EPCG duty concession fails where export obligation is unmet; promissory estoppel cannot defeat recovery of duty and interest.

Capital goods imported at a concessional rate under the EPCG scheme remained liable to recovery of duty foregone and interest where the export obligation was not fulfilled within the stipulated period and no extension was obtained. Breach of the notification conditions made the benefit unavailable, and the duty demand became enforceable. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was held inapplicable because compliance with the mandatory export obligation was a prerequisite for retaining the concession. The confirmed demand and interest were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, having imported capital goods at a concessional rate of duty under the EPCG scheme and failed to fulfil the export obligation, was liable to the confirmed duty demand and interest, and whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked to resist recovery.

Analysis: The appellant had imported capital goods under Notification No. 97/2004-Cus. at a concessional rate and had been granted the benefit subject to fulfilment of export obligation. The record showed that the export obligation was not discharged within the stipulated period and no extension was obtained from the competent authority. In these circumstances, the conditions attached to the notification were breached, and the duty foregone became recoverable along with applicable interest. The plea of promissory estoppel was held inapplicable because the appellant had not complied with the mandatory export obligation required for retention of the duty benefit.

Conclusion: The confirmed demand and interest were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

---