Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. & Anr. VS. Union Of India & Ors.

Extract

---

Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. & Anr. VS. Union Of India & Ors.

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2236 of 2002

PETITIONER: Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. & Anr.

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/04/2008

BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & DALVEER BHANDARI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T With Civil Appeal No. 6148/2002 Jindal Drilling & Industries Ltd. & Anr.

- Versus Union of India & Ors.

And Civil Appeal No. 4444/2006 Great Offshore Ltd. & Anr.

- Versus - Union of India & Ors.

BHAN, J.

1. These appeals are being disposed of by this common Judgment as the facts and questions of law involved in these appeals are the same. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 6148 of 2002.

2. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 05.06.2002 rendered in the Appellants Writ Petition No. 1336 of 2002. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the questions in issue were covered by a previous Division Bench Judgment of the same High Court in Writ Petition No. 1818 of 2002

[Pride Foramer v. Union of India].

3. The principal issue that falls for consideration in this case is:- Whether oil rigs engaged in operations in the exclusive economic zone/ continental shelf of India, falling outside the territorial waters of India, are foreign going vessels as defined by Section 2(21) of the Customs Act, 1962, and are entitled to consume imported stores thereon without payment of customs duty in terms of Section 87 of the Customs Act, 1962?

FACTS 4. The Appellants are engaged in drilling operations for exploration of offshore oil, gas and other related activities under contracts awarded by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (for short, ONGC). The drilling operations are carried on at oil rigs/vessels, which are situated outside the territorial waters of India. Until around November, 1993, the Appellants, and all other similarly situated companies which were engaged in oil and gas exploration and exploitation were permitted to transship stores to the oil rigs without levy of any customs duty regardless of the fact whether oil rigs were operating within a designated area or non-designated area.

5. November, 1993 onwards, the Revenue Authorities (for short, respondents) refused to permit companies engaged in onward offshore operations, to transship stores to the oil rigs, without payment of customs duty.

6. Appellants filed Writ Petition No. 610 of 1994 challenging the levy of customs duty on transshipment of goods/stores imported by drilling contractors and supplied to oil rigs, as stores for consumption on board on the oil rigs. The Bombay High Court by its interim order dated 07.02.1994 held that the Appellant shall be permitted to clear the consignments without payment of duty on execution of bond. The Bombay High Court by its Judgment dated 15.01.1996 in Amership Management Pvt. Ltd. v.

Union of India [(1996) 86 ELT 12 (Bom)] allowed a group of Writ Petitions filed by similarly placed oil rig operators. The High Court in the aforesaid Judgment held that the oil rigs are foreign going vessels as defined in Section 2(21) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the Customs Act). The spare parts or equipment for the oil rigs were stores and the writ petitioners were entitled to clear the stores to the oil rigs, without payment of customs duty, by availing exemptions under Sections 86(2), 87 read with Section 2(21) of the Customs Act, 1962.

7. The Appellants Writ Petition No. 610 of 1994 was allowed on 24.04.1998 following the Judgment in Amership Management case (supra). The Respondents were directed to allow clearance of the ship stores and spares for use on the oil rigs without recovery of customs duty. The Civil Appeals preferred by the Revenue against the Judgment in the Appellants case were dismissed by this Courts Order dated 13.03.2001 which reads as under: - Learned counsel for the appellants draws our attention to the fact that by an order dated 19th April, 1999 the special leave petitions in this matter had been ordered to be linked with S.L.P.(C)...../1999 (D.No.6232/97). Subsequently, on 13th May, 1999, the number was corrected as S.L.P.(C) Nos...../99 (D.No.6292/97). Now, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that these appeals should be adjourned for two weeks and both matters listed together.

Learned counsel for the respondents draws our attention to the office report dated 12th March, 2001 in this matter. The relevant portion of the office report reads thus: "Pursuant to Court's Order dated 13th May, 1999, it is submitted for the information of the Hon'bl...

See the full content of this document

---