JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Tuesday, June 10, 2025

Customs Division ordered to release 9 luxury cars to businessman

by

Derek Achong
11 days ago
20250531

A busi­ness­man from Pe­nal has won his law­suit over the de­ten­tion of nine lux­u­ry ve­hi­cles by the Cus­toms and Ex­cise Di­vi­sion (CED). 

Ear­li­er this week, High Court Judge Na­dia Kan­ga­loo grant­ed Kess Kessoon­dan a de­fault judg­ment in his case against the Comp­trol­ler of the CED and the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al. 

The out­come of the case was based on Jus­tice Kan­ga­loo find­ing that the de­fence re­lied on by the de­fen­dants had no re­al­is­tic prospect of suc­cess at tri­al. 

Ac­cord­ing to the ev­i­dence, in De­cem­ber 2020, po­lice of­fi­cers and of­fi­cials of the CED vis­it­ed his prop­er­ty to con­duct a search. 

The of­fi­cers seized 17 lux­u­ry ve­hi­cles in­clud­ing sev­en Range Rovers. 

Af­ter Kessoon­dan’s lawyers Kiel Tak­lals­ingh and Vivek Lakhan-Joseph de­liv­ered no­tices seek­ing the re­lease of the ve­hi­cles, eight were re­turned. 

In the law­suit, Kessoon­dan’s lawyers claimed that the CED did not have jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for the con­tin­ued de­ten­tion of the re­main­ing ve­hi­cles. 

They claimed that their client was en­ti­tled to com­pen­sa­tion for tres­pass and con­ver­sion and for the de­pre­ci­a­tion of the ve­hi­cles, which was es­ti­mat­ed to be $725,000 in 2022. 

In de­fence of the case, the CED claimed that the ve­hi­cle re­mained de­tained as their probe in­to Kessoon­dan was still on­go­ing. 

In re­ject­ing the de­fence, Jus­tice Kan­ga­loo found that while the ini­tial seizure may have been law­ful, the con­tin­ued de­ten­tion was un­law­ful. 

She found that the probe could not be al­lowed to go on in­def­i­nite­ly while Kessoon­dan’s ve­hi­cles re­mained de­tained. 

She al­so point­ed out that the CED failed to ini­ti­ate for­fei­ture pro­ceed­ings in re­la­tion to the ve­hi­cles. 

She ruled that the in­ac­tion by the Comp­trol­ler amount­ed to an ar­bi­trary in­fer­ence with Kessoon­dan’s prop­er­ty. 

The com­pen­sa­tion to be award­ed to Kessoon­dan is now ex­pect­ed to be as­sessed by a High Court Mas­ter at a lat­er date. 

Kessoon­dan was al­so rep­re­sent­ed by Shiv­ash Maraj. 


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored