RBF RIG CORPORATION, MUMBAI versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 691 · Decided: 08-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. [2011] 2 S.C.R. 691 
RBF RIG CORPORATION, MUMBAI 
v. 
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI 
(Civil Appeal No. 3478 of 2006) 
FEBRUARY '08, 2011 
[D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Customs Act, 1962 - Refund claim under - Importer's 
claim for refund of customs duty -
Rejection by the 
adjudicating authority on the ground that assessment not c 
challenged - Adjudicating authority ignored the specific 
directions by the High Court to consider the refund claim on 
basis of the Essentiality Certificates - Justification of - Held: 
Not Justified - Subordinate Tribunal cannot examine whether 
a direction issued by the High Court under its writ powers was 
0 
correct and refusal to carry it out as such, amounts to denial 
of justice and destroys the principle of hierarchy of courts in 
the administration of justice - Same court can be approached 
for clarification/modification or the superior forum for 
appropriate relief in case the directions issued by the court 
is contrary to statutory provision or well established principles 
E 
of law - On facts, the revenue department did not question 
the order passed by the High Court, which order has reached 
finality - Thus, the adjudicating authority cannot be permitted 
to circumvent the order passed by the High Court - Customs 
authorities directed to consider the importer's claim for refund 
F 
of customs duty - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 -
Administration of justice. 
The appellant imported consignments of certain 
goods in pursuance to the contract with ONGC and filed 
G 
Bills of Entry for the same. The said imported goods were 
exempted from customs duty under a Notification which 
required the importer to produce Essentiality Certificates 
issued by Director General of Hydrocarbons (DGH) and 
691 
H 
692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 2 S.C.R 
A the DGH issued Essentiality Certificate on the basis o· 
recommendatory letters issued by ONGC. However, 
ONGC refused to entertain the appellant's request for the 
recommendatory letters and as such DGH refused to 
issue Essentiality Certificates. The appellant had to clear 
8 the consignments of the imported goods on full payment 
of the customs duty. The appellant filed a writ petition 
challenging 
the 
refusal 
of 
ONGC 
to 
issue 
recommendatory letters and refusal of DGH to issue 
Essentiality Certificate. The High Court passed an interim 
C order. In pursuance to the direction by the High Court, 
ONGC issued recommendatory letters and on the 
strength of these, DGH issued Essentiality Certificates to 
the appellant. The High Court then disposed of the writ 
petition directing the custom authorities to dispose of the 
appellant's refund claim of customs duty taking into 
D consideration the Essentiality Certificate issued by DGH. 
The appellant filed a refund claim in respect of customs 
duty paid on the import of goods. The Deputy 
Commissioner of Customs rejected the claim. The 
Commissioner as also the Tribunal rejected the appeals. 
E Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. 
. : F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Article 226 of the Constitution confers 
powers on the High Court to issue certain writs for the 
enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part-Ill 
of the Constitution or for any other purpose. The 
question, whether any particular relief should be granted 
under Article 226 of the Constitution depends on the facts 
of each case. The guiding principle in all cases is 
G promotion of justice and prevention of injustice. In the 
instant case, the High Court, has moulded the relief in 
such a manner to meet out justice to an aggrieved 
person. It is not open to the subordinate Tribunal to 
examine whether a direction issued by the High Court 
H 
•. 
RBF RIG CORPN, MUMBAI v. COMMISSIONER OF 693 
CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI 
under its writ powers was correct and refusal to carry it A 
out as such amounts to denial of justice and destroys the 
principle of hierarchy of courts in the administration of 
justice. [Paras 15 and 18) [700-D-E; 701-G-H; 702-A] 
Comptroller and Auditor-General of India v. K. S. 
B 
Jagannathan (1986) 2 SCC 679; Dwarkanath v. /TO AIR 1966 
SC 81; Bishnu Ram Borah v. Parag Saikia (1984) 2 SCC 
488 - referred to. 
1.2. If for any reason, the subordinate authority is of 
the view that the directions issued by the court is contrary C 
to statutory provision or well established principles of 
law, it can approach the same court with necessary 
a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.