A contractor, who challenged the decision of the comptroller of the Customs and Excise Division to seize and detain his trailer and truck in 2016, has lost his appeal against a judge’s refusal to grant leave for judicial review.

On Friday, Chief Justice Ivor Archie and Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed and Vasheist Kokaram dismissed the appeal of Garvin Holder whose truck and trailer were seized on November 6, 2016, as he was exiting the port of Point Lisas with the shipment he was contracted to collect.

He was questioned at the port about a discrepancy in the importation documents for the shipment and his truck and trailer were seized.

His attorneys wrote the comptroller after the notice of seizure was served, indicating he was an independent contractor and did not know what was in the shipping container.

Holder was told his notice of claim to recover the goods fell without the one-month limitation period set out by the Customs Act.

At the High Court, the comptroller said two days before the seizure, duffle bags containing US currency were found concealed in the shipment of plywood that Holder had to transport in his trailer.

This was not taken into consideration by Justice Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell who dismissed Holder’s application for judicial review since, she said, the issue for the court to determine was the interpretation of section 220 (1) of the act.

She said the statute was clear on the procedure to be followed when goods are seized, and the court was bound to uphold that procedure.

“The legislation is quite clear that the proceedings for forfeiture and condemnation that would allow the person whose goods were seized to be heard shall only be taken where that person gives written notice within the requisite one-month period.

Where no such notice is given there is no such procedure and condemnation automatically takes effect.”

Her finding was upheld by the Appeal Court. Kokaram, who delivered the unanimous ruling, said once proper notice of claim was filed within the statutory one-month period, then proper forfeiture proceedings could take place providing an avenue of relief for the aggrieved party.

The legislation allows for the President to direct if the seized goods should be sold or how it should be disposed of. Kokaram said under the forfeiture proceedings policy, the President had wider powers than the comptroller in coming to a decision on the fate of the goods.

Kokaram also said there was no need to “graft new provisions” into the legislation to frustrate its purpose and the limitation policy. He said this policy was fair.

He also said the comptroller was under no duty to consider any claim for recovery filed outside the one-month period.

The judges did suggest that the legislature “give thought” to increasing the one-month time limit since there could be many reasons why someone may not be able to meet the deadline.

In dismissing the appeal, the judges ordered Holder to pay the State’s costs.

Holder was represented by attorneys Jagdeo Singh, Kiel Taklalsingh and