhibits could have been imported through the seaport, and the court is
entitled to presume so”.

Furthermore, the lower court held that “loading any foreign
rice into a truck is not an offence under both Sections 46(b) and 47(1) (a)
(ii) of Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA) (Supra)”.

“It is the landing or unloading of goods or foreign rice at
designated customs port CA/K/33/C/2022 or wharf that is prohibited by the
aforementioned provisions of the Act,” the judge ruled.

‘APPEAL IS A HOAX’

Aggrieved by the trial court’s judgment, NCS filed an
appeal.

However, the appellate court commended the trial court judge
for “doing justice in the evaluation of the law and evidence adduced before
it”.

Ntong said he agreed with the arguments put forward by the
respondent’s lawyer and the judgment of the trial court.

“Truly, I also agree with the learned trial judge, that
Kaduna-Zaria expressway is not a “Land border” as stipulated by the law and
Exhibit “NCS D,” the justice held.

“Importation of foreign rice in any wise is not generally
prohibited. It is restricted to land borders alone.

“If I were in the shoes of the appellant (NCS), I would have
honourably thrown in the towel as this appeal is simply a hoax, a fluke and
unmeritorious whatsoever.

“From the evidence in the Record of Appeal, the Respondent
was merely a purchaser for value and not an importer. The Appellant ought to
have arrested the importer and not a mere purchaser from open market with a
receipt of purchase Exhibit NCS D.

“How can a fowl leave to attack who killed it to pursue who
is de-feathering it? This is an Annang-African Idiom that means the Appellant
ought not to shut its eyes away from the importer and be chasing petty traders
and consumers who buy from the open market. After all prohibited or contraband
goods always pass through the borders which are the beats of the Appellant.”

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal in favour of
the respondents.

The court further ordered customs to return all the goods
seized from the businessman in 2019 or pay him the money equivalent.

“Consequently, the Appellant is hereby ordered to release or
cause the release of the 613 bags of foreign rice, 80 bags of millet, Exhibit
“C” and DAF truck with Registration Number: 57 BS 45 impounded and confiscated
from the Respondent on 14th June, 2019 to the said Respondent Suleiman Mohammed
or his representative forthwith,” the judge ruled.

“Where it has become difficult or impossible to return the
items aforesaid, the Appellant shall pay to the Respondent a sum of money
equivalent to the current price or cost of the items aforementioned.”