1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8824 OF 2009 Commissioner of Customs (Import) .. Petitioners V/s M/s Shalimar International Exports (I) .. Respondent Mr. R.V. Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.B. Mishra for the petitioners. Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. U.P. Warunjikar for the respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 14TH OCTOBER 2009 P.C. : 1. After hearing the parties, in our opinion, this is not a fit case to interfere in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction. 2. It was the case of the respondents that they imported the goods for the purpose of using them as inputs in their furnace for melting. The petitioners however found that what was imported was not scrap but mild non-alloy steel rods. Accordingly, after the show cause notice an order was passed including an order of confiscation and release of the goods on payment of 2 redemption fine. Aggrieved by this order, the respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). It was pointed out before the Commissioner that the goods were still in the custody of the Customs. Since the goods were under “Live Bill of Entry” and were incurring detention charges, the Commissioner took up the matter for immediate consideration, and after considering the contentions raised by the parties passed the impugned order which included the payment of duty, execution of bank guarantee of Rs.1.5 lacs and end use bond for Rs.17,74,838/-. There is also a direction issued that the goods imported would be melted within the time prescribed under the physical supervision of the officer of the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by this direction issued by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Madanlal Steel Industries Ltd., 2001 (132) ELT 526 (SC). In our opinion, the issue before the Supreme Court is not the issue before us and hence the ratio of that judgment would not apply to the facts of the present case. 4. Considering the above, in our opinion, issuance of one direction cannot result in interfering with the impugned order. The contention of the petitioners was that the said material was used as raw material for end use 3 in furnace. All that the Appellate Authority has done is to ensure that it is so used as a raw material. 5. The issue as to whether the goods can be identified as scrap or as serviceable secondary/defective mild non-alloy steel rods is a subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and that would be decided in accordance with law irrespective of whether the said material is imported or not. 6. With the above observations, the petition is rejected without any order as to costs. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)