COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Leases

Future minimum lease payments for operating leases for fiscal years ending September 30 are as follows (in thousands):

2013	$	2,603
2014	$	3,588
2015	$	2,329
2016	$	1,825
2017 and thereafter	$	12,980

Total rent expense under operating leases was approximately $5.5 million, $4.4 million and $4.8 million for fiscal years ended September 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively.

Purchase Commitments

At September 30, 2012, our purchase commitments, relating to our five drilling units under construction, were as follows (in thousands):

2013	$	454,000
2014	$	731,000
2015	$	369,000
2016	$	—
2017 and thereafter	$	—

Litigation

We are party to a number of lawsuits which are ordinary, routine litigation incidental to our business, the outcome of which is not expected to have, either individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Other Matters

The Atwood Beacon operated in India from early December 2006 to the end of July 2008. A service tax in India was enacted in 2004 on revenues derived from seismic and exploration activities. This service tax law was subsequently amended in June 2007 and again in May 2008 to state that revenues derived from mining services and drilling services were specifically subject to this service tax. The contract terms with our customer in India provided that any liability incurred by us related to any taxes pursuant to laws not in effect at the time the contract was executed in 2005 was to be reimbursed by our customer. We believe any service taxes assessed by the Indian tax authorities under the 2007 or 2008 amendments are an obligation of our customer. Our customer is disputing this obligation on the basis that revenues derived from drilling services were taxable under the initial 2004 law and are, therefore, our obligation.

After reviewing the status of the drilling service we provided to our customer, the Indian tax authorities assessed service tax obligations on revenues derived from the Atwood Beacon commencing on June 1, 2007. The relevant Indian tax authority issued an extensive written ruling setting forth the application of the June 1, 2007 service tax regulation and confirming the position that drilling services, including the services performed under our contract with our customer prior to June 1, 2007, were not covered by the 2004 service tax law. In August 2012, the Indian Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal issued an Order in our favor confirming our position that service tax did not apply to drilling services performed prior to June 1, 2007.  This ruling is subject to appeal to the Indian Supreme Court.

As of September 30, 2012, we had paid to the Indian government $10.1 million in service taxes and have accrued $1.8 million of additional service tax obligations in accrued liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets, for a total of $11.9 million relating to service taxes. We recorded a corresponding $11.9 million long-term other receivable due from our customer relating to service taxes due under the contract. We continue to pursue collection of such amounts from our customer.