ORDER

K. M. G. H. KULATUNGA, J.

1. The petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a finding of a Customs Inquiry in which the petitioner, along with several others, was charged with an offence under Section 137 of the Customs Ordinance. The petitioner had been found guilty, and a forfeiture of Rs. 100,000.00 had been imposed. This application was filed against the said finding and forfeiture imposed on 07.04.2025. The charge as preferred alleges that the petitioner acted in collusive agreement with Customs Officer D.K.D. Wijeweera in the transaction of illegal disposal of palm oil.

2. The main ground of the petitioner is that the evidence does not establish the fact of the petitioner having an “agreement” with the errant Customs Officer, D.K.D. Wijeweera, to commit the alleged Customs offence of illegal disposal of palm oil. The second argument is that the Rs. 100,000.00 forfeiture imposed is excessive and disproportionate.

3. The facts that led to this Customs Inquiry may be summarised as follows. A consignment of five containers of imported palm oil, found to be unfit for human consumption, had been released for destruction. The contract for destruction had been tendered and obtained by a person named Gamini on 12.07.2023. The said Gamini has obtained the release of these containers from the Sri Lanka Customs and taken them to the Asian Container Yard. Subsequently, it was found that a part of the said consignment had been sold to a person in Embilipitiya. Upon this investigation, an inquiry had been instituted against the petitioner, Gamini, Kamalkumar, and Customs Officer D.K.D. Wijeweera and several others. The evidence against the petitioner is that he was seen in the room of the said Customs Officer, D.K.D. Wijeweera on the day of the release, and also, Kamalkumar has testified that the petitioner knew of the intended sale. The release of the containers was processed and attended to by Gamini, the petitioner, and the Customs Officer, D.K.D. Wijeweera. The Customs held an inquiry, and the allegation was based on Section 137 of the Customs Ordinance. Section 137 reads thus:

“137. If any officer of the customs, or any person employed for the protection of the revenue, shall make any collusive seizure, or deliver up, or make any agreement to deliver up, or not to seize any ship, boat, or goods liable to forfeiture under this Ordinance, or shall take any bribe, gratuity, recompense, or reward for the neglect or non-performance of his duty, every such officer or other person shall forfeit for every such offence a sum not exceeding one thousand rupees, and be rendered incapable of serving the Government of Sri Lanka in any office whatever; and every person who shall give or offer, or promise to give or procure to be given any bribe, recompense, or reward to, or shall make any collusive agreement with, any such officer or person as aforesaid, to induce him in any way to neglect his duty, or to do, conceal, or connive at anything whereby the provisions of this Ordinance may be evaded, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one hundred thousand rupees,”

4. Section 137 has two limbs, and the charge against the petitioner is based on the second limb of making any collusive agreement with a Customs Officer to commit an offence. This is an application for a writ. It is not an appeal against the findings of fact made by the Inquiring Officer. As stated above, the primary basis is that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the fact of the “agreement” between the petitioner and the Customs Officer, D.K.D. Wijeweera to commit the alleged act of selling palm oil intended to be destroyed. In an application of this nature, what this Court would consider is the reasonableness, propriety, and the legality of the finding, and if there is sufficient material to reasonably arrive at the finding as done by the trier of fact.

5. This Court, in exercising its writ jurisdiction, will not step into the shoes of the trier of fact and substitute its