DGFT Minutes

I Date of Uploading IYJobit j I Directorate General of Foreign Trade (PRC Section) Minutes of the Policy Relaxation Committee Meeting held on 21.05.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri Alok Vardhan Chaturvedi, Director General of Foreign Trade Meeting No.06/AM20 held on 21.05.2019 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 Anil Aggarwal 6. Shri Rajbir Sharma Add!. DGFT Add!. DGFT Add!. DGFT Add!. DGFT Add!. DGFT Jt. 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 Cipla Limited, Mumbai 1 2. MIs Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai 2 3. MIs Simplify Growth Research and Consulting private 3 Limited, Delhi 4. MIs Aqripure Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd., Pune 4 5. MIs Cannon Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana 5 6. MIs Fitrite International, Delhi 6 7. MIs KEI Industries Limited, New Delhi 7 8. MIs India Voyage Travel Pundits Private Limited, 8 Haryana 9. MIs Salicylates and Chemicals Private Limited, 9 & 10 Hyderabad 10. MIs Shashi Cables Ltd., Lucknow 11 11. MIs Nico Extrusions Limited, Mumbai 12 12. MIs Infinijewel Synergies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 13 13. MIs Natural Capsules Limited, Bangalore 14 14. MIs Zydus Takeda Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 15 15. MIs Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited, Ahmedabad 16 to 18 16. MIs Indeus Life Science Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 19 17. MIs Panacea Biotec Ltd., New Delhi 20 18. MIs Milan Laboratories (India) Pvt.

Mumbai 15 15. MIs Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited, Ahmedabad 16 to 18 16. MIs Indeus Life Science Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 19 17. MIs Panacea Biotec Ltd., New Delhi 20 18. MIs Milan Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd., Thane 21 19. MIs Navratan Specialty Chemicals LLP, Ahmedabad 22 20. MIs South India Bromine and Allied Chemicals Pvt. 23 & 24 Ltd., Tuticorin 21. MIs K.K. Rubber Company (India) Private Limited, New 25 1

Delhi I 22. MIs PIEM Hotels Ltd. and Oriental Hotels Ltd., Mumbai 26 I PH Case No.01 Mis Cipla Limited, Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/102/AM20/PRC PRC Meeting No. 06/AM20 dated 21.05.2019 Subject: To allow supplementary claim of FPS benefit against the following 138 Shipping bills. L· t f h· b·11 . d t 01 042015 IS 0 5 ippm ~ I 5 Issue prior 0 51. S/Bili Dated 51. S/Bili Dated 51. S/Bili Dated No. No. No. No. No. No. 1 7468857 28-01-2015 36 7889784 18-02-2015 71 8543382 23-03-2015 2 7680740 07-02-2015 37 7915032 19-02-2015 72 8553951 24-03-2015 3 7707754 09-02-2015 38 7915323 19-02-2015 73 8597048 25-03-2015 4 7680777 07-02-2015 39 7991051 24-02-2015 74 8649077 27-03-2015 5 7680835 07-02-2015 40 8012024 24-02-2015 75 8649234 27-03-2015 6 7681021 07-02-2015 41 8012082 24-02-2015 76 8662467 28-03-2015 7 8385748 16-03-2015 42 8016410 25-02-2015 77 7801394 13-02-2015 8 8450861 18-03-2015 43 8016608 25-02-2015 78 7812457 14-02-2015 9 8496966 20-03-2015 44 8016658 25-02-2015 79 7812596 14-02-2015 10 7516267 30-01-2015 45 8058914 26-02-2015 80 7812740 14-02-2015 11 7516480 30-01-2015 46 8067928 27-02-2015 81 7812968 14-02-2015 12 7516785 30-01-2015 47 8150906 03-03-2015 82 7858616

6 14-02-2015 10 7516267 30-01-2015 45 8058914 26-02-2015 80 7812740 14-02-2015 11 7516480 30-01-2015 46 8067928 27-02-2015 81 7812968 14-02-2015 12 7516785 30-01-2015 47 8150906 03-03-2015 82 7858616 17-02-2015 13 7517121 30-01-2015 48 8386188 16-03-2015 83 7858938 17-02-2015 14 7517450 30-01-2015 49 7619574 04-02-2015 84 7859315 17-02-2015 15 7517634 30-01-2015 50 7666528 06-02-2015 85 8256652 09-03-2015 16 7553698 02-02-2015 51 7666551 06-02-2015 86 8059179 26-02-2015 17 7553756 02-02-2015 52 7680860 07-02-2015 87 8059265 26-02-2015 18 7553910 02-02-2015 53 7680913 07-02-2015 88 8150222 03-03-2015 19 7553971 02-02-2015 54 7680941 07-02-2015 89 8150738 03-03-2015 20 7554031 02-02-2015 55 7707968 09-02-2015 90 8152138 03-03-2015 21 7554097 02-02-2015 56 7716026 10-02-2015 91 8152158 03-03-2015 22 7619705 04-02-2015 57 7739653 11-02-2015 92 8152548 03-03-2015 23 7664303 06-02-2015 58 7740533 11-02-2015 93 8152737 03-03-2015 24 7666498 06-02-2015 59 7762152 12-02-2015 94 8207358 05-03-2015 25 7666543 06-02-2015 60 7762272 12-02-2015 95 8207359 05-03-2015 26 7666546 06-02-2015 61 7762365 12-02-2015 96 8207546 05-03-2015 27 7666547 06-02-2015 62 7776270 12-02-2015 97 8207555 05-03-2015 28 7680702 07-02-2015 63 7776389 12-02-2015 98 8207883 05-03-2015 29 7681029 07-02-2015 64 7776499 12-02-2015 99 8161186 03-03-2015 30 7707899 09-02-2015 65 7776572 12-02-2015 100 8196117 05-03-2015 31 7739299 11-02-2015 66 7801013 13-02-2015 101 8256354 09-03-2015 32 7739553 11-02-2015 67 7801245 13-02-2015 102 8256507 09-03-2015 33 7762046 12-02-2015 68 7801599 13-02-2015 103 8256801

5-03-2015 31 7739299 11-02-2015 66 7801013 13-02-2015 101 8256354 09-03-2015 32 7739553 11-02-2015 67 7801245 13-02-2015 102 8256507 09-03-2015 33 7762046 12-02-2015 68 7801599 13-02-2015 103 8256801 09-03-2015 2

34 7858784 17-02-2015 69 8500362 20-03-2015 35 8496999 20-03-2015 70 8500460 20-03-2015 L' t f hi bill ' d ft 01 042015 IS 0 s ippmq I s Issue on or a er s, S/Bili No. Dated S. S/Bili Dated No. No No. 1 8759475 01-04-2015 19 9552060 13-05-2015 2 9796706 25-05-2015 20 9597722 15-05-2015 3 8759502 01-04-2015 21 9597980 15-05-2015 4 8758084 01-04-2015 22 9773077 25-05-2015 5 8964286 13-04-2015 23 8759817 01-04-2015 6 8964354 13-04-2015 24 9664581 19-05-2015 7 8964793 13-04-2015 25 9598116 15-05-2015 8 8972398 13-04-2015 26 9624316 18-05-2015 9 8972870 13-04-2015 27 9627220 18-05-2015 10 9059011 17-04-2015 28 9928586 01-06-2015 11 9297435 29-04-2015 29 9951438 02-06-2015 12 9393957 05-05-2015 30 9952074 02-06-2015 13 9394024 05-05-2015 31 1040137 06-06-2015 14 9408548 06-05-2015 32 1005126 04-06-2015 15 9417057 06-05-2015 33 1059369 08-06-2015 16 9505177 11-05-2015 34 1059381 08-06-2015 17 9504099 11-05-2015 35 1162772 12-06-2015 18 9504974 11-05-2015 The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2,59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 21.05.2019, Shri Jignesh Ghelani, Partner appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have submitted that on receipt of additional export consideration, they had submitted an application for amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of the

and made the following submissions: They have submitted that on receipt of additional export consideration, they had submitted an application for amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Customs Act) to amend 138 shipping bills in order to increase the FOB value of export mentioned in the shipping bills. By virtue of the Certificate of Amendment issued vide F.No. S/6-Amend 605/2017-18 MCD (X), ACC, they have been allowed to amend and file 138 shipping bills in order to increase the FOB value in consequence of additional export consideration received by them. Pursuant to the receipt of additional export consideration and amendment of shipping bills, the company filed application in form ANF 3C for claiming supplementary claim of Focus Product Scheme (FPS) on additional export consideration received by them in terms of Para 3.11.13 (b) of HBP 2009-2014. They also informed that the applications for supplementary claims filed by them are approved by the Regional Authority (RA), but the supplementary claims are not disbursed due to lack of facility to amend 1 enhance the Shipping bills value in the system. Decision: The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length, In view of the fact that exports were of a new product developed by them and made on consignment basis and amendment has already been approved ?y customs under Section 149 of the Customs Act, Committee decided to accede to 3

--

by them and made on consignment basis and amendment has already been approved ?y customs under Section 149 of the Customs Act, Committee decided to accede to 3

--

the request of the firm. The Committee allowed the supplementary claim of Chapter-3 benefit against 103 shipping bills only for the export made prior to 01.04.2015 under Focus Product Scheme (FPS) subject to confirmation of amendment of FOB value of shipping bills by the RA from Customs Authority. (Action: ApplicantlRA) PH Case No.02 MIs Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/546/AM19/PRC Subject: Grant of duty credit under MEIS wherein shipping bill have "N" in scheme reward column (total 5 shipping bills). The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 21.05.2019, 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. Firm has stated that at the time of filling of 5 shipping bills NO.8987385 dated 29.09.2017,8931997 dated 27.09.2017, 8908384 dated 26.09.2017, 8999416 dated 29.09.2017, 8955344 dated 28.09.2017, they have inadvertently selected the reward scheme as "N" instead of "Y" due to which the above shipping bills are not available in MEIS application in DGFT System. They approached Customs for amendment of these shipping bills.

cted the reward scheme as "N" instead of "Y" due to which the above shipping bills are not available in MEIS application in DGFT System. They approached Customs for amendment of these shipping bills. They have issued them manual amendment certificate since no EDI modification in shipping bills can be carried out once EGM is filled and issued manual No Objection Certificate as per Section 149 of Customs Act. Decision: The Committee having examined the statement made by the firm found no merit in their case and decided to maintain earlier decision of rejection taken in PRC Meeting NO.22/AM19 dated 06.11.2018. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No.03 MIs Simplify Growth Research and Consulting Private Limited, Delhi F. No. 01/60/162/67/AM20/PRC Subject: To relax the technical requirement under Para 3.08(f) viz. holding of active IEC at the time of exports of services for claiming SEIS claim and to allow the SEIS Scrip against F.No.5/21/98/80462/AM19. which was afforded on 21.05.2019, 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 stated that they had filed the claim for SEIS scrip for the financial year • 2017-18, declaring Net Foreign Exchange USD 1,010,469.41, and SEIS entitlement 4

the firm in their application. They have stated that they had filed the claim for SEIS scrip for the financial year • 2017-18, declaring Net Foreign Exchange USD 1,010,469.41, and SEIS entitlement 4

to the tune of INR 67,44,904.21 to CLA, Delhi. However, CLA, Delhi issued deficiency OM dated 11.03.2019. Further, firm has stated that they had exported the services to the foreign customers and have received remittances for the same in foreign exchange. Keeping in mind the objective of the scheme as listed in Para 3.07, they were of the view that they are eligible for the SEIS claim since they materially satisfy the relevant conditions as listed in Para 3.08. They were also under the impression that IEC is not a mandatory requirement for the purpose of executing export of services, and the requirement has to be proven at the time of submission of the claim of SEIS application in form ANF 3B. Therefore they did not apply for the IEC during the tenure of FY 2017-18. 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) PH Case No.04 MIs Agripure Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd., Pune F. No. 01/60/162/73/AM20/PRC Subject: Regularization of export made beyond EOP against Advance Authorization No.3110067075 dated 08.06.2018. which was afforded on 21.05.2019 and Shri K.S.

Ltd., Pune F. No. 01/60/162/73/AM20/PRC Subject: Regularization of export made beyond EOP against Advance Authorization No.3110067075 dated 08.06.2018. which was afforded on 21.05.2019 and Shri K.S. Wouhra, Director appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They had taken an AA for an App 4 J item with reduced export obligation period of 90 days from the date of imports. They had applied for EO extension for 45 days, which was not considered in time by RA Pune. They have fulfilled their EO (though 4 months after the EO expiry date) and requested to regularize the export beyond EOP for the purpose of redemption. Exports have been made to UK by them. Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and in view of justification provided by the firm decided to accede to the request and allowed EOP extension up to 14.03.2019 only for regularization purpose subject to the payment of composition Fee @0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB Value, if exports are fulfilled more than 50% within initial/extended EOP or @ 1% per month where exports have been made less than 50% within initial/ extended EOP. It is further subject to fixation/ratification of norms by the concerned NC. (Action: ApplicantlRA) PH Case No.05 MIs Cannon Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana F. No. 01/60/162/41/AM20/PRC Subject: Debit of duty scrips under TPS Scheme for payment of duty to regularize EO default against 4 Advance Authorization No.(i) 3010040320 dated 5

Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana F. No. 01/60/162/41/AM20/PRC Subject: Debit of duty scrips under TPS Scheme for payment of duty to regularize EO default against 4 Advance Authorization No.(i) 3010040320 dated 5

09.02.2005, (ii) 3010040326 dated 10.02.2005, (iii) 3010042093 dated 25.05.2005 and (iv) 3010043506 dated 23.08.2005. which was afforded on 21.05.2019 and Shri R.K. Goyal, Managing Director appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that the above authorizations were got issued for exporting the goods against a specific export order, but due to some problems with the quality of the imported raw material the goods could not be exported against that order and the same was cancelled. The defect in the material was detected at a later stage when the raw material had already gone through 2-3 processes and there was no scope left for returning the goods to the suppliers. They somehow processed the goods to make some other products and were able to export some quantity of the same to some other buyers. Later on due to appreciation of the Indian currency and afterwards due to crash in overseas markets the goods could not be exported. They have submitted their Duty Credit Scrips issued under Target Plus Scheme (TPS) of Chapter 3 to RA, Ludhiana within the validity period for debiting the duty portion, but same was rejected by the RA. Their target plus license was issued for import product of textile material and with actual user condition.

within the validity period for debiting the duty portion, but same was rejected by the RA. Their target plus license was issued for import product of textile material and with actual user condition. They have imported textile goods and the same have been used in house production, but EO could be completed due to worldwide economic slowdown. They have already deposited the customs duty in 2 advance authorizations. The amount so deposited may be adjusted towards interest payable. Hence, requested to allow the debiting of TPS duty credit scrips for the duty portion to regularize the EO default. Decision: The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and decided to remand back the matter to PC-3 Division to examine within 15 days and thereafter the case would be again placed before the PRC. (Action: PC- 3 Division) PH Case No.06 MIs Fitrite International, Delhi F. No. 01/60/162/35/AM20/PRC PRC Meeting No. 06/AM20 dated 21.05.2019 Subject: Relaxation under

Para 3.14 FMS and Para 3.15 (FPS) of FTP 2009-

which was afforded on 21.05.2019 and Shri Lavdeep Sethi, Representative appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have submitted that the BRC were issued late by PNB only after several complaints at higher levels. Issue was decided only after the intervention of head office of the bank. All these factors made their application for FMS time barred. However date of the BRC is within the 3 years period. Being a foreigner and a new comer in India they were not aware of the procedures. And as a small company they rely on incentive to compete with much larger exporters. 6

Decision: The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length. The Committee observed that due to delays by banker in uploading of BRC, the firm has faced the problem, which was beyond their control and accordingly decided to accede to the request of the firm for grant of FPS benefit against their export made prior to 01.04.2015 without any late cut. (Action: ApplicantlRA) PH Case No.07 MIs KEI Industries Limited, New Delhi F. No. 01/60/162/90/AM20/PRC dated 21.05.2019 Subject: To allow MEIS incentive against 19 shipping bills shipment where declaration in affirmative mentioned on shipping bill but inadvertently ticked "N" instead of 'Y'. which was afforded on 21.05.2019 and Shri Anand M.

ncentive against 19 shipping bills shipment where declaration in affirmative mentioned on shipping bill but inadvertently ticked "N" instead of 'Y'. which was afforded on 21.05.2019 and Shri Anand M. Thakur, AGM-Commercial appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have submitted that the product exported against the above shipping bills are electrical cable and falls under category of engineering goods. Electric cable manufactured using raw material like copper I aluminum, the different grades of polyethylene etc. and all these component prices are linked with international LME I Index and each item consumption too has linked with Indian I international specification. For this reason, the cost making of product like electric cable is transparent and buyer negotiates the prices accordingly which resulted thin margins for manufactures and exporter of cables. There are multiple agencies like CHA, shipping lines, transporter etc., involves in execution of each & every shipment and at the same time there is multiple shipment remain in process at different stages. It may be due to human behavior wherever similar information appears repeatedly the chance of overlook increases. However, declaration in affirmative is mentioned on shipping bills but reward column remains ticked as "N" instead of Y" which absolutely happened inadvertently.

dly the chance of overlook increases. However, declaration in affirmative is mentioned on shipping bills but reward column remains ticked as "N" instead of Y" which absolutely happened inadvertently. As per Para 3.14 (ii) which related to non EDI shipping bills, where the declaration "they intend to claim rewards under Merchandise Export from India scheme" is sufficient make exporter eligible to claim rewards under MEIS. Decision: The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and found no case of genuine hardship in their case and accordingly decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No.08 MIs India Voyage Travel Pundits Private Limited, Haryana F. No. 01/60/162/70/AM20/PRC dated 21.05.2019 Subject: Relaxation under

Para 3.08 (f) of FTP regarding

requirement of IEC at the time of rendering services. 7

which was afforded on 21.05.2019. Shri Sunil Kumar, Representative appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that they are a fast growing Tour Operator providing tour services from India to overseas service consumers in India. During 2017-18 they have earned substantial value of freely convertible foreign exchange for services rendered in the manner as per Para 9.51 (ii) of the policy. However, they are being denied the SEIS benefit by the licensing Authority on the ground that during the time of rendering such services they were not having an active IEC as per Para 3.08 (f) of the policy. The provision of the said Para of the policy escaped their attention; they have now obtained IEC obtained IEC in 2017-18. They are filing their claim application for the said benefit only in 2018-19. They also referred to Section 7 of the FT (DR) Amendment Act, 2010, which inter-alia, very clearly states that IEC shall be necessary only when the services or technology provider is taking benefit under the FTP. 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) PH Case No.09 Mis Salicylates and Chemicals Private Limited, Hyderabad F. No. 01/60/162/320/AM19/PRC Subject: Extension in E.O.

in their case and accordingly decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No.09 Mis Salicylates and Chemicals Private Limited, Hyderabad F. No. 01/60/162/320/AM19/PRC Subject: Extension in E.O. period for regularization purpose against Advance Authorization NO.0910063789 dated 10.06.2016. which was afforded on 21.05.2019. Shri P.K. Bahl, Authorized Representative appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have been granted second extension of above advance authorization vide PRC Meeting NO.14/AM19 dated 04.09.2018. Extension was granted up to 9.12.2018. However, there was slight delay on their part to remit the 1% composition fee. As per the records of the customs validity of the said license was already over and system was not capturing advance authorization number while filing shipping bill. They have finally completed their exports on 28.2.2019. Now their request is for regularization of exports made beyond the EO period granted by the earlier PRC decision. Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and in view of justification provided by the firm decided to allow EOP extension of Advance Authorization NO.0910063789 dated 10.06.2016 up to 28.02.2019 only for regularization purpose subject to the payment of composition Fee @ 1% per month on unfulfilled FOB value of export obligation. (Action: ApplicantlRA) 8

789 dated 10.06.2016 up to 28.02.2019 only for regularization purpose subject to the payment of composition Fee @ 1% per month on unfulfilled FOB value of export obligation. (Action: ApplicantlRA) 8

PH Case No.10 MIs Salicylates and Chemicals Private Limited, Hyderabad F. No. 01/60/162/498/AM19/PRC Subject: Extension in E.O. period for regularization purpose against Advance Authorization No.0910064100 dated 08.09.2016. which was afforded on 21.05.2019. Shri P.K. Bahl, Authorised Representative appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have been granted second extension of above advance authorization vide PRC Meeting No.14/AM19 dated 04.09.2018. However, there was slight delay on their part to remit the 1% composition fee. As per the records of the customs validity of the said license was already over and system was not capturing advance authorization number while filing shipping bill. They have finally completed their exports on 15.4.2019. Now their request is for regularization of exports made beyond the EO period granted by the earlier PRC decision. Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and in view of justification provided by the firm decided to allow EOP extension of Advance Authorization no. 0910064100 dated 08.09.2016 up to 15.04.2019 only for regularization purpose subject to the payment of composition Fee @ 1% per month on unfulfilled FOB value of export obligation. (Action: ApplicantJRA) PH Case No.11 MIs Shashi Cables Ltd., Lucknow F.

regularization purpose subject to the payment of composition Fee @ 1% per month on unfulfilled FOB value of export obligation. (Action: ApplicantJRA) PH Case No.11 MIs Shashi Cables Ltd., Lucknow F. No. 01/60/162/806/AM16/PRC Subject: 2nd revalidation of Duty Free Import Authorization No.0610029174 dated 28.09.2012. Decision: The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 21.05.2019, but no one appeared on behalf of the firm. The Committee decided to defer the case. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No.12 MIs Nico Extrusions Limited, Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/474/AM18/PRC & 01/60/162/952/AM17/PRC Subject: Extension in E.O. period against 2 advance Authorization No.(i) 0310490685 dated 16.10.2008 and (ii) 0310492661 dated 03.11.2008. 9

which was afforded on 21.05.2019. Shri Vijay Porwal, Representative appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that they could not complete the EO due to operation problem then faced by on account factory collapsed, labour unrest, environmental and pollution related statutory compliances etc.

They have stated that they could not complete the EO due to operation problem then faced by on account factory collapsed, labour unrest, environmental and pollution related statutory compliances etc. Further they have made all efforts to fulfill their export obligation, however after grant of extension they had lost one month's time in completing the customs formalities for registration of port of export etc., due the change over from the earlier manual to EDI system. During the inspection after installing the new furnaces, it was observed that the air pollution control system was defective and malfunctioning. The chartered engineer advised them to stop production entirely to avoid serious environmental concerns until and entirely new air pollution control system plant was to be installed. In the meantime they faced another challenge that due to their inability of timely shipping exports orders which were in hand the overseas customer cancelled the order. So far they could shipped about 350 MT out required about 2500 MT. In the process, they lost precious time of about 8 months and they had only about 4 months available to them for export of the balance quantity which was beyond the installed production capacity and it will therefore be not possible to complete their EO in the extended EO period.

4 months available to them for export of the balance quantity which was beyond the installed production capacity and it will therefore be not possible to complete their EO in the extended EO period. Due to unforeseen circumstances which were beyond their control they could incur heavy cost for replacement of their equipments and substantial interests were also to be repaid on borrowings. Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and in view of justification provided by the firm decided to accede to the request and allowed EOP extension of Advance Authorization NO.0310490685 dated 16.10.2008 and 0310492661 dated 03.11.2008 up to 31.03.2020. This is subject to payment of composition Fee @0.5% of unfulfilled FOB Value of export in proportion to imports made. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting and no further extension shall be allowed. (Action: ApplicantlRA) PH Case No.13 MIs Infinijewel Synergies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F.

h RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting and no further extension shall be allowed. (Action: ApplicantlRA) PH Case No.13 MIs Infinijewel Synergies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/26/AM20/PRC Subject: EOP extension of 6 days toward export of gold jewellery. which was afforded on 21.05.2019. Shri Swayambodh Jain, CMD appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that the delay was caused because of two unexpected events happened at their manufacturing facility. They are handmade Jewellery Manufacturer, so their work is mainly depends upon humans. On 21 st of January 2019, one of their artisans fled with gold and a lot of effort was made to recover it. Secondly, in their entire industrial estate, unscheduled major electrical work had come up and society decided to do it on 26.01.2019 to 28.01.2019 and then from . 10

01.02.2019 to 03.02.2019. These caused delays in export of their jewellery and delay was of 6 days only. Decision: The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length. The Committee decided to condone the delay of 6 days in export of 452.320 gms gold under Shipping Bill NO.2983354 dated 16.02.2019. (Action: ApplicantlRA) Case No.14 Mis Natural Capsules Limited, Bangalore F.

ttee decided to condone the delay of 6 days in export of 452.320 gms gold under Shipping Bill NO.2983354 dated 16.02.2019. (Action: ApplicantlRA) Case No.14 Mis Natural Capsules Limited, Bangalore F. No. 01/60/162/466/AM19/PRC dated 21.05.2019 Subject: Extending time limit for availing MEIS benefits in the DGFT system against HS code Number as amended by RA, Bangalore and Chennai Customs from 35030010 to 96020030 in the shipping bills exported in the year 2015-16. The time period has expired due to the delay from NIC not to amend the system in time as per PRC decision. They have stated that they have approached NIC department to amend the HS code as per amendment made by the RA, Bangalore and Chennai Customs in these S/Bilis but till date the HS code could not be amended by NIC department in the systems causing to non applying the MEIS benefit in time and the capping time for applying the MEIS benefit has expired now. The matter has been taken with NIC for amending the HS code in the systems against these S/Bilis. Therefore, requested to grant them the extension for 6 month time to file the MEIS application against the said S/Bilis. Decision: The Committee went through the statements made by the firm and decided to refer the issue to EDI/NIC Division to resolve the problem. (Action: NIC division) Case No.15 Mis Zydus Takeda Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F.

t through the statements made by the firm and decided to refer the issue to EDI/NIC Division to resolve the problem. (Action: NIC division) Case No.15 Mis Zydus Takeda Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/91/AM20/PRC dated 21.05.2019 Subject: Revalidation of shipping bills for MEIS. They had applied for MEIS application on 30.03.2018 for the financial year 2015 - 2016 to the office of the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ Special Economic Zone, Andheri East, Mumbai 400096. SEEPZ issued deficiency letter on 07.05.2018 stating that intent declaration is not mentioned on the shipping bills. In order to amend the shipping bill they had approached customs authority through their CHA. Meanwhile on 16.07.2018, SEEPZ has issued another letter stating that application has been rejected as not reply to their deficiency letter dated 07.05.2018 within 30 days as per the RA's letter dated 11.05.2018. They had submitted amended shipping bills to SEEPZ on 13.07.2018. SEEPZ has issued letter on 16.07.2018 stating that their application has been rejected on 24.05.2018, and asked to re-apply with fresh pnline application. They had re-applied online to DGFT for re-activation of shipping 11

on 16.07.2018 stating that their application has been rejected on 24.05.2018, and asked to re-apply with fresh pnline application. They had re-applied online to DGFT for re-activation of shipping 11

bill on 20.07.2018 and issue resolved by DGFT on 16.08.2018. Now in the system the shipping bills are not valid for re-application. Decision: The Committee having discussed the case observed that declaration of intent was not mentioned in the s/bills and same was added later by customs in the form of letter and the same is not reflecting in the automated system. Accordingly, it found no merit in it and decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant) Case No.16 Mis Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited, Ahmedabad F. No. 01/60/162/77/AM20/PRC Subject: Relaxation in pre-import condition from the date of issuance of Authorization up to the date of first import i.e.03.05.2018 to 07.02.2019 against Advance Authorization NO.0810142521 dated 03.05.2018. They have stated that the above authorization has been obtained under SION E-76, (without endorsing a pre-import condition) for export of Liquid Glucose and to import Maize as an input and HDPE Granules as raw material for packing of finished goods. DGFT through PN NO.64 dated 05.03.2018 made a pre-import condition against import of Maize as an input.

nd to import Maize as an input and HDPE Granules as raw material for packing of finished goods. DGFT through PN NO.64 dated 05.03.2018 made a pre-import condition against import of Maize as an input. However, this came to their knowledge by 07.02.2019, while making first import in fact the provisions were sighted by the Customs Authority while allowing the import consignments. From the date of issuance of Authorization i.e.03.05.2018 up to 07.02.2019 (the date of their first import), they have exported 17286.180 MTs of Liquid Glucose and the proportionate import entitlements of Maize as against their exports are works out to 26430.56 MTs, in terms of SION E-76. In the instant case it was an Advance Authorization and they intent to import the usual Dent Corn only and that too for their industrial use. Therefore requested to relax from pre-import conditions of Appendix-4J for such a quantity i.e.17286.180 MTs which are already exported and the imports are made subsequently within the stipulated initial period of said authorization. Decision: The Committee having examined the statement made by the firm found no merit in their case and decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant) Case No.17 Mis Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited, Ahmedabad F.

on: The Committee having examined the statement made by the firm found no merit in their case and decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant) Case No.17 Mis Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited, Ahmedabad F. No. 01/60/162/78/AM20/PRC Subject: Revalidation of DFIA Authorization NO.0810139401 dated 28.12.2016 for six months by extending a relaxation of Para 4.29 (vii) of FTP 2015-20 by allowing the exports made through GOA and Mundra port consequent to amendment made under PN No.13/2018 dated 20.06.2018. They have stated that they have filed online application to RA, Ahmedabad on .07.09.2016 and started to exports under DFIA. However, by oversight on their part 12

they have made exports at multiple ports of exports. RA, informed during December, 2016 that the transferability DFIA for exports made under different ports cannot be considered as per Para 4.29(vi) of FTP 2015-20. Accordingly, they have availed DFIA transferability be taking their exports made at NHAVA SHEVA alone, whereas by that time they had exported substantial quantity of exports through different EDI ports namely Mundra, Goa without observing the conditions in the FTP.

r exports made at NHAVA SHEVA alone, whereas by that time they had exported substantial quantity of exports through different EDI ports namely Mundra, Goa without observing the conditions in the FTP. Hence, requested for revalidation and to consider their exports made under different ports considering particularly the amendments made vide notification No.13 dated 20.06.2018 against 3 shipping bills which are excluded while availing the above DFIA Authorization. Decision: The Committee having examined the statement made by the firm found no merit in their case and decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant) Case No.18 Mis Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited, Ahmedabad F. No. 01/60/162/76/AM20/PRC dated 21.05.2019 Subject: Revalidation of DFIA Authorization No.0810139994 dated 03.04.2017 for six months by extending a relaxation of Para 4.29 (vii) of FTP 2015-20 by allowing the exports made through GOA and Mundra port consequent to amendment made under PN No.13/2018 dated 20.06.2018. They have stated that they have filed online application to RA, Ahmedabad on 18.07.2016 and started to exports under DFIA. However, by oversight on their part they have made exports at multiple ports of exports.

ated that they have filed online application to RA, Ahmedabad on 18.07.2016 and started to exports under DFIA. However, by oversight on their part they have made exports at multiple ports of exports. RA, informed during April, 2017 that the transferability DFIA for exports made under different ports cannot be considered as per Para 4.29(vi) of FTP 2015-20. Accordingly, they have availed DFIA transferability be taking their exports made at NHAVA SHEVA

INNSA1 alone, whereas by that time they have exported substantial quantity of exports through different EDI ports namely Mundra, Goa and ICD-Thar without observing the conditions in the FTP. Hence, requested for revalidation and to consider their exports made under different ports considering particularly the amendments made vide notification no.13 dated 20.06.2018 against 51 shipping bills which are excluded while availing the above DFIA Authorization. Decision: The Committee having examined the statement made by the firm found no merit in their case and decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant) Case No.19 Mis Indeus Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/79/AM20/PRC dated 21.05.2019 Subject: Waiver of PC 18 condition of destruction certificate against 2 Advance Authorization No.(i) 0310800286 dated 17.11.2015 and (ii) 0310793424 dated 30.01.2015. . 13

/AM20/PRC dated 21.05.2019 Subject: Waiver of PC 18 condition of destruction certificate against 2 Advance Authorization No.(i) 0310800286 dated 17.11.2015 and (ii) 0310793424 dated 30.01.2015. . 13

They have stated that in the 151 license, they have imported raw material but their export order was cancelled hence they paid customs duty and interest on it. They have applied to GST Authority to issue of destruction certificate, but GST Authority said there is no provision with them. In the 2nd license the part quantity was exported against raw material imported and on balance raw materials customs duty and interest paid and now firm wants waiver of destruction certificate vide PC-18 as GST Authority and Central Excise Authority have no provision to issue the same. Decision: The Committee went through the statements made by the firm in their application and after deliberations, it decided to waive the requirement of destruction certificate from excise authorities subject to the condition that the applicant would self destroy the balance raw material and submit an affidavit-cum-indemnity bond in order to indemnify the Government for any harm or loss occurring due to diversion of unregistered materials to the domestic market that may be detected in future by any Authority. (Action: ApplicantlRA) Case No.20 MIs Panacea Biotec Ltd., New Delhi F.

ss occurring due to diversion of unregistered materials to the domestic market that may be detected in future by any Authority. (Action: ApplicantlRA) Case No.20 MIs Panacea Biotec Ltd., New Delhi F. No. 01/60/162/107/AM20/PRC dated 21.05.2019 Subject: Waiver of PC-18 condition against Advance Authorization No.0510396345 dated 17.11.2015. They have stated that they had submitted for redemption application to CLA, Delhi. However, CLA, Delhi has been pressing for submission of documents under PC-18 i.e. destruction certificate from Central Excise Authorities or an evidence for use of unutilized raw material in further exports to regularize the case. They have further stated that considering the actual consumption of raw material being higher than the one available under A-412 of SION, the consumption of raw material computed based on a wastage of 2% as per input output norms. A quantity of 5404.609 mg of Alfacalcidol has actually been consumed in the production of products for export to discharge the EO imposed under the said Authorization. Out of the 5404.609 mg, 4901 mg is the quantity allowed under the said Authorization, the balance of 503.609 is from the stock sourced on merits. Decision: The Committee went through the statements made by the firm in their application and after deliberations, it decided to waive the requirement of destruction certificate from excise authorities subject to the condition that the applicant would self destroy the balance raw material and submit an affidavit-cum-indemnity bond in order to indemnify the Government

ificate from excise authorities subject to the condition that the applicant would self destroy the balance raw material and submit an affidavit-cum-indemnity bond in order to indemnify the Government for any harm or loss occurring due to diversion of unregistered materials to the domestic market that may be detected in future by any Authority. (Action: ApplicantlRA) Case No.21 MIs Milan Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd., Thane f. No. 01/60/162/83/AM20/PRC 14

dated 21.05.2019 Subject: Extension in E.O. period against License No.0310815750 dated 13.09.2017 issued under PC-9 condition. They have stated that due to cancellation export order, they were not able to export within valid export obligation period. Hence they require extension in export obligation period up to 13.09.2019. Decision: The Committee having discussed the case found no merit in it and hence decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant) Case No.22 MIs Navratan Specialty Chemicals LLP, Ahmedabad F.

on: The Committee having discussed the case found no merit in it and hence decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant) Case No.22 MIs Navratan Specialty Chemicals LLP, Ahmedabad F. No. 01/60/162/82/AM20/PRC dated 21.05.2019 Subject: Clubbing of Advance Authorization No.081 0134394 dated 23.01.2015 and 0810138372 dated 26.07.2016. They have stated that they had done excess export of quantity (kgs) 94,452.71 in Advance Authorization NO.0810134394 dated 23.01.2015 and excess import in Advance Authorization NO.0810138372 dated 26.07.2016. They had applied for clubbing the subjected authorizations at RA, Ahmadabad, but same was rejected due to 4 days more in 18 months time limit from the date of earlier authorization. Decision: The Committee went through the statements made by the firm in their application and discussed the matter at length and decided to relax the condition of 18 months as laid down in Para 4.38(vi) (i.e. the delay of 4 days) as amended vide Public Notice No.70/2015-20 dated 30.01.2019 for clubbing of Advance Authorization NO.0810134394 dated 23.01.2015 and 0810138372 dated 26.07.2016. The other terms and conditions for clubbing shall remain same as per policy/HBP provisions. (Action: ApplicantlRA) Case No.23 MIs South India Bromine and Allied Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Tuticorin F.

The other terms and conditions for clubbing shall remain same as per policy/HBP provisions. (Action: ApplicantlRA) Case No.23 MIs South India Bromine and Allied Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Tuticorin F. No. 01/60/162/1136/AM19/PRC dated 21.05.2019 Subject: Condonation of non filing of Bill of export for supplies made to SEZ and accept ARE-1 for counting of export against Advance Authorization No.3510039280 dated 17.09.2012. They have stated that they had imported raw material and made exports to SEZ unit under ARE-1 within license validity period. They had received the payment from Forex account and Central Excise also issued the certificate for supply to SEZ. They had submitted the redemption application in RA, Madurai, but RA is not accepting their obligation vide ARE-1. They had mentioned advance authorization number on • the ARE-1. 15

Decision: The committee went through the statements made by the firm and noted that bill of export is a mandatory requirement and therefore decided not to accept the request. (Action: ApplicantlRA) Case No.24 MIs South India Bromine and Allied Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Tuticorin F. No. 01/60/162/94/AM20/PRC Subject: Condonation of non filing of Bill of Export for supplies made to SEZ and accept ARE-1 for count of export against Advance Authorization NO.3510042650 dated 13.11.2013. They have stated that they had fulfilled export obligation within validity time period and submitted the redemption application in RA, Madurai. But RA, Madurai not ready to redeem the case due to non-submission of Bill of Exports.

fulfilled export obligation within validity time period and submitted the redemption application in RA, Madurai. But RA, Madurai not ready to redeem the case due to non-submission of Bill of Exports. They had informed that they are not aware that they have to file the Bill of Exports and now had completed the export obligation and at present it is not possible to issue the Bill of Exports. But Central Excise had given them the certificate for supply to SEZ and they received the payment from Forex account. They had mentioned advance authorization number on the ARE-1. Decision: The committee went through the statements made by the firm and noted that bill of export is a mandatory requirement and therefore decided not to accept the request. (Action: ApplicantlRA) Case No.25 MIs K.K. Rubber Company (India) Private Limited, New Delhi F. No. 01/60/162/101/AM20/PRC Subject: 3rd Revalidation of Advance Authorization NO.0510402380 dated 27.04.2017. They have stated that they had submitted application for EODC on 25.10.2018, prior to import, so as to avoid submission of Bond and Bank Guarantee to the Customs. However, CLA, Delhi issued discrepancy letter dated 14.11.2018 with direction to submit some more documents, for which they had replied. In the meantime, the issuance of 2nd extension took a long time. EODC and extension of authorization were inordinately delayed.

th direction to submit some more documents, for which they had replied. In the meantime, the issuance of 2nd extension took a long time. EODC and extension of authorization were inordinately delayed. By the time EODC was issued, they are unable to import the eligible goods under the said authorization, because the 2nd extension of authorization has also expired on 26.04.2019. Decision: The Committee having examined the statement made by the firm observed that imports could have been made by the firm at any point of time during the entire validity of the authorization (i.e. 24 months) and accordingly found no merit in their case and decided to reject it. . 16

(Action: Applicant) PH Case No.26 MIs PIEM Hotels Ltd. and Oriental Hotels Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/939/AM19/PRC Subject: Waiver of Annual Average for the period 2008-09 and 2009-10 for PIEM Hotels and Oriental Hotels Limited. which was afforded on 21.05.2019. Shri Shashi Bisht, Corporate Director

Co- ordination appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that as a consequence of the Mumbai attacks on 26.11.2008, they were unable to maintain the annual average as per DGFT guidelines and several licenses taken by the Taj Group in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10 could not be discharged. The foreign exchange earnings of PIEM Hotels reduced by 19% in 2008- 09 as compared to 2007-08 and reduced by 35% in 2009-10 as compared to 2008- 09.

year 2008-09 and 2009-10 could not be discharged. The foreign exchange earnings of PIEM Hotels reduced by 19% in 2008- 09 as compared to 2007-08 and reduced by 35% in 2009-10 as compared to 2008- 09. Similarly, the foreign exchange of Oriental Hotels Limited reduced by 10% in 2008-09 as compared to 2007-08 and reduced by 18% in 2009-10 as compared to 2008-09. Hence, requested waiver of the annual average condition for the FY 2008- 09 and 2009-10 for the above mentioned 2 Hotels. Decision: The Committee having examined the statement made by the firm found no merit in their case and decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant)

---

17