SAHIBABAD IMPEX PVT LTD Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 03. 09. 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the legality of the concurrent findings of fact and orders passed by the Apparel Export Promotion Council; the Appellate Textile Commissioner and the second Appellate Committee constituted to decide grievances by the Central government, Ministry of Textiles.

(2.) THE appellant herein was allocated a quota in terms of the Garment export Policy prevalent in 1997. At the relevant time, garment exports were entitled to benefits/schemes such as Past Performance Entitlement, Past performance Transfer, First Come First Served, Non-Quota Entitlement and New investment Entitlement, etc. The aforesaid schemes which were made available by the Central Government enabled exporters to obtain a number of concessions/quota. In terms of such schemes, if an exporter completed his obligations before 30th of September of the concerned calendar year, he was unconditionally eligible to benefits without submission of legal undertakings or bank guarantees. In the present case, the appellant was allotted quota under country/category during the year 1997 and because of short shipment, the competent authority forfeited an amount of Rs. 3,54,130/- by issuing an order on 10. 07. 1998. Against the aforesaid order dated 10. 07. 1998, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Textile Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal under order dated 31. 08. 2001.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said order, further appeal was taken to the second Appellate Tribunal, which was again dismissed by order dated 28th october, 2003. Against the said order, a writ petition was filed which was also accordingly dismissed as stated hereinbefore and hence the present appeal, on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also gone through the records. There is a concurrent finding of facts of the three authorities, namely, the primary authority as also the first appellate authority and the second appellate authority, that the appellant could not manufacture the garments and export the same and the same could not be processed within the stipulated time. The defence that was taken by the appellant for explaining his problem in not making supply within time was that there were unforeseen factors, namely, labour problems at the processor's unit and subsequently at his own unit and, therefore, there was delay in obtaining fabrics and manufacturing which in turn resulted in short utilisation of the quota.