Cap 132AK reg 4A Application to air transhipment cargo (IMPORTED GAME, MEAT AND POULTRY REGULATIONS; PUBLIC HEALTH AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES ORDINANCE)

Contents of Section

Chapter:	132AK	Title:	IMPORTED GAME, MEAT AND POULTRY REGULATIONS	Gazette Number:	29 of 2000
Regulation:	4A	Heading:	Application to air transhipment cargo	Version Date:	26/05/2000

(1) Regulation 4(1) does not apply in relation to any game, meat, poultry or prohibited meat referred to in that regulation that is air transhipment cargo; but if at any time between its being brought into and taken out of Hong Kong such game, meat, poultry or prohibited meat is removed from the cargo transhipment area of Hong Kong International Airport then, for the purposes of regulation 4(1)-

(a) the game, meat, poultry or prohibited meat is deemed to be imported at the time of such removal; and

(b) the person who brought the game, meat, poultry or prohibited meat, or caused it to be brought, into Hong Kong as air transhipment cargo is deemed to be the person who imports the game, meat, poultry or prohibited meat at the time of its removal,

and, except to that extent, that regulation has effect as if this subregulation had not been enacted.
(2) For the purpose of giving any permission as is mentioned in regulation 4(1)(b) or (2), the import of any game, meat, poultry or prohibited meat referred to in that regulation that is air transhipment cargo does not take place unless and until the game, meat, poultry or prohibited meat is removed from the cargo transhipment area of Hong Kong International Airport other than for the purpose of its being taken out of Hong Kong by air.
(3) In proceedings against a person for an offence under regulation 7(1)(a), being proceedings-

(a) in relation to the import of any game, meat, poultry or prohibited meat referred to in regulation 4(1) that is air transhipment cargo; and

(b) in which it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that, at any time between its being brought into and taken out of Hong Kong, the game, meat, poultry or prohibited meat was removed from the cargo transhipment area of Hong Kong International Airport,

it is a defence for the person to show that he took all reasonable steps and exercised reasonable diligence to avoid such removal occurring.
(4) Where in any proceedings the defence provided by subregulation (3) involves an allegation that the commission of the offence was due to-

(a) the act or default of another person; or

(b) reliance on information given by another person,

the defendant is not, without the leave of the court, entitled to rely on the defence unless, not less than 10 days before the hearing of the proceedings, he has served a notice in writing on the prosecutor giving all particulars of-

(i) the person who committed the act or default or gave the information; and

(ii) the act, default or information,

of which he is aware at the time he serves the notice.
(5) A person is not entitled to rely on the defence provided by subregulation (3) by reason of his reliance on information supplied by another person, unless he shows that it was reasonable in all the circumstances for him to have relied on the information, having regard in particular to-

(a) the steps which he took, and those which might reasonably have been taken, for the purpose of verifying the information; and

(b) whether he had any reason to disbelieve the information.

(29 of 2000 s. 5)