(1.) THE writ petitioner is stated to be a manufacturing and exporting unit of ready made garments. During the course of its business it is stated to have received export orders from a foreign buyer in the USA. In order to execute these contracts, as per the specifications of the buyer, the petitioner is stated to have placed orders for import of raw materials from manufacturers in china and Indonesia. The petitioner claims to have taken prompt steps to open letters of credit which have been detailed in the writ petition. However, it is urged that the Chinese exporters delayed shipments of the fabrics/raw material despite the petitioner having opened the letters of credit promptly, there was delay in the petitioner executing the contracts. Details of imports from Indonesia and delays of the raw material from that country have been also detailed in the writ petition. The submission is that for these reasons, the petitioner was prevented from fulfilling the terms and conditions of the export entitlement quota allotted to the petitioner.
(2.) INASMUCH as the production and execution of the contract was delayed, the respondent no. 1 issued a notice to show cause on 1st June, 2004 to explain why the earnest money deposit should not be forfeited due to non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the export entitlement FCFS quota allotted to the petitioner during the year 2003 as per the then extant export entitlement policy. The petitioner submits that an explanation was submitted. However without considering the explanation rendered by the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 passed a cyclostiled pre-formated speaking order dated 20th August, 2004 directing forfeiture of the earnest money deposited by the petitioner on the ground of non-performance of the quota.
(3.) THE petitioner assailed the same before the first appellate authority appointed by the Government of India being the office of the Textile commissioner, Mumbai. This appeal was rejected by an order dated 29th April, 2005.