Judgment :- The Petitioner imported five consignments of E.C. Grade Aluminium rods from United States of America by S. S. Java Mail. According to the allegations in the petition the ship arrived in Madras during the third week of December 1966. In respect of two consignments the bill of entry was filed on 17-12-1966 and in respect of three consignments, on 23-12-1966. It would be mentioned that though in the petitioner's affidavit it is mentioned that the bill of entry in respect of three consignments was filed on 17-12-1966, it is now admitted that only in respect of two consignments it was so filed and that in respect of three consignments it was filed on 23-12-1966. By a notification No. 126 dated 20-8-1965 as subsequently modified by notification No. 144 dated 31st September, 1965, the Central Government had granted a concession in the import duty of 35 percent and thus reduced the duty payable to 15 percent ad valorem. But by a notification published on 23-12-1966 which was brought into force with retrospective effect from 19-11-1966, the concession earlier granted was withdrawn and the duty payable became 50 per cent. The Collector of Customs insisted upon the payment of extra duty of Rs. 1, 53, 352.62 in respect of two consignments and Rs. 2, 32, 266.65 in respect of three consignments. The petitioner's contention is that the notification published on 23-12-1966 withdrawing retrospectively from 19-11-1966 the concession granted earlier is ultra vires of the powers of the Central Government and this writ petition is, therefore, filed for a writ of certiorari quashing the notification withdrawing the concession retrospectively and for a direction to refund the excess duty of Rs. 3, 85, 619.27 illegally levied from the petitioner. 2.As the notification withdrawing the concession was published on 23-12-1966, it should be deemed to have come into force on the mid-night of 22/23-12-1966. Therefore, in respect of three consignments for which bills of entry were filed on 23-12-1966, there is no doubt that the notification would be perfectly valid and the duty collected in respect thereof is also valid. This is not seriously disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, in respect of three consignments for which bills of entry were filed on 23-12-1966, there is no doubt that the notification would be perfectly valid and the duty collected in respect thereof is also valid. This is not seriously disputed by the petitioner. But in respect of the other two consignments for which the bills of entry were filed earlier than the date of arrival of the ship in the Madras Port, the contention of the petitioner is that the date of filing of the bill of entry should be taken to be date on which the duty payable. The question whether the notification could be given effect to retrospectively has not been argued on behalf of the Department. We are, therefore, left with two questions; what is the date in relation to which the duty payable is to be calculated? With this is connected the question as to what is the date on which the ship entered the port? In the affidavit of the petitioner it is only stated that the steamer arrived in Madras during the third week of December 1966. But a letter dated 4-8-69 has been produced from the South India Export Company Private Limited, the shipping agents of the ship concerned, to the effect that the import manifest was filed in the Customs and Port Trust on 15-12-1966, that permission for entry inwards was given on 15-12-1966 and that the ship arrived at the outer anchorage (Madras Road steads) inside Port limits but outside harbour at 3 a. m. on 22-12-1966 and completed discharge on 24-12-1966. As against this the Department has produced the letter filed by the Madras Port Trust that S. S Java Mail arrived 'here' on 23-12-1966. The arrival report filed by the Master of the ship shows that the arrival was at 9 p. m. on 23rd December 1966. This corresponds with the statement filed by the shipping agents that it berthed at 9 p. m, on 23-12-1966. There is another paper filed by the same Master that S. S. Java Mail berthed on 23rd December 1966. There is still another paper signed by the shipping agents in respect of some other goods that the ship arrived on 22-12-1966. The shipping agents themselves have filed a statement on 27th January 1967 that S. S. Java Mail arrived on 23-12-1966. There is still another paper signed by the shipping agents in respect of some other goods that the ship arrived on 22-12-1966. The shipping agents themselves have filed a statement on 27th January 1967 that S. S. Java Mail arrived on 23-12-1966. The form of import manifests of stores in respect of the ship also shows that the ship arrived on 23-12-1966. There is still another statement called the tariff statement which shows that the ship arrived on 23-12-1966. Thus, there is ample material on record to show that the persons concerned who are expected to familiar with the terms used in such matters stated that the ship arrived on 23-12-1966; and even if we take the statement of the shipping agents dated 4-8-69 that it berthed at 9 p. m. on 23-12-1966 into account, it means that according to persons familiar with the subject the date of arrival is the date when the ship berthed in the harbour. There is really no reliable material to show that it arrived at the outer achorage at 3 a. m. on 22-12-1966 except this letter dated 4th August 1969. We do not find it in any of the earlier papers. In any case except in regard to the present proceedings they do not seem to have considered that the date of arrival in outer anchorage was of any importance. 3. Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads, in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case, as follows : The rate of duty, rate of exchange and tariff valuation, if "15. any applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force; (a)in the case of goods entered for home-consumption under Section 46 on the date on which a bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that section ; (b)in the case of goods cleared from a warehouse under Section 68, on the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse; (c) in the case of any other goods on the date of payment of duty : Provided that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel by which the goods are imported, the bill of entry shall be deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry in-wards. (2)The provision of this section shall not apply to baggage and goods imported by post. According to clause (a) of sub-section (i) the relevant date is the date on which a bill of entry was presented. That dated is 15-12-1966 in this case. But as the bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel, it should be deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry inwards. Now what do the words "the date of entry inwards" mean? Assuming the date as given by the shipping agents in their letter dated 4-8-69 to be correct is it the date on which the ship arrived at the outer anchorage (Madras road-steads) inside the port limits, but outside harbour, or is it the date on which the ship berthed? Reading Section 15(1) (a) and the proviso to that sub-section together, it is obvious that the date of entry inwards there referred to is the actual date of entry of the ship and not the notional date on which the bill of entry has been presented. Now should this entry be inside port limits or into the harbour? There is no definition of the words "date of entry inwards" in the Act, nor do any standard textbooks provide any guidance on this point. We should, therefore, take a common sense view of the matter and if we do so it appears to me it can only refer to the entry into the harbour. Section 7 of the Act enables the Central Government to appoint ports which shall be customs ports for unloading of imported goods and the loading of export goods. Section 8 enables the Collector of Customs to approve proper places in any customs port for the unloading and loading of goods as also to specify the limits of any customs area. The definition of Indian Customs waters in clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act as meaning the waters extending into the sea to a distance of twelve nautical miles measuring from the appropriate base line on the coast of India and includes any bay, gulf, harbour, creek or tidal river, is really not relevant in connection with the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. Clause 12 of Section 2 defines "Customs port" as any port appointed under clause (a) of Section 7 to be a customs port. Clause 12 of Section 2 defines "Customs port" as any port appointed under clause (a) of Section 7 to be a customs port. The notification issued under clauses (c) and (d) of section 11 of 1878 Act which corresponds to Section 8 of the present Act shows that goods could be landed only in the harbour governs together with the eastern sheltering arm and every wharf, pier, jetty or boat basin in the possession or occupation of the Madras Trust. Therefore, any comparison with ports like Nagapattinam or Cuddalore which do not have harbours like Madras will not be of any help. In the Madras harbour the goods can be landed only inside the harbour. 4. Let us then take section 16 which in respect of goods exported corresponds to section 15 in respect of goods imported, which reads of duty :" * 16. (1) The rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any export goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force. (a)in the case of goods entered for export under section 50 on the date on which a shipping bill or a bill of export in respect of such goods is presented under that section; (b)in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty; 5. Provided that if the shipping bill has been presented before the date of entry outwards of the vessel by which the goods are to be exported, the shipping bill shall he deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry outwards. 6.Thus in the case of export while the date on which the shipping bill or a bill of export is presented is the relevant date, under the proviso to sub-section 1, if the shipping bill is presented before the date of entry outwards, it would be deemed to have been presented on the date on such entry outwards. In the case of export, the goods could be loaded on the ship only from the berth and therefore, the words "entry outwards" can only mean the date on which the ship sails. Therefore, taking sections 15 and 16 together, I think, it is reasonable to interpret the date of entry inwards as meaning the date on which the ship actually berths. Such an interpretation is consistent with the understanding of the parties most concerned with this matter as I have shown above. Therefore, taking sections 15 and 16 together, I think, it is reasonable to interpret the date of entry inwards as meaning the date on which the ship actually berths. Such an interpretation is consistent with the understanding of the parties most concerned with this matter as I have shown above. 7.Under section 30 of the Act, the person in charge of a conveyance carrying imported goods shall, within twenty four hours after arrival thereof at a customs station deliver to the proper officer, an import manifest in the prescribed form. Under Section 31, the master of a vessel shall not permit the unloading of any imported goods until an order has been given by the proper officer granting entry inwards to such vessel and no order for entry inwards shall be given until an import manifest has been delivered. The question of the delivery of an import manifest and the grant of an entry inwards to a vessel are important because without those formalities unloading of any imported goods cannot be done. That is why under section 15, the entry inwards is made the crucial date for deciding the tariff valuation and the rate of duty. Only thereafter can the goods be unloaded and they can be unloaded only if they are in the berth in a port like Madras. Even in ports where there are no harbours as in Madras, they have got to reach places appointed under Section 7(a) and section 8 before they can unload. This also would seem to show that the words entry inwards which in the documents I have already referred to are mentioned as the date of arrival can only be date on which the ship berths. This apart, from the facts which I have already mentioned it is seen that there is really no reliable evidence to show that the ship reached the port limits at 3 a.m. on 22-12-1966. This apart, from the facts which I have already mentioned it is seen that there is really no reliable evidence to show that the ship reached the port limits at 3 a.m. on 22-12-1966. The explanation to section 37 of the Sea Customs Act 1878 reads as follows: "Explanation :-A bill of entry shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be delivered - (a) when it is first presented to the proper officer of customs; or (b) Where it is delivered in anticipation of the arrival of the importing vessel, on the date on which an order is given under section 57 for the entry of the vessel inwards" * Will the old section 37 of the Sea Customs Act 1878 help the petitioner? Section 57 there referred to also refers to the order given on the manifest for entry inwards. It would be noticed that in this case the order for entry inwards was given on the 15th December 1966. On that date the ship was nowhere near Madras. It was somewhere on the high seas between Singapore and Cochin. Whatever might be the considerations which were applicable for cases under the old Act, the new Act leaves no room for any doubt. The new Act makes a difference between the date when the bill of entry is presented and the entry of the vessel and such entry can only be into the harbour. I am, therefore of opinion that the entry inwards of the ship for purposes of this case was 23-12-1966 and, therefore, though in respect of two consignments carried by it the bill of entry might have been presented earlier than that date it makes no difference to the duty payable because the entry inwards for purposes of section 15 is the actual date of entry inwards of the vessel and not the notional date on which the bill of entry is presented. 8.The Writ Petition, therefore, dismissed as devoid of merits.