Federation Of Karnataka Chamber Of ... vs Hubli Electricity Supply Co Ltd on 13 March, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Federation Of Karnataka Chamber Of ... vs Hubli Electricity Supply Co Ltd on 13 March, 2008

Bench: N.K.Patil

ﬁﬂ

mm Houmusz nun. .1u3'r1cn mr.s   %

wnrr PETITION No.  "fr  
B   _   

ms AMRITSAR swApE'sHi%i.wdLLE'NvAA--!§i:LLs
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM H.~sV1Nc3'L.1Ts I .. 

 AT" NG.67;4A, SNVDLISTR-lA!,.. SUBLIRB

BANGALGRE 360 022 ._ '-

REPRE$E'.'€--':E'E,ﬂ 3": n*s1;.%im;I*:*14.--r.§:-izsen
REp1msE:uTA*::':3zE ssU§§*s'A.xsA_1gA+{AN S.P.

(By"--sn' 4; sHyA=§;.;;oL§TNI§1.NvA A 3 3.-. "EN 'Y P'UL '1' K, ADV)

  UvNIOl'A~Al"Ov~----E--!'<i'DIA

  _ .m+:¢:'§¢:m=:¥ 0:? TEXTILES
_  NEW' UDYOG BHAVAN
  11:) 611
_ REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

" 2   Ii 'APPELLATE C.OMMIT'I'EE

V .-- " GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
UDYOG BHAVAN

NE'-'J DELHI 119 Q11.

3 APPAREL ':.:XPGm PROMOTION CUUNG...
N0. 10, RAHEJA CHAMBERS ' J'
12, MUSEUM ROAD U" \
BANGALORE 560 001



IO

REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

(BY SR1: N DEVI-IADASS Sr. COUNSEL, ASS: Fgfiﬁ   .
B P PUTTASIDDAIAH, cast; FOR R1 92}. _ _ - 

(By Sri: KALJEET RAWAL»eé§r,COUNSEL FOR  _ 9
2:. SAGHINDRA KARAHIH, ADV EORVVR3    "

THIS 9.r:=.~:'r 9.9919199 gs. §49;,.r«:;;> U..DE'.-R, X91?-3919999
AND 227 OF THE 'QONSTiTUTl'0._N.'0F mm P AY G TO
 THAT irvii=<:-5-:+.=.'i*:;',':i'+«' :.0I;*999'ji*.-m~:;aL'r'; 3'; WA? 9
FORFEITURE BY RESPONDENTS-'~UND_E._F¥ EXPORT POLICY

1996-1999 IS"iL_LEGA"L'AN'I) U.1.;TRA'.WFE'F.S ii»: RELA'T'iON 'TO SECTION 11' THE FOREIGN--._TRAI)E REGULATION ACT 1992[FI'DVR-A ?;3.c:1']e, _'FURTl+}ER DECLARING THAT THE .A.:.»._rur_wr:..A.1*1t:.~u~: 9 meaczggpgnag ADOPTED BY RESPQNDV!£.N'l'S_.V_NO,_1 mm. m BE ILLEGAL AND ULTRA 'VIIRES :rz9¥F.R}.£9' 99 13 09 THE 9999199 TRADE RE€}ULATIONV~e-AGT '*[F"l'-DRA] 1992, DECLARE THAT THE CCILLEC':_'i"i(iN 'i:,LEG;aL PENAL'I"r' 3'1' RESPGND':5'.N'I'S FROM'-.'l'H9L3 I=F:riT:oN9:Rs TO THE CONSOLlDA'l'ED FUND O]? INDIATO ILLEGAL AND U"'T'RA VIRES; ;__:'THIS 'APE'!-'.!.'.!'.!ON, COMING on FOR PREIJMINARY ';._I::..A;».9,:2~.r G= -9' f.}R£_)l_.IP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE ' F. Lmwma:

£$.E.E_B H :The petitioner, a manufacturer] garment exporter V * .,_9§rhen allotted an export entitlement under the Fimt Come First Serve (FCFS), quota, in country catacgozry US-340, 633. EU-6, CA-'7 duzing the year 1998 in terms of the notiﬁcation dated 16- 10-1996 (for short 'Po]icy'), eﬁected 58.6% tllle #ﬁ'\ ﬁ'zndn.rK "-1* « '.' 4:31.:-pr'uN.I}EN :3 entitieinent, resiiiting in- the Appmel E.'q1-<f_r'.: ' "Pmtntaﬁen Council. Eangalole for .'si1e-;.r.::t},b"'~V:fe1ffei:ifingb Rs.1.48.854[- by order datexlg 01-» l' which when carried in Vthep' Committee, was _91de1'*'-- 110-05-2002 Annexure-"F" and l:.ta;__Vl;lfn'I>tl_1er by older dated 26-10-2004 Second Appellate Cglllinitteeglv __ is Statement of objections dated respondent and Statement of objections daﬁacl of Respondents 1 and 2.

3.». In tl1eStatement of objections of Respondents 1 and V 2._ that export of textiles and clothing from on bilateral agreements entered into between Clove:f:1ine11t of India and Governments of developed Al I lg;-unt1_Les under Ll-.. aegis of the erstwhile Multi Fibre the year 1974. T e to as "Quota countries" who have placed restraints on i1n:)ort _.;J L)'\ o" 'peoiﬁed textile categories "Quou-.. ___t;..g:.

annuai levels pnoaoiibed in the th"t 2 the coming into force of the Woiflgj f in 1995, quantitative rest:ri(:tionsiko;o'wn as"5'F;'ii:1io1ti'ii;£oota§"' in the bilateral ag1eementaiiii'vieViwe_'ohai1geic:I 'iontig-;1*iit11e relating to Agmemeggfgm aiiidtolotiiingg (ATO). The quotas also l'mow-11 are allocated amongst ivsirllich a system of so aa to optimize the export reveiitxe fiat.'-7_r" '"'"r°--"t "f toe country. ! t i-.. stated that in the said aim, the Governme" t *f h1_c1ia policies time to time Icnown as "Export .,':t_jI§i3nt;itie331entii i(i()1w-ta) Policies" and allocations of quotas are i * ifdiolie under the following categories in case of it A V gmments:

" a) 70% quota based on past performance of the exporter under the Past Perﬁ*»"in'anu=- enﬁuement l DDR1-

'; a .4',

b) 15% quota based on new investments made for fir'?

t \ modcmizaﬁoli of machineijr '"'d"i'- the =-----::

I E

c) 5% uncler Non-quota Lé_)q;1o3'ti_ '' .-u-u--c.-u-sl~:-u 3-an. ' _..i'I'I'Il'|:

I .rhw1_ _ 7 , - _._ ..1_--_..__1:'._... ..... _ . ' I CUU. 8 (.1 V 1 LI 'uti u g_c set.' uuuu uwta \ ..u.1t1'ies.,

d) 10% on Come' i(iFVC3F'SV) to provide equal oppo1*tu"uii:ie*v.3_vifio on h""".-to "f High 'F:-1.1113: _'e9__'I_i9ﬁ.4.-inI"«.-

The    is  in exercise of power
"   Trade (Development

a11t'i.e.ARegu1V:éitiioi:sV).»:1's*::t; (No.22 of 1992) and Item No.8 of Appendiixc-A! ITC. (HS) Classiﬁcatzioli of Export g;.:¢1 Import." under the Export and Import policy. It .l_.r t._ i1_1p1_._ .111; the policy, an Genemi is desiglated as Quota t'\cim:'u1:ister1n' g _ tLA1it}1o1ity, on behalf of the Government, responsible for " oilocation of quota in terms of the policy. The availability of quota, it is said, vastly over strips the demand and n1 view of the restricted availability, oonnnands a premium. Major importers of textile ganzients being the quota c:ou11t:ries,_ it is UK <3'! es"-=11t.ial to ensure quotas 9..., 1v 1 ti' --~£_m;::.. not allowed to 0 Waste ('re to 's""oti.:~--t'.Es-fé--:'..v ¢*1"ad7in" 'av unscrupulous elements and therefore, jthe ..euvieages '* utilisation of the quota by §O'h 'Seﬁember year and failure to do isrkizvetttliltzd sunvencler the quote'; of unutﬂised quota allocated in the manner and prooedule Revalidaﬁon of quota

11.-e,..n..€ "semi upto 31" December of the 'av TE1T3"*?|i'1't" y~"f'?' Va ._.:-:-.12.. gI...,.1..11t.e.. -1' 9. ﬁ_,ed_ deposit leoeiot ﬁraft Whii' the pohoy "1 o""r"'a'*11 the exporters cover the amount of EMD kzttex' of 'i~.£".'.1'.'1C1'tBl{'iIlgj or post dated cheques. The Cﬁlitliilﬁtﬁill' for forfeiture is that an exporter who tjhotvtess than 90% of the export entitlement, its EMD '.é.ha.'ivl.;bexs1eleased in full. In case of utilisation upto 75% of fast" moving items and upto 5&6 in case of slow moving 1+n1*nc I-'0'.

-I-3 3:3' Jr:

is ﬁarfeited. L1 pmportioh to the shortfall of 11 If are .,...,,~.... 3 uggieveu by ..ny order 9.

raises aimost identicai co11ie13,ﬁ" is Hf.-'is iiii='~}'i;€""'eed Respondents 1 and in tliei1"~A.ii_Si.eife1i1enti iofeeoiijectioiis. in addition, it is eonteiiicilecii 'f}is.~!ci'it.3;1e having taken the beneﬁt of? .tAl:ie--.-_ eniiiilement policy by ﬁ1nJis11i1i'giii'Ve.V ﬁiieielitee failed to ga1'1:ieI1ts;"A~ ;i':'1ietmeji.i» provided. cannot be "a1id'ire1J1'obatc. It is stated that the mtitioiieriiie, eetop'gmd,;i_rv.m ..-nt..11_i1_1g that no amount could izée fo1'fei'fe(i. " ='.F'11* f'frth"r c'*11'ceI1t:1'*11 of We '1'" 1*"-W"-4e 't i

--. that the. e§:por'rer did not Jiaee fefvaiat "*"t"1-""" '*1 5""-'"11. .v % .___ 1-' Vgf ifs:';3§91;1';'aii.';' of fome-majetme. 1' 5. Learned oounsei for the petitioner ec':v""-s the

a) that the 'Policy' providing for forfeiture of the earnest money deposit. in its entiiety, for exports less than 75% and proportionate forfeiture for exports between 75% \J U\ 'P and $}'& under the F-'irr.t. meme Fimt. SP It irratzioizial and umeasonable.

b) the appellate authoiity -.¢:i'1'oi'V:''ei1i'x<;1iot . consiclering the doomnenttmjy evidence proxlnioed the petitioner in support. of the, of .i'o'roe&»n1E:jei1i1é, Whiie 4,:_.__4.:__ 1.'... - V i " if CIIIDU lg lull luu .I_--- l.lJ.

..-¢...... 15:'. I-'rue EMEL

c) that the garments uptao 58.6%: of th-s.§;;33o1*i;; eutitiemeiiﬁ._t11e":no11-fulﬁllment of the obligation iarssiI;11ot"due 'to wiilfial on the part of the petitionerhut Jwasutfort beyond its control. .;s.,%*1'-11.;-;ee;g.1:¢r%ae¢imqns in apnea1_ s involving identical iss11es=.gxnd icleliticai of facts, the authorities having a;:cepteciu"th_e elejguepfiiome-majeuie, cannot 1BfuBC to accept . gpetitioneiis' of tome-majeure, in the fact situation of '- i this V. r:_1_t.ra_, _1ea_med Senior counsel Sri. G.L. Rawal fGi'i:.'1a';S""';}de31t No.3 mnt.e1.c1-s. .11..t the r_:1_u_a_1_nge to the it is unavailable to us pet:'u.'r"-T as the gar.-.r.ents exported tell short of the quota ailotted to it within the stipulated. Accoxtling to the learned Senior oounsel, in terms of the policy, the petitioner was fully aware of the \ J U'"\ \D ca-315:-;q-dense cf }.'I'JI%Z"!".'.O!1|.9.t_E foifeitnne of fg__u;i1ia_nbee on faiiuie to "i*'t 'Tn-"in'nt' 'mte 9m{~..bei.t"'hnet-lees ﬂies; P _ . _ V > mu' 4 "I-' I '- _«_ 75%, and forfeituie, in u having accepted the said teiine, itdiei_ni'gued._V to contend that the policy ash' toifeituie is either irrational i~.ean1ed"Sei1io1* counsel further contends over the validity of; tinted in the case of pleahill the .deeisid1i_.iepQi*ted in AUU Lea1ned""~.SenioI§_ enuncaiei, in addition, contends that the not laid ielevant material constituting legal evidence of a claim of force-majeure, the "rightly oonsideied and rejected the said plea. Lastly is contended that the petitioner having expoited A it ignnnents upto 58.6%» of the export entitlement, the autiieiides we}- jI..st:i.ﬁ-.1 in clnecting forfeiture of the

7. Sh. Devadass, learner' '~'-""1"" f'I"*'-mi -9- Respondents 1 ans': 2 C T] d' secured an allotment of a quota o_.n(ie1' '' the policy. without questionillg t1ie._te:ms :?Jlz1VV'.oot1ditioi1sV:of forfeitme, cannot be Vleprobate by calling in quesﬁoljfthe oltezeshort export of garments. counsel, quota for expo1't§'oi" an exporter. it is p. osuﬁil tjtot1--l;1'Vdischa1~g;e its obligation to eiqio-1*t '*e"*ii-"tn an t.t.-W' ensi13.esuoi1.,f:he "'1fu.i.T1g ' u: e forfeitute..of"tl1e'v._ai1¢o1i}1ts from out of' the bank guarantee as .. t1;eIeili"e.'2.I2:.r:ot be characterised as either irrational or . ualretiistiiitatble. Learned Senior oounsel hastens to add that " . H is peculiar in its nature since quotas for each county. under the policy is to maximise AA ' tforelflgu exchange. The Government, aoooltlisng to the learned SA.-.;1:r.i-:,-I counsel. is weﬂ its rigt to provide for

53.;

forfeitraie of "M D-"1: maaaantee, so as to ensure -....I" an t K) \ EL ulaximum uiili""'"i 'f the qaata and 'mat is. :;;'.v.i.$3,},r"%.:er_;-.t has been done.

8. Having heard t11eplea1'1iec_1 *1' wt.'-user} the pl:-;.=:.d1_.-g-.., .he13_Vpe&«3; be meIe_'dispute"'that in' terms of 'the "'P01i<':.3r",----, tiie wti€?i.*i3,ei~..a**p1ia=ﬂ,e1v§(J1iA.:ind $911.. -.. '-.---' A ..._ .. 4.

an export entitlement'quota,ui1ﬁe15 if '~, no expeﬁ gai-in ms and having tcg}-:15 he iihe: specui' "ed, in its e11ti1wety,:.11a:btii«f.;f::3'caviliii1g upon the petitioner toish.-mw eliould not be taken to forfeit thei':,_ molzievsiufrpimpp _ of? bank guarantee, which was iespexidecl ~tJie'--..e.iipeﬁﬁone1*. The AEPC, not being ,, eiiplaliation oﬁ'ered, forfeited Rs.1,48.854]- i""appgéai-liefore the Appellate Comniiiztee, steed crr'uu- eu .. Vi ciicler dated 10-05-2002 Almexure-"F'". while the further 0' to the Second Appellate Committee was dismissed by oltlezr dated 26-10-2004 Annexuive-"H'°'.

9. In the admit.tec"l facts noizieeci supra, 'Le q"esti~as I-'----. ---1-------L-1 awn.-5':-:-no-n.|-Ir I311: & 101 u 1.21 11 u.u:uu.u5 nab, r-L 12

a) whether the challenge to the it relates to forfeiture, for 't e Aexpiort, o'o'"'g- tfrn withiii the tiife stiy-base 1:.) Whether the AEPC'.-..a.nd ithe"'Appeﬁet§ wen: jusﬁﬁed in Iejeothig claim of fo1t:e--majeI.m=;. ﬁe '£'i1j3"pcu1:' "5?

10. 1ndi_s.putabA1y,.Vi;he e$§p;;:t"e1itié1gm1ent quota allotted ya 'Inf...--.4.-.-...«.. ..-.I-I-.---'---.---.------- ---- _'_--.--............_V - _ g"-'m"nt.~=:-. "'1t"r_uu'" a '*-'M ssipalah;-(4.. and ...:311'.ehe{'. a b....=-ﬁk gueiehtee; that in case of faiitre to fulﬁiithe in its entixety, would be subject to.forfeitit:eio3a1Ese"of 'Policy'. The petitioner consciously to "terms of the forfeitune that if it exported V : heyond 75% upto 90% of the export entitlement, it liable for proportionate "forfeiture and if less then gforfeitule would be in full. fmm out of the amount in the ..9.11.. gu... ._11t..e -1-.. -_1_._..n_t of the petitioner to be suojeoteo t' ﬁr '"1315 *3' the "'*"**y, reiatmg to foatfeituae in the event of fiaiiure to fuJ:l1u' "" the export entitlement, in the circumstances, c:a1111ot be permitted to approbatc and pleat 'U \ mpmbate -101' assume iae-'n--'5'-=nt. "'""'t"i"ns. F" *'*" "._f' - been ulisuccnessful in the appeais bef3'it:= 7 Second Appellate Committeee, A questioning the validity of ti1e__fo1ieiture clause the 1 1. The coiitentioli "ternie of forfeiture are irrational and 11n1easioi1a3VJ1ei'v*iii is beyond pale of eoiiais1e1*a.tio1itiiii the entire policy of allottingf " the of augmenting foieign is for the couiitry and as a gannents under the quota hi u o '- e ' n a u . . . .

'1 I H» I I 1- F _ B }l}';wI"E?'.5u.:"v"-'3 331C': 1'?-.'v5}t:} 1.115 ¢'3'|'v"\"'}"v'§"s°'.»{¢ '"'v.}'€C:. G1. ':H SH}g fiie u"ti1isatioi1~Qf the quota, the provides a eiause for .,fo1'fTeitu1e,:i"The Central Govermnent entitled to formulate a ~. .ba§§e§i on precise timing and nianner of iinp1eine;itation of the quota to achieve a particular objective, it A ;1_no1e"app1op1'iate]y in the matters of bilateral trade, in my i'"D13iI1iD]1,, being peculiar in its nature, the Government was well within its rights to provide for forfeiture and therefore, cannot be ternied a_ id; 3' Ilrrational or nn-e,ne.titntiona_L It Iiiugt be b9}}}3 -in 'li'l':'l'll'l fhnf 1- 1311::

subject to juciiciai review. unrss d':ne:-fefcffatef' . he czontiary to statutory pmvisione__o1ﬁ.the Coiieﬁtntioiiti i '' well settled law that eotut-3, eieioiﬁ of will not transgiess into the of as tlieir are 1'11 equipped to Jeg¢iud:a§§§§ ~-.polir:ﬁV'At1eeision. The court, no--dout)t has at undertaking of a decisioii," Ji.-5:: 1Jeople's fundamental ri'*hte am not. t;-"9.n;-=2;-,,i:'es.g.---.,E u}.I;in except to the extent snag': of we , cum in the ease of GO.'-{ALDAS zwmees LIMI_TED,i:Vive, UNION OF INDEX in W'.P.No.853'?Ii2003 and petitions, by order dated 12-03-2003, the contention that the policy pmviding for forfeiture * : ,en<i''iinposit.ion of penalty for non-fulﬁlhnent of the obligation it 'tinder the export quota could be challenged by an exporter who had had the beneﬁt of a policy, following the decision of the Apex ...4:.-1.1. .. ii the ease of PTR Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd.

"id Gtirr" 'J3. Union of India and 0*" » 11- Pd. in IR menu; -1 atrrriwa -w - _ l 19" SC 3461, L1 .1.e 1natt_.1' _f i__t_,,,re11ce eomts 11-1 1' ,, ,;.LA_.__ 'I_.._ ..1__..__.._..... 4.1.'--.-u Wltfl PO Cy 1118 '.5, U1: V1115 u1uu "-4. An ajeplieant '*1...-=ew__1i'<3eV_'*.'e..-emit; 1'~ig:2t have export or i1npo'rt"-.l_Viceno'e.a in ter1I1e]oif the policies in force at "e:e--, date '-of iziaieing applicatiozu. For obvioiu-9 reaao11"s,._g1'a11ti;11g of licences depetidg upoii' prevailing' on the date of tlie grant of .the_"1ibe11ce or permit. The authority cc.ncet1ied' in a better meiti.4:.r11._ to ha.ve._the 'overa1I'v1pic:t1;ue of diverse f£iGtO1_.'?.'."t1'} giant _"pe1'.niit"-..or' iiefuse to grant _'or"e§'.-'- "rt. "NV" The deeieio.1i,"~t11e1efo:?e,"~svo'é1ldV_'he talcen from diverse economic pet's_pectives"'Which the executive is SKI'-I'-aluii I ~-1-at.bet.te1*"'1ig11'o1'*zned poeiﬁoii unless, as we have stated_..ee1'1ier,.'the refusal is mala ﬁde or is an abuse 'of"the.e,powe:' in which event it is for the applicant' topic;-;td«.n3ind prove to the satisfaction r.;-{the (.Z'.Jt'_=I_.11*i:,th:.:1't'._.'e»tl__1_e refusal was vitiated by the

-- . above' feature;

' v i 5, itmereuldg tlieiefore, be clear that grant depends upon the policy prevailing as fee" date of the giant of the lioenee, The Cowft, therefore, would not bind the V_ > ﬁovemmerit with a which was eruzisting on H the date of application as per pmevious policy. A V prior decision wouid not bind the Government for all times to come. When the Government. are satisﬁed that change in the policy was necessary hi. the public interest, it would be entitled to revise the policy and lay down new policy. The Court, 'dizerefeze, '=.=.=-cu'.-:1 11-zefer .4.) allow free play to the Government to evolve ﬁscal policy 1'11 the pubiic interest arid to act upon the same. Equally, the Government is left flee to determine I UK pun Ch pitiorities in the $.33 of 9.lL."('.."-'.'._".'J:.."'L.'.l."1S'> «M allotments or utilisation of its ﬁnaneee' in-tdhe" e ' public interest. it is entitied; .-ﬁerefere, to issue or withdraw or the _.expr);'t 01'} .. import policy in accordance ,with ¥ﬂ:1e_ scheme 1, f evolved. . . ." " --. . " V

13. In yet another decteion of a Judge of the High Court of Delhi ./1;nagee'"Liinnited supra. 2007(7) STR 347(OE§1)v'd'teei{__'Vtt1e tljat garment export being natnle of quotas being pmvided theeacl1"--c.o1i;;t:-y','----tla- 'Gr_'wv...nm_nt was well within uﬁliéaation of which cannot. be inue 1 ieu "'it.h. Hayring the et1a~_t'i1V'e"ttVtext of the judgment, i find no good to dewirxivate--ﬁrom the masons. ﬁndings and conclusions V £1t:}§y.the learned Judge.

' ,. The contention of the learned counsel for the

2 ~ 'd gpetzittionel' that the order of the Second Appellate Committee Smqnfn Fr':-r I1fl1}--lJl;'I*'Qi'Ie \.u.na J\.l.l ..... ...... 7..J:L_1_ _£ __.evnnt grounds of appeal _.1-_ 1 and non assigning say so because, the petitioner whiie responding to the eirw \Ja U"\ cause netiee issued by Le AEPC, e_ve_ee::I"'ti1e~.._ple:;1 "-of of fabzics and change in style i3iei;:?uete€'i._by4'tl1e__l:$11yeIs '' resulting in change of category were coneideaed and "'t.11_e in its order dated 1- 10- ln tllievletter dated 18- 11-1999 Axinexule-"[A)V'_"V_eii,;V:leeilIlViV;; of appeal to the First plea was urged and mjeeteg: b},r.;-4.r';~._»..1"e."'---«_i.;=I.'t.., . IQ.-Q5-'£L?.()O2 Annexme-"F". Before ti:-1'$5?;~*"%§'.A1§§§el!ete'VV.:'Cnmmi*'ee. the apmn' .1-:1 titionei' i1l.tl1'e"1 "uiiecli feiirrt is ""6 uu uv C" the vex"

same pleas." petitizinel' however, did not produce a copy eeid «along with the writ papers. The learned V i' for the Second Appellate Committee submits '' inaintainecl by the said authority does not lithe ﬁling of the appeal in a required format, except At 'T 'for letter. Thus, it is\not known es to whether the Second C___n_1_ittee oensidered the letter addlessecl by the ]'iEtiLi"'iiE}' a" an am"-'=' er en the basis 91' fe-met -f ..1;.rpe.a_l allegedly med by the petitioner. bk the plea of shortfall in export '* Ieoeipt of fabrics. for jio» unable to place material to in style by the as having been In addition, learned any material placed befo-- Committee over the I.l'\a.J\.n sari "f '*-lrfnge by t';'~.'e'h--v 1*. Memly ad.v;-'-_11_.'_11g a. pleafis inauii'1<':§.ent;' vasf petitioner W"E r""'aii"ed to ""-ee 1e_leva11t'"1natenalV' eonetituﬁng substamltiai evidence over the ._i)ie.e not done so, no exception can be taken V to "the of the authorities, rejecting the plea of of fome--majeu1e conditions. In these it cannot be said that the order of the Second At 't 'Appellate Committee is not a speaking order or that there

16. The last wntenﬁon t...!.=.- Le beﬂe ngiesi bv the authorities in identicai .._ cases. were not appiied in the fnesent .is'--.oisovv.,iﬁthT"A'ut "

any 1nen't. I say so because, claim of oVfo¢1oe?1naj'é;ui*c is:

dependant upon facts of evidence to establiss'h;_f11e ~-such' eonoitiolls. The petitioner has not that in identical cimumstance?.§§:VZﬂ1§ I the claim of force- beneﬁt of the claim of f"nf3e-inajeiixe "7§.'.ei.'.'1?*~.2"*.';e1:-:a:"i.':'1Ii.=;1.I.t. noon the facts and ci1cu311stances'ai1ci'Tn1Eiioseri,nl on nr-.r:"i'd "" a "'""r.i'=i.ik1* re-"se. it goes without ﬁhit any decision rendered in that case, not. nnleae-«facts and circumstances are shown to be _ A nave application.

V * : ,:nejeo'ted.

'This writ petition is without merit and is accordingly. I $6.!-= Judge KS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court