2015 (8) TMI 1338 - HC - Customs

Benefit of EPCG Scheme - rejection of authorization - import of Vitrified Tiles - Held that - This Court is of the view that the stand of the respondent is perfectly justifiable under the facts and circumstances. The respondent only demanded compliance of the proceedings under N/N. 16/2015 as a duty bound officer. Certainly, in such circumstances, when there is no authorization, the officer is entitled to demand compliance of Notification No. 16/2015. Nevertheless, this Court is of the view, in view of the fact that the petitioner has already approached Appellate Authority-JDGFT, the goods shall be released to the petitioner on executing a simple bond and also giving an undertaking that in the event of rejection of appeal by the JDGFT they will pay the duty as per the demand - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Petitioner's application for authorization under the EPCG Scheme for import consignment of Vitrified Tiles.
2. Petitioner's appeal before the Joint Directorate General of Foreign Trade (JDGFT) and request for release of goods on a provisional basis.
3. Compliance with Notification No. 16/2015 and the duty of the second respondent.
4. Decision on releasing the goods to the petitioner based on executing a bond and undertaking.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a company engaged in textile articles, sought authorization under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme for an import consignment of Vitrified Tiles. They discovered the rejection of authorization post-import and appealed to the JDGFT while requesting the release of goods provisionally. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's actions and directed the release of goods on a bond pending the appeal outcome.

2. The Standing Counsel opposed the petitioner's prayer, highlighting the simultaneous approach to the Authority for goods release and the Court. The Counsel emphasized compliance with Notification No. 16/2015 and presented the second respondent's reply. The Court considered the Counsel's arguments but ultimately ruled in favor of releasing the goods to the petitioner.

3. The Court justified the second respondent's demand for compliance with Notification No. 16/2015, recognizing the officer's duty. However, in light of the pending appeal with the JDGFT, the Court decided to release the goods to the petitioner upon executing a bond and providing an undertaking to pay the duty if the appeal is rejected. This decision balanced the interests of both parties involved.

4. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with the Court ordering the release of goods to the petitioner under the specified conditions. The judgment showcased a pragmatic approach to resolving the dispute while upholding the legal framework and principles governing the EPCG Scheme and import regulations.