SUKESH MAHAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a proprietor of Mahajan & Co. a sole proprietorship concern is involved in the export of garments. The petitioner obtained a revalidated quota for export of garments for the year 1994. The question involved in the present petition relates to the forfeiture of the amount of Rs.74,111.00 on account of the non-fulfilment of its export obligation under the policy. The original forfeiture amount was Rs. 1,26,556.00.

(2.) The petitioner claimed that on 23.12.1994 a theft took place in his factory premises as a result of which the entire quota could not be shipped before the due date, i.e. 31.12.1994. The petitioner was aggrieved by the Speaking Order passed by the AEPC whereby the forfeiture was made. He filed an appeal before the Textile Commissioner before which he sought the invocation of the force majeure condition as spelt out under paragraph 15 of the Notification dated 4.9.1993 under the Garment Export Entitlement Policy. The petitioner sought the invocation of the force majeure condition on two grounds, i.e., because of theft in the factory and some labour problems. However, the first appellate order records that no documentary evidence had been given regarding the theft as well as the labour problem and, accordingly, the question of invocation of the force majeure condition was not established. Since, there was an overall utilisation of 84.8% (i.e. above 75%) proportionate benefit was granted and the forfeiture amount was reduced to Rs.74,111.00.

(3.) Still being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the Second Appellate Committee in which he took the ground of theft and filed certain documents in support thereof. The Second Appellate Committee rejected the appeal on the sole ground that the papers filed by the petitioner in the absence of a proper FIR could not be relied upon. The material portion of the order of the Second Appellate Committee is as under:-