hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5 OF 1991 Pankaj Ramanlal Raval ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S.N. Kantawala with Mr. Brijesh Pathak i/by M/s. Kantawala & Co. for hte Petitoenr. Mr. Rohit Pardeshi for Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 05, 2009 P.C. It is not necessary to set out facts in detail. The respondents had sought to assess the duty on the goods imported by the Petitioner based on the revision in the rate of duty. The contention of the Petitioner was that it was not published and consequently untill such publication, it would not be applicable. A reply has been filed by Mr. A.S. Sonawane. Though the original is not on record, the learned counsel for the respondents hand over to us zerox copy of the said affidavit which was affirmed on 4.7.2003. In the said affidavit in Para 9 it is set out that notification was published in the gazzette of India on 15.12.1990. The Bill of Entry in respect of the goods was filed on 17.12.1990. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ganesh Das Bhojraj 2000 (116) ELT 431 (SC) the publication of notification in the gazzette would result in the notification coming into operation. At the admission stage by interim order the goods were released on the Petitioner furnishing a personal bond without bank guarantee. Considering that the notification would be applicable, respondents are directed to make final assessment, if not already made and thereafter to take steps according to law including invoking personal bond, if required. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)