DGFT Minutes

Directorate General of Foreiqn Trade (PRC Cell) Minutes of the Policv Relaxition Committee Meeting held under the ChairmanshiP of DGFT, Shri Anup Wadhawan. on 04.'10.2016 Meeting No. 20lAM17 held on 04.10.2016 at 1 0:00 AM The following Members were present in the meeting.

1. Shri K.C. Rout, Addl. DGFT
2. Shri Jaikant Singh, Addl DGFT
3. Shri Darshan Singh, Addl. DGFT
4. Shri J.V. Patil, AddI DGFT
5. Shri S.B.S. Reddy, Addl.DGFT
6. Shri Jay Karan Singh, Jt DGFT
7. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Dy. DGFT
8. Shri Lokesh H.D, Dy. DGFT Following cases were discussed. The decision taken on the individual cases are as under:- Case No.'l: M/s. Cartoon Sanitation P. Ltd., Mathura (U.P.).P.H. Case F.No. 01 /60/1 62/00'l/AMl 4/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 20lAM17 dated 04.10.2016

Subject:- Request for appeal against decision taken by PRC in Meeting No.16iAM16 dated

08J22015 regarding extension of EOP of 3 Advance Authorizations No.(i) 0610013314 dt. 30.04 2008; (ii) 0610015395 dt. '17.04.2009 and (iii) 0610016529 dt 04.1 1 .2009. ln terms of Para of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, a personal hearing was afforded to the applicant, as requested by them. Shri Anil Malik, Director of the company appeared before the committee and made the following submissions:

1. They had obtained three Advance Authorisations No..(i) 06100133'14 dt.30.04.2008; (ii) 0610015395 dt 17.04.2009 and (iii) 0610016529 dt 04.1 1.2009.
2. They have fulfilled 71.060/o, 18.29o/o and 12o/o respectively against these Authorisations within the initial validity.
3. Authoriations were obtained against the export orders from Sudan, Libya, Sri Lanka and Gulf countries. Due to global recession, their buyers had cancelled the orders. Therefore, they could not complete the export obligation.
4. They had offered to adjust Rs. 29.99 lakh duty credit amount from SHIS scrips and FMS scrips against duty liability. But RA did not allow.
5. The resultant products manufactured out of duty free raw materials imported under the Authorisations are in their possession.
6. He, therefore, requested to allow 18 months extension for fulfllment of balance export obligation. Decision: The committee discussed the case at length. lt was noted that PRC in its meeting dated 29.OA.2O11has already considered six months extension against Authorisation No 0610013314 dt. 30.04.2008.

ision: The committee discussed the case at length. lt was noted that PRC in its meeting dated 29.OA.2O11has already considered six months extension against Authorisation No 0610013314 dt. 30.04.2008. Despite that the applicant could not discharge its stipulated export obligation. Request for EOP extension against remaining two Authorisations was discussed in Page 1of 14

meeting 28.05.2013. However, committee rejected the request on the ground that no considerable exports were made within the initial export obligation period, which form merit of the case. lt was further noted that the export items are sanitary bathroom fitting that are not such items, which could not be exported to any other countries. On being asked, Mr. Malik, during the course of personal hearing, told the committee that their exports to African counties were only 30%. Therefore, the committee was not convinced with his reply that they could not fulfill export obligation because his buyer cancelled the export order. The committee, normally in such cases, allows extension upto 48 months from the date of issue of the Authorisation provided minimum 50% exports are completed within initial export obligation period. The committee also allows regularisation of exports made within 48 months. However, in this case no criteria are met and period extendable has lapsed long back. A facility to get such cases regularised on payment of duty and an equal amount as interest component was given to the bonafide defaulters vide PN 22 dated 12.08.2013. The last date was upto 31.03.2014.

acility to get such cases regularised on payment of duty and an equal amount as interest component was given to the bonafide defaulters vide PN 22 dated 12.08.2013. The last date was upto 31.03.2014. However, the applicant did not avail the facility. From the above facts, it is not established that situations were not in the control of the exporter. The committee, therefore, did not consider it the case of genuine hardship. Hence, did not accede to tlie request. The applicant is hereby directed to get the cases regularised in terms of paa 4.49 of HBP, 2015-2020. (Action: RA, CLA; if the applicant fails to get these cases regularised within a month from the date of uploading of these minutes on the directorate website, action as per provisions of FT(D&R)AcI, 1992, as amended shall be initiated.)

Case No.2: M/s. Carborundum Universal Ltd., Chennai.

F.No. 01/60/1 62/804/AM1 6/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 20iAM17 dated 04.10.2016

Subject:- Request for 2nd revalidation and enhancement of value in respect of Advance

Authorization No. 04'l 01 58032 dl. 20.O5.2O1 4. Decision: The committee noted that the Authorisation was issued having 12 months validity to import and 18 months to discharge the stipulated export obligation. ln this case, the applicant completed 236% exports within initial obligation period. They therefore, approached to RA, Chennai on 14.08.2015 for enhancement of quantity and value on prorata basis of exports completed and allow revalidation. RA Chennai allowed revalidation upto 30.1 1 .201 5 but did not enhanced quantity and value of the Authorisation on prorata basis. As per para 4.21 of HBP, 2OO9-2014, the applicant was eligible prorata enhancement on payment of application fee for differential amount. The applicant had paid Rs. 75,500^ for the purpose. However, RA did not allow enhancement on the ground that one item imported in excess. lf the request could have been considered by the RA, the applicant could have imported balance goods by 30.11 .2015. On the basis of report from RA, Chennai, the Committee was of the view that RA has not acted as per the spirit of the Policy. This has resulted undue loss to the applicant. The committee, therefore, decided the following: 1 .

m RA, Chennai, the Committee was of the view that RA has not acted as per the spirit of the Policy. This has resulted undue loss to the applicant. The committee, therefore, decided the following: 1 . The applicant shall produce the Authorisation along with all prescribed documents for EODC to RA within a month. Proof of duty and interest paid on excess imports, if any, shall also be submitted. The RA shall revalidate the Authorisation for further three months from the date of ２ ３ endorsement along with EODC. Page 2 of 1.4

4 Revalidation sha‖ be a‖owed only for enhanced value and quantity (Action:RA,Chennai)

Case No 3:Mノs 」odas Expoim P Ltd,N De!hi

F No 01/60/162/695/AM17/PRC PRC Meelng No 20/AM17 dated 04 10 2016

Subject:― Request for EOP extension of Advance Authorization No 0910061878 dt 10 04 2015

issued under under PC-9 condition Decision: The Comm ttee noted that the Authorization No 0910061878 dt 10 04 2015 was issued with cond tions stipulated under PC-9 dated 30 06 2003, which a‖ ows 12 months periOd fOr EO fu11‖ ment from import of each consignment The imports were made on 29 06 2015 Accordingly, initial obligation per od was upto 28 06 2016 against the import consignment The applicant stated to has ful「‖ed more than 50%of its stipuiated export ob‖ gation during the initial export obligation per od Taking a‖ these facts into account, the Comnnittee decided the following l. Export obligation period be extended from 12 months to consignments i.e. upto 31.12.2016. 18 months against each import ‖ This is sublect tO a payment of composlion fee(D05%on FOB value of expOn made after initial obligation period l‖ RA sha‖ check that 50% exports against each consignment were made within initial expOn Obliga‖on penod「nOt,compOsnion fee will be charged(D05%per month on unfulfi ed FOB Iヽ/ The minimum value addition of 15%as prescribed under Para 4 09 of FTP(2015-2020) sha‖ be rnaintained (Actlon:RA,CLA,New Delhi)

Case No 4:M′s Lupin Ltd.,Munnbai

F No 01ノ60/162/684/AM17/PRC PRC Meelng No 20/AM17 dated 04 10 2016 Sublect― Requestfor EOP extension of Advance AuthonzatiOn No 0310793563 dt 04 02 2015 issued under PC-9 conditlon Decision: The Committee noted that the Authorizat on No 0310793563 dt 04 02 2015 was issued with cond tions stipulated under PC-9 dated 30 06 2003, which a‖ ows 12 months period for EO fu ll ment from irnport of each conslgnment The irnpOrts were made on 26 02 2015 and 27 05 2015 Accordlngly, initial export obligation period was upto 28 02 2016 and 31 05 2016, against each import consignment The app‖ cant stated to have made no exports so fartowards discharge of stipulated expOrt ob‖ gation Taking a‖ these facts into account, the Committee decided the fo‖ owlng: I Export Ob‖ gation period be extended from 12 months to 18 months against each import consignmentsi e upto 31 08 2016 and 30 11 2016,respectively ‖ This is sublect to a payment of composnion fee(D05%per month on FOB value of export made afterlnitial obligat on period l‖ The mlnimum value addlion of 15%as prescribed under Para 4 09 of FTP(2015-2020) sha‖ be maintained lV Shortfa‖ if any,sha‖ be regularised in terms of Para 4 49 of HBP,2015-2020 read with PC-18 dated 30 10 2007 (AcJon:RA,Mumbal) Page 3 of 1.4

Case No 5:M′s Gland Pharma Ltd,Hyderabad

F No 01ノ60/162/674/AM17/PRC PRC Meelng No 20/AM17 dated 04 10 2016 Subject:― RequestforrevalidationofDFIANo0910061157dt 30102014 Dec:sion: The Committee observed that the Author zation was issued having initial validity of 12 months RA has a‖ owed 6 months extension as per request ofthe applicant Despite thatthey could not ut‖se the Authorization From the submissions made by the appicant, no case of genuine hardship ls established Hence,the Committee did not accede to the request

Case No.6:M/s.Cadila Healthcare Ltd,Ahmedabad

F No 01/60/162/695/AM17/PRC PRC Meelng No 20/AM17 dated 04 10 2016 SutteCt― Requestfor EOP extension ofAdvanceAuthonza10n No 0810135370 dt 27 05 2015 issued under PC-9 condition Decision: The Committee noted that the Authorization No 0310793563 dt 04 02 2015 was issued with conditions stlpulated under PC-9 dated 30 06 2003, which a‖ ows 12 months perod for EO full‖ ment from irnport of each consignment The irnports were made on 02 06 2015 & 22 08 2015 Accordin91y, intlal obligatiOn perod was upto 01 o6 2016 & 21082016, respectively against each lmport cOnsignments The app‖ cant stated to have made NIL expOrts during the iniual export obl gation period but fulf‖ led 18 360/O thereafter Taking a‖ these facts into account,the Commlttee decided the fo‖ owing: I Export oblgation period be extended from 12 months to 18 months against each import consignmentsi e upto 31 12 2016&28022017,respectively ‖ This will,however,be sublect to a payment of compOsi‖ on fee(D05%per month on FOB value of export made afterinitlal ob‖ gation period l‖ The minimum value addlion of 15%as prescribed under Para 4 09 of FTP(2015-2020) sha‖ be maintained (AcJon:RA,Ahmedabad)

Case No 7:Mノs Orient Craft Ltd,New Delhi

F No 01/60/162/029/AM17/PRC PRC Meeung No 20/AM17 dated 04 10 2016 Subject― Request for clubbing of 3 of Annual Advance Authorizations No l)0510314445 dt 130120121(il)0510314446 dt 13 01 2012 and(11)0510314447 dt 13 01 2012 Decls:on: The committee noted that that clubblng Of Author sations are a‖ owed where inputs permitted in the Authorisalons are common However,in the case under consideration,inputs imported in two Authorisations are not common Further, ln case of import of fabrc, Authorisation holder is requlred to mention CSM of the fabrics imported and exported in the lmpOrt and export documents However,they did nOt menton the same Nevertheiess,Ad― hoc norms are fixed for specinc Authorisation that cannot be made applicable on other Autho「isation except Author sation issued on repeat basis The committee,therefore,did not accede to the request The app‖ cant ls hereby directed to getthe cases regularized in terms of Para 4 49 of HBP,2015-2020 indlvldua‖ y (Action: RA, CLA, New Delhi: if the app!icant fai:s to get the case regularized within a month from the date of uploading ofthese minutes on the Directorate website,necessary action as per the provisions of F.T.(DR)Act,sha‖ be initiated) Page 4 of 14

Case No.8: M/s. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Kolkata.

F. No. 01/60/1 621641/AM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 20lAM1 7 dated 04.1 0.201 6

Subject:- Request for clubbing 4 of Advance Authorizations No.(i)0210142919 dt,. 04.01.2010;

(ii)0210154872dt. 15.02.2011; (iii) 0210178240 dt.04.06.2012 and (iv) 0210202658 dt.23.04.2014. Decision: The committee noted that Authorisations listed at serial nos. (i), (ii), and (iii) above were issued having initial export obligation of 36 months. And, the Authorisation dated 23.04.2014 was issued with initial export obligation period of 18 months. Considering genuine hardship, the export obligation period against first three Authorisation has already been extended upto 30.02.2014, as per the cabinet decision. Therefore, Authorisations issued having obligation period of '18 months can't be clubbed with Authorisations in which special dispensation has already been granted. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request. (Action: RA, Kolkata)

Case No.9: M/s. Man lndustries (lndia) Ltd., Mumbai.

F.No 01/60/ 162/901/AM12/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 20lAM17 dated 04 10 2016

Subject:- Request for restoration of positive VA and waiver of composition fee for extension

under peculiar circumstances in respect of Advance Authorization No.031049'1550 dt.22.10.2008. Decision: The committee noted that the Authorisation was issued having initial obligation period of 24 months to discharge export obligation. As, per the prevalent Policy, the Authorisation could be redeemed if the Authorisation holder achieves positive value addition. However, extension in export obligation is considered as per policy and procedure in force. The applicant has failed to discharge its stipulated export obligation and sought extension in 2012. Therefore, the committee has allowed six months extension in its meeting dated 25.09.2012 with condition to maintain minimum 15% value addition, as per amended Pa.a 4.1.6 of FTP, 2009-2014. The applicant had option either to get the case regularised in terms of Para 4.28 of HBP or avail the benefit of EOP extension allowed by PRC maintaining minimum 15% VA. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request to reduce the value addition. Shortfall in achieving 15% VA could be regularised in terms of Pa,a 4.49 of HBP, 2015-2020. (Action: RA, Mumbai is hereby directed to initiate action against the applicant, as per provision of FT(DR) Act, 1992, as amended if he fails to get the case regularised within a month from the date of uploading of these minutes on the Directorate website and furnish report.)

Case No.10: M/s. Corvine Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Karnataka.

F.No. 0'1160/1 62l692/AMl 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No.20lAM17 dated 04.'10.2016

Subject:- Request for 2nd revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0710107416 dt. 12.01 .2015.

Decision: The Committee observed that the Authorization was issued having initial validity of 12 months. RA has granted revalidation for 6 months and despite that they could not utilise 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 ll:Mノs Corvine Chemica:s&Pharmaceuticals Ltd,Karnataka

F No 01/60/162/693/AM17/PRC PRC Meeting No 20/AM17 dated 04 10 2016 υ Page 5 of14 ⌒

Subject.- Request for 2"d revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0710107496 dt. 23.01.2015. Decision: The Committee observed that the Authorization was issued having initial validity of 12 months. RA has granted 6 months revalidation and despite that they could not utilise 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.12: M/s. Corvine Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Karnataka.

F.No. 01/60/1 62/691 /AM1 7/ PRC

Subject:- Request for 2"d revalidation of Advance Authorization No.071010741 8 dt. 1 2.01 .201 5.

Decision: The Committee observed that the Authorization was issued having initial validity of 12 months. RA has granted 6 months revalidation and despite that they could not utilise 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.13: M/s. Metalite Eco Future Labs Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

F.No. 01/60/1 62l652/AM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 20/AM17 dated 04.10.2016

Subject:- Request for EOP extension of Advance Authorization No.0510389140 dt. 26.06.2014.

Decision: The Committee observed that the Advance Authorisation No. 0510389140 dated 26.06.2014 has been issued with initial export obligation period of 18 months and the Regional Authority has allowed further six months extension in export obligation period. Despite that the applicant has not effected any exports towards discharge of export obligation. Normally, the committee on merit of the case, allows extension upto 36 months for regularisation of exports made after initial/extended export obligation period. Taking into account these facts, the Committee decided the following: l. Export obligation period be extended from 24 months to 36 months i.e. upto 25.06.2017. ll. This will, however, be subject to a payment of composition fee @ 1.0% per month on unfulfilled FOB value being NIL export so far. lll. The minimum value addition of 15% as prescribed under Para 4.09 of FTP(2015-2020) shall be maintained. lV. The applicant has option; either to accept PRC decision or get the case regularised as per Para 4.49 of HBP, 2015-2020. (Action: RA, CLA)

Case No.14: M/s. Kesoram lndustries Ltd., Hyderabad.

F.No. 01/60/1 62/683/AM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No.20lAM17 dated 04.10.2016 Decision: The Committee observed that the Authorization was issued having initial validity of 12 months. RA has allowed 6 months revalidation and despite that they could not utilise 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. ″ Page 6 of14

Case No.15: M/s. Southern Hydrocarbons, Puducherry.

F.No. 01 /60/1 62i650/AM'l 7/ PRC

Subject:- Request for revalidation of Advance Authorization No.2510004386 dt. 13.01 .2015.

Decision: The Committee observed that the Authorization was issued having initial validity of 12 months. RA has allowed 6 months revalidation and despite that they could not utilise 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.16: M/s. New lndia Extrusions P. Ltd., Mumbai.

F.No. 01/60/1 62l883/AM1 4/PRC PRC Meeting No. 20/AM17 dated 04 10 2016

Subject:- Request for revalidation of Annual Advance Authorization No.0310590053 dt.

30.08.2010. Decision: On perusal of RA, Mumbai report, it was noted that the Authorisation was issued having initial validity of 24 months to import and 36 months to discharge export obligation. Accordingly, the Authorisation was remain valid for import till 31.08.2012. ln this case, the applicant after completing 100% export obligation had approached the RA on 28.06.2012 for EODC and revalidation of the Authorisation for further six months, as per the provisions of HBP, 2009-2014. However, rather granting further revalidation, M raised some queries and returned the Authorisation to the applicant. Further, while granting EODC, M commrtted again mistake by issuing EODC in the name of different party and for wrong CIF/FOB value of the Authorisation, which was rectified subsequently. Meanwhile, the Authorisation lost its extendable validity too. The committee was of the view that if the Authorisation was revalidated by RA without EODC at first instance then the applicant could get 8 months more time to import. The committee, therefore, decided to allow six months validity from the date of endorsement. The applicant is hereby directed to produce Authorisation to RA for endorsement within a month from the date of uploading of these minutes on the Directorate website. (Action: ApplicanURA, Mumbai)

Case No.17: M/s. Dhanuka Laboratories Ltd., Gurgaon.

F. No. 01/60/1 62167s/AM1 7/PRC

Subject:- Request for clubbing of 3 of Annual Advance Authorizations No.(i) 0510236541 dt.

16.02.2009; (ii) 0510264089 dt. 11.05.2010 and (iii) 0s10271395 dt. 26.08.2010 for closure purpose is covered under Appendix-30A. Decision: The committee noted that one of the item imported by the applicant is Penrcillin G. Hence, export obligation period against the Authorisation was 12 months from the date of import of each consignment. ln this case, first import consignment was cleared on 31.03.2009. Accordingly, initial export obligation was upto 31.03.2010. Considering extension for six months, EOp could be extended upto 30.09.2010. However, exports under third Authorisation are effected after 30.09.2010. Further, import under third Authorisation is made after fulfillment of excess export in first and second Authorisation. Hence, exports made prior to import can't be accepted because Penicillin G is allowed with pre-import condition under Advance Authorisation. 欲
多″ Page 7 of 14

Since, the case does not meet the norms of the Committee; the committee did not accede to the request. The applicant has to get the case regularized in terms of Pa,a 4.49 of HBP, 2015-2020 read with Policy Circular No 18 dated 30.1 0.2007. (Action: RA, CLA, New Delhi: if the applicant fails to get the case regularized within a month from the date of uploading of these minutes on the Directorate website, necessary action as per the provisions of F.T.(DR)ACt, shall be initiated)

Case No.18: M/s. L-3 Communications lndia P. Ltd., Bangalore.

F.No. 01/60/1 62l494/AM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 20lAM17 dated 04 10.2016

Subject:- Request for EOP extension of Advance Authorization No.0710104299 dl. 21.O5.2014.

Decision: The Committee noted that the Authorisation was issued having initial export obligation period of 18 months to discharge export obligation. Further, as per provisions of HBP, the applicant has obtained six months extension from RA. However, the applicant did not affect any export during this period due to merger of the company with other company. Now they have fulfilled 100% export obligation but after validity extended by RA. Hence, the Committee decided the following: l. Export obligation period be extended from 24 months to 30 months i.e. upto 30.1't.2016. ll. This will, however, be subject to the payment of composition fee @ 0.5% per month on FOB value of export made after 24th month. lll. The minimum value addition oi 15% as prescribed under Para 4.09 of FTP (2015-2020) shall be maintained. (Action: RA, Bangalore)

Case No.19: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01/60/162/1 83(1 yAMl 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 20lAM17 dated 04 10 2016

Subject:- Request for restoration of original '108 days of E.O. period against Advance

Authorization No.3510029270 dl. 24.02.2010 without imposition of composition fee on account of Force Majeure like situation. Decision: The Committee considered the case and observed that EO period expired on 28.02.2U3. fhe date on which TNPCB served closure order is 29.3.20'13. Since closure order issued after expiry of EO period, this has no effect on the EO period of the licence. Committee therefore decided to maintain rejection. (Action: RA, Madurai)

Case No.20: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01 /60/1 62/1 83(2YAM1 7/ PRC

Subject:- Request for restoration of original '108 days of E.O. period against Advance

Authorization No.3510030450 dt. 03.06.2010 without imposition of composition fee Decision: The Committee considered the case and observed that EO period expired on 30.06.2013. The date on which TNPCB served closure order is 29.3.2013. The Committee considered the application for review of its decision taken in the Meeting No.1o/AM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: け / Page 8 of 14

l. Export obligation period be extended by 108 days in continuation of 36 months. ll. No composition fee shall be levied for such extension of export obligation period. lll. This is subject to the condition that no DRI case or investigation is pending against the applicant. (Action: RA, Madurai)

Case No.21: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01/60/1 62/1 83(3yAM1 7/ PRC

Subject:- Request for restoration of original 108 days of E.O. period against Advance

Authorization No.3510030471 dt. 04.06.2010 without imposition of composition fee Decision: The Committee considered the application for review of its decision taken in the Meeting No.1 0/AM17 held on 06.07.20 1 6 and decided the following: l. ll. lll. This is subject to the condition that no DRI case or investigation is pending against the applicant.

Case No.22: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01/60/1 6211 83(4yAM1 7/ PRC Authorization No.3510030537 dt. 11.06.2010 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.1 0/AM1 7 held on 06.07.201 6 and decided the following: l. ll. lll. This is subject to verification by RA that no DRI case or investigation is pending against the applicant.

Case No.23: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01/60/1 6211 83(5yAM1 7/ PRC Authorization No.35'1 0030580 dt. 14.06.201 0 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.1o/AM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: l. ll. W Page 9 of 14

lll. This is subject to verification by RA that no DRI case or investigation is pending against the applicant.

Case No.24 : M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01/60/1 62/1 83(6yAM1 7/ PRC Authorization No.3510030581 dt. 14.06.2010 without imposition of composition fee Decision: The Committee considered the applicatron for review of its decision taken in the Meeting No.10/AM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following. l. ll. lll. This is subject to verification by RA that no DRI case or investigation is pending against the applicant.

Case No.25: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01 /60/1 6211 83(7yAM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No 20/AM17 dated 04.10.20'16 Subject.- Request for restoration of original 108 days of E.O. period against Advance Authorization No.3510030593 dt. 15.06.2010 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.10/AM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: l. ll. lll. This rs subject to verification by RA that no DRI case or investigation is pending against the applicant.

Case No.26: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01 /60/1 6211 83(8yAM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No 20/AM17 dated 04.10.2016 Subject.- Request for restoration of original 108 days of E.O. period against Advance Authorization No.3510030590 dt. 15.06.2010 without imposition of composition fee Decision: N0.10/4M17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: l. Export obligation period be extended by'108 days in continuation of 36 months. ll. lll. This is sublect to verification by RA that no DRI case or investigation is pending against the applicant. ″ Page 10 of 14

Case No.27: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01 /60/1 6211 83(9yAM1 7/ PRC Authorization No.3510030594 dt. 15.06.201 1 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.1O/AM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: l. ll. lll. This is subject to verification by RA that no DRI case or investigation is pending against the applicant. (Action: RA, madurai)

Case No.28: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01/60/1 6211 83(1 0yAM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 20iAM17 dated 04.10.2016 Authorization No.0310636999 dt. 17.06.2011 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.1oiAM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: l. ll. lll. the applicant. (Action: RA, Mumbai)

Case No.29: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01/60/162/183(1 1yAM17/ PRC Authorization No.0310636983 dt. 17.06.2011 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.1o/AM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: l. ll. lll. This is subject to verification by RA that no DRI case or investigation is pending against the applicant. Page 11 of 14

Case No.30 : M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 0'1/60/1 62/1 83(1 2yAM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No: 20/AM17 dated 04.10.2016 Authorization No.0310636970 dt. 17.06.2011 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.1o/AM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: l. ll. lll. the applicant.

Case No.31: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01 /60/1 62/1 83(1 3yAM1 7/ PRC Authorization No.0310637648 dl. 21.06.2011 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.1o/AM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: l. ll. No composition fee shall be levied for such extensron of export obligation period. lll. the applicant.

Case No.32: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01/60/1 62/1 83(1 4yAM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 20lAM1 7 dated 04.1 0.201 6 Authorization No.0310637650 dt. 21.06.2011 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.10/AM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided thefollowing: l. ll. lll. the applicant. Gase No.33: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01/60/1 62/1 83(1 syAMl 7/ PRC M Page 12 of 14

Subject:- Request for restoration of original '108 days of E.O. period against Advance

Authorization No.0310637651 dt. 21 .06.2011 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.1O/AM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: L Export obligation period be extended by 108 days in continuation of 36 months ll. No composition fee shall be levied for such extension of export obligation period lll. the applicant.

Case No.34: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 0'l/60/1 6211 83(1 6yAM1 7/ PRC Authorization No.0310637649 dt. 21.06.2011 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.10/AM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: l. Export obligation period be extended by 108 days in contlnuation of 36 months. ll. lll. the applicant.

Case No.35: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01/60/'1 6211 83(1 7yAM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No.20/AM17 dated 04.'10.2016 Authorization No.0310642197 dt. 21.06.2011 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.10/AM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: l. Export obligation period be extended by '108 days in continuation of 36 months. ll. lll. This is sub.iect to verification by RA that no DRI case or investigation is pending against the applicant.

Case No 36: Mノs Vedanta Ltd (former:y known as

Tamil Nadu F No 01/60/162/183(18)/AM17/PRC PRC Meeing No 20/AM17 dated 04 10 2016 M′s.Steriite lndustries(lndia)Ltd,), Page 13 of 14

Authorization No.3510039462 dt. 12.10.2012 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.1O/AM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: l. Export obligation period be extended by 108 days in continuation of EO period already endorsed on the Authorisation by RA. ll. lll. This is subject to verification by RA that no DRI case or investigation is pending against the applicant. (Action: RA, madurai)

Case No.37: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite Industries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No 01/60/1 62/1 83(1 8yAM1 7/ PRC Subject.- Request for restoration of original 108 days of E.O. period against Advance Authorization No.3510039463 dl. 12.10.2012 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.1O/AM17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: l. Export obligation period be extended by 108 days in continuatlon of EO period already endorsed on the Authorisation by RA. ll. No composition fee shall be levied for such extensron of export obligation period. lll. This is subject to verification by RA that no DRI case or investigation is pendrng against the applicant.

Case No.38: M/s. Vedanta Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sterlite lndustries (lndia) Ltd.,),

Tamil Nadu. F.No. 01/60/1 6211 83(1 8yAM1 7/ PRC PRC Meeting No. 20/AM1 7 dated 04.1 0.201 6 Authorization No.3510039483 dl. 18.10.2012 without imposition of composition fee Decision: No.10/4M17 held on 06.07.2016 and decided the following: L Export obligation period be extended by 108 days in continuation of EO period already endorsed on the Authorisation by RA. ll. lll. the applicant. (Action: RA, Madurai.) The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the chair. Page 14 of 14 ⌒