Shipment date under import policy turns on actual loading on board, while unproved anti-dating can still avoid penalty.

For sea shipment under the import policy, entitlement under OGL depends on the date of actual loading on board the vessel, not merely the earlier date shown on a bill of lading issued as a receipt. On the facts, the goods were loaded on 19-12-1988, so the earlier bill of lading date could not support the claimed policy benefit. The allegation that the appellants deliberately presented an anti-dated bill of lading was not proved, as the record did not establish intentional falsification and supported a clerical error. Confiscation was sustained, but the penalty was set aside and the redemption fine reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the date of issue of the bill of lading or the date of actual loading on board the vessel was the relevant date of shipment for entitlement to import under OGL; (ii) Whether the appellants deliberately presented an anti-dated bill of lading.

Issue (i): Whether the date of issue of the bill of lading or the date of actual loading on board the vessel was the relevant date of shipment for entitlement to import under OGL.

Analysis: The governing scheme required reference to the date of actual shipment. The rules relating to bills of lading distinguished between a receipt issued when goods are received into the carrier's charge and a shipped bill of lading issued after loading. On the facts, the goods were loaded on 19-12-1988, while the bill of lading bore an earlier date. The earlier date of issue could not be treated as the date of shipment for the policy benefit claimed by the appellants.

Conclusion: The relevant date was 19-12-1988, not 28-11-1988, and the goods were not covered by the OGL benefit.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants deliberately presented an anti-dated bill of lading.

Analysis: The record did not contain satisfactory proof that the incorrect loading date was inserted at the instance of the appellants. The contemporaneous material showed receipt of the cargo by the shipping line earlier, and the incorrect endorsement was attributed to a clerical mistake. In the absence of convincing proof of deliberate manipulation, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt on this aspect.

Conclusion: The allegation of deliberate presentation of an anti-dated bill of lading was not established.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation was sustained, but the penalty was set aside and the redemption fine was reduced, resulting in partial relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: For shipment by sea, the date of actual loading on board the vessel, and not merely the earlier date on the bill of lading issued as a receipt, governs entitlement under the import policy; where deliberate falsification is not proved, punitive penalty may be set aside even though confiscation is upheld.

---