NICHOLAS NG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 2 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Customs Act, Goods and Services Tax Act (Cap 117A), and Road Traffic Act (Cap 276). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2024] SGHC 2 High Court (General Division) 10 January 2024 HC/MA 9020/2023/01 25 min read

2 cases cited

Outcome

Application allowed

I allowed the application and exercised my revisionary powers to set aside the sentence imposed by the DJ DAC-922466-2019, given that the fine imposed clearly exceeded the maximum fine statutorily prescribed.

Source: [2024] SGHC 2, High Court (General Division), decided 10 January 2024. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	10 January 2024
Judge	Vincent Hoong
Charges / claim	Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, Criminal Law
Outcome	Application allowed
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Kana & Co, Kanagavijayan Nadarajan, Timotheus Koh

Source: [2024] SGHC 2, High Court (General Division), decided 10 January 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Customs Act Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Sentencing framework

Practice Areas

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Criminal Law

Judges (1)

Vincent Hoong Delivered

Counsel (4)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Kana & Co Firm Kanagavijayan Nadarajan Counsel Appellant Timotheus Koh Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Nicholas Ng Appellant

Case Significance

Ng Nicholas v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 2 was decided by the General Division of the High Court in Magistrate's Appeal No 9020 of 2023 and Criminal Revision No 3 of 2023, with Vincent Hoong J delivering the grounds of decision on 10 January 2024 after hearings on 2, 11 and 23 October 2023. The appellant had claimed trial to 23 charges relating to excise duty, Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Additional Registration Fee (ARF) payable on nine vehicles imported into Singapore, having underdeclared the vehicles' value to Singapore Customs so as to pay less of those amounts.

The judgment records that a key issue was whether the sentencing framework laid down by the High Court in Public Prosecutor v Tan Teck Leong Melvin [2023] SGHC 188 for the offence of fraudulent evasion of GST on imported goods under s 128D and punishable under s 128L(2) of the Customs Act (Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed) applied to charges for fraudulent evasion of excise duty under the same provisions, of which the appellant was convicted. The charges included six charges under s 128D and punishable under s 128L(2) of the Customs Act concerning fraudulent evasion of excise duty leviable on eight of the vehicles. The Attorney-General's Chambers acted for the respondent and Kana & Co for the appellant.

[2024] SGHC 2 explained

NICHOLAS NG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2024] SGHC 2) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 10 January 2024. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing and Criminal Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHC 2 about?

NICHOLAS NG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2024] SGHC 2) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal”, “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Customs Act”, and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Sentencing framework”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 2 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Customs Act, Goods and Services Tax Act (Cap 117A), and Road Traffic Act (Cap 276). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

Nicholas Ng appealed against sentence after being convicted following trial on 23 charges relating to the underdeclaration of the value of nine imported vehicles, which reduced the excise duty, Goods and Services Tax and Additional Registration Fee payable; a key issue was whether the sentencing framework in Public Prosecutor v Tan Teck Leong Melvin for fraudulent evasion of GST applied to the fraudulent evasion of excise duty under the Customs Act, and a related criminal revision concerned a fine that exceeded the statutory maximum. The General Division of the High Court extended the Melvin Tan framework to offences involving fraudulent evasion of excise duty, found the District Judge's sentences justifiable, and upheld them. It allowed the criminal revision, setting aside the excessive fine and substituting a fine of $10,000, resulting in a total sentence of four weeks' imprisonment and a fine of $456,130.96, while leaving undisturbed the order for $219,162 in undercharged ARF to be paid.

What was the key sentencing issue in Ng Nicholas v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 2?

The key issue was whether the sentencing framework from Public Prosecutor v Tan Teck Leong Melvin [2023] SGHC 188, set for fraudulent evasion of GST on imported goods under the Customs Act, applied to charges of fraudulent evasion of excise duty under s 128D punishable under s 128L(2).

What were the charges in Ng Nicholas v Public Prosecutor ([2024] SGHC 2)?

In [2024] SGHC 2 the appellant claimed trial to 23 charges relating to excise duty, GST and Additional Registration Fee on nine vehicles imported into Singapore. He had underdeclared the vehicles' value to Singapore Customs, including six charges of fraudulent evasion of excise duty under the Customs Act.