MANOJ OVERSEAS Vs. APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was allotted export quotas during the year 1997 under the then Garment Export Entitlement Policy. Under this policy the petitioner was required to meet its export obligation and in case it failed to meet 75% of the same, the petitioner was liable to be visited with forfeiture.

(2.) The petitioner, in fact, was unable to meet the export obligation and, therefore, because of the short shipment the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC), Zamrudpur, New Delhi by a speaking order dated 26.5.1998 forfeited an amount of Rs.10,26,990.00. Against this order dated 26.5.1998 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Textile Commissioner on 8.6.1998. In the appeal the petitioner indicated that it had performed 69.34% of its export obligation and that the shortfall was because the petitioner's buyer cancelled the order due to delay in execution, due to non-receipt of fabric in time and other unavoidable reasons. The exact ground furnished by the petitioner in the appeal before the Textile Commissioner was as under:-

(3.) The Senior Officers, Appellate Committee of the office of the Textile Commissioner, Mumbai by an order dated 28.7.2000 upheld the speaking order passed by the AEPC on 26.5.1998. The First Appellate Order clearly found as under:-