DGFT Minutes
In force — no superseding record on file.
MINUTES OF THE POLICY RELAXATION COMMITTEE (PRC) MEETING NO.08/AM11HELD ON 27.10.2010 AT 11.30 A.M. UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF Dr. A.K.Pujari, 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 V.K. Gupta Addl. DG 4. Shri Rajiv Arora Jt. DGFT 5. Shri L.B. Singhal Jt. DGFT 6. Shri Ved Prakash Jt. DGFT 7. Shri Satyan Sharda Jt. DGFT 8. Shri A.K. Singh Jt. DGFT 9. Shri Tapan Mazumdar Jt. DGFT 10. Ms. Shubhra Jt. DGFT 11. Shri Hardeep Singh Jt. DGFT 12. Ms. Vibha Bhalla Jt. DGFT 13. Shri S.S. Sah Dy. DGFT 14. Smt. Sonika Khattar FTDO The decision taken on the individual cases are as under:
Case No. 1: M/s Ratnagiri Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/446/AM10/EFGC (PRC) PRC Meeting No.08/AM11 dated: 27.10.2010
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0310413837 dt. 28.12.2006.
The Committee noted that as per the originally stipulated export obligation, the export performance is too low to warrant any reconsideration and therefore, decided to reject the request to reduce FOB and CIF on prorata basis.
Case No. 2: M/s Emami Ltd., Kolkata.
File No. 01/94/180/140/AM08/PC4 (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of 4 Advance Authorization Nos.
(i) 0210074350 dt. 25.01.2005 (ii) 0210074216 dt. 20.01.2005 (iii) 0210074011 dt. 14.01.2005 (iv) 0210074346 dt. 25.01.2005 The Committee noted that the Norms Committee changed the norms only for regularization purpose which cannot be referred for revalidation. Further, the case is also too late for any consideration. The Committee to rejected the request on account of the above and also that the request was delayed.
Case No. 3: M/s Troikaa Pharmaceutical Ltd., Ahmedabad.
File No. 01/60/162/586/AM10/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0810064752 dt. 09.05.2007.
The Committee noted that the firm have made exports even less than 50% of the stipulated obligation during the valid EOP. It was therefore, decided to reject the request due to low exports made both quantity and value wise in the valid EOP.
Case No. 4: M/s Indian Additives Ltd., Chennai.
File No.
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0410057069 dt. 18.05.2004.
The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorization was 100% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorization 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. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher at the time of revalidation. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 5: M/s DSM IntiInfectives India Ltd., Nawanshahr.
File No. 01/94/180/325/AM10/PC4 (PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of 5 Advance Authorization Nos.
(i) 2210004054 dt. 24.12.2004 (ii) 2210003123 dt. 29.03.2004 (iii) 2210001604 dt. 25.02.2003 (iv) 2210001591 dt. 21.02.2003 (v) 2210001581 dt. 19.02.2003 The Committee noted that the firm have made a request for EOP extension of above mentioned advance authorizations after the period of expiry of more than 1½ year from the date of expiry of authorizations. The Committee rejected the request of the firm as there are no merits for consideration due to highly delayed request.
Case No. 6: M/s J.D. Exports, Mumbai.
File No. 01/94/180/584/AM10/PC4 (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of 2 Advance Authorization Nos. (i) 0310176771 dt. 07.01.2003
(ii) 0310192732 dt. 03.04.2003. The Committee discussed the request of the firm and decided to reexamine the case and to check with the concerned Norms Division as to when the decision of norms was conveyed to the firm and also whether these norms were posted on the DGFT’s web site.
Case No. 7: M/s Punjab Stainless Steel Industries, New Delhi.
File No. 01/94/180/645/AM09/PC4 (PRC) Subject: Revalidation of 3 DEPB Nos. (i) 0510144082 dt. 25.11.2004 (ii) 0510164406 dt. 17.08.2005 (iii) 0510164205 dt. 11.08.2005 he Committee noted that from the report dated 17.04.2008 of customs, it appears there was a delay of about 6 months in customs regarding tracing of the Shipping Bills. The Committee therefore, decided to revalidate the aforesaid DEPBs for a period of six months from the date of communication of the decision of PRC.
Case No. 8: M/s Demosha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/1269/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Clubbing of 2 Advance Authorization Nos.
(i) 0310402782 dt. 06.10.2006 (ii) 0310342737 dt. 12.08.2005 The Committee considered the request of the firm and decided to regularize advance authorization No. 0310402782 dt. 06.10.2006 and Adv. Lic. No. 0310342737 dt. 12.08.2005 for the purpose of clubbing and revalidation of advance authorization 0310402782 dt. 06.10.2006 subject to payment of composition fee @1% of the unutilized Cif value of the authorizations and also verification of EO fulfillment status as claimed by the firm by RA. Extension in EO required for clubbing and regularization of authorizations where there is shortfall will be done by imposing a composition fee @5% per year as already decided in the PRC meeting held on 6.1.2010. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and take necessary action and make necessary endorsements at the time of revalidation.
Case No. 9: M/s Specialty Polyfilms India Ltd.,
File No. 01/60/162/936/AM11/EFGC(PRC) Subject: Revalidation of DFIA No. 0310432504 dt. 13.06.2007. The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid DFIA was 100% both qty. wise and value wise within the valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid DFIA 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 DFIA and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm. Further, PRC decided that DFIA will be endorsed as NONTRANSFERABLE.
Case No. 10: M/s Welspun, Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/905/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of 3 Advance Authorization Nos.
(i) 3410016019 dt. 12.05.2006 (ii) 3410016020 dt. 12.05.2006 (iii) 3410015573 dt. 03.03.2006 for the purpose of clubbing with another 4 Advance Authorization Nos. (i) 3410015670 dt. 20.03.2006 (ii) 3410018689 dt. 27.04.2007 (iii) 3410016353 dt. 30.06.2006 (iv) 3410016465 dt. 12.07.2006
The Committee considered the request of the firm and approved revalidation of 3 adv. Lic. No. 3410016019 dt. 12.05.2006, 3410016020 dt. 12.05.2006 and 3410015573 dt. 03.03.2006 for six months subject to payment of composition fee @1% of the unutilized Cif value of the authorizations for the purpose of clubbing and regularization only (no fresh import to be made) with 4 advance licences 3410015670 dt. 20.03.2006, 3410018689 dt. 27.04.2007, 3410016353 dt. 30.06.2006 and 3410016465 dt. 12.07.2006. RA to endorse EOP extension after processing the authorizations verifying details of exports and imports by imposing a composition fee @5% per year as already decided in the PRC meeting held on 6.1.2010. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 11: M/s Piramal Healthcare Ltd., Thane.
File No. 01/60/162/872/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension & clubbing for regularization & redemption of 5 Advance Authorization Nos.
(i) 0310310670 dt. 04.01.2005 (ii) 0310291837 dt. 16.09.2004 (iii) 0310291839 dt. 19.09.2004 (iv) 0310346258 dt. 06.09.2005 (v) 0310350788 dt. 07.10.2005 The Committee considered the request of the firm and approved revalidation of 3 adv. Lic. No. 0310310670 dt. 04.01.2005, 0310291839 dt. 19.09.2004 and 0310346258 dt. 06.09.2005 for six months subject to composition fee @1% for revalidation for the purpose of clubbing and EOP extension upto 14.12.2007 subject to payment of 5% per year for clubbing and regularization. RA to endorse EOP extension after processing the licences and verifying details of exports and imports made. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher.
Case No. 12: M/s Hindustan Platinum Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/54/AM10/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation and Enhancement of Advance Authorization No. 0310322166 dt. 18.03.2005.
The Committee noted that in a similar case on the basis of the decision of GRC, the composition fee was reduced from 1% to 0.25% of the unutilized cif value. The committee also noted that though GRC decision was specific to that particular case, on the principle on which this dispensation was provided for the product covered under the Gems and Jewellery Sector, was that the basic custom duty on such products was about 1.25% and therefore, the composition fee of 1% would cause hardship to the eligible applicant firm. It was also noted that the composition fee of 1% for other sectors was logical since their basic custom duty was 5 to 6%. In view of this rationale and GRC’s earlier decision, the Committee decided to consider 0.25% of composition fee in the specific case and also for the products covered under the Gems & Jewellery sector.
Case No. 13: M/s Shri Rayalaseema Alkalies & Allied Chemicals Ltd.,
File No. 01/60/162/928/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Conversion of shipping bills from Advance Authorization Scheme to DEPB Scheme.
The Committee noted the request of the firm and rejected the case. The firm may approach Customs for conversion of the Shipping Bills.
Case No. 14: M/s Brakes India Ltd., Chennai.
File No. 01/94/180/645/AM09/PC4 (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of 24 DEPBs and recredit of CVD paid in cash on reassessment by Customs.
The Committee observed the firm’s request of revalidation of 24 DEPBs on account of reassessment order of Jan, 2007 of Customs. The Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid DEPBs. RA to verify the reassessment order of Customs before revalidating DEPBs.
Case No. 15: M/s Demosha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/1268/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Clubbing of 2 Advance Authorization Nos.
(i) 0310291961 dt. 19.09.2004 (ii) 0310336444 dt. 28.06.2005 The Committee considered the request of the firm and approved EOP extension of advance authorization no. 0310291961 dt. 19.09.2004 upto 14.10.2007 subject to payment of 5% per year for clubbing and revalidation of advance authorization no. 0310336444 dt. 28.06.2005 for six months subject to composition fee @1% for revalidation for the purpose of clubbing. RA is also directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher.
Case No. 16: M/s Ultra Engineers, Pune.
File No. 01/60/162/382/AM10/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Acceptance to Partial supplies to 100% and Partial to SEZ against Advance Authorization No. 3110032245 dt. 10.01.2008. The committee observed that subsequent to 2005, the clubbing of physical and deemed export is being considered for the purpose of regularization. The Committee further noted that the firm’s request is covered under the para 4.1.3 of the FTP 200914. RA should take necessary action in accordance with the same.
Case No. 17: M/s Mithila Drugs Pvt. Ltd.,
File No. 01/94/180/1141/AM10/PC4 (PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0310526088 dt. 26.06.2009.
The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorization was more than 50% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period. 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, verification of condition of PC9 if applicable and also subject to payment of composition fee @ 6% of the duty saved amount for the balance inputs in proportion to export obligation beyond export obligation period. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 18: M/s ITC Ltd., Secunderabad.
File No. 01/60/162/761/AM10/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of 24 Advance Authorization Nos.
(1) 0910022281 dt. 21.03.2005 (2) 0910022727 dt. 05.05.2005 (3) 0910022980 dt. 27.05.2005 (4) 0910023173 dt. 15.06.2005 (5) 0910023286 dt. 24.06.2005 (6) 0910023532 dt. 18.07.2005 (7) 0910024271 dt. 13.10.2005 (8) 0910024417 dt. 25.10.2005 (9) 0910024950 dt. 20.12.2005 (10) 0910025012 dt. 23.12.2005 (11) 0910025169 dt. 10.01.2006 (12) 0910025841 dt. 03.04.2006 (13) 0910025895 dt. 10.04.2006 (14) 0910026085 dt. 24.06.2005 (15) 0910026582 dt. 15.06.2006 (16) 0910028399 dt. 29.11.2006 (17) 0910028400 dt. 29.11.2006 (18) 0910028734 dt. 21.12.2006 (19) 0910029179 dt. 21.02.2007 (20) 0910029381 dt. 21.02.2007 (21) 0910029456 dt. 27.02.2007 (22) 0910029458 dt. 29.02.2007 (23) 0910029511 dt. 02.03.2007 (24) 0910029650 dt. 13.04.2007 The Committee noted that the firm have made a request for revalidation of advance authorization no. mentioned at sr. no. 1 to 15 after the period of expiry of more than 1½ year from the date of expiry of authorization. The Committee rejected the request of the firm as there are no merits for consideration due to highly delayed request. Further the Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of Advance authorizations at sr. no. 16 to 24 was more than 50% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the
t obligation fulfilled in respect of Advance authorizations at sr. no. 16 to 24 was more than 50% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate these advance authorizations 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. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher at the time of revalidation at the time of revalidation. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 19: M/s Sigma Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/698/AM10/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Extension of EOP of Advance Authorization No. 0310484624 dt. 01.09.2008.
The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorization was more than 50% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period. Therefore, the Committee decided to extend EOP, against the aforesaid advance authorization, for a period of five months till 30.09.2009, subject to verification by RA of EO claimed to have been fulfilled by the firm within the valid EOP, verification of the PC9 conditions and also subject to payment of composition fee @ 6% of the duty saved amount for the balance inputs in proportion to export obligation beyond valid export obligation period. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 20: M/s Sukhras Machines Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/709/AM10/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0310376540 dt. 19.03.2006.
The Committee deliberated the request again in light of the nil exports fulfilled by the firm in valid EOP. It was noted that the firm had to export one machine and, therefore, there could either be zero or complete exports in the valid EOP. Criteria of low exports would not be appropriate for such cases. The Committee also noted that the firm has since completed the exports though after the valid EOP. The Committee, therefore, decided to extend EOP, against the aforesaid advance authorization, for a period of six months, subject to payment of composition fee @ 6% of the duty saved amount for the balance inputs in proportion to export obligation beyond export obligation period. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 21: M/s Flat Product Equipment (I) Ltd.,
File No. 01/60/162/1297/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of EOP of Advance Authorization No. 0310361094 dt. 28.12.2005.
The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorization was more than 50% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period. Therefore, the Committee decided to extend EOP, against the aforesaid advance authorization for the purpose of regularization, 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 in proportion to export obligation beyond export obligation period. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 22: M/s Ansar Silk Export, Varanasi.
File No. 01/60/162/1523/AM11/EFGC(PRC) Subject: Revalidation of DFIA No. 1510003923 dt. 23.01.2008. The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid DFIA was 100% both qty. wise and value wise within the valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid DFIA 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 DFIA and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm. Further, PRC decided that the DFIA will be specifically endorsed as NON TRANSFERABLE.
Case No. 23: M/s Bharat Starch Industries, Pondicherry.
File No. 01/60/162/1543/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 2510002059 dt. 24.03.2008.
The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorization was 100% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorization 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. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher at the time of revalidation at the time of revalidation. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 24: M/s Kopran Ltd.,
File No. 01/60/162/14908/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0310410417 dt. 01.12.2006.
The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorization was more than 50% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period. Therefore, the Committee decided to extend EOP if the authorization is not issued under Policy Circular No. 9 dated 30.06.2003 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, condition and also subject to payment of composition fee @ 6% of the duty saved amount for the balance inputs in proportion to export obligation beyond export obligation period. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public
Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 25: M/s Prabhu Polycolor Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata.
File No. 01/60/162/1122/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0210099890 dt. 11.04.2007.
The Committee granted prorata revalidation of the aforesaid advance authorization 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. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 26: M/s Western Cables Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/1507/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0310450946 dt. 21.11.2007.
The Committee granted prorata revalidation of the aforesaid advance authorization 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. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 27: M/s Supreme Devices Pvt. Ltd.,
File No. 01/60/162/1516/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0510212402 dt. 22.11.2007.
The Committee granted prorata revalidation of the aforesaid advance authorization 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. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 28: M/s Unichem Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/957/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0310498913 dt. 19.12.2008.
The Committee considered the request of the firm. It was noted that as per Public Notice No. 2/200914 dt. 27.8.2009, DGFT had extended EOP from six months to twelve months from the date of clearance of first consignment by Customs Authority. As the EOP of aforesaid Advance authorization falls within the period of that period the change of EOP was made. The Committee decided to extend EOP of the said advance authorization from 6 months to 12 months from the date of 1st import for regularization.
Case No. 29: M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad.
File No. 01/60/162/927/AM11/EFGC(PRC) Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0810057880 dt. 07.07.2006 for the purpose of clubbing with advance authorization no. 0810062701 dt. 2.2.07. The Committee considered the request of the firm and approved revalidation of adv. Lic. No. 0810057880 dt. 07.07.2006 for six months for the purpose of clubbing subject to payment of composition fee. RA to endorse EOP extension after processing the authorizations verifying details of exports and imports. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 30: M/s Unichem Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/958/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0310488653 dt. 01.10.2008.
The Committee noted that the firm have made less than 50% exports during the valid EOP and, therefore, it was decided to reject the case as it does not merit consideration due to low exports made both quantity and value wise in the valid EOP.
Case No. 31: M/s Bankim Plast Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/1011/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0310447033 dt. 18.10.2007.
The Committee granted prorata revalidation of the aforesaid advance authorization 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. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 32: M/s Solar Chemferts Pvt. Ltd., Thane.
File No. 01/60/162/1539/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0310432913 dt. 15.06.2007.
The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorization was more than 100% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorization 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. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher at the time of revalidation at the time of revalidation. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 33: M/s Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi.
File No. 01/60/162/881/AM11/EFGC(PRC) Subject: Revalidation of 4 DEPBs Nos. (i) 2410018694 dt. 28.03.2007 (ii) 2410018695 dt. 28.03.2007 (iii) 2410018610 dt. 16.03.2007 (iv) 2410018629 dt. 20.03.2007 The Committee noted that from the report of Customs order dated 22.12.2009, that there was some procedural administrative delay. The Committee therefore, decided to revalidate the aforesaid 4 DEPBs for a period of three months.
Case No. 34: M/s Prabhu Polycolor Pvt. Ltd.,
File No. 01/60/162/15508/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 04100088872 dt. 10.04.2007.
The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorization was 100% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorization 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. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher at the time of revalidation at the time of revalidation. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 35: M/s The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/1549/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0310432734 dt. 14.06.2007.
The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorization was more than 50% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period. 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 in proportion to export obligation beyond export obligation period. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 36: M/s Grauer & Well India Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/1437/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0310449975 dt. 13.11.2007.
The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorization was 100% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorization 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. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher at the time of revalidation at the time of revalidation. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 37: M/s Telekonnectors Ltd., Chennai.
File No. 01/60/162/1122/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0410089279 dt. 04.05.2007.
The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorization was more than 50% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period. 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 in proportion to export obligation beyond export obligation period. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 38: M/s Grauer & Well India Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/1447/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0310451327 dt. 23.11.2007.
The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorization was 100% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, EODC issued and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorization 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. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher at the time of revalidation at the time of revalidation. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 39: M/s Lupin Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/1439/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0310460742 dt. 13.02.2008.
The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorization was 100% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorization 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. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher at the time of revalidation at the time of revalidation. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 40: M/s Pokarna Ltd., Secundrabad.
File No. 01/60/162/1421/AM11/EFGC(PRC) Subject: Revalidation of DFIA No. 0910033442 dt. 25.05.2008. The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid DFIA was more than 100% both qty. wise and value wise within the valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid DFIA 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 DFIA and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm. Further, PRC decided that DFIA will be endorsed as NONTRANSFERABLE.
Case No. 41: M/s Sh. S.J. Parekh, Mumbai.
File No. 01/89/180/44/AM10/PC2(A)
Subject: Import of Rolls Royce Model : 1984 (Registration No. DXB 81423 in Dubai).
The Committee considered the request and decided to grant permission for import of Rolls Royce, Model 1984 in relaxation of ILN 1 (II) (a) of Chapter 87 of ITC(HS) Classification for imports.
Case No. 41(A): M/s Tata BP Solar India Ltd., Bangalore.
File No. 01/94/180/AA
Subject: Acceptance of photocopies of shipping bills for purpose of EO fulfillment under Advance Authorization Scheme when originals have been submitted to customs authority for Brand rate of duty drawback. The Committee noted the request of the firm and found the same to be reasonable. It was decided that RA should consider the photocopies of the shipping bills in view of the fact that original have been submitted to Customs. An evidence to the effect of having submitted the original Shipping bills to Customs be obtained from the firm.
Case No. 42: M/s International Centre for Genetic Engg. & Biotechnology, New Delhi.
File No. 01/53/8/564/AM08/I26/Import Cell. Subject: Relaxation of para 2.13 of Handbook of Procedures, Vol.I i.e. grant of 2nd revalidation of import authorization No. 0550001069 dt. 28.02.2008. The Committee considered the request and the decided to grant 2nd revalidation of import licence No. 0550001069 dt. 28.02.2008 in terms of para 2.13 of HBP V.1.
Case No. 43: M/s. Lanova Silks Pvt. Ltd. Bangalore
File No. 01/60/162/1002/AM11/EFGC (PRC) Subject: EOP extension and revalidation of advance authorization no. 0710015789 dt. 26.8.2002 and 0710016371 dt. 26.9.2002. The Committee noted the request of the firm and decided to reexamine the case with reference to possibility of clubbing of import items and delay on the part of RA as stated by the firm and thereafter putup before the PRC.
Case No. 44: M/s Fourrts (India) Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Chennai
File No. 01/60/162/688/AM10/EFGC (PRC) Subject: Revalidation and EOP extension of advance authorization no. 0410059350 dt. 7.7.2004 for purpose of clubbing with other 2 advance authorization no. 0410081997 dt. 7.6.2006 and 0410086743 dt. 05.01.2007. The Committee considered the request of the firm and approved revalidation of adv. Authorization No. 0410059350 dt. 7.7.2004 subject to composition fee @1% of the unutilized Cif value of the authorization for the purpose of clubbing and EOP extension of the authorizations subject to payment of 5% per year for clubbing and regularization. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher.
Case No. 45: M/s. Upper India Tannery (P) Ltd. Kanpur
File No. 01/94/180/817/AM10/PC4(PRC) Subject: Clubbing of advance authorization no. 061005313 dt. 01.5.2003, 061006519 dt. 11.12.2003, 061006819 dt. 3.2.2004, 0610010138 dt. 13.12.2005 and 0610010445 dt. 27.2.2006. The Committee noted that the firm have made a request for clubbing of above mentioned 3 advance authorization No. 061005313 dt. 01.5.2003, 061006519 dt. 11.12.2003 and 061006819 dt. 3.2.2004 after the period of expiry of more than 4 year from the date of expiry of authorization. The Committee rejected the request of the firm as there are no merits for consideration due to highly delayed request. In respect of 2 Advance Authorization Nos. 0610010138 dt. 13.12.2005 and 0610010445 dt. 27.2.2006, the Committee decided to reexamine and thereafter place before PRC.
Case No. 46: M/s. Marico Ltd. Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/826,827,1391/AM11/EFGC(PRC) Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization Nos. 0310430306 dt. 23.05.2007, 0310429918 dt. 18.05.2007 and 0310430483 dt. 24.05.2007. The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorizations was 100% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, EODC issued and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorization 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. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher at the time of revalidation at the time of revalidation. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 47: M/s. Crimplon Yarns Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/94/180/64/AM10/PC4(PRC). Subject: Revalidation of 2 DFRCs Nos. 0310404114 dt. 13.10.2006 and 0310406825 dt. 07.11.2006. The Committee noted that the above mentioned DFRCs has already been endorsed with transferability and therefore, the request is rejected.
Case No. 48: M/s. United Phosphorus Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/1294/AM11/EFGC (PRC) Subject: EOP extension upto 31.05.2008 against Advance Authorization No. 0310405085 dt. 20.10.2006 and revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0310434408 dt. 28.06.2007 for the purpose of clubbing. The Committee considered the request of the firm and approved revalidation of adv. Lic. No. 0310434408 dt. 28.06.2007 subject to composition fee @1% of the unutilized cif value for revalidation for the purpose of clubbing and EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0310405085 dt. 20.10.2006 subject to payment of 5% per year for clubbing and regularization. RA to endorse EOP extension after processing the licences and verifying details of exports and imports made. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher.
Case No. 49: M/s. REI Agro Ltd., New Delhi.
File No. 01/60/162/1010/AM11/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Condonation of delay in filling DEPB applications.
The Committee noted the request of the firm and decided to reexamine the case for obtaining complete details and thereafter place before PRC for decision.
Case No. 50: M/s. Malladi & Pharmaceutical Ltd.,
File No. 01/60/162/1469/AM11/EFGC(PRC).
Subject: Revalidation in r/o Authorization No. 0410090495 dt. 10.08.2007 for clubbing and closure purpose.
The Committee noted the request of the firm and decided to defer the case and obtaining complete details and place the case before PRC for decision.
Case No. 51: M/s. Jay Chemicals
File No. 01/60/162/1443/AM11/EFGC (PRC) Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0310384710 dt. 14.06.2006 and revalidation of Authorization No. 0310418042 dt. 01.02.2007 for clubbing and regularization purpose. The Committee considered the request of the firm and approved revalidation of adv. Auth. No. 0310418042 dt. 01.02.2007 subject to composition fee @1% of the unutilized cif value for revalidation for the purpose of clubbing and EOP extension to Advance Authorization No. 0310384710 dt. 14.06.2006 subject to payment of 5% per year for clubbing and regularization. RA to endorse EOP extension after processing the licences and verifying details of exports and imports made. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher.
Case No. 52: M/s. Aarti Drugs Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/444/AM10/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of advance authorization no. 0310428367 dt. 30.04.2007.
The Committee noted that the export obligation fulfilled in respect of aforesaid Advance authorization was 100% both Qty.wise and valuewise within the valid EO period, as claimed by the firm, and accordingly the Committee decided to revalidate the aforesaid advance authorization 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. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher at the time of revalidation at the time of revalidation. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF.
Case No. 53: M/s. Jindal Saw Ltd.,
File No. 01/60/162/1401/AM11/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Redemption of advance authorization no. 3110016607 dt. 24.07.2004.
The Committee noted the request of the firm and decided to reexamine the case by obtaining complete details and thereafter place before PRC for decision.
Case No. 54: M/s. CRI Tips
File No. 01/60/162/1352/AM11/EFGC (PRC) Subject: Revalidation of advance authorization no. 0210094637 dt. 26.10.2006 for the purpose of clubbing with Authorization No. 0210106580 dt. 28.11.2007. The Committee considered the request of the firm and decided to club advance authorization No. 0210094637 dt. 26.10.2006 and advance authorization no. 0210106580 dt. 28.11.2007 for the purpose of regularization. Composition fee @1% of the unutilized cif value to be levied for revalidation of the required advance authorization for the purpose of clubbing. Extension in EO required for clubbing and regularization of authorization where there is shortfall will be done by imposing a composition fee @5% per year as already decided in the PRC meeting held on 6.1.2010. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and take necessary action and make necessary endorsements at the time of revalidation.
Case No. 55: M/s. Bal Pharma Ltd., Bangalore.
File No. 01/60/162/1113/AM11/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Clubbing of 2 Advance Authorization Nos. 0710043120 dt. 17.02.2006 and 0710048880 dt. 06.12.2006.
The Committee considered the request of the firm and approved revalidation of adv. Auth. No. 0710048880 dt. 06.12.2006 subject to composition fee @1% of the unutilized cif value for the purpose of clubbing and EOP extension to Advance Authorization No. 0710043120 dt. 17.02.2006 subject to payment of 5% per year for clubbing and regularization. RA to endorse EOP extension after processing the authorizations and verifying details of exports and imports made. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher.
Case No. 56: M/s. Vivimed Labs Ltd., Hyderabad.
File No. 01/60/162/1017/AM11/EFGC (PRC) Subject: Clubbing of 3 Advance Authorization Nos. 0910026920 dt. 20.07.2006, 0910027491 dt. 08.09.2006 and 0910027868 dt. 18.10.2006. The Committee considered the request of the firm and decided to club advance authorization No. 0910026920 dt. 20.07.2006, 0910027491 dt. 08.09.2006 and advance authorization no. 0910027868 dt. 18.10.2006 for the purpose of regularization. Composition fee @1% of the unutilized cif value to be levied for revalidation of the required advance authorization for the purpose of clubbing . Extension in EO required for clubbing and regularization of authorization where there is shortfall will be done by imposing a composition fee @5% per year as already decided in the PRC meeting held on 6.1.2010. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and take necessary action and make necessary endorsements at the time of revalidation.
Case No. 57: M/s. DSM antiinfective India Ltd., Gurgaon.
File No. 01/60/162/1279/AM10/EFGC(PRC) Subject: Revalidation & CIF enhancement of advance authorization no. 2210005759 dt. 12.07.2006 for the purpose of clubbing with other Advance Authorization No. 2210007216 dt. 02.11.2007. The Committee noted the request of the firm and decided to reexamine the case after obtaining complete details and thereafter place before PRC before decision.
Case No. 58: M/s. Newby Teas Overseas Pvt. Ltd., (WB)
File No. 01/94/180/138/AM10/PC4(PRC)
Case No. 100: M/s Cipla Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/776/AM10/ EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0310429927 dt. 18.05.2007.
The Committee noted that the firm have made less than 50% exports during the valid EOP and, therefore, it was decided to reject the case as it does not merit consideration due to low exports made both quantity and value wise in the valid EOP.
Case No. 101: M/s The Prag Bosimi Synthetics Ltd., Assam.
File No. 01/94/180/732/AM10/PC4(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance authorization No. 2146674 dt. 07.07.1994.
The Committee considered the request of the firm and decided to only consider the request of the firm after BIFR package is submitted by the firm.
Case No. 102: M/s Silver Images India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.
File No. 01/60/162/1561/AM11/EFGC (PRC) Subject: Revalidation of DFIA No. 1310025626 dt. 30.01.2008. The Committee noted that above mentioned DFIA has already being endorsed as transferred. The Committee therefore rejected the request of the firm.
Case No. 103: M/s Marico Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/489/AM09/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No.
i. 0310322359 dt. 21.03.2005 ii. 0310340289 dt. 21.07.2005 iii. 0310340286 dt. 21.07.2005 iv. 0310349820 dt. 30.09.2005 v. 0310349863 dt. 30.09.2005 vi. 0310352006 dt. 17.10.2005 vii. 0310352011 dt. 17.10.2005 viii. 0310362950 dt. 12.01.2006 ix. 0310362954 dt. 21.01.2006 The Committee noted the request of the firm and decided to reject the same as revalidation was has already granted to the above mentioned advance authorizations by PRC but the firm did not utilized the same.
Case No. 104: M/s. Xpro India Ltd., Faridabad.
File No. 01/94/180/972/AM10/PC4(PRC) Subject: Revalidation of 8 DFIAs Nos. i. 0510193599 dt. 02.11.2006 ii. 0510192455 dt. 11.10.2006 iii. 0510192245 dt. 09.10.2006 iv. 0510194557 dt. 16.11.2006 v. 0510193595 dt. 02.11.2006 vi. 0510193597 dt. 02.11.2006 vii. 0510193601 dt. 02.11.2006 viii. 0510193591 dt. 02.11.2006 The Committee reconsidered the request of the firm of above mentioned DFIAs and decided to maintain the earlier decision of rejection as no new facts have been given.
Case No. 105: M/s Vipul Dye Chem Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/94/180/297/AM11/PC4PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0310054730 dt. 01.03.2000.
The Committee noted that the firm have made a request for EOP extension of above mentioned advance authorization after the period of expiry of more than 1½ year from the date of expiry of export obligation period of the authorization. The Committee rejected the request of the firm as there are no merits for consideration due to highly delayed request. The Public Notice No. 22 dated 02.06.2008 as cited by the firm is not applicable in this case.
Case No. 106: M/s Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., Pune.
File No. 01/94/180/03/AM10/PC4(PRC)
Subject: Revalidation & EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 3110023958 dt. 21.02.2006.
The Committee noted that the firm have made low exports during the valid EOP and, therefore, it was decided to reject the case as it does not merit consideration.
Case No. 107: M/s GarwareWall Ropes Ltd., New Delhi.
File No. 01/94/180/928/AM10/PC4(PRC)
Subject: Relaxation of the condition of the HBP V1 to remove value cap in terms of Para 4.11 read with para 4.59.
The Committee noted that above mentioned DFIA has already been endorsed as transferred. The Committee therefore rejected the request of the firm.
Case No. 108: M/s Bharat Silks, Bangalore.
File No. 01/60/162/475/AM10/ EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0710047764 dt. 09.10.2006.
The Committee noted that the firm have made low exports during the valid EOP and, therefore, it was decided to reject the case as it does not merit consideration.
Case No. 109: M/s Shrenik Pharma Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/770/AM10/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0315173 dt. 13.07.1993.
The Committee noted that the firm have made a request for EOP extension of above mentioned advance authorization after the period of expiry of more than 1 ½ years from the date of expiry of export obligation period of the authorization. The
Case No. 110: M/s Shrenik Pharma Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/1334/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 313278 dt. 13.04.1993.
The Committee noted that the firm have made a request for EOP extension of above mentioned advance authorization after the period of expiry of more than 1 ½ years from the date of expiry of export obligation period of the authorization. The
Case No. 111: M/s Glow Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/1271/AM11/EFGCPRC)
Subject: Grant of EODC/Redemption of Advance Authorization No. 0310303582 dt. 24.11.2004.
The Committee noted that the firm have made a request for redemption of above mentioned advance authorization after the period of expiry of more than 1 ½ years from the date of expiry of export obligation period of the authorization. The Committee rejected the request of the firm as there are no merits for consideration due to highly delayed request. The conditions of Policy Circular No. 18 dated 30.10.2007 can also not be relaxed.
Case No. 112: M/s Malwa Oxygen & Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam.
File No. 01/60/162/1239/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 1110012448 dt. 28.12.2005.
The Committee noted that the firm have made a request for EOP extension of above mentioned advance authorization after the period of expiry of more than 1 ½ years from the date of expiry of export obligation period of the authorization. The
Case No. 113: M/s Eagle Flask Industries Ltd., Pune.
File No. 01/60/162/1551/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Exemption from Policy & Procedures under Para 2.5 of FTP 200914.
The committee considered the request of the firm and decided to close the matter since BIFR package was yet to be provided to the firm.
Case No. 114: M/s. Saudagar International Exports
File No. 01/60/162/510/AM10/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension against Advance Authorization No. 03210035723 dt. 03.07.2007.
The Committee noted that the firm have made a request for EOP extension of above mentioned advance authorization after the period of expiry of more than 1 ½ years from the date of expiry of export obligation period of the authorization. The
Case No. 115: M/s Krishna Enterprises.
File No. 01/60/162/1450/AM11/ EFGC(PRC) Subject: Revalidation of DFIA No. 0710055482 dt. 18.01.2008. The Committee noted that above mentioned DFIA has already been endorsed as transferred. The Committee therefore rejected the request of the firm.
Case No. 116: M/s Geltec Pvt. Ltd.,
File No. 01/60/162/1524/AM11/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Relaxation towards nonrealization in respect of Advance Authorization No. 0310231031 dt. 15.10.2003.
The Committee noted that the firm have made a request for EOP extension of above mentioned advance authorization after the period of expiry of more than 1 ½ years from the date of expiry of export obligation period of the authorization. The
Case No. 117: M/s Indo Autotech Limited.
File No. 01/60/162/1467/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0510208952 dt. 13.09.2007.
The Committee noted that the firm have made low exports during the valid EOP and, therefore, it was decided to reject the case as it does not merit consideration.
Case No. 118: M/s Vital Health Care Pvt. Ltd.,
File No. 01/60/162/1448/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 0310480175 dt. 25.07.2008.
The Committee noted that the firm have made a request for EOP extension of above mentioned advance authorization after the period of expiry of more than 1 ½ years from the date of expiry of export obligation period of the authorization. The
Case No. 119: M/s Ankit Enterprises.
File No. 01/60/162/1284/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Surrender of Advance Authorization No. 2101533 dt. 15.07.1997.
The Committee considered the request of the firm and directed to approach Customs and get no utilization report from Customs. RA should also look on the corroborative evidence to satisfy on no imports made by the firm and if so evidenced should consider the same.
Case No. 120: M/s Arun Jothi woven Bag Industries
File No. 01/60/162/1395/AM11/EFGC(PRC)
Subject: Clubbing of Advance Authorization No. 0410113555 dt. 06.05.2010.
The committee noted the request of the firm and decided to reject as no details of advance authorizations to be clubbed were provided.
Case No. 121: M/s Rapsi Engg. Industries Limited.
File No. 01/60/162/1343/AM11/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization Nos.
i. 710052547 dt. 20.07.2007 ii. 710048611 dt. 24.11.2006 iii. 710047316 dt. 11.09.2006 iv. 710049050 dt. 19.12.2006 v. 710048894 dt. 06.12.2006 vi. 710048692 dt. 28.11.2006 The Committee considered the request of the firm and decided to revalidate the advance authorization no. 710052547 dt. 20.07.2007 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 authorization and also subject to verification by RA of EO fulfillment status, as claimed by the firm. RA is directed to examine the case in terms of Public Notice No. 23 dated 4.12.2009 and make necessary endorsements regarding value addition of minimum 15% or as stipulated in the authorization whichever is higher at the time of revalidation. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement is to be applied on the entire FOB and CIF of the authorization and not just on the unutilized CIF. The Committee also noted that the firm have made a request for revalidation of advance authorizations at Sr. No. (ii) to (xi) after the period of expiry of more than 1 ½ years from the date of expiry of export obligation period of the authorization and therefore, rejected the request of the firm as there are no merits for consideration due to highly delayed request.
Case No. 122: M/s Swastik Pipes Ltd.,.
File No. 01/60/162/1488/AM11/EFGC (PRC) Subject: Revalidation of DFIA no. 0510216046 dt. 08.02.2008. The Committee noted that above mentioned DFIA has already been endorsed as transferred. The Committee therefore rejected the request of the firm.
Case No. 123: M/s Tata Precision Industries (India) Ltd., Dewas.
File No. 01/60/162/1538/AM11/EFGC (PRC)
Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No. 1110017229 dt. 21.05.2008.
The Committee noted that the firm have made no exports during the valid EOP and, therefore, it was decided to reject the case as it does not merit consideration.
Case No. 124: M/s BDH Industries Ltd., Mumbai.
File No. 01/60/162/201/AM10/EFGC (PRC)PRC Meeting No.08/AM11 dated: 27.10.2010
Subject: EOP extension of Advance authorization no. 0310172695 dt. 16.12.2002.
The Committee noted that the firm have made a request for EOP extension of above mentioned advance authorization after the period of expiry of more than 1 ½ years from the date of expiry of export obligation period of the authorization. The
Case No. 125: M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd., Durgapur.
File No. 01/94/180/411/AM08/PC1
Subject: To allow prorata reduction in Licence value on VABAL.
The Committee noted the request of the firm. It was noted that the firm was earlier advised to have their VABAL authorization converted into QABAL. The firm has not done so. The Committee rejected the request of the firm as EO shortfall is more than 15%.
Case No.126 : M/s Taj Group of Hotels. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., New Delhi.
File No. 01/36/218/57/PC6/EPCGII PRC Meeting No.10/AM11 dated: 29.10.2010
Subject: Reduction of Annual Average Export Obligation of 200809 and 200910.
The Committee deliberated on the request of the firm regarding Reduction of Annual Average Export Obligation of 200809 and 200910 in detail. It was noted that the decline in Foreign Exchange earning in 200809 and 200910 of the Heritage wing of Taj Mahal Hotel, Mumbai be assessed and its weighted impact on the average performance be evaluated thereafter, and case be then placed before PRC.
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 10360 --apply.