DGFT Minutes

I Date of Uploading I~·~.2A>11 Directorate General of Foreign Trade (PRC Section) Minutes of the Policy Relaxation Committee Meeting held under the Chairmanship of Shri Alok Vardhan Chaturvedi. Director General of Foreign Trade on 02.04.2019 Meeting NO.01/AM20 held on 02.04.2019 The following members were present in the meeting: 1. Shri K.C. Rout 2. Shri R. P. Goyal 3. Shri Vijay Kumar 4. Shri Satyan Sharda 5. Shri N.K. Srivastava 6. Shri Anil Aggarwal 7. Shri Rajbir Sharma 8. Dr. Praveen Kumar Addl. DGFT Addl. DGFT Addl. DGFT Addl. DGFT Addl. DGFT Addl. DGFT Jt. DGFT Dy.DGFT Following cases were discussed. The decision taken on the individual cases are as under:- S.No Name of the firm Case No. 1. MIs. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 01 to 09 2. MIs Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai 10 & 11 3. MIs ABS Exports, Maharashtra 12 4. MIs. San jay Kumar & Sons, Delhi 13 5. MIs. Vikash Arora, Punjab 14 6. MIs Wakeel Ahmed Sitapur, U P 15 7. MIs Batra International, Delhi 16 8. MIs Chirag Impex, Ahmedabad 17 9. MIs Ball Aerocan India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 18 10. MIs Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai 19 11. MIs High Performance Textiles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 20 12. MIs Cakco Poly Technik Pvt. Ltd., Delhi 21 13. MIs Jans Copper Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 22 14. MIs Arihant Corporation, Pune 23 to 28 15. MIs Celebi Airport Service India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 29 & 30 16. MIs Hind Terminals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 31 17. MIs Tesla Decor, Bhadohi (UP) 32 18. MIs Welspun Corp Limited, Vadodara 33 19. MIs Bharat Parenterals Limited Vadodara 34 to 36 20. MIs Jodas Expoim Pvt.

. MIs Hind Terminals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 31 17. MIs Tesla Decor, Bhadohi (UP) 32 18. MIs Welspun Corp Limited, Vadodara 33 19. MIs Bharat Parenterals Limited Vadodara 34 to 36 20. MIs Jodas Expoim Pvt. Ltd., Telanqana 37 21. MIs GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Pune 38 22. MIs M.J. Biopharm Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 39 & 40 23. MIs Mahesh Weavinq Factory, Banqalore 41 1

Premier Global Corporate Solution Pvt. Ltd., 42 alore PH Case No.01: Mis. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/840/AM19/PRC PRC Meeting No. 01/AM20 dated 02.04.2019 Subject: To allow Chapter-3 incentive (FPS/FMS) against RA F.No.27/21/087/80006/AM17 for the export made by EOU unit. The applicant was called for personal hearing as per the decision of PRC in its Meeting No.33&34/AM19, which was afforded on 02.04.2019, but no one appeared on behalf of the firm. The Committee decided the case as per the justification provided by the firm in their application. They have applied for FMS/FPS licenses under Chapter-3 incentives scheme to the 0/0 the D.C. SEEPZ, Mumbai for the export made during AM15 period. Their application was returned stating that their office is processing only MEIS/SEIS under Chapter-3 of FTP 2015-20 and no other Incentive Scheme under Chapter-3 for the Year AM15. DC SEEPZ expressed their inability to process their application under Chapter-3 incentives for the Year 2014-15.

pter-3 of FTP 2015-20 and no other Incentive Scheme under Chapter-3 for the Year AM15. DC SEEPZ expressed their inability to process their application under Chapter-3 incentives for the Year 2014-15. The SEEPZ office has informed them that their office have been granted an access on DGFT Site restricted to issue of MEIS and SEIS Scrip and they do not have authorization to access Chapter-3 incentive for the Year 2014-15. Prior to this they were submitting their application to RA Mumbai and the delay in filing this application of AM15 in 2017 was due to various technical issues they had with EDI Cell with respect to VFFM Tick/e-BRC not getting attached to the application. During their personal visit to EDI Cell, Delhi they have resolved these issues with support from EDI Cell & could submit these application successfully. Decision: The Committee went through the statement made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length. It observed that applications for FPS were required to be filed to RA and not to SEZ. The Committee decided to accede to the request of the firm for grant of Chapter-3 benefit (FPS/FMS) against RA File No. 27/21/087/80006/AM17 subject to prescribed late cuts and the condition that shipping bills should not be time barred at the time of filling the application. (Action: RAiApplicant) PH Case No.02: Mis. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F.

to prescribed late cuts and the condition that shipping bills should not be time barred at the time of filling the application. (Action: RAiApplicant) PH Case No.02: Mis. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/842/AM19/PRC Subject: To allow Chapter-3 incentive (FPS/FMS) against RA F.No.27/21/087/80008/AM17 for the export made by EOU unit. The applicant hearing as per the decision of PRC in its which was afforded on 02.04.2019, .but no one appeared on behalf. of the firm. The Committee decided the case as per the justification t n ~OM.... --po 2

010 the D.C. SEEPZ, Mumbai for the export made during AM15 period. Their under Chapter-3 of FTP 2015-20 and no other Incentive Scheme under Chapter-3 for the under for the Year 2014-15. to RA Mumbai issues they had with EDI Cell with respect to VFFM Tickle-BRC to the application. these issues with support from EDI Cell & could submit these application successfu Ily. Decision: The Committee and be filed to RA and not to SEZ. The Committee decided to accede to the request of the firm for grant of Chapter-3 benefit (FPS/FMS) against RA File No. 27/21/087/80008/AM17 subject to prescribed late cuts and the condition that (Action: RAlApplicant) PH Case No.03: MIs. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F.

t of Chapter-3 benefit (FPS/FMS) against RA File No. 27/21/087/80008/AM17 subject to prescribed late cuts and the condition that (Action: RAlApplicant) PH Case No.03: MIs. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/841/AM19/PRC Subject: To allow Chapter-3 incentive (FPS/FMS) against RA F.No.27/21/087/80007/AM17 for the export made by EOU unit. The applicant hearing as per the decision of PRC in its but no one appeared on behalf of the firm. The Committee decided the case as per the justification They have applied for FMS/FPS licenses under Chapter-3 incentives scheme to the 010 the D.C. SEEPZ, Mumbai for the export made during AM15 period. Their under Chapter-3 of FTP 2015-20 and no other Incentive Scheme under Chapter-3 for the under for the Year 2014-15. to RA Mumbai of AM 15 in 2017 was due to various technical issues they had with EDI Cell with respect to VFFM Tickle-BRC to the application. these issues with support from EDI Cell & could submit these application successfully. 3

as due to various technical issues they had with EDI Cell with respect to VFFM Tickle-BRC to the application. these issues with support from EDI Cell & could submit these application successfully. 3

Decision: The Committee and be filed to RA and not to SEZ. The Committee decided to accede to the request of the firm for grant of Chapter-3 benefit (FPS/FMS) against RA File No. 27/21/087/80007/AM17 subject to prescribed late cuts and the condition that (Action: RAlApplicant) PH Case No.04: MIs. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/845/AM19/PRC Subject: To allow Chapter-3 incentive (FPS/FMS) against RA F.No.27/21/087/80004/AM18 for the export made by EOU unit. The applicant hearing as per the decision of PRC in its but no one appeared on behalf of the firm. The Committee decided the case as per the justification 0/0 the D.C. SEEPZ, Mumbai for the export made during AM15 period. Their under Chapter-3 of FTP 2015-20 and no other Incentive Scheme under Chapter-3 for the under for the Year 2014-15. to RA Mumbai issues they had with EDI Cell with respect to VFFM Tick/e-BRC to the application. these issues with support from EDI Cell & could submit these application successfully. Decision: The Committee and be filed to RA and not to SEZ. The Committee decided to accede to the request of the firm for grant of Chapter-3 benefit (FPS/FMS) against RA File No. 27/21/087/80004/AM18 subject to prescribed late cuts and the condition that (Action: RAlApplicant) PH Case No.05: MIs. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/846/AM19/PRC 4

S) against RA File No. 27/21/087/80004/AM18 subject to prescribed late cuts and the condition that (Action: RAlApplicant) PH Case No.05: MIs. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/846/AM19/PRC 4

Subject: To allow Chapter-3 incentive (FPS/FMS) against RA F.No.27/21/087/80002/AM18 for the export made by EOU unit. The applicant hearing as per the decision of PRC in its but no one appeared on behalf of the firm. The Committee decided the case as per the justification 010 the D.C. SEEPZ, Mumbai for the export made during AM15 period. Their under Chapter-3 of FTP 2015-20 and no other Incentive Scheme under Chapter-3 for the under for the Year 2014-15. to RA Mumbai issues they had with EDI Cell with respect to VFFM Tick/e-BRC to the application. these issues with support from EDI Cell & could submit these application successfully. Decision: The Committee and be filed to RA and not to SEZ. The Committee decided to accede to the request of the firm for grant of Chapter-3 benefit (FPS/FMS) against RA File No. 27/21/087/80002/AM18 subject to prescribed late cuts and the condition that (Action: RA/Applicant) PH Case No.06: MIs. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/844/AM19/PRC Subject: To allow Chapter-3 incentive (FPS/FMS) against RA F.No.27/21/087/80003/AM18 for the export made by EOU unit. The applicant hearing as per the decision of PRC in its but no one appeared on behalf of the firm. The Committee decided the case as per the justification 010 the D.C.

or the export made by EOU unit. The applicant hearing as per the decision of PRC in its but no one appeared on behalf of the firm. The Committee decided the case as per the justification 010 the D.C. SEEPZ, Mumbai for the export made during AM15 period. Their under Chapter-3 of FTP 2015-20 and no other Incentive Scheme under Chapter-3 for the under 5

__ ~

for
the Year 2014-15.
to RA Mumbai
issues they had with EDI Cell with respect to VFFM Tickle-BRC
to the application.
these
issues
with
support
from
EDI
Cell
&
could
submit
these
application
successfully.
Decision:
The Committee
and
be filed to RA and not to SEZ. The Committee
decided to accede to the request of
the
firm
for
grant
of
Chapter-3
benefit
(FPS/FMS)
against
RA
File
No.
27/21/087/80003/AM18
subject
to
prescribed
late
cuts
and
the
condition
that
(Action:
RAlApplicant)
PH Case No.07:
Mis. Sandoz
Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
F. No.
01/60/162/843/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To
allow
Chapter-3
incentive
(FPS/FMS)
against
RA
F.No.27/21/087/80001/AM18
for the export
made by EOU unit.
The applicant
hearing as per the decision
of PRC in its
but no one appeared
on behalf
of the firm.
The
Committee
decided
the case
as per the justification
0/0 the
D.C.

or the export
made by EOU unit.
The applicant
hearing as per the decision
of PRC in its
but no one appeared
on behalf
of the firm.
The
Committee
decided
the case
as per the justification
0/0 the
D.C. SEEPZ,
Mumbai
for the export
made
during
AM15
period.
Their
under
Chapter-3 of FTP 2015-20
and no other Incentive Scheme under Chapter-3 for the
under
for
the Year 2014-15.
to RA Mumbai
issues they had with EDI Cell with respect to VFFM Tickle-BRC
to the application.
these
issues
with
support
from
EDI
Cell
&
could
submit
these
application
successfully.
Decision:
The Committee
and
be filed to RA and not to SEZ. The Committee decided to accede to the request of
the
firm.
for
grant
of
Chapter-3
benefit
(FPS/FMS)
against
RA
File
No.
~~L-
6
__
1
_

27/21/087/80001/AM18
subject
to
prescribed
late
cuts
and
the
condition
that
(Action: RAlApplicant)
PH Case No.08:
MIs. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
F. No.
01/60/162/883/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To
allow
Chapter-3
incentive
(FPS/FMS)
against
RA
F.No.27/21/087/80005/AM18
for the export made by EOU unit.
The applicant
hearing as per the decision
of PRC in its
but no one appeared
on behalf
of the firm. The
Committee
decided
the case
as per the justification
0/0 the
D.C.

or the export made by EOU unit.
The applicant
hearing as per the decision
of PRC in its
but no one appeared
on behalf
of the firm. The
Committee
decided
the case
as per the justification
0/0 the
D.C. SEEPZ,
Mumbai
for the export
made
during
AM15
period.
Their
under
Chapter-3 of FTP 2015-20
and no other Incentive Scheme under Chapter-3 for the
under
for
the Year 2014-15.
to RA Mumbai
issues they had with EDI Cell with respect to VFFM Tick/e-BRC
to the application.
these
issues
with
support
from
EDI
Cell
&
could
submit
these
application
successfully.
Decision: The Committee
and
be filed to RA and not to SEZ. The Committee decided to accede to the request of
the
firm
for
grant
of
Chapter-3
benefit
(FPS/FMS)
against
RA
File
No.
27/21/087/80005/AM18
subject
to
prescribed
late
cuts
and
the
condition
that
(Action: RAlApplicant)
PH Case No.09:
MIs. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
F. No.
01/60/162/882/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To
allow
Chapter-3
incentive
(FPS/FMS)
against
RA
F.No.27/21/087/80005/AM17
for the export made by EOU unit.
~~l
__
7

Case No.09:
MIs. Sandoz Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
F. No.
01/60/162/882/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To
allow
Chapter-3
incentive
(FPS/FMS)
against
RA
F.No.27/21/087/80005/AM17
for the export made by EOU unit.
~~l
__
7

The applicant
hearing as per the decision
of PRC in its
but no one appeared
on behalf
of the firm.
The
Committee
decided
the case
as per the justification
010
the
D.C.
SEEPZ,
Mumbai
for the export
made
during
AM15
period.
Their
under
Chapter-3 of FTP 2015-20 and no other Incentive Scheme
under Chapter-3 for the
under
for
the Year 2014-15.
Prior to this they were submitting
their application
to RA Mumbai
issues they had with EDI Cell with respect to VFFM Tickle-BRC
to the application.
these
issues
with
support
from
EDI
Cell
&
could
submit
these
application
successfully.
and
be filed to RA and not to SEZ. The Committee decided to accede to the request of
the
firm
for
grant
of
Chapter-3
benefit
(FPS/FMS)
against
RA
File
No.
27/21/087/80005/AM17
subject
to
prescribed
late
cuts
and
the
condition
that
(Action: RAlApplicant)
PH Case No.10:
MIs Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai
F. No.
01/60/162/633/AM19/PRC
PRC Meeting No.

27/21/087/80005/AM17
subject
to
prescribed
late
cuts
and
the
condition
that
(Action: RAlApplicant)
PH Case No.10:
MIs Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai
F. No.
01/60/162/633/AM19/PRC
PRC Meeting No. 01/AM20
dated 02.04.2019
Subject:
Change
in
duty
credit
entitlement
under
MEIS
due
to
wrong
finalization
of Foreign Currency
of export in US$ instead of EURO at the time
of final assessment
of shipping bill.
The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020,
which was afforded
on 02.04.2019.
Shri Ashutosh
Verma, Vice President
(EXIM)
appeared
before
the
committee
on
behalf
of the
firm
and
made
the
following
submissions:
They have exported
benzene
vide shipping
bill no. 7330839
dated
13.07.2017
in
"EURO" currency on provisional
basis as quantity and pricing were not final at the
time
of export
but when
they
approached
customs
authority
for finalization
of
shipping bill, Customs authority due to oversight finalized the shipping bill with wrong
foreign currency "USD" instead of EURO. When they approached
Sikka Customs for
correction of the same, Customs authority issued certificate of amendment
manually
stating that amendment
in EDI system is not possible once EGM is filed. Due to this
shipping bill data in USD has been transmitted
to DGFT server which should be in
~OM\.---
8

of amendment
manually
stating that amendment
in EDI system is not possible once EGM is filed. Due to this
shipping bill data in USD has been transmitted
to DGFT server which should be in
~OM\.---
8

EURO actually.
They have realized the export proceeds in EURO and not in USD.
Since both, the foreign currency have different exchange rate for arriving FOB in INR
on
which
MEIS
benefit
is
calculated
which
is adversely
affecting
their
MEIS
entitlement.
Decision:
The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and discussed the
matter at length and decided to accede to the request of the firm for change in duty
credit entitlement
under MEIS due to wrong finalization of Foreign Currency of export
in US$ instead of EURO at the time of final assessment
of Shipping bill NO.7330839
dated 13.07.2017.
It was also decided that EDI/NIC division would develop required
Protocol in this regard.
(Action:
EDI/NIC/Applicant)
PH Case No.11:
Mis Reliance
Industries
Limited,
Mumbai
F.

30839
dated 13.07.2017.
It was also decided that EDI/NIC division would develop required
Protocol in this regard.
(Action:
EDI/NIC/Applicant)
PH Case No.11:
Mis Reliance
Industries
Limited,
Mumbai
F. No.
01/60/162/919/AM19/PRC
Subject:
Grant of duty credit
under MEIS.
which was afforded
on 02.04.2019.
Shri Ashutosh
Verma,
Vice President
(EXIM)
appeared
before
the
committee
on
behalf
of the firm
and
made
the following
submissions:
They have stated that they are unable to file MEIS application
due to ITC HS code
39076100
1 39076920
1 39076990
139076910
being missed out in the DGFT Public
Notice No 61 dated ih March 2017.
These
codes were
later made eligible wef
1.1.2017 as per PN 22.8.2017.
Decision:
The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and discussed the
matter at length and decided to allow the firm to file application for grant of duty credit
under MEIS against
the shipping
bills exported
under ITC HS codes
39076100
1
39076920/39076990
139076910
and where reward column is "NO" due to change in
Indian Trade Classification
(Harmonized
System) from 01.01.2017.
A Protocol may
be developed by PC 3 division and EDI/NIC in this regard.
(Action:
PC 3/EDI/NIC/Applicant)
PH Case No.12:
Mis ABS Exports,
Maharashtra
F. No.
01/60/162/786/AM19/PRC
Subject:
Acceptance
of e BRC for FPSNKGUY
and MEIS benefit
which
was
uploaded
delay by their
bankers.
Decision:
The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP,
2015-2020, which was afforded on 02.04.2019, but no one appeared on behalf of the
firm. The Committee decided to defer the case.
-
9

plicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP,
2015-2020, which was afforded on 02.04.2019, but no one appeared on behalf of the
firm. The Committee decided to defer the case.
-
9

(Action: Applicant)
PH Case No.13:
MIs. Sanjay Kumar & Sons, Delhi
F. No.
01/60/162/770/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To allow FPSNKGUY
and ME IS benefit against shipping
bill pertain
to 2013-14,
2014-15
and 2015-16
for which
payments
have been realized
on
time but the e BRC have been uploaded by the bank in 2017, 2018.
Decision:
The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP,
2015-2020, which was afforded on 02.04.2019,
but no one appeared on behalf of the
firm. The Committee decided to defer the case.
(Action: Applicant)
PH Case No.14:
MIs. Vikash Arora, Punjab
F. No.
01/60/162/769/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To allow FPSNKGUY
and MEIS benefit against shipping
bill pertain
to 2013-14,
2014-15
and 2015-16
for which
payments
have been realized
on
time but the e BRC have been uploaded by the bank 2017,2018.
Decision:
The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP,
2015-2020, which was afforded on 02.04.2019, but no one appeared on behalf of the
firm. The Committee decided to defer the case.
(Action: Applicant)
PH Case No.15:
MIs Wakeel Ahmed Sitapur, U P
F.

P,
2015-2020, which was afforded on 02.04.2019, but no one appeared on behalf of the
firm. The Committee decided to defer the case.
(Action: Applicant)
PH Case No.15:
MIs Wakeel Ahmed Sitapur, U P
F. No.
01/60/162/772/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To allow FPSNKGUYand
MEIS benefit against shipping
bills pertain
to 2014-15 which
payments
have been realized
on time but the e BRC have
been uploaded by the bank in 2017, 2018.
Decision:
The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP,
2015-2020, which was afforded on 02.04.2019, but no one appeared on behalf of the
firm. The Committee decided to defer the case.
(Action: Applicant)
PH Case No.16:
MIs Batra International,
Delhi
F. No.
01/60/162/771/AM19/PRC
10

Subject:
To allow FPSNKGUY
and MEIS benefit against shipping
bill pertain
to 2013-14,
2014-15
and 2015-16
for which
payments
have been realized
on
time but the e BRC have been uploaded by the bank in 2017, 2018.
Decision:
The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP,
2015-2020, which was afforded on 02.04.2019, but no one appeared on behalf of the
firm. The Committee decided to defer the case.
(Action: Applicant)
PH Case No.17:
MIs Chirag Impex, Ahmedabad
F.

FTP,
2015-2020, which was afforded on 02.04.2019, but no one appeared on behalf of the
firm. The Committee decided to defer the case.
(Action: Applicant)
PH Case No.17:
MIs Chirag Impex, Ahmedabad
F. No.
01/60/162/768/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To allow FPSNKGUY
and MEIS benefit against shipping
bill pertain
to 2013-14,
2014-15
and 2015-16
for which
payments
have been realized
on
time but the e BRC have been uploaded by the bank in 2017, 2018.
Decision:
The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP,
2015-2020, which was afforded on 02.04.2019, but no one appeared on behalf of the
firm. The Committee decided to defer the case.
(Action: Applicant)
PH Case No.18:
MIs
Ball Aerocan India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad
F. No.
01/60/162/904/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To allow MEIS benefit against 91 shipping bills in which inadvertently
selected "N" instead of 'V' in shipping bills at tab of reward scheme.
which was afforded
on 02.04.2019.
Shri Ajith Kumar, Director appeared
before the
committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions:
They have stated that their all 91 shipping bills have inadvertently
been ticked "N" in
the reward item box. Due to this they are unable to file their 91 Shipping
Bills for
MEIS benefit.
having examined
the statement
made by the firm found
no merit in their case and decided to reject it.
(Action: Applicant)
PH Case No.19:
MIs Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai
F. No.
01/60/162/918/AM19/PRC
11

examined
the statement
made by the firm found
no merit in their case and decided to reject it.
(Action: Applicant)
PH Case No.19:
MIs Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai
F. No.
01/60/162/918/AM19/PRC
11

Subject:
EOP extension,
regularization
the procedural lapses in installing the
goods in different
vendors
locations
whose names were not endorsed
and
regularization
of imported
Capital Goods against
12 EPCG License Nos. (i)
0430010918 dated 02.03.2012, (ii) 0430010946 dated 09.03.2012, (iii) 0430010988
dated 21.03.2012, (iv) 0430010939 dated
08.03.2012, (v) 0430010931 dated
06.03.2012,
(vi)
0430010989
dated
21.03.2012,
(vii)
0430011130
dated
23.04.2012,
(viii)
0430011131
dated
23.04.2012,
(ix)
0430011132
dated
23.04.2012, (x) 0430010440 dated 28.10.2011, (xi) 0430010441 dated 28.10.2011
and (xii) 0430010442 dated 28.10.2011.
which was afforded
on 02.04.2019.
Shri Alok Agarwal,
Authorized
Representative
appeared
before
the
committee
on
behalf
of the
firm
and
made
the following
submissions:
They have stated that the imported capital goods covered under the above 12 EPCG
Authorizations
were installed
at the premises of the Group Company.
As such the
goods
were
not
installed
at
the
notified
place
concerning
the
12
EPCG
Authorizations.
Further, stated that they could not be fulfill the EO within time due to
issues between joint venture partners (Ashok Leyland and Nissan Motors).

notified
place
concerning
the
12
EPCG
Authorizations.
Further, stated that they could not be fulfill the EO within time due to
issues between joint venture partners (Ashok Leyland and Nissan Motors). Now, the
JV Company
has been merged
with Ashok
Leyland,
as approved
by NCLT and
consequently the assets and liability now belong to Ashok Leyland, and therefore EO
would
also
be completed
by Ashok
Leyland.
Goods
covered
under
the
above
Authorizations
are available
in good condition and EO can be fulfilled in full against
all these licenses.
Decision:
The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and discussed the
matter at length and decided
to condone
and regularize
the earlier
installation
of
Capital
Goods
at the place not approved
in above
12 EPCG Authorizations
and
allowed to shift the Capital
Goods to the factory
premises
of MIs Ashok
Leyland
Limited. Further committee also allowed extension in EOP for a further period of two
years in continuity against above 12 EPCG Authorizations.
(Action: ApplicantlRA)
PH Case No.20: MIs High Performance Textiles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
F. No.
01/60/162/919/AM19/PRC
dated 02.04.2019
Subject:
To count the export of free shipping
bill towards
fulfillment
of EO
against four Advance Authorization
Nos.(i) 0510404841 dated 11.12.2017, (ii)
0510405268 dated
08.01.2018, (iii)
0510405269 dated
08.01.2016 and
(iv)
0510405785 dated 06.03.2018.
which was afforded on 02.04.2019.
Dr. Nandan Kumar, Managing
Director and Shri
Ramesh, Representative
appeared
before the committee
on behalf of the firm and
made the following submissions:
12

2018.
which was afforded on 02.04.2019.
Dr. Nandan Kumar, Managing
Director and Shri
Ramesh, Representative
appeared
before the committee
on behalf of the firm and
made the following submissions:
12

They have stated that they had completed
the export obligation
within time period.
But at the time of export online data, their clearing agent who prepared shipping bills
could not get the advance license number since it was showing error. They exported
HOPE Yarn (made of Imported Yarn and other raw material) under normal shipping
bills because they could not hold the shipment.
This happened
every time against
invoice of these advance
authorizations.
They also tried to get the permission
for
manual shipping
bills, but there was no such provision.
They have mentioned
the
Advance Authorization
Numbers on all the free shipping bills.
Decision:
The Committee
made by the applicant and
observed that there is a genuine hardship in the case and therefore decided to count
the export
of Free Shipping
Bills towards
fulfillment
of EO against
four Advance
Authorisations
nos.(i)
0510404841
dated
11.12.2017,
(ii)
0510405268
dated
08.01.2018,
(iii)
0510405269
dated
08.01.2016
and
(iv)
0510405785
dated
06.03.2018
subject to the following conditions:-
I.
Composition
fee of Rs.200/-per shipping bill shall be imposed.
ii.
Advance
Authorization
number should be mentioned
in all free shipping
bills.
iii.
RA shall ensure that above shipping bills have not been taken into account
in any other Advance Authorization
for discharge of export obligation.
(Action: RAlApplicant)
PH Case No.21 :

ng
bills.
iii.
RA shall ensure that above shipping bills have not been taken into account
in any other Advance Authorization
for discharge of export obligation.
(Action: RAlApplicant)
PH Case No.21 :
MIs Calco Poly Technik Pvt. Ltd., Delhi
F. No.
01/60/162/896/AM19/PRC
dated 02.04.2019
Subject:
Relaxation
in payment of import duty against Advance Authorization
No.05103585 dated 02.07.2016.
which was afforded
on 02.04.2019.
Shri Harish Gulati, Authorized
Representative
appeared
before
the
committee
on
behalf
of the
firm
and
made
the
following
submissions:
They have made the export of the consignment
under the same license but till the
date they could not receive the payment
against the subject
license, because the
buyer was declared bankrupt by the concerned Government.
Apart from that all the
obligations have been fulfilled by them.
heard the submission
made by the firm and discussed the
matter at length and found no merit in the case as firm has not even approached
RBI
for any waiver
of realization
etc. so far. Accordingly,
it decided
to reject
it. The
applicant is directed to get the case regularized in terms of Para 4.49 of HBP, 2015-
2010 within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.
PH Case No.22:
MIs Jans Copper Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
~~L
13
--

d to get the case regularized in terms of Para 4.49 of HBP, 2015-
2010 within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.
PH Case No.22:
MIs Jans Copper Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
~~L
13
--

F. No.
01/60/162/713/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To
allow
exports
under
specific
SION
(C-1185,
C-1890,
C-1184)
against
Advance
Authorization
No.0310738123
dated
19.06.2013
for
redemption
purpose
whereas
the import already
been made
under
generic
SION -1184.
which was afforded
on 02.04.2019.
Shri Naresh P. Jain, Director and Shri Ashish
Khetan, Representative
appeared
before the committee
on behalf of the firm and
made the following submissions:
They
have
stated
that
they
have
made
exports
of
same
&
similar
products
manufactured
out of one common input imported under one advance authorization.
They had imported copper scrap & exported Copper Strip, Copper bar & Copper rods
under generic SION C-1184. They submit that their application for allowing exports of
other products manufactured
by using common input i.e copper scrap import under
same
advance
license
under
specific
SION,
may be accepted.
They
have used
generic SION C-1184
of extruded
products
rather than specific
SION i.e SION C-
1185, C-1890, C 1184. All their exports are of copper extruded products only.

ific
SION,
may be accepted.
They
have used
generic SION C-1184
of extruded
products
rather than specific
SION i.e SION C-
1185, C-1890, C 1184. All their exports are of copper extruded products only. Hence,
requested to regularize export under specific SION for the purpose of redemption.
Decision:
The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and discussed the
matter at length and decided to accede to the request of the firm and regularized the
exports made under specific
SIONs (C-1185,C-1890,C-1184)
towards fulfillment
of
EO against Advance
Authorization
NO.0310738123
dated 19.06.2013
whereas
the
import has been made under generic SION C-1184.The
wastage will be allowed as
per different SIONs based on whatever quantities pertaining to that particular SIONs
have been exported by the firm. The firm shall submit breakup of exported quantities
of different export items with SION number duly certified by Chartered Engineer.
(Action: RAiApplicant)
PH Case No.23:
Mis Arihant Corporation,
Pune
F. No.
01/60/162/864/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To accept
manual
BRC in lieu of e-BRC
for refund to TED claim
against EPCG Authorization
No.3130008861
dated 25.08.2015.
which was afforded
on 02.04.2019.
Shri Sanjay Jain, Director,
Shri Brijesh Mishra
and Shri K.L. Prajapati, Representatives
appeared before the committee on behalf of
the firm and made the following submissions:
They have stated that the concerned
Bank is not issuing e-BRC.
Bank can issue
BRC to Accudyne
Industries India Pvt. Ltd only.

e the committee on behalf of
the firm and made the following submissions:
They have stated that the concerned
Bank is not issuing e-BRC.
Bank can issue
BRC to Accudyne
Industries India Pvt. Ltd only. They approached
that company also
to cooperate them in this regard but that firm is not cooperating.
The company said
they sold their company to another party who has further sold it to other. They are not
~~L--
14

customer of the concerned
bank that is why the bank is not helping them. They have
only manual BRC.
and
concluded
that there is a genuine
hardship
in their case and therefore
decided to
accede to the request of the firm for allowing the refund of TED claim against EPCG
Authorization
No. 3130008861
dated 25.08.2015
on the basis of Manual BRC. The
firm shall submit some corroborative
documents
in original from their bank towards
proof of payment.
PH Case No.24:
MIs Arihant Corporation,
Pune
F. No.
01/60/162/865/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To accept
manual
BRC in lieu of e-BRC
for refund
of TED claim
against EPCG Authorization
No.3130008862
dated 25.08.2015.
which was afforded
on 02.04.2019.
Shri Sanjay Jain, Director, Shri Brijesh Mishra
and Shri K.L. Prajapati, Representatives
appeared before the committee on behalf of
the firm and made the following submissions:
They have stated that the concerned
Bank is not issuing e-BRC.
Bank can issue
BRC to Accudyne
Industries India Pvt. Ltd only. They approached
that company also
to cooperate them in this regard but that firm is not cooperating.
The company said
they sold their company to another party who has further sold it to other.

only. They approached
that company also
to cooperate them in this regard but that firm is not cooperating.
The company said
they sold their company to another party who has further sold it to other. They are not
customer of the concerned
bank that is why the bank is not helping them. They have
only manual BRC.
and
concluded
that there is a genuine
hardship in their case and therefore
decided to
accede to the request of the firm for allowing the refund of TED claim against
EPCG
Authorization
No. 3130008862
dated 25.08.2015
on the basis of Manual BRC. The
firm shall submit some corroborative
documents
in original from their bank towards
proof of payment.
PH Case No.25:
MIs Arihant Corporation,
Pune
F. No.
01/60/162/868/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To accept
manual
BRC in lieu of e-BRC
for refund
of TED claim
against EPCG Authorization
No.3130008856
dated 24.08.2015.
which was afforded
on 02.04.2019.
Shri Sanjay Jain, Director,
Shri Brijesh Mishra
15
~~\.
_

and Shri K.L. Prajapati, Representatives
appeared before the committee on behalf of
the firm and made the following submissions:
They have stated that the concerned
Bank is not issuing e-BRC.
Bank can issue
BRC to Accudyne
Industries India Pvt. Ltd only. They approached
that company also
to cooperate them in this regard but that firm is not cooperating.
The company said
they sold their company to another party who has further sold it to other. They are not
customer of the concerned
bank that is why the bank is not helping them.

m is not cooperating.
The company said
they sold their company to another party who has further sold it to other. They are not
customer of the concerned
bank that is why the bank is not helping them. They have
only manual BRC.
and
concluded
that there is a genuine
hardship
in their case and therefore
decided to
accede to the request of the firm for allowing the refund of TED claim against EPCG
Authorization
No. 3130008856
dated 24.08.2015
on the basis of Manual BRC. The
firm shall submit some corroborative
documents
in original from their bank towards
proof of payment.
PH Case No.26:
MIs Arihant Corporation,
Pune
F. No.
01/60/162/869/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To accept
manual
BRC in lieu of e BRC for refund
of TED claim
against EPCG Authorization
No.3130008863
dated 25.08.2015.
which was afforded
on 02.04.2019.
Shri Sanjay Jain, Director, Shri Brijesh Mishra
and Shri K.L. Prajapati, Representatives
appeared before the committee on behalf of
the firm and made the following submissions:
They have stated that the concerned
Bank is not issuing e-BRC.
Bank can issue
BRC to Accudyne
Industries India Pvt. Ltd only. They approached
that company also
to cooperate them in this regard but that firm is not cooperating.
The company said
they sold their company to another party who has further sold it to other. They are not
customer of the concerned
bank that is why the bank is not helping them.

m is not cooperating.
The company said
they sold their company to another party who has further sold it to other. They are not
customer of the concerned
bank that is why the bank is not helping them. They have
only manual BRC.
and
concluded
that there is a genuine
hardship
in their case and therefore
decided to
accede to the request of the firm for allowing the refund of TED claim against EPCG
Authorization
No. 3130008863
dated 25.08.2015
on the basis of Manual BRC. The
firm shall submit some corroborative
documents
in original from their bank towards
proof of payment.
PH Case No.27:
MIs Arihant Corporation,
Pune
~Ci.M\...
~
16

F. No.
01/60/162/866/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To accept manual BRC lieu of e-BRC for refund of TED claim against
EPCG Authorization
No.3130008855
dated 24.08.2015.
which was afforded
on 02.04.2019.
Shri Sanjay Jain, Director,
Shri Brijesh Mishra
and Shri K.L. Prajapati, Representatives
appeared before the committee on behalf of
the firm and made the following submissions:
They have stated that the concerned
Bank is not issuing e-BRC.
Bank can issue
BRC to Accudyne
Industries India Pvt. Ltd only. They approached
that company also
to cooperate them in this regard but that firm is not cooperating.
The company said
they sold their company to another party who has further sold it to other. They are not
customer of the concerned
bank that is why the bank is not helping them.

m is not cooperating.
The company said
they sold their company to another party who has further sold it to other. They are not
customer of the concerned
bank that is why the bank is not helping them. They have
only manual BRC.
and
concluded
that there is a genuine
hardship
in their case and therefore
decided to
accede to the request of the firm for allowing the refund of TED claim against EPCG
Authorization
No. 3130008855
dated 24.08.2015
on the basis of Manual BRC. The
firm shall submit some corroborative
documents
in original from their bank towards
proof of payment.
PH Case No.28:
MIs Arihant Corporation,
Pune
F. No.
01/60/162/867/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To accept manual BRC lieu of e BRC for refund of TED claim against
EPCG Authorization
No.3130008854
dated 24.08.2015.
which was afforded
on 02.04.2019.
Shri Sanjay Jain, Director,
Shri Brijesh Mishra
and Shri K.L. Prajapati, Representatives
appeared before the committee on behalf of
the firm and made the following submissions:
They have stated that the concerned
Bank is not issuing e-BRC.
Bank can issue
BRC to Accudyne
Industries India Pvt. Ltd only. They approached
that company also
to cooperate them in this regard but that firm is not cooperating.
The company said
they sold their company to another party who has further sold it to other. They are not
customer of the concerned
bank that is why the bank is not helping them. They have
only manual BRC.
and
concluded
that there is a genuine
hardship
in their case and therefore
decided to
~QM'---
17

t
customer of the concerned
bank that is why the bank is not helping them. They have
only manual BRC.
and
concluded
that there is a genuine
hardship
in their case and therefore
decided to
~QM'---
17

accede to the request of the firm for allowing the refund of TED claim against EPCG
Authorization
No. 3130008854
dated 24.08.2015
on the basis of Manual BRC. The
firm shall submit some corroborative
documents
in original from their bank towards
proof of payment.
PH Case No.29:
MIs Celebi Airport Service India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
F. No.
01/60/162/863(b)/AM19/PRC
Subject:
Regularization
of
import
already
made
under
EPCG
License
NO.0530151353 dated 23.02.2010.
which was afforded
on 02.04.2019.
Shri Laxman K. Prasad, Chief Finance Officer,
Shri
Shailender
Choudhary,
Legal
Head
and
Shri
Adil
Bhatt,
Technical
Head
appeared
before
the
committee
on
behalf
of the firm
and
made
the following
submissions:
They imported Contrac Co-bus for rendering ground handling services in the airport
premises
against
the EPCG
Licenses.
It is imperative
to note that based on the
EPCG License issued by this office, they imported the Contrac Co-bus and have also
fulfilled the 100% Export Obligations
imposed on the said EPCG Licenses.

It is imperative
to note that based on the
EPCG License issued by this office, they imported the Contrac Co-bus and have also
fulfilled the 100% Export Obligations
imposed on the said EPCG Licenses. However,
now at the time of redeeming the EPCG Licenses, they are being asked to pay the
Customs
Duty on the grounds that the EPCG benefits were not allowed for ground
handling
services
even though
there were
no such
restrictions
in the FTP/HBP.
Further, they mentioned
that EPCG Committee
vide its meeting
dated 20.01.2011
has examined
the
issue
of import
of Co-bus
to MIs.
Bhadra
International
India
Limited and confirmed
that the equipment
were essentially
required
for providing
ground handling services at Airports as the specifications
of the vehicles are entirely
different from the conventional
vehicles and that these vehicles cannot ply on road
and cannot
be used for purposes
other than those
required
for ground
handling
services within the premises of the Airport.
Decision:
The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and discussed the
matter at length and decided to accede to the request of the firm for regularization
of
import of Contrac Co-bus already made under EPCG Authorization
No.0530151353
dated 23.02.2010.
(Action. RAlApplicant)
PH Case No.30:
MIs Celebi Airport Service India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
F. No.
01/60/162/863(a)/AM19/PRC
Subject:
Regularization
of
import
already
made
under
EPCG
License
NO.0330023006 dated
11.09.2009.
18

H Case No.30:
MIs Celebi Airport Service India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
F. No.
01/60/162/863(a)/AM19/PRC
Subject:
Regularization
of
import
already
made
under
EPCG
License
NO.0330023006 dated
11.09.2009.
18

which was afforded
on 02.04.2019.
Shri Laxman K. Prasad, Chief Finance Officer,
Shri
Shailender
Choudhary,
Legal
Head
and
Shri
Adil
Bhatt,
Technical
Head
appeared
before
the
committee
on
behalf
of the firm
and
made
the following
submissions:
They imported Contrac Co-bus for rendering ground handling services in the airport
premises
against
the EPCG
Licenses.
It is imperative
to note that based on the
EPCG License issued by this office, they imported the Contrac Co-bus and have also
fulfilled the 100% Export Obligations
imposed on the said EPCG Licenses. However,
now at the time of redeeming the EPCG Licenses, they are being asked to pay the
Customs Duty on the grounds that the EPCG benefits were not allowed for ground
handling
services
even though
there were
no such
restrictions
in the FTP/HBP.
Further, they informed that EPCG Committee vide its meeting dated 20.01.2011
has
examined
the issue of import of Co-bus to MIs.

ng
services
even though
there were
no such
restrictions
in the FTP/HBP.
Further, they informed that EPCG Committee vide its meeting dated 20.01.2011
has
examined
the issue of import of Co-bus to MIs. Bhadra International
India Limited
and confirmed
that
the equipment
are essentially
required
for providing
ground
handling services at Airports as the specifications
of the vehicles are entirely different
from the conventional
vehicles and that these vehicles cannot ply on road and cannot
be used for purposes
other than those required for ground handling services within
the premises of the Airport.
Decision:
The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and discussed the
matter at length and decided to accede to the request of the firm for regularization
of
import of Contrac Co-bus already made under EPCG Authorization
No. 0330023006
dated 11.09.2009.
(Action: RAiApplicant)

## Case No.31:
MIs Hind Terminals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
F. No.
01/60/162/924/AM19/PRC
Subject:
To allow supplementary
claim under SEIS Scheme on eligible earning
which was inadvertently
not included in the application.
They have stated that during compilation
of the eligible
earnings
data, the newly
appointed executives
had made errors while selecting accounting
codes. Due to the
selection
of few earnings
accounting
codes,
only 6.40%
of the 2015-16
data got
captured
and 93.60%
of earnings
data remained
un-claimed
in the above
SEIS
application.
Later
on,
their
audit
team
pointed
out
this
discrepancy
to
the
management.
But they could not revise the application as SEIS ECOM-ONLINE
and
amendment
in Para
9/03
by PN 16 dated
28.06.2018
did not allow
revision
of
application
already filed for the year 2015-16. They are ready to accept a 10% late
cut on the unclaimed
amount in addition to 2% cut on the amount of supplementary
scrip as per para 9.03 of HBP. Further, stated that they have given a declaration that
they have not claimed any SEIS Duty Credit benefit on the un-claimed amount of the
2015-16 till date.
Decision:
The Committee
having discussed the case found no merit in it and hence
decided to reject the request of the firm.
19

(Action:
Applicant)

## Case No.32:
MIs Tesla Decor, Bhadohi (UP)
F. No.
01/60/162/926/AM19/PRC
dated 02.04.2019
Subject:
To allow time extension
for filling of MEIS application
against three
shipping
bills
No.5336198
dated
18.01.2016,
5336209
dated
18.01.2016
and
5336193 dated 18.01.2016.
They have stated that due to late payment by overseas buyer they are unable to file
MEIS application for the above three shipping bills for which they have to apply within
three years from the shipping bill date as per MEIS Scheme.
Decision: The Committee having examined the statement made by the firm found no
case of genuine hardship in their case and accordingly decided to reject it.
(Action:
Applicant)

## Case No.33:
MIs Welspun Corp Limited, Vadodara
F. No.
01/60/162/912/AM19/PRC
dated 02.04.2019
Subject:
Second
revalidation
of Advance Authorization
NO.3410042808
dated
03.01.2017.
They
have
stated
that
they
could
not complete
the
balance
import
as
Norms
Ratification was delayed by Eighteen Months. The subject advance authorization was
valid till 10.09.2018
and the
Norms
Ratification
received
on 12.11.2018.
Hence,
requested revalidation for further six months.
Decision: The committee went through the statements
made by the firm and noted
that there is no merit in the case and decided to reject the request of the firm.
(Action:
Applicant)

## Case No.34:
MIs Bharat Parenterals
Limited, Vadodara
F. No.
01/60/162/914/AM19/PRC
dated 02.04.2019
Subject:
Extension
in EOP against
Advance
Authorization
No.3410038791
dated 23.12.2013 issued under PC-9 condition.
They have stated that the shortfall in export was due to cancellation
of export order.
Further stated that due to payment problem with overseas buyer (payment terms:100
advance) and because
of late receipt of payment,
Merchant
Exporter could export
the product only after the validity of license (exported on 08.04.2015,
authorization
expired on 21.01.2015).
Hence, this export was done under free shipping bill.
~~\..
--
20

Decision:
The
Committee
went
through
the
statement
made
by the
firm
and
discussed the matter at length and found no merit in the case and hence decided to
reject it.
(Action:
Applicant)

## Case No.35:
MIs Bharat Parenterals
Limited, Vadodara
F. No.
01/60/162/915/AM19/PRC
Subject:
Regularization
of
Advance
Authorization
No.3410040293
dated
30.06.2015
under
which
.product
description
mismatch
between
advance
authorization
and shipping bills.
They have stated that description
mismatch of export item mentioned
in the subject
authorization
and shipping
bill is there
, but product
exported
is exactly
as per
advance authorization.
The said authorization
is not under PC 9. They imported 2100
kg of Amoxycillin
Trihydrate
BP out of which 2093.44 kg., was consumed for export,
leaving a balance of 6.56 kg. They had paid the customs duty with interest for this
excess RM. Hence, requested approval for regularization.
Decision:
The Committee
went through the justification
furnished
by the firm and
discussed the matter at length. The Committee decided to accede to the request of
the
firm
for
regularization
of
Product
description
mismatch
between
advance
authorization
and shipping bills, subject to the condition if wastage
Norms are same
for the exported product.
(Action:
ApplicantlRA)

## Case No.36:
MIs Bharat Parenterals
Limited, Vadodara
F. No.
01/60/162/913/AM19/PRC
Subject:
Regularization
of
Advance
Authorization
No.3410041467
dated
20.08.2015
under
which
product
description
mismatch
between
advance
authorization
and shipping bills.
They have stated that description
mismatch of export item mentioned
in the subject
authorization
and shipping bill. Instead of mentioning
generic name as per advance
authorization,
Band name followed by generic name was mentioned
in Shipping Bill.
Product was registered with importing country in brand name. But product exported is
qualitatively same as per advance authorization.
Decision:
The Committee
went through the justification
furnished
by the firm and
discussed the matter at length. The Committee decided to accede to the request of
the
firm
for
regularization
of
Product
description
mismatch
between
advance
authorization
and shipping bills subject to the condition if wastage
Norms are same
for the exported product.
-(Action:
ApplicantlRA)
21

## Case No.37:
Mis Jodas
Expoim
Pvt. Ltd., Telangana
F. No.
01/60/162/897/AM19/PRC
dated 02.04.2019
Subject:
Extension
in
E.O.
period
against
Advance
Authorization
No.0910061673
dated 09.03.2015 for regularization.
They have stated that customs
have allowed
shipment
of 250 kg on 12.02.2019
subject
to specific
condition
that post facto
approval
in EO extension
would
be
produced
immediately.
They
have
fulfilled
75.84%
EO. They
are
conscious
of
discharging EO.
Decision:
The
committee
went
through
the statement
made
by the firm
in its
application
and noted that the facts of the case have not been clearly specified
by
the firm and hence decided to call the firm for Personal
Hearing.
(Action:
PRC/Applicant)

## Case No.38:
Mis GE India Industrial
Pvt. Ltd., Pune
F. No.
01/60/162/920/AM19/PRC
dated 02.04.2019
Subject:
To
relax
the
requirement
for
furnishing
Bill
of
Exports
towards
fulfillment
of
EO
against
Advance
Authorization
No.3110065057
dated
13.11.2014.
They made exports
to a SEZ unit for fulfillment
of its EO. However,
inadvertently
missed
filing
the
Bill of
Export.
Hence,
requested
to
relax the
requirement
for
furnishing Bill of Export and documentary
evidence confirming that payment received
from Foreign Currency account of SEZ unit for the company.
Decision:
The committee went through the statements
made by the firm and noted
that bill of export
is a mandatory
requirement
and therefore
decided to reject the
request.
(Action:
Applicant)

## Case No.39:
Mis M.J. Biopharm
Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
F. No.
01/60/162/921/AM19/PRC
dated 02.04.2019
Subject:
To allow
re-export
of import
material
against
Advance
Authorization
No.031 0811588 dated 02.03.2017.
They have stated that the certificate was due for renewal for South African business,
which amounts to large business of Insulin. Their Auditors
had come to inspect their
plant. They however, come up with a few observations
and till the time the same is
not adhered to no further supplies can be made to this territory. Compliance
to their
.
22

queries might take some time and by that time, the shelf life of the imported goods
might expire and hence, they are requesting to grant them permission
to return the
goods to the supplier, who is willing to take back the same.
Decision:
The Committee
having examined
the case on the basis of justification
furnished by the firm decided to allow supply/re-export
of 20 kgs of import material,
back to 100% EOU MIs Scigen
Biopharma
Pvt. Ltd., Pune, which was procured
under
Advance
Authorization
No.0310811588
dated
02.03.2017,
subject
to the
condition that concerned
DC (SEZ) would also be informed about it.
(Action:
ApplicantlRA)

## Case No.40:
Mis M.J. Biopharm
Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
F. No.
01/60/162/931/AM19/PRC
dated 02.04.2019
Subject:
To allow
re-export
of import
material
against
Advance
Authorization
No.0310812298
dated 30.03.2017.
They have stated that, firstly due to cancellation
of order by overseas
buyer they
could not locate another buyer for quite a long time. Secondly, they could not tap the
South African territory, where they have a huge market for Insulin Injections, as the
Certificate
issued
by their
Health Authorities
was due to renewal
and during the
course of their Audit they raise several queries, compliance
of which will take long
time. Hence, they are left with no option but to return the imported
material to the
supplier, who has agreed to take back the same.
Decision:
The Committee
having examined the case on the basis of justification
furnished by the firm decided to allow supply/re-export
of 20 kgs of import material,
back to 100% EOU MIs Scigen
Biopharma
Pvt. Ltd., Pune, which was procured
under
Advance
Authorization
No.0310812298
dated
30.03.2017,
subject
to the
condition that concerned
DC (SEZ) would also be informed about it.
(Action:
ApplicantlRA)

## Case No.41:
Mis Mahesh Weaving
Factory,
Bangalore
F. No.
01/60/162/536/AM19/PRC
dated 02.04.2019
Subject:
Revalidation
and
enhancement
of
Advance
Authorization
No.071 0108557 dated 24.07.2015.
This is a review case of PRC decision in its Meeting No.22/AM19
dated 06.11.2018
(Case
No.5).
The
matter
was
referred
to
EDI/NIC
for
implementation
of
PRC
decision.
However,
EDI/NIC
has informed
that there
is no mechanism
to restore
cancelled
Advance
Authorizations.
Even if new license
is issued
under same file
number, Customs rejects such license.
23

Decision:
The Committee went through the comments Iviews furnished by EDI/NIC
and case was discussed
at length. The Committee observed that cancelled Advance
Authorization
cannot be restored. Hence, decided to reject the request of the firm.
(Action:
Applicant)

## Case No.42:
MIs Premier Global Corporate Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore
F. No.
01/85/171/0086/AM19/DES-VI
dated 02.04.2019
Subject:
Reconsideration
for fixation
of norms
of Advance
Authorization
No.0710111709
dated
05.06.2017
which
was
rejected
by NC in its meeting
No.16/85 dated 27.12.2018.
They have exported the goods to their buyer MIs Melenco Hong Kong Limited, Hong
Kong vide Shipping
Bill No.2553035
dated 31.01.2018.
They applied for fixation of
norms to close the transaction
to Norms Committee-VI
in its Meeting No.16/85
held
on 03.01.2019.
However, their application
has been rejected that they are ineligible.
Due to the inordinate delay in clearing the issue they are facing huge financial crisis.
Decision:
The committee went through the statements made by the firm and noted
that in this case Advance authorization
has been issued to the firm by RA under Para
4.07 of HBP for an item which
is not eligible as per para 4.11 of the FTP. Item
applied by the firm was Ascorbic Acid which in effect is Vitamin C and Vitamins fall
under ineligible category.NC
6 has rejected norms fixation on the ground that License
was not issuable in this case in the first place.

as Ascorbic Acid which in effect is Vitamin C and Vitamins fall
under ineligible category.NC
6 has rejected norms fixation on the ground that License
was not issuable in this case in the first place. Report has also been called form the
concerned
RA which
has replied that item sought for import is Ascorbic
Acid and
nowhere word Vitamin
is mentioned
and therefore,
application
was processed
in
normal routine and license issued.
Thus RA has no expertise
to ascertain
if item
applied
is Vitamin
or
not,
unless
it is specifically
indicated.
After
discussions,
Committee decided that issue of ineligible item in the authorization
is relaxed in view
of above reasons and NC 6 may reconsider its decision and fix the necessary norms
in this case.
(Action:
NC-6)
24