2006 (4) TMI 154 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Provisional release of the rig "Pride Pennsylvania."
2. Show cause notice and adjudication proceedings.
3. Appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
4. Refund of Rs. 10 crores and cancellation of bond.
5. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Provisional Release of the Rig "Pride Pennsylvania":
M/s. Pride Foramer imported the rig "Pride Pennsylvania" in March 1999 for a contract with ONGC. The rig's value was declared as US $17,682,690, and customs duty of Rs. 34,48,94,785/- was paid. Following intelligence and preliminary investigation, the rig was seized on 26th September 2001. M/s. Pride Foramer requested the Commissioner to allow continued operations, which was granted provisionally upon submission of a bond of Rs. 50 crores and a cash deposit of Rs. 10 crores. The High Court upheld this requirement on 3rd October 2001.

2. Show Cause Notice and Adjudication Proceedings:
On 8th January 2002, a show cause notice was issued to M/s. Pride Foramer to explain why the rig should not be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, why differential duty of Rs. 52,13,50,125/- should not be recovered, and why penalties and interest should not be imposed. The notice also extended to Mr. Jean Paul Rabier and M/s. Bureau Veritas under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs (Import) ordered confiscation of the rig but allowed redemption upon payment of a fine of Rs. 5 crores. Differential duty of Rs. 29,45,19,057/- was confirmed, and interest at 24% per annum was imposed along with penalties on M/s. Pride Foramer and others.

3. Appeals Before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal:
Four appeals were filed against the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal found that the declared value of the rig was correct and set aside the valuation made by the Commissioner, allowing appeals by M/s. Pride Foramer, Mr. Jean Paul Rabier, and M/s. Bureau Veritas. The Department's appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the revenue's appeals against the Tribunal's decision on 14th February 2005.

4. Refund of Rs. 10 Crores and Cancellation of Bond:
Following the Supreme Court's dismissal, M/s. Pride Foramer sought a refund of Rs. 10 crores and cancellation of the bond. Despite repeated requests, the refund was not processed, leading to an application for refund on 9th July 2003. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund but credited it to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Appeals against this decision were dismissed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). However, the Tribunal later allowed the appeal by M/s. Pride Foramer, directing the return of Rs. 10 crores along with interest and cancellation of the bond.

5. Maintainability of the Appeal Under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision to refund the amount and cancel the bond. The High Court examined whether the appeal was maintainable under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's order on the miscellaneous application was not an order in appeal under Section 129B and thus not amenable to appeal under Section 130. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, referencing the statutory provisions and relevant case law, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Durga Engineering and Foundry Works and the Jharkhand High Court's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. International Auto Products (P) Ltd.

Conclusion:
The High Court held that the appeal by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) was not maintainable under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, and dismissed it accordingly.

← Previous Next →