9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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/-. 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 :- In this connection, we further want to say that we could not ship the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Committee by the impugned order dated 27th June, 2001 rejected the appeal. However, the Second Appellate Committee directed the AEPC to reverify their records to see, if on recalculation, any relief was admissible, and, if made out, to grant the same to the petitioner within thirty days of the date of the impugned order. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that from the tenor of the impugned order of the Second Appellate Committee it becomes clear that at the time of hearing, apparently the only ground urged was with regard to the fact that the AEPC had not taken into account some of the proofs of shipment while calculating the forfeiture amount. In this context, the AEPC had agreed to reverify the records as there app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Committee re-conciliation was carried out on the basis of the documents/evidence which even petitioner submitted after passing of the Speaking Order by replying respondent. Petitioner did not place on record the application dated 1st June, 1998 as they were fully conscious of the totality of the facts. Verification was carried out by AEPC and it was found that proof of shipments were submitted subsequent to the passing of the order by AEPC and on re-conciliation the petitioner was entitled to refund of Rs. 6,464/- and accordingly on 9th August, 2001 party was informed. The party was accordingly informed to deposit rest amount and party was also informed that benefit of Rs. 6,464/- has been extended to them. No steps were taken by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
