PEARL GLOBAL LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the quashing of the impugned order dated 14.08.2001 passed by the Second Appellate Committee whereby the petitioner's claim that it was prevented from meeting its revalidated quota obligation by virtue of Force Majeure conditions was rejected.

(2.) At the first instance, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice and a speaking order was passed by the AEPC (respondent no.4 herein) on 30.08.1996. It is pertinent to note that as per the Garment Export Entitlement Policy, the AEPC is not empowered to go into the question of Force Majeure conditions and it is only to be taken up at the stage of First Appeal before the Textile Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the order of the AEPC dated 30.08.1996, the petitioner preferred the First Appeal before the Textile Commissioner which was disposed of by an order dated 31.08.2000. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner could not fulfil its export obligations, as a result of which the AEPC forfeited an amount of Rs11,88,616/- being the forfeiture amount in terms of legal undertaking.

(3.) Under the Garment Export Entitlement Policy, a person who is unable to meet the export obligation, is entitled to the benefit of exemption from forfeiture if he is able to show that he was prevented from meeting his export obligation by virtue of some Force Majeure condition. In this particular case, the petitioner pleaded that the process and delivery schedule of the garments were affected due to disruption in transport of raw materials for the purpose of garments as well as low attendance of labour because of floods during September/October 1995 and also that the buyers had refused to accept the late delivery. The only evidence that has been produced, if that can be called evidence at all, are the press clippings between the dates of 01.09.1995 and 09.09.1995 which indicate that in Northern India and, in particular, in and around Delhi region there was a substantial rainfall leading to a flood-like situation. The dates are important inasmuch as what is being urged in the present case is not with respect to the original quota obligation but in respect of the revalidated quota obligation which could only arise after 01.10.1995. Apart from the aforesaid newspaper clippings, no other evidence was produced before the authorities below. On the basis of the submissions made by the petitioner, the First Appellate Committee came to the conclusion that the circumstances as stated to exist did not constitute a Force Majeure condition and thereby the appeal was rejected. However, since the petitioner had exported more than 75% of the overall quota of its obligation, as per the policy it was entitled to proportionate benefit insofar as forfeiture amount was concerned.