9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (12) TMI 301 - HC - Central ExciseExport obligation - export of garments - petitioner is unable to fulfil the export obligation of 100% of the quota allotted, resulting in forfeiture of the bank guarantee - petitioner claims to have received letters Annexures B1 , B2 and B3 , from the suppliers of fabrics expressing their inability to supply the fabric due to incessant rains in Tamilnadu -.There is no material whatsoever to establish that the letters Annexures B1 , B2 and B3 were in fact from suppliers who had entered into valid contracts with the petitioner to supply the fabric Held that - decision to extend the benefit of the claim of force-majeure being dependant upon the facts and circumstances and material on record in a particular case, it goes without saying that any decision rendered in that case, would not, unless facts and circumstances are shown to be identical, have application in another case, writ petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the policy regarding forfeiture for non-fulfillment of export obligations. 2. Justification of AEPC and Appellate Committees in rejecting the petitioner's claim of force-majeure. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to the Policy Regarding Forfeiture The petitioner, a garment exporter, was allotted export entitlements under the Government Export Entitlement Policy 1996-1998. The petitioner exported 84.37% of the entitlement, leading to the forfeiture of Rs. 36,10,378/- by the AEPC, confirmed by the First and Second Appellate Committees. The petitioner challenged the forfeiture clause under sub-clause 'F' of Clause 8 of the policy, arguing it was irrational and unreasonable. The court noted that the petitioner voluntarily sought revalidation of the quotas beyond 30th September up to 31st December by filing an application and furnishing a bank guarantee, agreeing to the terms of forfeiture for non-fulfillment of export obligations. The court held that the petitioner could not approbate and reprobate by challenging the policy after benefiting from it. It was emphasized that the policy aimed to maximize foreign exchange, and the forfeiture clause ensured full utilization of the quota, which was neither irrational nor unconstitutional. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in PTR Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, affirming that the government has the right to revise policies in public interest, and such policies are not subject to judicial review unless contrary to statutory provisions or the Constitution. The court also cited the High Court of Delhi's decision in Gokaldas Images Limited v. Union of India, which upheld the validity of similar forfeiture clauses in the garment export policy. Issue 2: Justification of AEPC and Appellate Committees in Rejecting the Petitioner's Claim of Force-Majeure The petitioner claimed force-majeure due to incessant rains in Tamil Nadu, which allegedly hindered the supply of fabrics. The petitioner presented letters from suppliers, a certificate from the Meteorological Department, and press clippings as evidence. However, the Appellate Authority rejected this claim, noting that the rainfall data did not support the petitioner's assertions and that there was no substantial evidence of valid contracts with the suppliers. The court upheld the Appellate Committees' decision, stating that the petitioner failed to provide relevant material such as purchase orders, invoices, and details of fabric supply. The court emphasized that the plea of force-majeure must be substantiated with concrete evidence, which was lacking in this case. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the policy's forfeiture clause was rational and reasonable, aimed at maximizing foreign exchange. The rejection of the force-majeure claim by the AEPC and Appellate Committees was justified due to the lack of substantial evidence. The court reiterated that policy decisions by the government, especially in economic matters, are not subject to judicial review unless they violate statutory provisions or constitutional rights.
|
