AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. B.P. SARAF, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai dated 17th May 1999 by which the petitioners were directed to execute a bond for Rs. 44,40,28,320/- with revenue deposit/bank guarantee of Rs. 25,41,97,333/- for provisional release of the rig Aban-II. The matter came up for admission on different dates and time was granted to the learned Counsel for the revenue to obtain instructions. When the matter came up on the last date, this Court indicated that the order was too harsh. Some suggestions were made by this Court to the petitioners. The Court asked the petitioners whether the petitioners were ready to furnish a bond for Rs. 20 crores and bank guarantee of Rs. 5 crores. The learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that it would be difficult for the petitioners to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 5 crores, though, the bond may be furnished. He wanted that the bank guarantee requirement should be re-considered. The above suggestion of the Court, however, did not find favour with the revenue. We are told that the duty demand was likely to be to the tune of Rs. 44 crores and allowing the petitioners to furnish bond for Rs. 20 crores and bank guarantee of Rs. 5 crores for the provisional release of the goods would not be in the interest of the revenue. Request of the petitioners for further reduction of requirement of bank guarantee from Rs. 5 crores was vehemently opposed by the learned Counsel for the revenue. The matter was adjourned till today to enable the revenue to satisfy this Court as to why the petitioners'' prayer for reduction of the bank guarantee amount should not be considered.
Today, Mr. Bharucha, learned Counsel for the petitioners furnished a copy of the letter of the Additional Commissioner of Customs dated 19th August 1999 by which the petitioners have been informed that the Commissioner of Customs (Import) is pleased to allow the petitioners'' usage of the rigs subject to furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 40 lakhs and revenue deposit of Rs. 60 lakhs to enable them to meet their contract obligation with O.N.G.C. The above communication is taken on record and marked ''X'' for identification. In view of the above communication, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not want to pursue this writ petition. He seeks liberty to withdraw this petition.
We have no objection to the withdrawal of this petition nor have we any objection to the communication of the Additional Commissioner of Customs allowing the petitioners to use the rigs on furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 40 lakhs and making revenue deposit of Rs. 60 lakhs, which obviously is acceptable to the petitioners. We, however, fail to understand what happened between the last date of hearing and the communication dated 19th August 1999 which made the revenue to change their tough stance before this Court and take such a liberal approach. So far as we recollect, when this matter was heard on the last occasion, we were told that the demand of duty etc. against the petitioners was likely to be to the tune of Rs. 44 crores and the petitioners should not be permitted to use the said rigs except on very stringent conditions. What is not clear to us is that what made the Commissioner in the meantime to realise that his earlier order was unreasonable and unjust and to modify the same and allow the petitioners to use the rigs merely on furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 40 lakhs and revenue deposit of Rs. 60 lakhs. If the revenue felt that the impugned order which the petitioners were challenging before this Court was harsh, unreasonable or unjustified, nothing prevented them from saying so to the Court on the last occasion when the Court was considering suitable modification of the same. The whole approach of the revenue is not understandable to this Court.
In any event, we are happy that the Commissioner of Customs (Import) has himself realised that the condition put by him for the use of the rigs by the petitioners was unreasonable and unjustified and has, accordingly, reduced the same from furnishing a "bond for Rs. 44,40,28,320/- with revenue deposit/bank guarantee of Rs. 25,41,97,333/-" to "bank guarantee of Rs. 40 lakhs and revenue deposit of Rs. 60 lakhs".
Mr. Bharucha, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the concerned Commissioner on deliberation was satisfied that the duty demand would not be as high as was estimated earlier. If that is so, the revenue should have stated so in Court. It is not necessary that every order, challenged by the aggrieved person before the Court must be contested vehemently, even if the same is found to be unjust and untenable. We hope that the officers entrusted with the powers to pass quasi-judicial orders, interim or final, would pass orders only on careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and with due regard to the hardship that may be caused to the citizens by their order. They should not pass arbitrary and unjust orders like the one impugned before us, which is set out as under:
"The Commissioner of Customs (Import) is pleased to grant you provisional release of the rig Aban II subject to execution of bond for full value of the rig and revenue deposit of bank guarantee for the amount of duty involved.
The value of the rig after allowing full depreciation @ 70% on the built cost of US $ 34.4 million works out to Rs. 44,40,28,320/-.
You are therefore requested to execute a bond for Rs. 44,40,28,320/- with revenue deposit/bank guarantee of Rs. 25,41,97,333/- for the provisional release of the rig."
The above order has now been substituted, during the pendency of this writ petition, by order contained in the following communication:
"Please refer to your letter dated August 17, 1999 addressed to the Commissioner of Customs (Import).
In this regard I have to inform you that the Commissioner of Customs (Import) is pleased to allow you the usage of the said rig subject to furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 40 lakhs and revenue deposit of Rs. 60 lakhs to enable you to meet your contract obligation with O.N.G.C..
You are also required to execute a bond for full value of the rig provisionally valued at Rs. 44,40,28,320/- and on undertaking to the effect that the said rig will be made available, in case the rig is confiscated by the adjudicating authority."
The difference in the conditions imposed in the two orders is glaring.
We hope the last order is the correct order. Had this order been passed originally, the petitioners would have been spared of the avoidable inconvenience and loss. The time of Court, which was spent on this writ petition, could also have been saved.
Writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn with the above observations.
Petition allowed.