News
Adulterated palm oil: Counsel turns petitioner after client withdraws case
View(s):The Attorney, who represented a consumer rights advocate in the case of an adulterated palm oil shipment detained by Sri Lanka Customs, has filed a fresh writ application in the Court of Appeal, after his client withdrew from the case.
Public Interest Litigation activist and Attorney-at-Law Nagananda Kodithuwakku said he felt compelled to file his own writ application this week, after his client withdrew from the case. Mr Kodithuwakku said he filed his petition after a Customs inquiry in July this year, ordered the release of 24 containers with some 400,000 kg of adulterated palm oil that Customs had detained in 2016.
Though Mr Kodithuwakku had earlier appeared in the same case, on behalf of the consumer rights advocate, he said he had to withdraw that writ application and file his own, after the consumer rights activist informed court that he had “no interest in proceeding with the case.” Customs Director General Sudath J. De Silva, Deputy Director K.H.P. Kumarasiri and Sena Mills Refineries (Pvt) Ltd have been named as respondents in the case filed by Mr Kodithuwakku.
Mr Kodithuwakku notes that the initial Customs Inquiry conducted by the 2nd Respondent uncovered “irrefutable evidence” that the palm oil shipments at issue had been mixed with fatty acid, which is mutagenic and carcinogenic, and is therefore, injurious to health. It was further uncovered that the exporter in Malaysia had mixed the palm oil with the fatty acid at the request of the importer. This fact was confirmed by the Malaysian Government’s Palm Oil Board to the Sri Lanka Customs, in a report dated June 8, 2016, the Petitioner points out.
According to the Food Act, palm oil recommended for human consumption should not contain more than 0.1 free fatty acid. Analysis of oil samples from the detained consignment, tested by the Agriculture Faculty of the University of Peradeniya (UoP), had found that the average free fatty acid content of the stock was 19.9, far above the limit noted in the Food Act. Accordingly, the UoP report had concluded that the samples contained “unacceptable levels of free fatty acids that are not suitable for human consumption,” the Petitioner further notes.
Mr Kodithuwakku further points out that the Court of Appeal, on February 6, 2017, dismissed a petition filed by the importer, Sena Mills Refineries (Pvt) Ltd, challenging the holding of the Customs Inquiry. The petition was dismissed with costs, after it was established before court that analysis reports on the consignment indicated they could be adulterated palm oil and that, the actions taken by the Director General of Customs to detain the suspicious consignments, was well within the Law, the Petitioner notes.
The Petitioner states that, further to the aforesaid order made by the Court of Appeal, another Customs Inquiry was held before the 3rd Respondent, who was appointed as the Inquiring Officer. The inquiry was conducted on July 12, 2018, and in his observations, the 3rd Respondent had referred to the aforesaid evidence and yet ordered the release of the entire stock of adulterated palm oil, despite the clear violation of the Food Act, as the commodity had been confirmed to be not fit for human consumption, the Petitioner adds.
The Petitioner is requesting the court to grant interim relief restraining the 1st Respondent from releasing the contaminated palm oil, until the final determination is made by the court.