IN THE: HIGH mum or ruuuumum, 4%
DATED nus mm 13"! nmror O V
mm Hownnn: MR. Jtaélfrngm mafia: '
E 1'!'
~
A PAR'rNERsa1P_F1E:M HAmNc+( % *
OFFICE, .-9-:3' N£a.»5?;4A,iNDus'P§e:AL'safiaua
BANGAL.()RE_€"5«6{)02'2,-..__ V _ ' j
'REF Err' iTS'i.EfiJ_THGRiSEOD._RE'RE;SENTAT"
SURYANARAYAE.
T}
PETITIONER
(B§»s1~s--;'sHSm;iy!j%j<'1oolit;;;r;"t!?§eva]idation of quota
...._1......-- --...... .. .. 1... 1..'f_.. -1.' ._ .. 1:. ....-.__....... ._ __ ._ c--.....1
.1 15V 1: yeti' [3 LI. his all 1" 'll. 31 3 1 E. .l. W-
deposit the in operation
an cover the amount of EMD
by dlettexl' or post dated cheques. The
forfeiture is that an exporter who
" io.otleee"tl1éV11 90% of the export entitlement. its EMD
V in full. In case of utilisation upto 75% of
liiet items and upto 50% in case of slow moving
i. -..1-.,.itr.-d in "re-port1.'.on to the shortfall of
I'
L;._:1_-___4___ -1-
_ u';4u.autiu1. If an e-x--po'-"T ie aggfie"ed b" any 'fv:'rr- U1
forfeitme. it could mainta111' ' an appeal to the First Appellate
Committee and thereafter to a Second Appellate Committee.
mJ
raises almost identical contentions as; "are: it by
Respondents 1 and 2 in their :'u'3tat$"..'IElf."l-11ll2'g.0.ii"' sln l'
addition, it is contended tliat__.tl1eliis:x_fiorter
benefit of the garment policy by
furnishing a bank to export
garments i11 te1ms__oi” cannot be
permitted Land ‘i’e.ii1oba.te;l It is stated that the
place relevant material in support
of its of force—>_m’ajeu1e.
o Learned counsel on .l_1_. oetiti __er advances the
*1
iiernitelitions:
eijaj “that the ‘Policy’ providing for forfeiture of the
earnest money deposit. in its entirety. for exports less than
“Il=flI_
I
“ii “/6 and proportionate foifeitifie for exports her” “:1 sro
and 9% under the First Come First Serve IFCFS
irrational and unreasonable. J Hi
l «for Resp-.e;ndent No.3 mntends th”t fir’ ‘-hallo”? in the
b) the apgellate authority fell in __ _not
considering the documentary evidence 2
petitioner in support of the elrim-of foIeeVrlntnjienie,:”.vilifle’ j
directing forfeiture of the EMD.
1:} flmn
I
‘can
the
obligation was not to on the part of the
petitioner but was for Ieaeons’ o_ontro1.
,1-n1 3 ~. .71 –
‘) tone em _er., ciecisions in 3.5 :involving identical
1,sn-s. end it-‘=” *””V*F***’ “”‘ “” “””* “”””
. V _ 4’ V ‘vs-I J.tl.\.”il«\’.I, uic ¢’i’Iiu.n’J11I..i ‘S L! Viflg
of cann_t. te..I.ee to “Lvxpt
the i)_et:itioner’5’elei:n’ot’Tit:n:e¥1najeme, in the fact situation of
this _ i it
LL’!
5
” L6. Per”eontra,’1_ean1ed_ Seni_r eonnee. – .I.. C-.L. l’-3.2-.=.-.’.=;-..’.
v. .v nnavailabie to the petitioner as the gaiments
_ short of the quota allotted to it within the periocl
AA sfinnleted. According to the learned Senior counsel, in
* .teiins of the policy. the petitioner was fully aware of the
consequences of proportionate forfeiture of Bank guarantee
on failure to export garments upto 90% but not less than
75%, and forfeiture, in full, if less than 75%. Petitioner
Jet
L./ \
having umwwepwu I..|.n\4 ……’… ……..s, ‘L. I}… aIg1..ed., c_,«_.v_;1r1..111.’.*..tt_’–.¢_:’h.~:v=:.’;_._
.7!
to contend that the poiicy in far as: if§’i”.:’!£?!féE’o ‘liZ?..:f(?Ii”f””.’;_t”i.i”i””>
is either irrational or unleasonabie. counsel
further “contends that
validity of the policy, case of
GOKALDAS oi? INDIA. a
learned Single Judgeofv of–~De1hi. Iejectecl the
plea in the 1ep§5i~m’d:i5:e* (7) STE’ 347 (DEC).
Sewer :_=ig_tii_’_;1; oohtends that the
‘pehtrio-fir iv-v”-:5 fi*~t:”}”‘d r-levant mater-La} conet-….:h.L..”g
substantial iegaie’.e:vide11oe.– of a ciaim of i’o1’oe–111aje”ur’. th’
authorities “:ighfl3?~.,Ao£ieide1ed and rejected the said pica.
at is Aoontended that the petitioner having exported
‘ t’ upto 65.66% of the export. entitlement, the
t’ . H “were justified in directing fizcrfeiture of the
fmm out of the bank guarantee, in full.
7. Sri. Devadass, learned Senior counsel for
Respondents 1 and 2 contends that the petitioner having
an allotment of a quota to export garments under
+1.. ‘ ‘ ‘
we whey. w3…:out H-=-eh”-m”
foifeiture, cannot he 1 mm m ‘”*p=’obate. V.ie-probate
by calling in question the policy ehortpexfpoft
of garments. Aoooniing to the iqgaota
for export of garments ‘Wit
presumed that the exporter _tlist:2haifv§gev’its.i:(:;bligation to
export: garments in in older to
eneuzle such to the extent of
.orfI;.i”e of ‘l;’1oi’n:o’tit”of..t.i’:1e bank guarantee as
stated t.heren1.caI;:’:ot”be c1L:=..1’ae1.n…I.1. a- ..1t!1er L’ra__1_L_ -1
unreasunautc heaved %r;_i’*r eo'””‘e1 11’-ekns t” m” that
gann ent ‘-up in its nature” since quotas
each under the policy is to maximise
e1tchan’ge–.——«’i’he Government. according to the learned
‘ ifcxfixnsei. is well within its right to provide for
the Bank guarantee, so as to ensure full and
utilisation of the quota and that is piecieely what
8. Having heanrl the learned counsel for the parties,
perused the pleadings. there can be no more dispute that in
terms of the “Policy” , the petitioner applied for and
MK
an _-.-….-…i-at p-nun:-ul-up-.1. ‘I’I!’il”£I’I” FCl_iJ. % ‘
__.1 :_ ’24.-
and having failed to do so within the
entirety, the AEPC issued notice: calliiig; the i’
to show cause as to why aeiioh shdnlti’ not ti!-lteh forfeit.
the monies from out lgwhich was
responded to by not being
satisfied with the ‘A.”l’t§1v!’i.fi.’i.-itflltl Rs. 1,130,697] –
from out ei°’tij;e-” guarantee, by order
by ertler clatecl’w’iLlaii7.1{(‘}!3fi'”?)’i’V..” A n11exu1e–‘C””‘. whue”, the nutn” ” er
appeal the Committee was dismissed by
v.§ideiiV:da_ted size-‘is~«2oo4 Annexure-“D”.
.. 1 J.d…..’l f… jun n ‘U’I’I\l’I ‘I-11:: nilnu ‘n.-n_
fox’ cleeisieli making me,
a} whether the challenge to the policy in so far as it
relates to forfeiture, for 11011-fulfillment of the export
obligation within the time stipulated is sustainable?
b) Whether the AEPC and the Appellate Committees
were justified in Iejeetm T e péfidi rs emuu uf
min-ce=maje’.im_. while dismissing the . .pP!’;….’.~..’? l J
pm:
[*3
10. Indisputably, the export entiflen;eiit~–.quota
was er. the p”‘o!.’i’.’i0l1e1″3 applimgtionpt-;=.v it
garments, a tirne s:’;”ip’u'”tt:d, ‘-and fufifnished “bau'”‘*k
guarantee, interalia, fliat failure
fulfill the export obligation;’ii1″its be subject
to forfeiture clause otiiti:-gel __ consciously
agreed to jtgh¢pe;;.1»;¢itu;t that if it exported
ga1n1ent::\’4§;”‘¢yoi;¢};’~_V75<}4{,:.§ijtQ_ of the export entitlement, it
wotiid"'1:eiAi.A:Ii;v;iii}Jie*£31' forfeiture and if less then
75955:, from out of the amount in
the gu*"a31t.ee.»__..'The censent cf …1e 1*-.efi.Lcner m be
v»»s%ubjeeted to"t11e___terms oi' the reiatiiifi to fun f"'c'*e '-1
»t1ie._eve11t"'ot_'_ failuie to fulfill the export entitfiement, in the
= cannot be permitted to appmbate and
feprobate nor assume inconsistent positions. So also having
it " r . unsuccessful in the appeals before the First and
it Second Appellate Committees, are disentitled from
questioning t11e validity of the forfeiture clause in the 'Policy'.
M
-..-
1 1. Th” C””3′{‘f;?fit’u”’11 that the teams of §’_”1’o1..i._i…:re a.,,
irrationai and unreasonabie hi the ci1et1msi:3:1i’e.’s’~is <"'"_'4i'i€1b
pale of consideration. I say so i'
allotting quotas is with the
exchange. which is of vital for and as
a consequence, allocated
is imperative slid it is object of maximising
the uti1isatioii":;jo:.i"t11e._quo'&i, 'the wiiulioyfplovides a clause for
poiiuy {reed on pi"'6"'i""" tim"1g ail 1%-"Be" of
hnpieinentsiionegiloéa to achieve a particular objective,
nioie a1i::"1.:.1w:i-"p:1'v.§V1'Viaeli3ir–._Vi1i1'~~'ii11e matters of bilateral trade. in my
v.':o'ipi1;ion,.e' bei1ig"p–eou1iai* in its nature, the Government was
i rights to provide for ibrfeituie and tlieieible,
.' . as either irmtional or unconstitutional. It
Ii111st.:be borne in mind that there must be free play with the
A i "Cgovemineiit in matters of economic policies which are not
well settled law that oourts, in exercise of their ju1'isc'Iioi:ion,
W
U\
pd
J:
not transgress into the field of de:iiei6i:;,i’L”aea
are ill equipped to adjudidate 0;; a V’
court, no–doubtl1as a duty to
El decision, no law is peopieia:
rights are not transgiesseii toil} the extent
permissible under ”
12. I13; ‘aliliost a learned Single
Judge car’ of GOKALDAS IMAGES
LIMi”I’ED lli;”s§ION«.i/()F’ znmalim W.P.No.8539_I2003 and
ceni3ec”u.u=”‘ “i’fii”” *’*’*.i’i'””i’e.. ‘by 9″‘-=”” d9.*…..-“‘1 12-03-29″.)-3.
‘ _ ALI? awn’-ra
re 11ecl°fi1e-oontei1iiicJz1ihai: the ” “”‘*’Tir’1ii1″‘ 1U ‘- LU 1e”:,”””
. V _ V P0 y P 3
_ ii11posifi6n.Qf_penalty for non-fulfillment of the obligation
*unc!.er.ti:.e”expo1t quota could be challenged by an exporter
H ‘– benefit of a policy, following the decision of
“fine Ajfixiiicoun in the case of PPR Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd.
ii ” +g.11di”0fl1ers. Vs. Union of India and Others Ieported in AIR
V SC. 3461. in the matter of interference by writ courts
with pelicy matters, by obsexving thus: _ Till
1…
UT
“4; An applicant has no eem
-n ‘saws-no
‘aht”‘
have export or import licences in terme. of
.1… II …..:.n.
Lip;
.. .’… r……… A 1…. .-….. . I……’_~«’.’:~-._..”:.
yuuwca 1.l.l. Luna: ed’. int: tiatic: Uf 1u:-.i- ‘
application. For obvious reaons, of ‘ it
licences depends upon theyyypolicy
the date of the grant of (the ‘licence or =
The authority concerned may he -.a’ better :1; at
position to have the overall ’13ictuJe’ol”~diver3_e’–., ‘
factors to grant on iefi1sc.~”‘to grant
}err.niseion to i.m.mrt__ ex» e..vp:.-i_’t. ‘ “‘i”‘l1e
decision, therefote, would be taken from diverse
ace-new-:: I3fif3,’fDCl.’-7ti’\Ffi3″Vu’1lii!:’51’lV”?r1€ executive is in
a better infonnécl position-«iznless, as we have
stated earlier, tl1Ca’iBl-119331 fine or is an
abuse of the powezyiii__Wl1iCl1.Veven.t=’it is for the
applicant to pleadanzl piove ioaztlie satisfaction
of the that the refnsalwos vitiated by the
above’ .
1111 ‘. wouim ttt§e:e:e1ie, be clear that grant
of licence dcpentia___upon the policy prevailing as
on the “-:late eofitlie ‘grant of the licence; The
‘C-oiry1’t,i tiaerefix1je”,* would not bind the
G-<£v'emment7witn policy veliieh was exiatifi" on
LA tl1?'VCll3lEB of application as Iineivious policy. A
ueeielon Womn mno. tne uovernment
for all fiineeto come. When the Government axe
'saiieiied that change in the policy was necessary
at the goublic interest, it would be entitled. to
' 'revise "the policy and lay down new policy. The
.C.onit, therefore, would piefer to allow lice play
to the Government to evolve fiscal policy in the
iv-n'*"'" m act awn tlie same.
$1′!-Avunnfi I-I-1′):
uuu .I.l.I.|.hJ.u:u.. auu
V Equally, the Government ie left free to determine
priorities in the matters of allocations or
allotments or utilisation of its finances in the
public interest. It is equally entitled, therefore,
to issue or withdraw or modify the export or
import policy in accordance with the scheme
evolved; i i F” l 0
16
13. In y’t ‘”0″‘eTr deeisian cf a , sf
the High Court of Delhi in T
2007(7) STR 347(()EC) thag’.~”E’;jiie1if~;
being peculiar in its nauiie’ T beiiig
provided for each well within
its right to Vtbimuletes M and maximum
utilisation cguota be interfen-.d with.
i ‘ 14: Tiie”coii.tei1fion that on account of late receipt of
.___o1t supply of fabrics, the cause for shortfall in
CI
5 _._..
leadin in gm-m..jeII . eoiidition was
and rejecieci by *”e a1it}'”i”-iti–s. Ar. examinaeen
_ of ‘tee orders impugied discloses that in the absence of
* iielevant material and satisfactory proof of existence of fierce-
majeune oonditioii. the authorities rejected the claim of the
petitioner. No exception can be taken to the said finding.
\ l\ UK ...... . '. 1... .. ., '
t ‘ ” tlxut the ‘o ‘fi”‘?’1-:33 exts;n.dez,1__ I33:
1:’ TL- 1….
10- Ill 3
the authorities in identical cilenmstanoes =
cases, were not applied in the pmsent icaée; tie”-also-ewitlzout ‘
any merit. I say so beefing’-6. of z
dependant upon facts of on tipcumelxtary
evidence to CBtabfiS}#”.’f11B finch eontlitions. The
petitioner has.’ not that in identical
the claim of force-
…..;…….3: gf ‘=»n._;’ vdi’¢nn*:n.i-fen}. _%’~g’1r|’.|r-‘}*7:t3|”i’ bnngfi
44’a.’.rA\I.l E1-‘JuIv’I.V +3-I I-54’: sauna. ‘an \o nun ~.-=-u.n—.–.-. ..
circn-mstancesei1d_ptnn§itcnu14= on reooni in a part1″-eu1a1′ * case, n
goes any decision rendered in that case,
not, niflesa-«facts and circumstances are shown to be
V V’ nave application.
. writ petition is without merit and is accordingly,
‘ e Voeréegecvited.
I.’
O9