High Court dismissed as utterly implausible an Auckland retail grocer’s claim that his India supplier negligently slipped 45 kilograms of tobacco into a dry goods shipment without his knowledge, after which Satish Kumar Singh then took no immediate action, waiting for years until later using this tobacco infiltration as a reason for not paying debts owed his India supplier for dry goods subsequently supplied.
The tobacco was seized by Customs in 2024.
The High Court was told Singh’s company SS Impex Ltd sat silent on its supposed tobacco complaint for two years before claiming a set-off against the cost of dry goods subsequently imported when threatened with liquidation for non-payment of these later debts.
Mr Singh told the High Court SS Impex faced a $407,000 fine for the undeclared importation of tobacco; all the fault of its India supplier, he alleged.
Evidence put before the court as evidence of this fine was disputed.
Associate Judge Lester ruled there was a mismatch between the seizure notice and the supposed fine, both as to timing and documentation.
The $407,000 supposed fine referenced customs duty payable, with no mention of tobacco product. Mr Singh could not explain why a supposed fine included $88,900 in ‘compensatory interest.’
SS Impex was not convicted of any Customs and Excise Act offence; a precursor to any fine.
There was no link between the claimed innocent importation of tobacco and the supposed fine sufficient to justify a reduction in debts owed, Judge Lester ruled.
SS Impex was ordered to pay within two weeks debts totalling US$131,600 claimed by its India supplier, or face liquidation.
SS Impex Ltd v. Tru Value Overseas Pty Ltd – High Court (2.09.26)
26.249