Court allows appellant to receive goods before license issue date if customs clearance not completed. Bureaucratic delays not appellant's fault.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the appellant was entitled to place orders and receive goods before the EPCG licence issue date as long as Customs clearance and duty payment were not done. The Court emphasized that the provisional clearance of goods should not be held against the appellant due to bureaucratic delays in licence issuance. The appellant's actions were deemed permissible within the limitations set by the licence, which only restricted time and value, not the appellant's conduct before the licence issue date. The Court set aside the authorities' orders and allowed the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
- Interpretation of condition No.6 in the EPCG licence
- Entitlement to concessional rate of duty
- Validity of provisional clearance of goods

Interpretation of condition No.6 in the EPCG licence:
The appellant filed for an EPCG licence to avail a concessional rate on machinery import. The licence was delayed, leading to a dilemma for the appellant regarding provisional clearance. Condition No.6 stated the licence is valid for goods not cleared from Customs. The authorities upheld the Department's claim based on this condition. However, the Court noted that the licence imposed limitations on time and CIF value, not on placing orders or receiving goods. The Court found that the appellant was entitled to place orders and receive goods before the licence issue date as long as Customs clearance and duty payment were not done.

Entitlement to concessional rate of duty:
The Department argued the appellant was not entitled to the concessional rate due to condition No.6. The Court disagreed, emphasizing that the appellant's provisional clearance was necessitated by bureaucratic delays in licence issuance. The Court highlighted that the licence only had limitations on time and value, not on the appellant's actions before the licence issue date. The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the provisional clearance should not be held against the appellant.

Validity of provisional clearance of goods:
The appellant provisionally cleared goods due to uncertainty about the licence issue date to avoid demurrage costs. The Court noted that the licence decision was made a month before the clearance, yet the licence was issued much later. The Court found that the provisional clearance on 15.3.1995 should not be held against the appellant, as the licence had limited restrictions on validity period and CIF value only. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the authorities.

---