2003 (11) TMI 496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the AEPC dated 22-10-1997. The AEPC had by its said order forfeited the amount of Rs. 4,78,379/- on the ground that the petitioner had not met its export obligation. This order was confirmed in first Appeal and although the petitioner sought the benefit of the force majeure clause, the first Appellate Authority did not feel that, in the facts of the case, the clause could be invoked. 2. The petitioner thereafter filed the second appeal before the Second Appellate Committee. Several notices for different dates of hearing have been issued from time to time. However, hearing was not held on those dates. Ultimately, the Second Appellate Committee passed an order on 14-7-2003 whereby the petitioner's second appeal was rejected. Apart f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e is no notice in respect of any hearing for 11-6-2003. Therefore, it becomes clear that the statement contained in the impugned order - "None appeared on behalf of the appellant firm for the hearing held on 11-6-2003 despite proper notice" - is contrary to the record. Insofar as the meeting held on 14-7-2003 is concerned, there is a letter of the petitioner itself dated 4-7-2003 which is on record of the original file whereby the petitioner had requested for an opportunity to explain the case to the Committee in the next Appellate Committee meeting to be held on 14-7-2003. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was pointedly asked that in view of this statement contained in the letter of 4-7-2003, the petitioner was very well aware of the ....