M. L. Pendse, Acting C.J.
1. M/s. Universal Products had imported from Singapore a consignment of timber load in the month of October 1986. The Petitioners claim to
have purchased the consignment on ""High-Seas"" basis. On November 5, 1986, the Customs House Agent of the Petitioners prepared a Bill of
Entry for home consumption and tendered the same in the Customs office. It is the claim of the Petitioners that the Bill of Entry was returned as the
weight of the consignment did not tally with that shown in the Import General Manifest. The Petitioners had taken away the Bill of Entry and lodged
it on November 19, 1986. The duty payable on 19th November, 1986 had increased by virtue of notification. The Petitioners claim that the duty
should be charged as prevailing on November 5, 1986. The Petitioners approached this Court, seeking clearance of goods on payment of duty
which was payable on November 5, 1986. The Petitioners were permitted to clear the goods on payment of duty prevailing on November 5, 1986
and on furnishing of bank guarantee for the disputed amount of duty.
2. Mr. Chandrachud, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the Bill of Entry was presented on November 19, 1986
and the claim of the department that it was presented on November 5, 1986 is not correct. The learned Counsel urged that the Bill of Entry was
returned as it was not in proper form and therefore, there was no presentation. The contention is devoid of any merit. On behalf of the
Respondents, Mr. Shah has produced the original Cargo Declaration Form and perusal of the same leaves no manner of doubt that not only the
Bill of Entry was presented on November 5, 1986 but was also entered in the Cargo Declaration Register. The perusal of the original register
indicates that the Bill of Entry was returned to the Petitioners after registration and thereafter, the corrected Bill of Entry was represented on
November 19, 1986. It is well settled that the rate of duty payable is on the date when the Bill of Entry is presented. It is not uncommon that the
Bills of Entry after presentation are returned to the importer or its agent for correction and after such correction the Bills of Entry are represented.
It is impossible to accede to the claim that the relevant date is not the date of presentation but the date of representation. In our judgment, the claim
of the Petitioners is devoid of any merit and the petition must fail.
3. Accordingly Rule is discharged with costs. The Respondents are at liberty to enforce the bank guarantee.
