IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an application for a mandate in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari under and in terms of Article

140 of the Constitution.

SINGHA CEMENT (PVT) LTD

44/1 New Nuge Road, Peliyagoda.

Petitioner CA Writ Application No:

-Vs-

128/2017

1. P. SAMAN DE SILVA Director Central Investigation Bureau Sri Lanka Customs, 40 Main Street, Colombo 11.

2. M. RAVINDRAKUMAR Deputy Director of Customs Sri Lanka Customs.

40 Main Street, Colombo 11.

3. J. G. A. SANJEEWA Assistant Superintendent of Customs, Sri Lanka Customs, 40 Main Street, Colombo 11.

4. DIRECTOR GENERAL CUSTOMS Sri Lanka Customs, 40 Main Street, Colombo 11. Respondents Before: C.P. Kirtisinghe - J.

Mayadunna Corea - J.

Counsel: Romesh De Silva PC, with Riad Ameen, N. Arulpragasam and Sajith Navaratne instructed by G. G. Arulpragasam for the Petitioner.

M. Jayasinghe, DSG for the Respondents.

Argued on: 01.02.2023 Written submissions tendered on: 12.06.2023 and 19.06.2023 Decided On: 14.09.2023 C. P. Kirtisinghe - J.

The Petitioner is seeking for mandates in the nature of a writ of Certiorari quashing the decisions of the 1^st Respondent marked P21 and P17 and also the decision of the 4^th Respondent contained in the document marked P11.

By the decision contained in the document marked P17, the 1^st Respondent had issued a notice to the Petitioner company to show cause why the 1^st Respondent should not impose a forfeiture of Rupees Sixteen Billion, Ten Million, Nineteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty-Seven and Seventy-One Cents (Rs.16,010,019,637.71) as being treble the value of the goods in terms of section 52 of the Customs Ordinance. By the decision contained in the document marked P21, the 1^st Respondent had decided that the value declared by the Petitioner company in respect of the cement they had imported is false and thereby shall be liable in terms of section 52 of the Customs Ordinance. The goods shall be forfeited and as such goods are not recoverable, the person making that false declaration shall forfeit the treble the value of such goods or be liable to a penalty of Rupees Hundred Thousand at the election of the Director General of the Customs. Therefore, the 1^st Respondent had forfeited a sum of Rs. 16,010,019,637.71 from the Petitioner and mitigated same to Rs.

262,521,414/=.

The case of the Petitioner can be summarized as follows;

The Petitioner company imports cement to this country from different parts of the world and the subject matter of this case relates to cement imported by the Petitioner in bulk form. The custom’s value of the goods imported is determined in terms of Schedule E of the Customs Ordinance as amended by Act No. 2 of 2003. In terms of article 1 of the Schedule E of the Customs Ordinance, the custom’s value is the transaction value, which is the price paid or payable for the goods when exported to Sri Lanka as adjusted in accordance with Article 8. Article 8 (1) (e) stipulates that the following sums should be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods.

(i) The cost of transport of the imported goods to the Port of Sri Lanka. (ii) Loading, unloading and handling charges associated with the transport of the imported goods to the Port of Sri Lanka.

(iii) The cost of insurance.

The Petitioner states that under Article 8(1)(e) of schedule E of the Customs Ordinance, the cost of transport, loading and unloading is required to be included in the customs value only up to the point of time the imported goods reached the port of Colombo. It is the case of the Petitioner that the cost of transport loading and unloading and handling charges incurred after the goods reached the port of Colombo cannot be included in the customs value. The Petitioner states that, the Petitioner did not include in the customs value the costs incurred at the port of Colombo. Thereafter the 3^rd Respondent had commenced investigating about the costs incurred by the Petitioner at the port of Colom