Court upholds export quota forfeiture under Garment Export Entitlement Policy, petitioner can seek relief with reverified records.

The court upheld the forfeiture of export quotas due to the petitioner's failure to meet export obligations under the Garment Export Entitlement Policy. Despite citing various reasons for the shortfall, including force majeure events, the appeals were rejected for lack of substantiated evidence. The Second Appellate Committee directed the Apparel Export Promotion Council to reverify records for potential relief. The court emphasized limited interference, dismissing the writ petition but allowing the petitioner to seek representation for recalculating utilization within a specified timeframe, with any identified benefit offsetting the forfeiture amount.

---

---

Issues:
1. Forfeiture of export quotas due to failure to meet export obligations.
2. Appeal against the forfeiture order based on reasons for shortfall in export obligations.
3. Second appeal mentioning additional grounds for non-utilization of revalidated quota.
4. Discrepancy in plea of force majeure and lack of evidence to support the claim.
5. Direction for reverification of records by the Second Appellate Committee.
6. Court's limited interference in matters of arbitrariness or violation of natural justice.
7. Dismissal of the writ petition with liberty granted for representation before AEPC for reverification/recalculation.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner was allotted export quotas under the Garment Export Entitlement Policy but failed to meet the export obligations, leading to forfeiture by the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC). The petitioner appealed, citing reasons for the shortfall, including buyer's order cancellation due to delays and non-receipt of fabric. The Textile Commissioner and Appellate Committee upheld the forfeiture due to lack of force majeure conditions affecting performance.

2. In a second appeal, the petitioner introduced new grounds such as bad weather, electricity failure, and a fire incident causing non-utilization of the revalidated quota. However, the Second Appellate Committee rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the force majeure claim was not substantiated and directing reverification of records by AEPC to potentially grant relief based on recalculated utilization.

3. The respondent's counsel highlighted that the appeal primarily focused on the AEPC's oversight in considering proof of shipment for forfeiture calculation. The Court noted that the force majeure argument was belatedly raised and inadequately supported throughout the appeal process, indicating it was an afterthought without conclusive evidence.

4. The Second Appellate Committee's order mandated reverification, which AEPC conducted, leading to a partial refund to the petitioner. The Court clarified its role, stating it does not act as an appellate authority and only intervenes in cases of arbitrariness or natural justice violations, which were not evident in this instance.

5. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to approach AEPC for representation within two weeks for reverification/recalculation of shipment utilization. Any benefit identified would offset the forfeiture amount, with AEPC required to complete the process promptly after the petitioner's submission, emphasizing adherence to the Second Appellate Committee's directions.

---