Court quashes order, rules in favor of petitioners. Writ petition allowed, no costs.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the order-in-original dated 27th February 2017 due to illegality and irrationality. The petitioners were discharged from all undertakings, and the writ petition was allowed with no costs imposed on either party.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioners should be relegated to the alternative statutory remedy available.
2. Whether the order-in-original dated 27th February 2017 suffers from any vices that could attract judicial review.
3. What relief, if any, the petitioners are entitled to.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Alternative Statutory Remedy
The respondents contended that the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy available under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the court noted that the writ petition was admitted by a coordinate bench on 6th October 2020, which overruled the preliminary objection regarding the non-exhaustion of the appellate remedy. The court held that once the writ petition was admitted, the objection is hit by res judicata, and the principle of res judicata applies at different stages of the same proceedings. Therefore, the court decided to proceed with the adjudication of the writ petition on its merits.

Issue 2: Judicial Review of the Order-in-Original
The court examined whether the process of decision-making leading to the order-in-original dated 27th February 2017 suffered from any vices that could attract judicial review. The Principal Commissioner of Customs denied the benefit of the exemption notification to the Drill Ship ABAN-ICE, citing violations of mandatory conditions. The court found that the Principal Commissioner confined his inquiry to the branches of the tree without examining the root cause. The court noted that the contract between ONGC and AOL allowed the deployment of the drill ship in eligible PEL/ML areas and NELP areas, and there was no finding that the drill ship was deployed for purposes alien to petroleum operations. The court also observed that the Principal Commissioner failed to appreciate that the breach was of a technical nature with little or no significance regarding the working of the drill ship for petroleum exploration operations.

The court further noted that the Principal Commissioner erred in negating the effect of the NOC issued by the DGH based on the 'Doctrine of Curability.' The court held that the validity period of six months specified in the Essentiality Certificate was for the purpose of import to avail the benefit of the exemption notification and did not mean that the certificate became non est or invalid after six months. The court also stated that the DGH's issuance of the Essentiality Certificate and the NOC was an administrative function and not a quasi-judicial one, and the Principal Commissioner was not justified in questioning the DGH's approval.

Issue 3: Relief
The court concluded that the order-in-original dated 27th February 2017 suffered from illegality and irrationality, attracting judicial review. The court quashed the order-in-original and discharged the petitioners from all undertakings. The writ petition was allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Conclusion:
The court decided in favor of the petitioners on all issues, quashing the order-in-original dated 27th February 2017, and allowed the writ petition with no costs imposed on either party.

---