Dedigama v. Preventive Officer, Sri Lanka Customs and Others – sllr 2004 volume 1 page 371

The case between Dedigama (Plaintiff) and Preventive Officer, Sri Lanka Customs and Others (Defendants) addressed the issue of whether a lack of knowledge regarding a tampered vehicle chassis number could serve as a defence in proceedings alleging unlawful importation. It was held that ignorance of the tampering did not constitute a defence, and the importer bears the burden of establishing lawful importation. The principle reaffirmed is that the onus of proof lies on the person from whom the goods are seized. This decision relied on sections 135, 152, and 164 of the Customs Ordinance and relevant provisions of the Evidence Ordinance, emphasizing that the scientific findings of the Government Analyst regarding tampering were conclusive. The judgment underscored that the availability of an