Court upholds jurisdiction despite challenge, criticizes communication lapses, and sets aside penalties for delays beyond petitioner's control.

The court upheld its jurisdiction despite a challenge, citing the partial cause of action within its territory. It refused to dismiss the petitioner for delay in filing, noting authorities' communication lapses. The court criticized the incorrect service of orders, hindering the petitioner's appeal rights. Penalizing the petitioner for delays caused by authorities was deemed unjust. The penalty for delayed submission of certificates was set aside as not the petitioner's fault. Despite compliance, the petitioner was penalized for delays beyond its control, leading the court to rule in favor of the petitioner and set aside the impugned orders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the court in relation to impugned orders passed at Chennai.
2. Delay in filing writ petitions and availability of alternative remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Service of impugned orders on the petitioner at the correct address.
4. Compliance with Condition (ix) of Customs Notification No.96 of 2009 regarding export obligations.
5. Penalty imposed by the first respondent for delay in submission of redemption certificates.
6. Onus on the petitioner to prove satisfaction of conditions for exemption notification.

Issue 1: The court addressed the jurisdictional challenge raised by the respondent, emphasizing that the cause of action partially arose within the court's territorial jurisdiction, allowing the petitioner to choose the High Court for approaching. The court rejected the contention citing relevant case law and upheld its jurisdiction.

Issue 2: The court considered the delay in filing writ petitions and the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that it was informed about the duty arrears only in March 2018, leading to the delay in filing. The court refused to non-suit the petitioner on technical grounds, emphasizing the authorities' lapses in communication.

Issue 3: The court examined the service of impugned orders on the petitioner at the correct address. The petitioner claimed that despite updating its address, the authorities sent notices and orders to the old address. The court noted the authorities' failure to communicate at the correct address, which hindered the petitioner's right of statutory appeal.

Issue 4: The court analyzed the petitioner's compliance with Condition (ix) of Customs Notification No.96 of 2009 regarding export obligations. The petitioner fulfilled its export obligations within the stipulated period but faced delays in obtaining and submitting redemption certificates. The court held that penalizing the petitioner for delays caused by the issuing authority was unjust.

Issue 5: The court addressed the penalty imposed by the first respondent for the delay in submission of redemption certificates. It emphasized that the delay was not attributable to the petitioner, and the authorities should have ensured timely issuance of certificates. The court found the respondent's approach hidebound and set aside the impugned orders as unsustainable.

Issue 6: The court discussed the onus on the petitioner to prove satisfaction of conditions for exemption notification. Despite the petitioner's compliance with export obligations, the respondent penalized it for delays beyond its control. Citing relevant case law, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned orders.

In conclusion, the court found the impugned orders unsustainable on facts and in law, setting them aside and allowing the writ petitions. The court highlighted the authorities' lapses in communication and unjust penalization of the petitioner for delays not attributable to it.

---