Provisional release of imported goods allowed on bond and undertaking despite absent EPCG authorization, preserving duty recovery rights.

Imported goods may be provisionally released on a simple bond and undertaking even where authorization under the EPCG Scheme is absent, provided an appellate challenge to the rejection of authorization is pending. Compliance with Notification No. 16/2015 may be insisted upon in the absence of such authorization, but the court balanced that requirement against the pending remedy and protected the revenue by requiring security. Provisional release was therefore permitted subject to the importer's undertaking to pay duty if the appeal is unsuccessful.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods could be released provisionally on execution of a simple bond and undertaking notwithstanding the absence of authorization under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme and the requirement of compliance with Notification No. 16/2015.

Analysis: The request for release arose after the petitioner had already moved the appellate authority against the rejection of authorization. The demand for compliance with Notification No. 16/2015 was treated as justified in the absence of authorization, but the Court balanced that position against the pendency of the appellate remedy. In the circumstances, provisional release was considered appropriate, subject to security in the form of a simple bond and an undertaking to pay the duty if the appeal was rejected.

Conclusion: Provisional release of the imported goods was permitted on execution of a simple bond and undertaking, while preserving the revenue's right to recover duty if the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where authorization under the scheme is absent, compliance requirements may be insisted upon, but provisional release can still be ordered on adequate security when an appellate challenge to the rejection is pending.

---