1999 (8) TMI 467 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Communication rejecting request for mutilation of imported cargo.
2. Review of decision by lower authorities regarding import of steel sheets.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were aggrieved by two communications regarding their imported cargo. The first communication, dated 10-6-1999, rejected their request for mutilation of the cargo and required them to execute a PD bond with a bank guarantee for provisional release. The second communication, dated 16-6-1999, from the Commissioner of Customs reiterated the rejection based on ongoing investigations. The appellants approached the Hon'ble High Court, which directed them to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within a week.

2. The matter involved the import of bushelling scrap for remelting, incurring heavy demurrage and losses for the appellants. They were unable to provide a 100% bank guarantee due to existing losses. The appellants sought necessary directions from the Tribunal under Rule 41 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules to negate the demurrage liability. The Commissionerate, however, requested provisional clearance of goods pending investigations, emphasizing the provisional nature of the assessment due to ongoing scrutiny.

3. The Tribunal considered the jurisdictional aspect under Section 129A(1)(a) of the Customs Act, which requires an order by the Commissioner of Customs acting as an adjudicating authority to be agitated before it. As the orders in question were interim in nature, proposing provisional assessment and clearance under Section 18 of the Customs Act, they did not meet the criteria for appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal referenced a previous case involving similar provisional assessment issues, concluding that the appeal was not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the appeal could not be entertained due to non-maintainability under the law, as the interim nature of the orders did not meet the jurisdictional requirements for appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was rejected on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The miscellaneous application was also disposed of accordingly.