Unique Organics Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. While acknowledging the petitioner's arguments regarding its registered office, contract execution, and payment receipts in Jaipur, the Court found these facts not to be integral to the cause of action for challenging the customs notifications. The Court emphasized that the core of the grievance, the non-clearance of goods for export and the potential liability for export duty, pertains to actions at a customs port outside its jurisdiction. The Court distinguished the present case from Nawal Kishore Sharma, stating that it would have been different if the rejection of exemption was explicitly based on the mode of payment, which was not categorically averred. The Court concluded that the writ petition was filed on an assumption without sufficient factual basis regarding the reason for non-clearance, and therefore, the petitioner should approach the appropriate forum. The objection to maintainability on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was sustained.

Facts

The petitioner, Unique Organics Limited, filed a writ petition challenging notification no. 50/2023-Customs dated August 25, 2023. The petitioner contended that this notification, which grants exemption benefits to those who have opened letters of credit before the specified date but denies it to those who have already made payment in cash, is discriminatory. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. The petitioner argued that part of the cause of action arose within the court's jurisdiction because its registered office is in Jaipur, contracts were entered into in Jaipur, and payments were received in Jaipur through Foreign Inward Remittance. The respondents argued that the cause of action, primarily concerning the export of goods and customs clearance, arose outside the court's jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether this High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, considering that the impugned notifications (no. 49/2023-Customs and 50/2023-Customs dated 25.08.2023) were issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, and the export of goods is to take place at a port situated outside the court's territorial jurisdiction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the court's jurisdiction because its registered office is in Jaipur, contracts were entered into in Jaipur, and payments were received in Jaipur via Foreign Inward Remittance. They relied on the Supreme Court case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India & Others. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the court's jurisdiction. They contended that the integral facts for the cause of action, such as the goods entering the customs station for exportation and the order for clearance, have all arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction. They relied on the Supreme Court cases of Union of India & Others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. & Another and State of Goa Vs. Summit Online Trade Solutions Private Limited & Others.