Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- The Writ Petitions are for the issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent bearing C. No. VIII/10/25/89-Cus. 2/16/90 and C.No. VIII/10/25/89-Cus. 2/17/90 respectively dated 5-3-1990 and quash the same. 2 .The case of the petitioner is that they are the importers of Cloves - Grade I of 60 bags weighing 5000 Kgs. and 2500 Kgs. respectively. They entered into a contract on 25-11-1988 for the supply of cloves valued at Rs. 3, 42, 500/- and 1, 71, 250/- respectively. Invoice dated 25-11-1988 was issued, with the approval of the Department of Commerce, Colombo, Sri Lanka (Ceylon) dated 25-11-1988. The National Chamber of Commerce of Sri Lanka also issued a certificate of origin dated 25-11-1988 for the import of 60 bags Cloves Grade I weighing 5000 Kgs. and 2500 Kgs. Payments were to be made by means of Bill of Exchange for INRS 3, 42, 500/- and 1, 71, 250/-. The above consignment was shipped on board TTN-199 under Bill of Lading bearing No. G/04 and G/03, dated 25-11-1988, with an endorsement "Shipped on Board 25-11-1988'. The goods arrived on 6-12-1988 vide IM. No. 433/6-12-1988. It is also the case of the petitioner that they have filed a Bill of Entry Nos. 52 and 53, dated 7-12-1988 through the Clearing Agents M/s. B.T.S. Thiraviaratnam & Sons, Tuticorin and sought clearance under OGL. A public notice was issued on 29-11-1988 according to which the import of cloves was not permitted under OGL. Prior to that the goods were under OGL and Licence was not required. As per the Import Policy 1988-91 cloves was allowed to be imported under OGL vide Appendix 6, List 8, Part II Entry 62(1). It is also the case of the petitioner that the Department has refused to clear the goods under OGL and issued a show cause notice dated 6-1-1989 and an addendum dated 22-2-1989 alleging that the abovesaid consignment of cloves which landed on 6-12-1988 was not covered by a Letter of Credit. The Colombo Port clearance to the said boat was dated 3-12-1988. The enquiry made with the Director General, Customs Sri Lanka revealed that the subject consignment was shipped on board on 1-12-1988 and that the importers were also not having valid licence to import the said consignment. The Colombo Port clearance to the said boat was dated 3-12-1988. The enquiry made with the Director General, Customs Sri Lanka revealed that the subject consignment was shipped on board on 1-12-1988 and that the importers were also not having valid licence to import the said consignment. The petitioner was asked to show cause why the consignment of cloves imported should not be confiscated under the provisions of the Customs Act. A detailed reply was filed on 6-1-1989. Pending adjudication, the consignment was allowed to be cleared on furnishing bank guarantee equivalent to 30% of the assessable value. The importers cleared the consignment on 27-3-1989 on furnishing bank guarantee for Rs. 1, 10, 000/- and Rs. 55, 000/- It is the case of the petitioner that the Additional Collector heard the petitioner and by his order dated 5-3-1990 confiscated the goods and allowed the goods to be cleared on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 70, 000/- and Rs. 35, 000/- respectively. He also levied a personal penalty of Rs. 100/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 196 2. The above order has been impugned in these writ petitions.3 .No counter has been filed in these two cases. 4 .It has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Additional Collector of Customs is bad and he should have noted that the date of shipment is the sole criterion to judge the validity of the imports. The Bill of Lading was admittedly dated 25-11-1988 which was prior to Public Notice No. 82/88, dated 29-11-1988. It was further argued that the said notice was made available to the public on 7-12-1988. It has also been further argued that the third respondent in his letter B.E. No. 52/7-12-1988, dated 22-2-1989 has stated that the inquiries made by the Department through the Director General, Sri Lankan Customs revealed that the consignment covered by Bill of Lading No. G/04 and G/03, dated 25-11-1988 was shipped on Board from Colombo Port only on 1-12-1988. The above consignment was made subsequent to the issue of Public Notice No. 82 ITC (PN)/88-91, dated 29-11-1988. The above consignment was made subsequent to the issue of Public Notice No. 82 ITC (PN)/88-91, dated 29-11-1988. At this juncture, it has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner was not able to know the contents of the enquiry report made by the Authorities and the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the enquiry report made by the respondents. Hence it is argued that it violates the principles of natural justice and on that grounds the impugned order is liable to be quashed. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents are not right in taking into account the date of shipment as 1-12-1988 even though the Bill of Lading was dated 25-11-1988 on the ground that the shipment has been made before the date of public notice. In these cases, no doubt, cloves was allowed importation under OGL vide Appendix 6 List 8 Part II entry 62(i). The above sub-entry was deleted by a Public Notice No. 82 ITC (P.N.)/88-91, dated 29-11-1988. The above notice was made available to the public on 7-12-1988 which is evident from the Government of India Gazette No. 152849/88, dated 3-3-1989. It has been argued that the authorities could have taken into consideration the date of which the notification was made available to the public. In these cases, notification was made available to the public on 7-12-1988 and hence the authorities are not right in relying upon the Gazette dated 29-11-1989 to say that the shipment was on 1-12-1988 even though it was on 25-11-1988. In this context, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decision in Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. wherein it has been held that unless the Gazette containing the notification is made available to the public, the notification cannot be said to have been duly published. 4. In these cases, notification was made to the public on 7-12-1988. The authorities should have taken note of that date alone. It is a fact that the Bill of Lading is shown as 25-11-1988 and the consignment arrived on 6-12-1988. Meanwhile, notification has come into play on 29-11-1988. The authorities have held that as per the Import Policy 1988-91 cloves was allowed importation under OGL vide App. 6 List 8 Part II Entry 62.(1). The above sub-entry was deleted by a Public Notice No. 82 ITC (P.N.)/88-91, dated 29-11-1988. Meanwhile, notification has come into play on 29-11-1988. The authorities have held that as per the Import Policy 1988-91 cloves was allowed importation under OGL vide App. 6 List 8 Part II Entry 62.(1). The above sub-entry was deleted by a Public Notice No. 82 ITC (P.N.)/88-91, dated 29-11-1988. But the authorities have utterly failed to note that the above notification was made available to the public on 7-12-1988. Hence it could be said that the Bill of Lading was taken place on 25-11-1988. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the impugned order was also passed basing on the enquiries made by the Director of Customs, Sri Lanka, who in turn, has informed that the shipping of the consignment has taken place on the Board on 1-12-1988. The fact remains that the above report was not made available to the petitioner herein to know the contents of the report of the Director General of Customs, Sri Lanka. In such a case, it could be said that the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground also. The impugned order also has to be set at naught as the respondents have failed to see that the Government Gazette notification was made available to the public on 7-12-1988. They should have taken into consideration the date of Bill of Lading as 25-11-1988 and the date of notification as 7-12-1988. In view of the above, the matter is remanded back to the second respondent herein to decide the matter afresh taking into consideration the date of Bill of Lading as 25-11-1988 and the notification was made available to the public on 7-12-1988, after giving opportunity to the petitioner Company. With the above directions, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.