V.C. DAGA, J.:---What are the boundaries of India in relation to maritime law is one of the questions of some potential significance raised in this petition, while questing the levy of customs duty on goods (spares/stores) imported by the petitioner for being transshipped for its use at the Oil Rig as spares and stores which carries on operation in designated area of the country as defined under the Act with the Territorial Waters Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 ("the Maritime Zones Act, 1976" for short)

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The factual matrix lies in the narrow compass and it is this:

The petitioner is a foreign company having its registered office in France and branch office in Mumbai. The petitioner company is engaged in the exploration and exploitation of offshore oil gas and provides other related services as a contractor, and works for and on behalf of Oil and Natural Gas Commission ("ONGC" for short).

3. The petitioner carries on operation with its Oil Rig Pride Pensylvania (hereinafter referred to as the "Rig") in the exclusive economic zone as defined under the Maritime Zones Act, 1976. The Oil Rig has a drilling machinery for drilling on the ocean floor. It is towed to the required locations outside the territorial waters of India and anchored and jacked up for drilling operations on the high seas. The drilling operations are carried on by the Oil Rig on the continental shelf.

4. The petitioner company imports goods including stores, spares, consumables and other articles required for the use on the Oil Rig. As the said imported goods/stores cannot land directly on the Oil Rig, the same land at Mumbai Seaport/Airport and the same are then transshipped to the Oil Rig.

5. The cause of action for filing this petition is the refusal by the respondents to permit the petitioner to transship stores and equipments to the Oil Rig without payment of customs duty. The petitioner contends that the goods imported for Oil Rig are liable to be transshipped to the Oil Rig without levy of duty of customs. The petitioner contends that the respondents are wrongfully levying duty of customs on the goods, which are used on the Rig.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

Submissions of the petitioner:

6. The submissions of the petitioner can conveniently be categorised in the following broad heads:

(A) The Oil Rig is vessel.

(B) The Oil Rig engaged in exploration/exploitation of offshore oil, gas and other related services outside the territorial waters of India whilst operating in designated area is a foreign going vessel pursuant to section 2(21)(ii) of the Customs Act.

(C) The goods sent to the Oil Rig are stores and are liable to be transshipped to the Rig without payment of any custom duty or at any rate the petitioner is entitled to transship spares without payment of customs duty under sections 53 and 54 of the Customs Act.

THE ARGUMENTS

The Oil Rig is a vessel.

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the word vessel is not defined in the Customs Act, therefore, it should be understood in a commercial sense or in a sense in which people conversant therewith understand it. In order to substantiate his submission, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon number of documents referred to in paragraph-5 of the petition and has pointed out certain certificates to contend that the Oil Rigs are considered to be "vessels" by the international community and sought to contend that the said question is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Amership Management v. Union of India)1, 1996(3) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)223 : 1996(86) E.L.T. 15.

The Rig is a foreign going vessel

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that Oil Rig engaged in exploration/exploitation of offshore oil, gas and other related services outside the territorial waters of India is a "foreign going vessel" pursuant to section 2(21)(ii) of the Customs A