Additionally, the learned AT correctly noted that Clause 17.2 of the GCC expressly limits the use of performance security proceeds to compensating losses directly resulting from the Respondent‟s failure to fulfill performance obligations. However, in this case, the Petitioner invoked the PBG to recover claims for LD and negative variations in Price Adjustment, which the learned AT determined were not performance-related failures and, therefore, outside the permissible scope of PBG invocation. Furthermore, learned AT noted the PBG was invoked on January 21, 2016, after it had already ceased to function as a Performance Security and was only subsisting as a warranty obligation. The Petitioner‟s failure to adhere to contractual conditions for warranty claims, combined with the misuse of PBG proceeds for purposes not allowed under the contract and thus the learned Tribunal concluded that the invocation and encashment of the PBG were wrongful and illegal. Accordingly, the Tribunal's decision to direct a refund of the PBG was justified, and this court finds no reason to interfere with that determination.
