DGFT Minutes
In force — no superseding record on file.
MINUTES OF THE POLICY RELAXATION COMMITTEE (PRC) MEETING NO.04/AM10 HELD ON 04.09.2009 AT 2.30 P.M. UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF SHRI R.S. GUJRAL, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE. PRC Meeting was held under the Chairmanship of DGFT and list of officers present in the meeting is given below: 1. Shri Amitabh Jain Addl. DG 2. Shri V.K. Srivastava Addl. DG 3. Shri A. Komu Jt.DGFT 4. Shri A.K. Singh Jt.DGFT 5. Shri Anil Aggarwal Jt. DGFT 6. Shri Tapan Mazumder Jt.DGFT 7. Shri O.P. Hisaria Jt.DGFT 8. Shri Akash Taneja Jt. DGFT 9. Shri Hardeep Singh Jt. DGFT 10. Shri S.S. Sah Dy.DGFT After deliberations, the following decisions were taken.
Case No. 1: M/s. Upper India Tannery (P) Ltd., Kanpur
File No. 01/60/162/63/AM10/EFGC (PRC) PRC Meeting No.04/AM10 dated: 04.09.2009
Subject: Revalidation of Advance licence No. 0610011216 dt. 21.03.2006.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O to the extent of 100% Qty. wise and 145% value wise within valid EOP. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance authorisation no. 0610011216 dt. 21.03.2006 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm.
Case No. 2: M/s. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. (Unit: HiTech Carbon), Sonebhadra
File No. 01/94/180/405/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 1510002982 dt. 24.11.05.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was 70% within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm. RA shall reduce the import entitlement on prorata basis.
Case No. 3: M/s. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Company Ltd., Bharuch
File No. 01/94/180/302/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 3410017467 dt. 23.11.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was 78.42% Qty. wise and 37.85% value wise within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm. RA shall reduce the import entitlement on prorata basis and also ascertain the reason for the significantly reduced realization of export realization.
Case No. 4: M/s. Cable Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai
File No. 01/94/180/55/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorization no. 0310387501 dt. 29.06.06 for a period of six months.
The Committee noted that though the firm has exported some of the products within the valid EOP, as claimed by the firm against aforesaid Advance Authorisation, proportionate imports could not be completed. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm and indicated in the PRC agenda. RA shall reduce the import entitlement on pro rata basis.
Case No. 5: M/s. Dhwani Polyprints Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
File No. 01/94/180/411/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 0310407072 dt. 08.11.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was 100% within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification
Case No. 6: M/s. Grover Vineyards Ltd., Mumbai
File No. 01/94/180/47/AM10/PC4 Subject: Extension in EOP against advance authorization no. 0710038224 dt. 31.05.05 upto 05.01.09 and revalidation of advance authorization no. 0710042424 dt. 04.01.06 for the purpose of clubbing.
The Committee noted the request for EOP extension against the advance authorisation dated 31.05.05 and revalidation of advance authorisation dated 04.01.06 for the purpose of clubbing. Committee also note that export obligation fulfilled against advance authorisation dated 04.01.06 was more than 100%% Qty.wise within valid EOP whereas EO fulfilled against the advance authorization dated 31.5.05 is ‘NIL’. Since the aforesaid request was for the purpose of clubbing & closure only. Accordingly the Committee decided as follows: (a) to extend EOP against advance authorisation no. 0710038224 dt. 31.05.05 upto 05.01.09 subject to the payment of composition fee @ 6% in proportionate to the duty saved amount for the balance inputs in relation to the exports already made, if any, against the advance authorisation dated 04.01.06 within the valid EOP. (b) to revalidate the advance authorisation no. 0710042424 dt. 04.01.06 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized CIF value of the authorisation and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status against this authorisastion, as claimed by the firm.
payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized CIF value of the authorisation and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status against this authorisastion, as claimed by the firm. This EOP extension and revalidation are for the purpose of clubbing only. No further imports/exports shall be allowed against these authorisations after clubbing. RA may also verify if the firm had filed any application before effecting additional exports to that of original application.
Case No. 7: M/s. Gujarat Raffia Industries Ltd., Gandhinagar
File No. 01/94/180/406/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 0810059734 dt. 20.09.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was 100% within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm.
Case No. 8: M/s. Gujarat Raffia Industries Ltd., Gandhinagar
File No. 01/94/180/407/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 0810059751 dt. 21.09.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was 100% within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification
Case No. 9: M/s. Zenith Industrial Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
File No. 01/94/180/400/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 0310407116 dt. 08.11.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was more than 100% within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm. Accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification
Case No. 10: M/s. SM Energy Teknik & Electronics Ltd., Mumbai
File No. 01/60/162/88/AM10/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance licence No. 0310408967 dt. 21.11.2006.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O to the extent of 100% both Qty. wise and value wise within valid EOP. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance licence No. 0310408967 dt. 21.11.2006. for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorization and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm.
Case No. 11: M/s. Steel Strips Wheels Ltd., Chandigarh
File No. 01/60/162/105/AM10/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance authorization No. 3010048243 dt. 18.07.2006.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O to the extent of 99% Qty. wise and 127.06 value wise within valid EOP. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance authorization no. 3010048243 dt. 18.07.2006 on prorata basis for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorization and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm.
Case No. 12: M/s. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd., Mumbai
File No. 01/60/162/97/AM10/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance authorisation No. 0310404863 dt. 18.10.2006.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O to the extent of 99.89% Qty. wise and 103.81 value wise within valid EOP. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance authorisation no. 0310404863 dt. 18.10.2006 on prorata basis for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm.
Case No. 13: M/s. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd., Mumbai
File No. 01/60/162/99/AM10/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance authorization No. 0310404318 dt. 16.10.2006.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O to the extent of 70.40% Qty. wise and 76.54% value wise within valid EOP. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance authorization no. 0310404318 dt. 16.10.2006 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, to enable them to complete their imports on prorata basis subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorization and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm.
Case No. 14: M/s. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd., Mumbai
File No. 01/60/162/100/AM10/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance authorization No. 0310410559 dt. 01.12.2006.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O to the extent of more than 100% both Qty. wise and value wise within valid EOP. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance authorization no. 0310410559 dt. 01.12.2006 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorization and also subject to verification
Case No. 15: M/s. Plastiblends India Ltd., Mumbai
File No. 01/60/162/89/AM10/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance authorization No. 0310409883 dt. 28.11.2006.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O to the extent of more than 100% both Qty.wise and value wise within valid EOP. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance authorization no. 0310409883 dt. 28.11.2006 for a period of six months from the date of
communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorization and also subject to verification
Case No. 16: M/s. Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd., Ahmedabad
File No. 01/94/180/391/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 0810057198 dt. 12.06.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was more than 100% within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification
Case No. 17: M/s. Commercial SynBags Ltd., Indore
File No. 01/94/180/333/AM10/PC4 Subject: Revalidation of advance authorization no. 1110012408 dt. 22.12.05 for the purpose of clubbing with advance authorization no. 1110012826 dt. 28.02.2006. The Committee noted from the agenda the aforesaid request for revalidation against Advance Authorisation no. 1110012408 dt. 22.12.05 for the purpose of clubbing with other aforesaid Advance Authorisation dated 28.02.06. The Committee, noted that E.O. fulfilled against Advance authorisation dated 22.12.05 is 93% & that against Advance authorisation dated 28.2.06 is 96.47% within EOP, as claimed by the firm. Accordingly the committee decided to revalidate the advance licence no. 1110012408 dt. 22.12.05 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC. subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized CIF value of the authorization for the purpose of clubbing with the other Advance authorisation bearing no. 1110012408 dt. 22.12.05. This is subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm. No further imports/exports shall be allowed against these authorizations.
Case No. 18: M/s. Budh International, Delhi
File No. 01/91/180/903/AM09/PC3 PRC Meeting No.04/AM10 dated: 04.09.2009 Subject: Request for issue of duty credit scrip under VKGUY on production of photocopies of shipping bills duly attested by the Customs in lieu of original.
The Committee allowed the case for issue of duty credit scrip under VKGUY on production of photocopies of shipping bills duly attested by the Customs in lieu of original in terms of para 2.60 of the Hand Book of Procedures.
Case No. 19: M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd., New Delhi
File No. 01/94/180/479/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 0210095985 dt. 04.12.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was 100% within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification
Case No. 20: M/s. Shockley Hall Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata
File No. 01/94/180/172/AM09/PC4 Subject: EOP extension against 2 Advance Licence nos. (i) 2282800 dt. 13.01.95 & (ii) 2236694 dt.24.10.94 for the purpose of reexport. The Committee noted that EO fulfilled Qty.wise in respect of aforesaid 2 Advance licences was 100% within valid EOP, as claimed by the firm but the EODC could not be issued because the firm could only produce other documentary evidence in lieu of BRC (which could not be corelated) for some of the shipments which were made through third party. Since, physically goods had been exported as evidenced from Shipping Bills, the Committee decided to extend EOP, against the aforesaid 2 advance licences, for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, to reexport the products as per the export obligation fixed, subject to verification by RA of EO claimed to have been fulfilled by the firm within the valid EOP.
Case No. 21: M/s. Sonic Biochem Extractions Ltd., Indore
File No. 01/94/180/364/AM10/PC4
Subject: EOP extension against Advance Authorisation no. 0310371339 dt. 14.03.06.
The Committee noted that EO fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was 84.03% Qty. wise within valid EOP, as claimed by the firm. Therefore, the Committee decided to extend EOP, against the aforesaid advance authorization, for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to verification by RA of EO claimed to have been fulfilled by the firm within the valid EOP and also subject to the payment of composition fee @ 6% of the duty saved amount for the balance inputs.
Case No. 22: M/s. Universal Medicap Ltd., Gujarat
File No. 01/94/180/483/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of two advance authorizations bearing nos. (i) 3410016874 dt. 13.09.06 and (ii) 3410017109 dt.10.10.06. The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation dated 13.09.06 was 92.58% and in respect of Advance Authorisation dated 10.10.06 was 100% within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm. Accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid two advance authorisations for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm. RA shall reduce the import entitlement on prorata basis in respect of the Advance Authorisation dated 13.09.2006.
Case No. 23: M/s. Alembic Ltd., Vadodara
File No. 01/94/180/890/AM10/PC4 Subject: Revalidation of advance licence no. 3410009563 dt. 21.01.04 for the purpose of clubbing with advance authorization no. 3410012416 dt. 31.01.05. The Committee noted above mentioned request of the firm from the agenda. The Committee, after detailed discussions, decided to revalidate the advance licence no. 3410009563 dt. 21.01.04 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, for the purpose of clubbing with other Advance Authorisation dated 31.01.05 mentioned above, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized CIF value of the licence bearing no. 3410009563 dt. 21.01.04 and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm. This is also subject to the condition that RA that the raw materials had been imported from Registered source against both the above mentioned licence, as claimed by the firm. No further imports/exports shall be allowed against these licences after clubbing.
Case No. 24: M/s. Century Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vadodara
File No. 01/94/180/475/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 3410017455 dt. 23.11.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was 100% within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification
Case No. 25: M/s. Welspun Syntex Ltd., Mumbai
File No. 01/60/162/91/AM10/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of advance licence no. 0310395146 dt. 18.08.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O to the extent of more than 100% both Qty. wise and value wise within valid EOP. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance licence no. 0310395146 dt. 18.08.06 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorization and also subject to verification
Case No. 26: M/s. Adler Mediequip Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
File No. 01/60/162/106/AM10/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of advance licence no. 0310394250 dt. 11.08.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O to the extent of 100% both Qty. wise and value wise within valid EOP. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance licence no. 0310394250 dt. 11.08.06 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the licence and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm.
Case No. 27: Shri Abhinav Bindra, New Delhi
File No. 01/53/8/218/AM06/A38/Import Cell
Subject: Request for 2nd revalidation of Import Licence No. 0260838 dated 07.10.2005 till December, 2009.
The Committee noted that the above license have already been revalidated till December, 2009 for import 01 No. Bleiker 300 M Free Rifle with 6 mm Hardward, with the approval of DG on file. Therefore Committee, decided to accord expostfacto approval.
Case No. 28: Shri Abhinav Bindra, New Delhi
File No01/53/162/2056/AM07/A78/Import Cell
Subject: Request for revalidation of Import Licence No. 0550000696 dated 21.02.2007 till December, 2009.
The Committee noted that the above license have already been revalidated till December, 2009 for import .22 Bore RF Long Rifle ammunition 12000 and 6mm BR ammunition 2200, with the approval of DG on file. Therefore Committee, decided to accord expostfacto approval.
Case No. 29: M/s. Shakun Industries, Delhi
File No. 01/53/8/164/AM07/S34/Import Cell
Subject: Request for revalidation of Import Licence No. 0550000555 dated 18.09.2006.
The Committee considered the case for revalidation of Import Licence No. 0550000555 dated 18.09.2006 beyond 30 months for one year i.e. uptlo 17.03.2010 to complete the import.
Case No. 30: M/s. Nand Kishore Vindravan, Bulandshahr
File No. 01/53/8/869/AM09/N64/Import Cell
Subject: Grant of Import Licence for import of 8000 MTs of Oats for stock and sale.
The Committee considered the case for Import Licence for import of 8000 MTs of Oats (other than seed quality) from Australia for stock and sale on the basis of NOC given by the Deptt. Of Agriculture & Cooperation, New Delhi vide their OM dated 16.7.2009 subject to the conditions imposed by them.
Case No. 31: M/s. The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/94/180/192/AM09/PC4 Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 0310305908 dt. 08.12.04 for the purpose of clubbing with advance authorization no. 0310328177 dt. 02.05.05. The Committee noted above mentioned request of the firm from the agenda. Committee noted that E.O. fulfilled against Advance authorisation dated 08.12.04 is 94.18% and that of Advance authorisation dated 2.5.05 is 115.90% within valid EOP, as claimed by the firm. Accordingly, the Committee, decided to revalidate the advance authorisation no. 0310305908 dt. 08.12.04 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, for the purpose of clubbing with other Advance Authorisation dated 02.05.05 mentioned above, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized CIF value of the authorisation bearing no. 0310305908 dt. 08.12.04 and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm. No further imports/exports shall be allowed against these authorisations after clubbing.
Case No. 32: M/s. Federation of Indian Mineral Industries.
File No. 01/36/218/93/AM09/EPCGI
Subject: Prospective Application of Policy Circular No. 48 dated 19.12.08.
The Committee considered the case as per Agenda. The Committee observed that the wagons imported under EPCG Scheme are leased to the Railway authorities by the EPCG Authorization Holders and thus the actual user condition is not met. The Committee considered the representation received from the EPCG authorization holders alongwith the representation from Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI) addressed to Commerce Secretary stating that retrospective application of Circular No. 48 dated 19.12.08 would cause undue hardship to those EPCG authorization holders who had already obtained the Authorizations prior to issue of the said circular since they had paid the excise duty on wagons to the domestic supplier and their entire costing and capital budgeting had been done incorporating the duty reliefs available under the EPCG Scheme for which they had been issued EPCG authorizations by the RAs. The Committee decided that the TED claims of EPCG Authorizations holders who had been issued EPCG Authorizations for import of Railway Wagons under Wagon Leasing Scheme (WLS) , Wagon Investment Scheme (WIS) Liberalized Wagon Investment Scheme (LWIS) of the Ministry of Railways and who had effected the import prior to issue of the Circular No. 48 dated 19.12.2008 may be allowed the TED refund by RAs in relaxation of provisions of para 5.3 of
of the Ministry of Railways and who had effected the import prior to issue of the Circular No. 48 dated 19.12.2008 may be allowed the TED refund by RAs in relaxation of provisions of para 5.3 of FTP (RE2008) and para 4 of Circular No. 48 dated 19.12.2008 and the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate be issued subject to fulfillment of all other conditions governing the EPCG authorization.
Case No. 33: Reference from Engineering Export Promotion Council, Mumbai.
File No. 01/94/180/DFIAEEPC/AM10/PC4
Subject: Request for relaxation of policy provision to allow disposal of imported inputs after completion of exports but prior to endorsement of transferability under DFIA Scheme – reg. The committee noted the request of EEPC for regularization of the domestic disposal of duty free imported inputs imported under DFIA issued during 200607 after completion of export, but prior to endorsement of transferability. Committee also noted the difficulties in operation of the DFIAs issued during the period 200607 on account of delayed issuance of the corresponding Customs Notification and the varying interpretation by the field formation of the customs and the regional authorities. It was observed that the basic intention of endorsement of transferability prior to any domestic disposal of duty free inputs is to ensure that the exports have been completed and the documentary evidence to that effect has been produced. Such endorsements also facilitates cross verification by the concerned government department, at any point of time as to the details of the inputs which has been imported as replenishment. It was also observed that for the DFIAs issued during 200607, inputs are exempted from all duties irrespective of the endorsement of the transferability. In addition, Committee also noticed that due to varying
DFIAs issued during 200607, inputs are exempted from all duties irrespective of the endorsement of the transferability. In addition, Committee also noticed that due to varying interpretation of RA, such endorsement had been delayed in RAs for a no. of similar cases. Accordingly taking into consideration the fact that wherever exports have been completed and the request for transferability was filed before the concerned RA prior to the domestic disposal of the duty free inputs, the committee decided to regularize all such cases wherein the application for endorsement of transferability had been filed to RA before domestic disposal of inputs. RA may do the needful accordingly.
Case No. 35: M/s. IDMC Ltd., Vadodara.
File No. 01/94/180/482/AM10/PC4 PRC Meeting No.04/AM10 dated: 4.09.2009
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 3410015825 dated 6.4.2006.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O. to the extent of 100% Qty. wise within valid EOP against 21 export products. No exports against item at S.No.18 of the list attached to the agenda. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance authorization No. 3410015825 dated 6.4.2006 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized CIF value of the authorization and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm.
Case No. 36: M/s. Fire Chem (a unit of Fire Safety Devices Pvt. Ltd.)., Faridabad
File No. 01/94/180/469/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 0510194779 dt. 21.11.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation (for the various products mentioned in the authorization) was more than 50% individually within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm. Accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm. RA shall reduce the import entitlement on prorata basis.
Case No. 37: M/s. Electrolead (Pune) Pvt. Ltd., Pune
File No. 01/94/180/557/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 3110025966 dt. 11.08.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was 100% within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm. Accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification
Case No. 38: M/s. Halcyon Labs Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
File No. 01/94/180/650/AM09/PC4 Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation nos. (i) 0310324527 dt. 04.04.05, (ii) 0310276482 dt.02.07.04, (iii) 0310235521 dt.10.11.03, (iv) 0310289429 dt.01.09.04, (v) 0310228961 dt.07.10.03 and (vi) 0310240658 dt. 09.12.03 for the purpose of clubbing with 7 other Advance Authorisations. The Committee noted above mentioned request of the firm from the agenda. The Committee, after detailed discussions, decided to revalidate the aforesaid 6 Advance Authorisations for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, for the purpose of clubbing with 7 other Advance Authorisations, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized CIF value of the above mentioned 6 Advance Authorisations and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm. This is also subject to the condition that RA shall verify that raw materials have been imported from Registered source against the above mentioned authorizations, as claimed by the firm. No further imports/exports shall be allowed against these authorization.
Case No. 39: M/s. Umedica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
File No. 01/94/180/693/AM10/PC4 Subject: EOP Extension against advance authorization No. 0310294151 dated 29.9.2004 issued under Policy Circular No. 9 dated 30.06.03, upto 30.09.05. The Committee noted that EO fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was 78.20% within valid EOP and 15.14% outside EOP i.e. about 4 months from the date of expiry of EOP, as claimed by the firm. Therefore, the Committee decided to extend EOP, against the aforesaid advance authorization, upto 30.09.05 for the purpose of regularization of exports already made upto 30.09.05, subject to verification by RA of EO claimed to have been fulfilled by the firm within the valid EOP and also subject to the payment of composition fee @ 6% of the duty saved amount for the balance inputs proportionate to exports effected beyond EOP.
Case No. 40: M/s. Kudos Chemie Ltd. Chandigarh.
File No. 01/94/180/544/AM10/PC4 PRC Meeting No.04/AM10 dated: 4.09.2009
Subject: EOP extension against advance authorization No.2210005252 dated 15.2.2006.
The Committee noted that EO fulfilled in respect of Advance Authorization No. 2210005252 dated 15.2.2006 was 82% Qty. wise within valid EOP, as claimed by the firm. Therefore, the Committee decided to extend EOP, against the aforesaid advance authorization, for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to verification by RA of EO claimed to have been fulfilled by the firm within the valid EOP and also subject to payment of composition fee @ 6% of the duty saved amount for the balance inputs.
Case No. 41: M/s. Kudos Chemie Ltd. Chandigarh.
File No. 01/94/180/545/AM10/PC4 PRC Meeting No.04/AM10 dated: 4.09.2009
Subject: EOP extension against advance authorization No. 2210005310 dated 8.3.2006.
The Committee noted that EO fulfilled in respect of Advance Authorization No. 2210005310 dated 8.3.2006 was 82% Qty. wise within valid EOP, as claimed by the firm. Therefore, the Committee decided to extend EOP, against the aforesaid advance authorization, for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to verification by RA of EO claimed to have been fulfilled by the firm within the valid EOP and also subject to the payment of composition fee @ 6% of the duty saved amount for the balance inputs.
Case No. 42: M/s. Sabare International Ltd., Karur
File No. 01/60/120/AM10/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Extension of the EO period of Advance Licence No. 3210032480 dated 11.05.2006.
The Committee noted that EO fulfilled in respect of Advance Licence No. 3210032480 dated 11.05.2006 was 95% Qty – wise and 100% value wise within valid EOP, as claimed by the firm. Therefore, the Committee decided to extend EOP, against the aforesaid authorisation, for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to verification by RA of EO claimed to have been fulfilled by the firm within the valid EOP and also subject to the payment of composition fee @ 6% of the duty saved amount for the balance inputs proportionate to unfulfilled EO within valid EOP.
Case No. 43: M/s. ITCO Industries Ltd., Bangalore
File No. 01/60/121/AM10/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Licence No. 0710049321 dated 03.01.2007
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O to the extent of 100% both Qty. wise and value wise within valid EOP. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance Licence No. 0710049321 dated 03.01.2007 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification
Case No. 44: M/s. Jindal Poly films Ltd., New Delhi.
File No. 01/94/180/913/AM09/PC4 PRC Meeting No.04/AM10 dated: 4.09.2009 Subject: Waiver of composition fee on revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0510168217 dated 7.10.2005. Committee noted that PRC vide its Meeting dated 31.7.2008, allowed revalidation of the aforesaid advance authorization for 6 months, as recommended by Norms Committee, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized CIF value. Committee also noted the request of the firm for deletion of the condition of payment of composition on account of delay by Norms Committee to amend the norms as requested by the firm. After detailed discussion, Committee decided to waive this condition of payment of composition fee as the committee felt that there was a delay in fixation of the revised Adhoc input output norms by the Norms Committee. Accordingly RA may revalidate the aforesaid authorization for 6 months from the date of this communication without any composition fee.
Case No. 45: M/s. Kishore Vadilal P. Ltd., Ahmedabad.
File No. 01/94/180/319/AM10/PC4 PRC Meeting No.04/AM10 dated: 4.09.2009 Subject: EOP extension against advance authorization No. 0810047913 dt.16.5.2005 upto 28.02.09 for regularization purpose. The Committee noted that EO fulfilled in respect of Advance Authorization No. 0810047913 dt.16.5.2005 was only 39.70% Qty. wise, within valid EOP, as claimed by the firm. Therefore, the Committee decided to reject the request of the firm for EOP extension.
Case No. 47: M/s. Pepsico India Holdings P. Ltd., Gurgaon.
File No. 01/94/180/342/AM10/PC4 PRC Meeting No.04/AM10 dated: 4.09.2009
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0510152864 dated 11.3.2005.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O. Qty. wise to the extent of 101.33% against the export product “Glass Bottles and/or Pressed Tumblers/Bottles of Yellowish Pink Colour” and 93.96% against the export product “Articles made of HDPE”, within valid EOP. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance authorization No. 0510152864 dated 11.3.2005 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized CIF value of the authorization and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm. Import entitlement to be allowed on prorata basis.
Case No. 48: M/s. Abdul Gaffar Siddick Khatri, Mumbai
File No. 01/94/180/294/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 0310386353 dt. 22.06.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was 100% within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm. And accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification
Case No. 49: M/s. Antix Corporation Ltd., Bangalore
File No. 01/94/180/390/AM09/PC4
Subject: EOP extension against Advance Authorisation no. 0710047775 dt. 10.10.06.
The Committee noted that the firm have two prestigious export orders to European Customers for manufacture and supply of W2M and HYLAS Spacecraft in collaboration with EADS, France. This is a prestigious project for India and new to our country wherein our country have been able to make entry into such a highly competitive and high technology venture and getting orders for such supplies. Since the period of supply of such sophisticated equipments with very high precision is similar to completion deemed export of project, for which EOP is coterminus with contracted duration of project execution in terms of para 2.12 of HBP v1. Accordingly, the Committee decided that EOP should be Coterminus with the contracted duration of the project execution against the aforesaid advance authorization and shall be without payment of any composition fee.
Case No. 50: M/s. Dabur India Ltd., Ghaziabad
File No. 01/94/180/552/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 0510196762 dt. 26.12.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was 99.09% within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm. Import entitlement shall be on prorata basis.
Case No. 51: M/s. P.S. Bedi & Company Private Limited, New Delhi
File No. 01/89/180/31/AM09/PC2(A)
Subject: Import of Kubota RTVs on Reexport basis – Extension in time by another 6 months.
The Committee considered the request of the firm and decided to allow extension in time for reexport for another 6 months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC.
Case No. 52: M/s. Stancorp, Mumbai
File No. 01/60/162/143/AM10/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Licence No. 0310417105 dt. 24.01.2007.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O to the extent of 100% both Qty. wise and value wise within valid EOP. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance Licence No. 0310417105 dt. 24.01.2007 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm.
Case No. 53: M/s. Devi Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai
File No. 01/60/162/446/AM09/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Licence No. 0410079567 dt. 16.03.2006.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O to the extent of 100% both Qty. wise and value wise within valid EOP. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance Licence No. 0410079567 dt. 16.03.2006 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm.
Case No. 54: M/s. Devi Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai
File No. 01/60/162/453/AM09/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Licence No. 0410075927 dt. 31.10.2005.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the firm has claimed to have fulfilled E.O to the extent of 100% both Qty. wise and value wise within valid EOP. Accordingly, the Committee decided to revalidate the advance Licence No. 0410075927 dt. 31.10.2005 for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm.
Case No. 55: M/s. Umedica Laaboratories Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
File No. 01/94/180/530/AM10/PC4 Subject: EOP Extension against advance authorization No. 0310426584 dated 13.04.07 issued under Policy Circular No. 9 dated 30.06.03. The Committee noted that EO fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was 50.26% within valid EOP and for the balance EO fulfilled, outside EOP the firm took about 16 months from the date of expiry of EOP, as claimed by the firm. Committee also noted that there had been considerable delay in filing the request for relaxation of policy provision for EOP extension. Therefore, the Committee decided to reject the request as the firm.
Case No. 56: M/s. Synthite Industries Ltd., Cochin
File No. 01/94/180/232/AM10/PC4 Subject: EOP Extension against following 13 Advance Authorisations for regularization purpose for period mentioned below: Sl. No. Advance Authorisation No. EOP extension required upto (in month) Sl. No. Advance Authorisation No. EOP extension required upto 1. 1010026316 dt. 25.4.07 4 8. 1010026418 dt. 04.5.07 3 2. 1010026317 dt. 25.4.07 5 9. 1010026419 dt. 04.5.07 2 3. 1010026318 dt. 25.4.07 5 10. 1010026420 dt. 04.5.07 5 4. 1010026406 dt. 04.5.07 4 11. 1010026776 dt. 21.6.07 2 5. 1010026412 dt. 04.5.07 4 12. 1010026984 dt. 25.7.07 6 6. 1010026413 dt. 04.5.07 6 13. 1010026465 dt. 08.5.07 6 7. 1010026414 dt. 04.5.07 5 The Committee noted that EOP allowed for the export products spice oils and oleoresins against the aforesaid authorisations was 6 months from the date of 1st import consignment which was subsequently extended upto 12 months vide PN No. 60 dated 04.10.07. Therefore, the Committee decided to extend EOP, against the aforesaid advance authorizations, upto the period mentioned in above table for the purpose of regularization of exports already made, subject to verification by RA of EO claimed to have been fulfilled by the firm within the valid EOP and also subject to the payment of composition fee @ 6% of the duty saved amount for the balance inputs proportionate to exports made beyond original EOP.
Case No. 57: M/s. Ram Ratan International, Mumbai
File No. 01/60/162/123/AM10/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: EOP Extension of Licence Nos. 0310384258 dt. 13.06.2006 and 0310393217 dt. 4.8.2006.
The Committee noted that EO fulfilled in respect of Advance licence Nos. 0310384258 dt. 13.06.2006 and 0310393217 dt. 4.8.2006 was 84.77%/ 88.97% qty. wise and 100%/ 99.23% value wise as claimed by the firm. Therefore, the Committee decided to extend EOP, against the aforesaid authorisation, for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to verification by RA of EO claimed to have been fulfilled by the firm within the valid EOP and also subject to the payment of composition fee @ 6% of the duty saved amount for the balance inputs proportionate to unfulfilled EO within valid EOP.
Case No. 58: M/s. Modi International, Faridabad
File No. 01/60/162/133/AM10/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: EOP Extension of Licence Nos. 0510160468 dt. 22.06.2005.
The Committee noted that EO fulfilled in respect of Advance Licence Nos. 0510160468 dt. 22.06.2005 was 50.87% Qty – wise and 50.13% value wise within valid EOP, as claimed by the firm. It was decided to defer the consideration of the case & get the EO fulfillment figure given by the firm rechecked.
Case No. 59: M/s. Gujarat Raffia Industries Ltd., Gandhinagar
File No. 01/94/180/559/AM10/PC4
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorisation no. 0810061631 dt. 12.12.06.
The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance Authorisation was more than 100% within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm. Accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorisation for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification
Case No. 60: M/s. Swan Press, New Delhi
File No. 01/94/180/218/AM10/PC4 Subject: Revalidation of two duplicate advance authorisation bearing nos. (i) 0510222153 dt. 13.06.08 (in lieu of original authorization dt. 20.09.06) and (ii) 0510222154 dt.20.09.06 (in lieu of original authorization dt.20.09.06). The Committee noted from the agenda that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid two Advance Authorisations was 100% within valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid two advance authorisations for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% of the unutilized cif value of the authorisation and also subject to verification
Verbatim extracted text (OCR/PDF). Older scans and tables may show extraction artifacts — verify against the original for anything you act on.
No analysis generated for this document yet (analysis runs over brief docs + on-demand). Run build_analysis.py --ids 10342 --apply.