R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this petition for the following reliefs : ( a) A declaration that the Public Notice No. 3/94, dated 10-3-1994 [annexure-B1] is unconstitutional; (b) (i) A direction to respondents, from undertaking and/or finalising assessments in terms of the public Notice No. 3/94, dated 10-3-1994; (ii) From assessing to customs duty on the crude oil imported by the petitioner Company on the basis of Ullage Survey Report; (c) (i) For quashing the Public Notice No. 3/94, dated 10-3-1994. (ii) For quashing the order dated 3-6-1999 [annexure-L] passed by the second respondent. ( 2 ) THE petitioner imports crude oill of different varieties. For the purpose of assessment of customs duty, the petitioner filed Bills of Entry on the basis of the quantity measured at shore tank (the quantity that is received in the shore tank on the landmass, after discharge from the ship ). The Customs Authorities have assessed the quantity on the basis of the Ullage Survey report prepared at the port of destination, when the ship enters the territorial waters before discharge of cargo on the landmass, and issued show cause notices in regard to 10 items of cargo, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the difference between the duty paid by petitioner (on the basis of shore tank measurement) and duty payable (on the basis of Ullage survey Report) should not be recovered as short levy due. After considering the objections and hearing, the second respondent has passed an order dated 3-6-1999 [annexure-L] confirming the demand for Rs. 5,16,97,312/- being the differential amount of customs duty, on the crude oil imported by petitioner. ( 3 ) THE third respondent has issued Public Notice No. 3/1994 dated 10-3-1994 laying down the procedure for determining duty liability in respect of liquid cargo. The said Public Notice states that duty liability will be on the basis of the Ullage Report prepared before dischargring the liquid cargo from the vessel as held by the Bombay High Court in its decision rendered in 1986. The said Public Notice states that duty liability will be on the basis of the Ullage Report prepared before dischargring the liquid cargo from the vessel as held by the Bombay High Court in its decision rendered in 1986. ( 4 ) AT the out-set, the learned senior CGSC appearing for the respondents pointed out that the order dated 3-6-1999 [annexure-L] is an appealable order and an appeal lies to the commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) and petitioners can urge all the contentions in regard to the order dated 3-6-1999 and the Public Notice No. 3/94, dated 10-3-1994 before the Appellate Authority. He also pointed out that a further appeal is available to CEGAT and thereafter an appeal to the Supreme Court and in view of the efficacious alternative remedies so available, this Court should not entertain this writ petition. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that the Appellate Authority will be bound by the decision of the Tribunal in Cochin Refineries Ltd v. Commissioner of customs, Cochin 1999 (63 )ECC318 (Tri ), 1999 (105 )ELT108 (Tri-Chennai ), wherein the CEGA Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, has decided the question which is the subject matter of the dispute, by holding that importation of goods is complete as soon as vessel carrying the cargo enters the territorial waters of India and does not postpone till goods are actually off-loaded on the landmass of India and therefore duty liability arises on the basis of the Ullage Suryey Report prepared at the port of discharge. He, therefore, contended that the appellate Authority, being bound by the said decision will decide the matter against the petitioner without examining the contentions of petitioner on merits and therefore appeal is not an efficacious remedy. ( 6 ) THE Madras and Gujarat High Courts have taken the view that the quantity imported is the quantity measured after landing on the landmass, (that is the quantity measured in the shore tank) vide Prabhat Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. v. UOI, 1982 (10 ) ELT203 (Guj ), M. Jamal Co. v. Union of India, 1985 (6 )ECC202 (Mad ), 1985 (21 ) ELT369 (Mad ) and Lucas TVS v. Assistant Commissioner, 1987 (13 )ECC292 (Mad ), 1987 (12 )ECR1213 (NULL ), 1987 (28 )ELT266 (Mad ). v. Union of India, 1985 (6 )ECC202 (Mad ), 1985 (21 ) ELT369 (Mad ) and Lucas TVS v. Assistant Commissioner, 1987 (13 )ECC292 (Mad ), 1987 (12 )ECR1213 (NULL ), 1987 (28 )ELT266 (Mad ). But the Bombay high Court had consistently taken the view that the quantity imported is the quantity as per the ullage report prepared after the ship has entered in the territorial waters of India and before discharge on the landmass [in Apar Private Ltd v. Union of India - 1986 (1 )Bomcr196 , (1986 )88 BOMLR355 , 1985 (6 )ECC241 (Bom ), 1988 (19 )ECR514 (NULL ), 1985 (22 ) ELT644 (Bom ) and Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector 1987 (3 ) Bomcr151 , 1986 (10 )ECC191 (Bom ), 1988 (18 )ECR384 (NULL ), 1986 (25 )ELT948 (Bom )]. ( 7 ) EARLIER the Tribunal in a series of decisions had taken the view that the quantity imported is the quantity measured after landing on the landmass. e. , the measurement when it is put on the shore tanks. However, in Cochin Refineries case, the Tribunal chose to follow the decision of the bombay High Court on the following reasoning: "we find that there is no decision of Hon'ble Apex Court on this issue made available to us. Therefore going by the principle of Judicial Discipline, we have to consider only the Full Bench decision of any High Court in the country namely the decision of the Full Bench of Hon'ble bombay High Court discussed above as overriding the other decisions of Division Benches of other High Courts as well as that of the Tribunal. " ( 8 ) THUS, the Tribunal's view in Cochin Refineries's case is not on the basis of any independent reasoning, but solely based on the basis that the decision of Bombay High Court in Apar Private ltd. 's case which is of a Full Bench, whereas the contrary view of the Gujarat and Madras High courts were either of a single Judge or Division Bench. The decision in Apar Private Ltd. 's case had been taken up in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal [union of India and Ors. v. Apar Private Ltd. and Ors. The decision in Apar Private Ltd. 's case had been taken up in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal [union of India and Ors. v. Apar Private Ltd. and Ors. , reported in 1999 (6) Supreme 348 ] and set aside the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Apar Private Ltd. v. Union of India 1986 (1 ) Bomcr196 , (1986 )88 BOMLR355 , 1985 (6 )ECC241 (Bom ), 1988 (19 )ECR514 (NULL ), 1985 (22 )ELT644 (Bom ). In view of the fact that the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Apar Private Ltd. has been set aside, the very basis for the decision of the Tribunal in Cochin Refineries Ltd's case disappears. As a consequence, the apprehension of the petitioners that the decision of CEGAT in Cochin refineries Ltd. will come in the way of the Appellate Commissioner examining the matter independently, can no longer exist. If an appeal is filed by the petitioners, the Appellate authority is bound to consider the contentions of petitioners in regard to the order appealed against and the public notice dated 10-3-1994, independently, not being bound by the decision in cochin Refineries case. It is, therefore, open to the petitioners to file an appeal and urge all these contentions before the Appellate Authority. As the decision in Cochin Refineries Ltd. 's case will no longer be a bar for the petitioners urging their contentions based on the several other judgments of the Madras and Gujarat High Courts, the appeal is an efficacious remedy. ( 9 ) THE learned Senior CGSC submitted that in Cochin Refineries case, the Tribunal had also relied on the decision of the learned single Judge of Mumbai High Court in Shaw Wallace and co. Ltd. v. Asst. Collector 1987 (3 )Bomcr151 , 1986 (10 )ECC191 (Bom ), 1988 (18 )ECR384 (NULL ), 1986 (25 )ELT948 (Bom ); that the decision of the supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Apar Private Ltd. and Ors. , 1999 (6) Supreme 348 related to the rate of duty. He therefore contended that the decision in Cochin Refineries will still be binding on the Appellate Authority. This contention is without merit. v. Apar Private Ltd. and Ors. , 1999 (6) Supreme 348 related to the rate of duty. He therefore contended that the decision in Cochin Refineries will still be binding on the Appellate Authority. This contention is without merit. As noticed above, the tribunal felt itself bound by the decision in Apar, because it was a decision of the Full Bench, as contrasted from the decisions of Madras and Gujarat High Courts which were of smaller benches. Once Apar has been overruled, the binding nature of Cochin Refineries which is based on Apar disappears. ( 10 ) IN view of the above, observing liberty to the petitioners to have recourse to the remedy of appeal, this petition is disposed of. ( 11 ) HAVING regard to the fact that the petitioners had filed this petition on 24-7-1999, the appeal, if filed by the petitioners within four weeks from this date, shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation. There shall be no recovery in pursuance of Annexure-L till the expiry of the time granted for filing the appeal.