2017 (9) TMI 1213 - HC - Customs

Penalty - default in fulfilment of its export obligations - RITES (petitioner) neither surrendered the licence nor completed the export obligations - Held that - According to RITES it did not receive the said impugned orders as they were sent to its erstwhile office address at New Delhi and RITES had since shifted to Gurgaon. RITES further claimed that it became aware of the impugned orders on 28.04.2015. Even thereafter RITES did not take any further steps to assail the impugned orders. On the contrary RITES paid the penalties and requested for closure of the case by the letters dated 13.07.2015. It is apparent that present petitions are grossly delayed and have been filed to overcome the failure of not availing of the alternate remedies within the time specified - RITES is Government of India Enterprise and not a hapless individual who can be taken advantage of; it cannot be heard to canvas that it had made payments under duress. Further even after the cases were closed RITES did not take immediate steps to challenge the impugned orders and had approached this Court more than a year thereafter. The impugned orders are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Impugning orders imposing penalty for defaulting export obligations, Delay in challenging orders, Failure to avail alternate statutory remedies, Payment of penalties without reservation, Claim of payment under duress.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged two orders by the respondent imposing penalties for failing to fulfill export obligations. The petitioner did not surrender the licenses or complete the obligations, despite multiple notices from the DGFT. The impugned orders imposed significant penalties on the petitioner for non-compliance.

The petitioner claimed they did not receive the orders promptly as they were sent to an old office address. However, the petitioner became aware of the orders in 2015 but only challenged them in 2016, well beyond the statutory time limit for appeal. The petitioner also paid the penalties without protest, requested closure of the cases, and did not take immediate steps to challenge the orders.

The court cited precedents emphasizing the importance of timely availing statutory remedies and the unreasonableness of delays in seeking relief under Article 226. The court noted that the petitioner, being a government enterprise, could not claim to have made payments under duress. The court found no justification for the delay in challenging the impugned orders and dismissed the petition accordingly.

In conclusion, the court held that the impugned orders were not arbitrary, and the petitioner's failure to exercise alternate statutory remedies within the prescribed time barred them from seeking relief under Article 226. The court found no valid reason for the delay in challenging the orders and dismissed the petition.