DGFT Committee Minutes

Directorate General of Foreign Trade (PRC Ce‖ ) MinJies ofthe Policy RelaXaJon commlttee MeeJng he:d under ibe CLairmanship of DGFT,Shn Anup wadhawan,on 20 09.2016 Meeting No 18/AM17 held on 20 09 2016 at10,00 AM The fo‖ owlng Members were presentin the meetng: l Shn Darshan S ngh Addl DGFT 2 Sh‖ 」V Pa11 3 Shn S B s Reddy Addl DGFT Addl DGFT 4 Shr」ay Karan Singh Jt DGFT 5. Shri S.P. Roy 」t DGFT 6. Shri S.K. Mohapatra Dy. DGFT 7. Shri Divya S. lyer Asstt. Secretary Following cases were discussed. The decision taken on the individual cases are as under.-

Case No.l: M/s. Alstom T & D lndia Ltd., Vadodara. P.H. Case

F.No. 01 /60/1 62l637/AM1 5/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 18/AM17 dated 20.09.2016

Subject:- Request for extension of EO period and waiver of composition fee against

Advance Authorization No.3410034815 dt. 07 .08.2012. Decision: The representatives of the company appeared before the committee and made the following submissions. 1 . They had obtained the Advance Authorisation No 34'1003481 5 dt. 07 .08.2012 lor export of 330 MVA, 420116.5 KV, 3-PH Transformers with tank to M/s Rattan lndia, Nashik Power Ltd. Co-developer of multi product SEZ, Nashik. 2. The contract awarded by Rattan lndia was of turnkey nature where Alstom's sole responsibility to ensure designing, engineering, manufacturing, testing, erection and commissioning and serving of transformers. 3. They have manufactured all 5 Transformers and 2 transformers have been supplied to the buyers. 4. Due to delay on the part of Government on the following issues, buyer stop acceptance of goods. i. Right of way for land acquisition towards railway sliding. ii. Supreme Court ruling on stopping of coal blocks. iii. Transmission line constraints. iv. Water pipe line delay. v. Sand-mining issue in Maharashtra. vi. Non-availability of power purchase agreement with state Government. vii. Delay in fuel supply agreement with concerned Authorities. 5. The power ministry has now approved commissioning date upto 31.03.2017 for this project. 6. They had tried to find other potential buyers, both locally and outside lndia during the validity of EOP but due to the following reasons it could not metalized: i. Tailor made Transformer requirement made it impossible to find compatible project requirements outside market. ii. After award of LOP, no other project has been ordered with a rating of 270 MW in the country. Page I of 13 ⌒

7. Force Majeure in their case did not involve an act of God, but their situation deserve equal merit as the circumstances were beyond their control that also amount to force majeure.
8. They have submitted letter from M/s Ratan lndia for giving their consent for extension of project till the commissioning of all supplies and services.
9. They, therefore requested for grant of EOP extension upto 31.03.2017. Decision: The committee discussed the case at length. From the submissions made by the applicant, it was noted that the applicant has made all efforts to fulfill its export obligation within the prescribed time. However, the situations were not in his favour to complete balance export within the stipulated time. Hurdles from Government agencies have been main reasons for not completing exports in time. The committee, taken into consideration the facts and circumstances, decided the following: i. Export obligation period be extended upto 3'1.03.2017. ii. The applicant shall execute a bank guarantee valid till 30.09.2017 for an amount equal to duty saved plus simple interest, as per rate notified by DoR, from the date of import and till 31 .03.20'17 in proportion to remaining 3 Transformers. iii. lf the applicant fails to discharge 100% export obligation within this extended period, RA shall forfeit the said BG after following the due procedure. (Action: ApplicanURA, Vadodara)

Case No.2: M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals lndustries Ltd., Mumbai.

F. No. 01/60i1 62l620/AM1 7/ PRC

Subject:- Request for EOP extension of Advance Authorization No.03.10788873 dt.

09.09.2014 issued under PC-9 condition. Decision: The committee noted that the Authorization No. 0310788873 dt. 09.09.2014 was issued with conditions stipulated under PC-9 dated 30.06.2003, which allows 12 months period for EO fulfillment from import of each consignment. The imports were made on 14.10.2014. Accordingly, initial obligation period was upto 14.10.2015. The applicant has stated that they have fulfilled 40.21o/o exporl obligation during the initial export obligation period and 59.79% thereafter. Taking all these facts into account, the Committee decided the following: l. Export obligation period be extended lrom 12 months to 18 months i.e. upto 30.04.2016. ll. This is only for accounting and regularization of exports already effected. lll. This is subject to a payment of composition fee @ O.5o/o per month on FOB value of export made after initial obligation period. lV. The minimum value addition of 15% as prescribed under para 4.09 of FTp(2015- 2020) shall be maintained. (Action: RA, Mumbai)

Case No.3: M/s. Jodas Expoim Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

F.No. 0'l/60/1 62/61 giAM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 18/AM'17 dated 20.09.2016

Subject:- Request for EOP extension of Advance Authorization No.0910061791 dt.

30.03.2015 issued under PC-g condition. Decision: The committee noled that the Authorization No. 091006179'l dt. 30.03.2015 was issued with conditions stipulated under PC-9 dated 30.06.2003, which allows 12 months period for EO fulfillment from import of each consignment. The imports were made on 08.06.2015. Page 2 of 13 M

Accordingly,initial obligation period was upto 07 06 2016 The app‖ cant has stated that they have fulfi‖ed 56 93%export obligation during the initial export obligatlon period Taking a‖ these facts into account,the Commiltee decided the fo‖ owing: I Export obligation period be extended from 12 months to 18 months ie upto 31.12.2016 ‖ This will,however,be sublectto a payment of compOstion fee(D05%on FOB value of export made after initial obligation period l‖ RA sha‖ check that 50%exports against each consignment were made within initial export obliga‖ on penod r nOt,cOmposnion fee w‖ l be char9ed(205%per month on unfulfi‖ ed FOB IV The minimum value addition of 15%as prescribed under Para 4 09 of FTP(2015- 2020)sha‖ be maintained (Action:RA,CLA,New Delhi)

Case No 4:Mノs.MPD industries P.Ltd.,:ndore

F No 01/60/162/195/AM15/PRC PRC Mee‖ ng No 18/AM17 dated 20 09 2016 SutteCt:― Request for condonation the procedural lapse of not generating Bi‖ of Exports against 5 Advance Authorizations No(1) 111026700 dt 24 01 20121 (H) 1110026719d1/30012012:(‖ 1)1110047256 dt l1 09 2012:(iv)5610002192 dt 23052013&(v)5610002193 dt 23 05 2013 forregularzation purpose Dec:s:on: The committee noted that app‖ cation for redemption of Advance Authorisation is submitted in ANF-4F lnthe ANF-4F under Para(a)(0 0f guidelines for applicaIOn(HBP,2009-2014 Vol― |), it was categorca‖y mentioned that exporter sha‖ submit Bi‖ of Export' along with other prescribed documents for redemption And, in terms of Para 4 12 of FTP, exporter sha‖ indicate consumption of inputs in the export documents Further, for getting incentive on supply of 9oOdS tO SEZ, B‖ l of ExpOrt is prescribed document under Rule 30 of SEZ, Rule, 2006 The committee was ofthe vlew that requirement ofBi‖ of Export'as stipulated in the SEZ Rules,in addition to the FTP,cannot be dispensed with by PRC The applicantis hereby directed to getthe case regularised as perthe provisions in Para 4 29 of HBP,2009-2014 (Action:RA indore l lfthe app‖ cant fa‖ s to get the case regularized within a month from the date of publication of these minutes on the Directorate website, necessary penal actlon as perthe provisions of F T(D&R)Act,1992,as amended,sha‖ be initiated)

Case No 5:Mノs.Enzal Chemicailndia Ltd,Mumbal.

F No 01/60/162/645/AM17/PRC PRC Mee‖ ng No 18/AM17 dated 20 09 2016 SutteCt― Request for extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No 0310045699 dt 18072000 Dec:slon: The commitlee noted thatthe Authorisation in question was issued in the year 2000 and the case has not been closed despite laps of 16 years The committee,therefore,deferred the case for seeking report from RA Report from RA should also specifica‖ y give reason for fa‖ ure to monlor EO forthe last 14 years (Action:RA,Mumbai)

Case No.6:Mrs HLL Lifecare Ltd.,Trivandrum.

F No 01ノ60/162/267/AM17/PRC PRC Meelng No 18/AM17 dated 20 09 2016 SutteCt― Request for waiver of procedural requirement of HBP/Condonation of procedural 楓島爵醍柵 朧 鸞鸞器 蒻団L切ン

Decision: Shipping bill filed without mentioning details of Authorisation or any incentive schemes are treated as "free shipping bills". The procedure for clearance goods under of scheme shipping bills are different from the procedure for clearance of goods under free Shipping bills. Therefore, such shipping bill cannot be taken in to account towards discharge of export obligation against Advance Authorisation. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request. The applicant is hereby directed to get the case regularised in terms of Para 4.49 of HBP,2015-2020. (Action: ApplicanURA, Trivandrum; lf the applicant fails to get the case regularised within a month from the date of uploading of these minutes on the Directorate website, necessary penal action per the provisions of F.T.(D&R)AcI, 1992, as amended shall be initiated)

Case No.7: M/s. HLL Lifecare Ltd., Trivandrum.

F.No. 01/60/'1 62 127 1 I AM17 I PRC

Subject:- Request for waiver of procedural requirement of HBP/Condonation of procedural

lapse of not mentioning Advance Authorization No.5310013562 dt. 05.09.2011 in the S/Bills submitted towards fulfillment of Export Obligation. Decision: Shipping bill filed without mentioning details of Authorisation or any incentive schemes are treated as "free shipping bills". The procedure for clearance goods under of scheme shipping bills are different from the procedure for clearance of goods under free Shipping bills. Therefore, such shipping bill cannot be taken in to account towards discharge of export obligation against Advance Authorisation. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request. The applicant is hereby directed to get the case regularised in terms ol Para 4.49 of HBP, 20'15-2020. (Action: ApplicanURA, Trivandrum; lf the applicant fails to get the case regularised within a month from the date of uploading of these minutes on the Directorate website, necessary penal action per the provisions of F.T.(D&R)AcI, 1992, as amended shall be initiated)

Case No.8: M/s. HLL Lifecare Ltd., Trivandrum.

F.No. 01 /60/ 1 62 127 Ol AM17 I PRC

subject:- Request for waiver of procedural requirement of HBP/condonation of procedural

lapse of not mentioning Advance Authorization No.531001S321 dt. 06.07.2012 in the S/Bills submitted towards fulfillment of Export Obligation. Decision: Shipping bill filed without mentioning details of Authorisation or any incentive schemes are treated as "free shipping bills". The procedure for clearance goods under of scheme shipping bills are different from the procedure for clearance of goods under free Shipping bills. Therefore, such shipping bill cannot be taken in to account towards discharge of export obligation against Advance Authorisation. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request. The applicant is hereby directed to get the case regularized in terms of para 4.4g ol HBP, 2015-2020. (Action: ApplicanURA, Trivandrum; lf the applicant fails to get the case regularised within a month from the date of uploading of these minutes on the Directorate website, necessary penal action per the provisions of F.T.(D&R)ACI, 1992, as anlended shall be initiated) Page 4 of 13

Gase No.9: M/s. Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad. F.No. 01 /60/1 62l309/AM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 18/AM17 dated 20 09.2016

Subject:- Request for EOP extension of Advance Authorization No.0810132791 dt.

23.07.2014 issued under PC-9 conditions. Decision: The committee noted that the Authorisation in question was issued under PC-9 condition, which prescribes pre-import condition and shorter export obligatron period in order to avoid possibility of diversion of inferior quality drug in the domestic market. The case was earlier considered in PRC Meeting No. 10/AM17 dated 06.07.2016 and export obligation period was extended upto 30.04.2016 subject to payment of composition fee @ 0.5ok per month on unfulfilled FOB value of exports. Despite that the applicant did not make any efforts to discharge export obligation against the Authorisation. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request of the applicant for further extension. The applicant is hereby directed to get the case regularized in terms of Para 4.49 of HBP, 2015-2020 following the procedure stipulated in PC-18 dated 30.10.2007. (Action: ApplicanURA, Ahmedabad; lf the applicant fails to get the case regularized within a month from the date of uploading of these minutes on the Directorate website, necessary penal action per the provisions of F.T.(D&R)ACI, 1992, as amended shall be initiated) Case No.'|0: M/s. ITCO lndustries Ltd, Bengaluru. F.No. 01 /60/1 62161 6/AM'l 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 18/AM 1 7 dated 20 09.201 6

Subject:- Request for Revalidation of DFIA License No.07'10103950 dt. 06.05.2014.

Decision: The Committee noted the request of the company and decided to reject the request, as the reasons cited are only in nature of commercial risk and not genuine hardship warranting policy relaxation under Para 2.58 of FTP(2015-20).

Case No.l1 : M/s. Pitambra Books Pvt. Ltd.,Kanpur.

F.No. 01/60/162l054/AM1 6/ PRC

Subject:- Request for EOP extension against Advance Authorization No.0610015106 dt.

10.02.2009. Decision: The committee noted that the Authorisation in question was issued having initial obligation period of 36 months. Despite that the applicant did not make any exports. Paper is not such product which could not be used for manufacture of alternative resultant products. The applicant did not disclose as to why they did not make export to any other buyers during the long period of 36 months? It was therefore decided to give applicant an opportunity to clarify and/or seek a personal hearing in this matter. (Action: Applicant) Case No.'t2: M/s. Dynamatic Technologies Ltd., Bengaluru F.No. 01/60/1 62l535/AM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 1 8/AM1 7 dated 20.09.2016 Page 5 of 13

subject- Request for revaridation and E.o. extension in respect of Advance Authorization

No.0710i07548 dt 04.o2.2o1s r"t"t"o io e"ii ao7 Heticopters ;;;.;;;;i;i.rr" due to lnternational Helicopter market downturn. Decision: The committee noted that the Authorisation in question was issued having initial validity of 12 months to import. RA has alow-ed six months vatioity in terms of para 4.41of HBp. The applicant stated to have imported. 32.03o/o and nas co#pieted export ooiigation- oiil o" on prorate basis. Hence. no merit in the case to allow revalidatron. However, in terms of para 4.22 (iii) of FTp, export obrigation period shal be co{erminus with contractual duration for aerospace and nucrear energ-y project. Accordingry, tre iommittee decided to remand the case back to RA, Bengaruru.-iu m"y examine the case under the above para for EoP extension till contractual iuration to fulfiil export ooiig"ti* on pil'ot" basis provided conditions of above para are met. (Action: RA Bengaluru)

Case No.13: M/s. Dynamatic Technologies Ltd., Bengaluru.

F.No. 01 /60/1 62l536/AM'1 7/ pRC PRC Meeting No. 18/AM'17 dated 20.09.2016

subject:- Request for revalidation and E.o. extension in respect of Advance Authorization

No.0710108017 dl. 1s.04.2o14 related to Bell 407 Helicopters as a special case due to lnternational Helicopter market downturn. Decision: The committee noted that the Authorisation in question was issued having initial validity of 12 months to import. RA has allowed six months validity in terms of para q.41 of HBp. The applicant stated to have imported 4so/o and has made no exports so far. Hence, no merit in the case to allow revalidation. However, in terms of Para 4.22 (iii) of FTp, export obligatron period shall be co{erminus with contractual duration for aerospace and nuclear energy project. Accordingly, the committee decided to remand the case back to RA, Bengaluru. RA may examine tire case under the above para for EOP extension till contractual duration to fulfiil export obligation on pio rata basis provided conditions of above para are met. (Action: RA Bengaluru)

Case No.l4: M/s. Dynamatic Technologies Ltd., Bengaluru.

F. No. 01/60/1 62 I 537 I AM17 I PRC PRC Meeting No. 18/AM17 dated 20.09 2016

Subject - Request for revalidation and E.O. extension in respect of Advance Authorization

No.07'10107930 dt. 25.03.2015 rerated to BeI 407 Hericopters as a speciar case due to lnternational Helicopter market downturn. Decision: The committee noted that the Authorisation in question was issued having initial validity of 12 months to import. RA has allowed six months validity in terms of para 4.41 of HBp. the applicant stated to have imported 42.33o/o and has completed export obligation only 1s.71o/o on prorate basrs. Hence, no merit in the case to allow revalldation. However, in terms of Para 4.22 (iii) of FTp, export obligation period shall be co{erminus with contractual duratron for aerospace and nuclear energy project. Accordingly, the committee decided to remand the case back to RA, Bengaluru. Rn may examine t[e case under the above para for EOP extension till contractual duration to fulfiil export obligation on pro rata basis provided conditions of above para are met. (Action: RA Bengaluru) 砂 Page 6 of 13

Case No.l5: M/s. Dynamatic Technologies Ltd., Bengaluru.

F.No. 01 /60/1 621 5341 AM17 IPRC PRC Meeting No. 18/AM'17 dated 20.09.2016

Subject:- Request for revalidation and E.O. extension in respect of Advance Authorization

No.0710107705 dl. 25.02.2015 related to Bell 407 Helicopters as a special case due to lnternational Helicopter market downturn. Decision: The committee noted that the Authorisation in question was issued having initial validity of 12 months to import. RA has allowed six months validity in terms of Parc 4.41 of HBP. The applicant stated to have imported 50.11% and has completed no exports obligation so far. Hence, no merit in the case to allow revalidation. However, in terms ol Pa.a 4.22 (iii) of FTP, export obligation period shall be co-terminus with contractual duration for aerospace and nuclear energy project. Accordingly, the committee decided to remand the case back to RA, Bengaluru. RA may examine the case under the above para for EOP extension till contractual duration to fulfill export obligation on pro rata basis provided conditions of above para are met. (Action: RA Bengaluru)

Case No.16: M/s. Bhandari Foils & Tubes Ltd., Mumbai.

F.No 01/60/162/163/AMl7/ PRC PRC Meeting No. '18/AM17 dated 20.09.2016

Subject:- Request for (i) acceptance of export product of SION No.61/837 exported against

S/Bills No 8291 1 1 9 dt 3 1.03.20'1 2: (2) 9187946 dt. 01.06.2012; (3) 9230610 dt. 04.06.2012, (4) 9381909 dt. 14.06.2012; (5) 9533899 dt. 23.06.2012; (6) 4687842 dt. 03.07.2012; (7) 9823529 dt. 12.07.2Q12; (8) 906904 dt. 18.07.2012 and (9) 1111060 dt.31.07.2012 towards fulfillment of export obligation against Advance Authorization No.0310477163 dt. 02.07.2008 and (ii) EO Extension of for S/Bill exported beyond export obligation period. Decision: The committee noted that the Authorisation No 0310477'163 daled 02.07.2008 was issued having initial obligation period of 24 months, which was extended to 36 months vide PN '151 dated 26.02.2009 read with Policy Circular No 80 dated 13.04.2009. The Authorisation was rssued under SION SL No 61/526. The applicant has effected no export during this period. However, the applicant claimed to have completed 88% export obligation by exporting 21722k9s resultant product under SION SL No 61/526 and 178300k9s under SION 61/837 using the same raw materials. The committee, therefore decided the following: i. Export obligation period be extended from 36 months to 48 months i.e. upto 31.O7.2012. ii. This will, however, be subject to payment of composition fee @ 0.5% per month of unfulfilled FOB value of exports made after 36h month but upto 42nd month and @ 1o/o per month of unfulfilled FOB value of exports made after 42nd month but upto 48rh month. iii. Export shipments made indicating Authorisation No 0310477163 dated 02.07.2008 shall be taken into account provided the same were effected on or belore 31.07.2012 iv. RA shall examine the entitlement as per SION and ensure that thickness and Grade of steel used in the resultant product matches with the thickness and Grade of steel imported. v. Minimum 15% VA is maintained. vi Shortfa‖ , f any,sha‖ be regularised ln terms of Para 4 49 of HBP,2015-2020 (Action:RA,Mumbai) Page 7 of 13

Case No.17: M/s.Veerprabhu Export House, Mumbai.

F.No. 01/60/162/599/AM 1 7/ PRC

Subject:- Request for revalidation of DFIA No.0310791724 dl. 05j2.2014.

Decision: The Committee observed that the Authorization was issued having initial validity of 12 months. RA has allowed 6 months further validity as per request of the applicant. Despite that they could not utilize the Authorization. From the submissions made by the applicant, no case of genuine hardship is established. Hence, the Committee did not accede to the request.

Case No.18: M/s. Girdhars lnternational P. Ltd., New Delhi.

F.No. 01/60/162/924lAMl 6/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 18/AM'17 dated 20.09.2016

Subject:- Request for Clubbing of two Advance Authorizations No.0510307338 dt.

04.11.2011 & 0510366380 dt. 20.09.2013. Decision: The Committee noted that exports in the subsequent Authorization are made within the initial export obligation period of the first Authorization. The Committee, therefore, decided the following. L Clubbing of the 2 Advance Authorizations, as referred above be allowed, provided all exports are made within 36 months EO period of first authorisation. ll. Exports made in both the Authorisations upto 30.11.2014 shall only be taken into account towards clubbing and discharge of EO. lll. RA shall examine the case in terms of Para 4.09 of FTP (2015-2020) and ensure value addition of minimum 15%. The 15% value addition for evaluating entitlement shall be applied on the clubbed FOB and CIF of the Authorizations. lV. RA shall ensure proper accounting of the duty free inputs with reference to the export product while clubbing the Authorizations. On clubbing, shortfall if any, shall be regularized in terms of Para 4.49 of HBP, 2015-2020. (Action: RA, CLA, New Delhi)

Case No.l9: M/s. Lubi lndustries LLP, Ahmedabad.

F. No. 0'l/60/1 62l087/AM 1 7/ PRC Subject.- Request for Automatic extension of EOP under Para 4.42 (e ) until the authorization is amended under Rule 8 of FT(R) Rules, 1993 and make it available in customs EDI with new IEC No.0812023862 against Advance Authorization No.0810086954 dt. 03.03.2010. Decision: The committee observed that the case was deferred in PRC Meeting No. 04/AM17 dated 04.05.20'16 for seeking report from RA as to why amendment in the above Authorization was not allowed when High Court had allowed amalgamation of two companies. On perusal of RA's report dated 09.06.2016 the committee noted that the Authorisation in question was obtained in the name of M/s Lubi Submersibles Ltd having initial export obligation period of 36 months. During this period of 36 months, the applicant could discharge only 7.78% export obligation. The merger with new company i.e. M/s Lubi lndustrials LLP has took place after expiry of export obligation period. The IEC code of M/s Lubi submersible ltd has been surrendered on 14.03.2013. The applicant would not be able to file shipping bills in the new IEC for old Authorizations due to limitation of system software at ICEGATE Customs. Further, extension beyond 48 months is not considered and that period has lapsed in March, 2014. The applicant is hereby directed to get the case regularized in terms ol Pa.a 4.49 ol HgP.2015-2020. Page 8 of 13

(Action:Applican」RA,Ahmadabad; :f the applicant fails to get the case regu:arized within a month from the date of uploading of these minutes on the Directorate website,necessary penal action perthe provisions of F.T.(D&R)Act,1992,as amended sha‖ be initiated)

Case No.20:Mノs Autotech lndustries(india)PVt・

Ltd。,Chennai. F No 01/60/162/652/AM17/PRC PRC Meehng No 18/AM17 dated 20 09 2016 SutteCt― Requestfor clubbing of 10 Advance Authonza‖ Ons: 1 0410101668 dt 16 01 2009 2 0410110480 dt 31 12 2009 3 0410114549 dt 14 06 2010 4 0410125099 dt 17 06 2011 5 0410130238 dt ll l1 2011 6 0410142832 dt 23 01 2013 7 0410147660 dt 01 07 2013 8 0410152254 dt 26 11 2013 9 0410156908 dt 08 04 2014 10 0410159109 dt 28 07 2014 Dec:s:on: The committee noted that Authorisations lsted at SI No l to 5 were issued having initial export ob“gation period of 36 months and Authorisation listed at SI No 6 to 10 were issued having initial export obligation period of 18 months The PRC has already a‖ owed EOP extension from 36 rnonths to 48 months against Authorisation dated 16 01 2009 Hence,this case has to be regularised lndependently Further, clubbing is a‖ owed where sholfa‖ in fulf‖ ment of export ob‖ gation is occurred in the ear‖ est issued Authorisation and surplus exports are made in the subsequent AuthOrisations but within the lnitialノ extendable export obligation period of first Authorisation ln this case no criteria are met The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request The applicant is hereby directed to get the case regularized in terms of Para 4 49 of HBP,2015-2020 (Action:RA Chennai: lf the appiicant fa‖s to get the case regularized within a rnonth from the date of pubiication of these minutes on the Directorate website,necessary penai action as per provision under FT(DR)Act,1992,as amended,shou:d be initiated by the RA)

Case No.21: M′s Scott‐Edi: Advance Research Laboratories & Education Ltd.,

Chandigarh F No 01/60/162/076/AM17/PRC PRC Meelng No 18/AM17 dated 20 09 2016 SubieCt― Request for EO extension of Advance Authonza」 on No 2210015070 dt 27 08 2014 1ssued under PC-9 condition Decision: The committee noted that the AuthOrisation in question was issued under PC-9 condition, which prescribes pre― import condition and shorter export obligation period in order to avoid possib‖ ity of diversion of inferior quanty drug in the domestic market The case was earlier considered in PRC Meeting No 25JAM17 dated 08.03.2016 and export ob‖ gation period was extended from 12 to 18 months i e upto 31 03 2016 sublectto payment of compostion fee Extension beyond 18 months is not considered in such cases The committee, therefore,did not accede to the request ofthe app‖ cant for further extenslon The applicant is hereby directed to get the case regularized in terms of Para 4 49 of HBFD, 2015-2020 fo‖ owing the procedure stipulated in PC-18 dated 30 10 2007 (Action: RA Chandigarh : lf the applicant fa‖ s to get the case regularized within a month from the date of pubiication of these minutes on the Directorate website, Page 9 of 13

necessary penal action as per provision under FT(DR) Act, 1992, as amended, should be initiated by the RA)

Case No.22: M/s. Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd., Chandigarh.

F.No. 01 /60/1 621841 /AM1 6/PRC PRC Meeting No.18/AM'17 dated 20.09.2016

Subject:- Request for extension EOP and regularization of the export made after EO period

against Advance Authorization No.2210014379 dl. 14.11.2013 issued under PC- I condition. Decision: The committee noted that the Authorisation in question was issued under PC-9 condition, which prescribes pre-import condition and shorter export obligation period in order to avoid possibility of diversion of inferior quality drug in the domestic market. The case was earlier considered in PRC Meeting No. 25/AM'17 dated 08.03.201 6 and export obligation period was extended from 12 to'18 months i.e. upto 30.06.2015 subject to payment of composition fee. Extension beyond 18 months is not considered in such cases. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request of the applicant for further extension. The applicant is hereby directed to get the case regularized in terms ol Pa,a 4.49 of HBP, 2O15-2O2O following the procedure stipulated in PC-1 I dated 30.10.2007. (Action: RA Chandigarh : lf the applicant fails to get the case regularized within a month from the date of publication of these minutes on the Directorate website, necessary penal action as per provision under FT(DR) Act, 1992, as amended, should be initiated by the RA)

Case No.23: M/s. Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad.

F. No. 01/60/1 62l689/AM 1 6/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 18/AM 1 7 dated 20.09.2016

Subject:- Request for EOP extension of Advance Authorization No.0810129188 dt.

25.02.2014 issued under PC-9 conditions. Decision: The committee noted that the Authorisation in question was issued under PC-9 condition, which prescribes pre-import condition and shorter export obligation period in order to avoid possibility of diversion of inferior quality drug in the domestic market. The case was earlier considered in PRC Meeting No. 24lAM16 dated 01.03.2016 and export obligation period was extended from 12 to 18 months i.e. upto 31 .05.2016 subject to payment of composition fee. Extension beyond 18 months is not considered in such cases. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request of the applicant for further extension. The applicant is hereby directed to get the case regularized in terms of Parc 4.49 of HBP, 2015-2020 following the procedure stipulated in PC-18 dated 30.10.2007. (Action: RA Ahmedabad : lf the applicant fails to get the case regularized within a month from the date of publication of these minutes on the Directorate website, necessary penal action as per provision under FT(DR) Act, 1992, as amended, should be initiated by the RA)

Case No.24: M/s. B. R. Traders, Chennai.

F. No. 01/60/1 62 16141 AM17 I PRC PRC Meeting No. 18/AM 17 dated 20.09.2016

Subject:- Request for policy relaxation for not mentioning 'Y' in the Scheme rewards column

in the Shipping Bill. Decision: The committee noted that in terms of Para 3.14(a) of HBP, 2015-2020, in order to claim rewards under MEIS, exporters were required to declare the in export shipment filed under all categories of shipping bills as : "we intend to claim rewards under Merchandise ExDotl 欲 Page 10 of 13

from lndia Scheme." Such declaration was required even for export shipment under any of the scheme of Chapter4 (including drawback), Chapter-s and 6 of FTP. ln the case of shipping bills (other than free shipping bills), such declaration was mandatory with effect from 1"t June, 2O'15. Grace period of two months (from 01 .04.2015 to 31 .05.2015) was given. It was brought to the notice of this directorate that many exporters even though they declare intend in the shipping bills but marked "N" inadvertently in rewards box, such shipping bills were not transmitted to DGFT server. Para 30.1 (g) of HBP 2015-2020 does not allow manual feeding of EDI shipping bills details, filing of MEIS claim was not possible. ln order to address such type of grievance, this Directorate had issued P.N.40 dated 09.'10.2015 specifying the procedure to be followed for obtaining the benefits under the MEIS scheme for exports made between 01.04.2015 to 31.05.2015. This benefits was further extended vide P.N. 47 dated 0.O2.2O15 for EDI shipping bills filed between 01.06.2015 to 30.09.20'15 where intension was declared interms of para 3. 14(a) of HBP, 2015-2020, but "N" was marked in the reward box in customs software. However, in the instance case, exports were made between 01 .06.2015 to 30.09.2015. However, the applicant has neither marked "Y" in the rewards box nor declare intension interms of para 3.14(a) of HBP,2015-2020 in the affirmation. Hence, the committee decided not to accede to the request of the applicant.

Case No.25: M/s. D.R. Coats lnk & Resins P. Ltd., Mumbai.

F. No. 01 /60/1 62 16421 AM17 I PRC

Subject:- Request for revalidation of Advance Authorization No.031 0786181 dt. 30.06.2014.

Decision: The committee noted the request of the company and decided to reject the request as the reasons cited are only commercial risk and not genuine hardship warranting policy relaxation under Para 2.58 of FTP(2015-20). Moreover, RA has allowed one revalidation of six months despite that the applicant could not complete imports.

Case No.26: M/s. BDH lndustries Ltd., Mumbai.

F.No. 01/60/1 62l646/AM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 18/AM17 dated 20.09.20'16

subject:- Request for EoP extension of Advance Authorization No.0310763.116 dt.

23.12.2013 issued under PC-9 condition Decision: The committee noted that the Authorization No. 03107631'l 6 dt. 23.12.2013 was issued with conditions stipulated under PC-9 dated 30.06.2003, which allows 12 months period for Eo fulfillment from import of each consignment. The imports were made on 13.07.2015. Acc€rdingly, initial obligation period was upto 13.07.2016. The applicant has stated to have fulfilled more than 50% export obligation during the initial export obligation period. Taking all these facts into account, the Committee decided the following: L Export obligation period be extended from 12 months to 1g months against import of each consignments i.e. upto 31.01.2017. ll. This will, however, be subject to a payment of composition fee @ 0.5% on FoB value of export made after initial obligation period. lll. RA shall check that 50% exports against each consignment were made within initial export ob gation period. lf not, composition fee will be charged @ o.so/o per month on unfulfilled FOB. lV. The minimum value addition of 15% as prescribed under 2020) shall be maintained. (Action: RA, Mumbai) Page 1l of 13

Para 4.09 of FTP(2015-

Case No 27:Mノs.Steeirnan lndustries,Ludhiana.

ハ F No 01/60/162/436/AM17ノPRC PRC Meelng No 18/AM17 dated 20 09 2016 Subject:― Requestforrevalidation of DFIA No 3010103058 dt 01 08 2014 Decls:on: Deferred for seeking copy of shipping bi‖ s. (Action:Applicant)

Case No.28:M′s.Force Motors Ltd.,Pune.

F No 01ノ94/180/330/AM15ノPC-4(B) PRC Meelng No 18/AM17 dated 20 09 2016 SutteCt:‐ Request for exlend the DEPB License No3110048796 dt 2206201l of Rs 696839/― which expired on 22 06 2013 for l year from the date of revandatiOn in order to complete the procedure of transfer release advice(TRA)at Petrapoie Customs(!ndian Border for Bangladesh)and registralon of‖ cense at」NPT Customs,Mumbai Decis:on: The Comnnittee noted that the said DEPB was obtained with Port of registration Petrapoie Customs However,TRA was issued by Petrapole customs to clear the goods from」NPT customs The said TRA could not be verified during the vandity of sald DEPB The Dy Commissioner of Customs,」NPT has now cOnfirmed that TRA issued by Petrapoie Customs has not been registered so far with」NPT customs Taking these facts into consideration,the committee decided the fo‖ owing: I The above mentioned DEPB be reva‖ dated fo「 3 months from the date of endorsement ‖ The applicant sha‖ submit the said DEPB to RA for endorsement within month from the date of uploading ofthese minutes on the Directorate website Ⅱi Clearance of goods sha‖ be a‖ owed from JNPT Customs oniy lv 」NPT customs sha‖ ensure before a‖ Owing clearance of goods that the sald DEPB scrip has not been uti‖ sed from any Other port (Action:RA,Pune′ Customs,JNPT)

Case No.29:M′s.ONGC,New Delhi.

F No 01/89/180/Misc 14/AM10/PC-2(A) PRC Meelng No 18ノAM17 dated 20 09 2016 SubieCt:― Request for waiver to the provision of Para 2 ‖(a),(b),(C)and Para 7 of the import Licensing Notes under Chapter 87 of lTC(HS)Classificalon of Export& lmport tems)for o)HOt Oil Circulalon unt imported from Mノs Rush Sales, Texas,USA and oi)TWO MObile Work Over Rigs Ofloo TOn and 150 Ton of Work Over imported from M/s slcHHuAN HONGHUA PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT, CHENGUDU Cty,China Decision: The Commiltee decided to relax the provisions under Para 2 11(a),(b),(C)and para 7 ofthe lmport Licensing Notes under Chapter 87 of lTC(HS),2012,Schedule― |(impOrt POlicy) This will,however,be sublectto the condI10n that i irnport shouid be made through the authorized ports only. ‖ Vehic!es sha‖ not piy on public roads except atthe time of mobilization and de‐mobi:ization and that the equipment wouid be used oniy at the project site (Action:Policy_2) Page 12 of13 η

Case No.30:

´｀ F No 01ノ80ノ162/00663/AM13/DES― ! PRC Meetlng No 18/AM17 dated 20 09 2016 SutteCt― Request fOr regula‖ salon Of representa‖ on made fOr amendment/revisiOn of norms beyOnd 3 rnonths in respect Of 5 cases i) M′S.BHEL,Chennai.

1. Mrs.BHEL,Chennal ili) Mノs B:iss Anand P.Ltd.,Haryana. iV) Force MotOrs Ltd.,Pune. V) Larsen&Toubro Ltd Decls:on: The cOmmittee noted that in terms of Para 4 17 of HBP, 2015-2020, representatiOn fOr :棚l γ h:°:日品麻溜1∬』鷺概茸 Subltt b“ yment of∞mposlllmたe d R3 lat no poncy relaxatiOn is required is required if requisite fee is pald by the applicant The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the chair. Pagc 13 of13