2020 (10) TMI 644 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction - power of adjudicating authority to question the action of Director General of Hydrocarbon, Government nilegaonkar 1/3 5-wp-1794.2017.odt of India in making the amendments to the Essentiality Certificate dated 4/11/2013 - HELD THAT - After having minutely considered the impugned order in original as well as the judgments cited at the bar, prima facie we are of the view that the adjudicating authority was not justified in discarding the amendments to the Essentiality Certificate; thus imposing customs duty, interest and penalty on the petitioner who is a subcontractor of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), engaged in providing offshore drilling and production services in relation to oil exploration at various sites in Mumbai High. Since pleadings are complete, list the matter for final hearing on 26/11/2020.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order by Principal Commissioner of Customs

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges the order dated 27/2/2017 by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. The primary contention is that the adjudicating authority questioned the amendments made to the Essentiality Certificate by the Director General of Hydrocarbon, which was deemed beyond the adjudicating authority's competence. The petitioner's counsel cited relevant legal precedents to support this argument. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the impugned order is appealable under section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. They contended that the conclusions in the order were based on factual determinations that should be addressed in an appellate proceeding. The respondents also highlighted that the amendments to the Essentiality Certificate were made after the stipulated period.

The High Court, after considering the impugned order and the legal precedents cited, prima facie opined that the adjudicating authority erred in disregarding the amendments to the Essentiality Certificate. The court noted that the imposition of customs duty, interest, and penalty on the petitioner, a subcontractor of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) engaged in offshore drilling and production services for oil exploration in Mumbai High, was not justified. Consequently, the court admitted the petition for further proceedings. As the parties were represented and affidavits were filed, formal notice issuance was deemed unnecessary. The court ordered a stay on the impugned order dated 27/2/2017 and scheduled the matter for final hearing on 26/11/2020. The order was to be digitally signed and circulated accordingly for compliance.