Court dismisses petition challenging export obligation penalties, emphasizes timeliness, rejects duress claim.

The court dismissed the petition challenging orders imposing penalties for failing to meet export obligations. The petitioner delayed challenging the orders, paid penalties without objection, and failed to avail alternate statutory remedies. The court emphasized the importance of timely action, noted the lack of justification for delays, and rejected the claim of payment under duress. Ultimately, the court found the penalties reasonable, barred relief under Article 226 due to the delay, and dismissed the petition.

---

---

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.

---