Per V.K. Ashtana :

In this appeal, the appellants are before us being aggrieved by two communications received by them as follows:-

(a) Letter dated 10.06.99 issued by the Appraiser of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Bangalore, on behalf of the Assistant Commissioner informing the appellants that with respect to their letter dated 05.06.99 to the ICD, their request for mutilation of the cargo imported by them under Bill of Entry No. 7086 dated 11.05.99 and 7083 dated 10.05.99 has been rejected. In the alternative, the appellants have been asked to execute PD bond covering the value of the goods with 100% Bank Guarantee for the differential duty + 10% of the value, so that they could secure provisional release of these goods from the ICD, pending further proceedings under law.

(b) A letter No. C.No./VIII/6/14/99/ICD dated 16.06.99 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore to the appellants with respect to their petition dated 12.06.99 seeking review of the decision by the lower authorities at (a) above. Therein, the learned Commissioner has given three reasons for rejecting the appellants request for mutilation of the steel sheets imported by them. One of the reasons is that investigations were still continuing. Therefore, the offer of getting the goods provisionally released under bond and bank guarantee as noted at (a) above has been reiterated.

2. Heard Sri R. Sudhakar, learned advocate for the appellants. He submits that aggrieved by these appellants approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, vide Writ Petition No. 20307/99, in consideration of which vide their order dated 29th June, 1999, the Hon'ble High Court directed the appellants to file an appeal before us within a week's time and to move for stay or any other interim order, as the Hon'ble High Court found it not proper to interfere in the matter at that stage. The Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of.

3. The learned advocate submits that they are, therefore, before us and briefly the matter concerns the import of bushelling scrap which is to be remelted in the furnace of their registered unit. He submits that the material has already incurred heavy demurrage and the appellants are continuously suffering great loss and hardship in view of this. He submits that they are not in a position to furnish 100% bank guarantee in view of the heavy losses already incurred in the form of demurrage charges. He, therefore, prays under Rule 41 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, necessary directions may be given by this Tribunal to the lower authorities to meet the ends of justice so that the recurring demurrage liability is immediately negatived. He submits that this appeal as well as the prayer is in terms of the directions received by the appellants in the said order of the Hon'ble High Court noted above.

4. Heard Sri S. Kannan, learned D.R., who submits that as per the instructions received from the Commissionerate, vide their letter dated 09.08.99, a copy of which is filed by the learned D.R. in the Court, while the Commissionerate has recorded that there is no objection from their side for this Tribunal hearing the said appeal, however, they have prayed that since investigation is still under progress, the Tribunal may direct the petitioner to take provisional clearance of the goods after furnishing bank guarantee etc. as per the two letters noted above. The learned D.R. therefore, submits that the matter being still under investigation, obviously the lower authorities are not in a position at this stage to finalise the assessment with respect to these goods and have therefore, as per the procedure provided under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 given an opportunity to the appellants to get the goods provisionally released under provisional assessment by executing a bond with bank guarantee as indicated in these two letters noted above. Therefore, he submits that since these letters are only orders pertaining to provisional assessment and provisional cl