DGFT Minutes

Date of Uploading Directorate General of Foreign Trade (PRC Section) Minutes of the Policy Relaxation Committee Meeting held on 28.05.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri Alok Vardhan Chaturvedl. Director General of Foreign Trade Meeting No.07/AM20 held on 28.05.2019 The following members were present in the meeting 1. Shri K.C. Rout Addl. DGFT 2. Shri R. P. Goyal Addl. DGFT 3. Shri Vijay Kumar Addl. DGFT 4. Shri Satyan Sharda Addl. DGFT 5. Shri Anil Aggarwal Addl. DGFT 6. Shri Rajbir Sharma Jt. DGFT 7. Dr. Praveen Kumar 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. M/s Bhaskar Industries Pvt. Ltd.. Bhopal 1 2. M/s Bachwind Commission Agent, Punjab 2 3. M/s Wakeel Ahmad, Sitapur (UP) 3 4. M/s Smoothline Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 4 5. M/s Sterling Auxiliaries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 5 6. M/s Maxop Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon 6&7 7. M/s Mosaic India Tours Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 8 8. M/s Orbit Textiles Mills Private limited, Tirupur 9 9. M/s Biocon Limited, Bangalore 10 10. M/s Palvi Industries Limited, Baroda 11 11. M/s Rama Cylinders Pvt. Ltd, Kutch Gujarat 12 to 14 12. M/s Rajendra Ravindra Printers Limited, New Delhi 15 13. M/s Eastman International, Ludhlana 16 14. M/s Fortune Cotton and Agro Industries Karnataka 17&18 15. M/s T P Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 19 16. Incomplete Cases 20 PH Case No.01 M/s Bhaskar industries Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal F. No. 01/60/162/116/AM20/PRC PRC Meeting No. 07/AM20 dated 28.05.2019

Subject: To allow MEIS (Chapter -3) incentives w.e.f. Oct 2015 to

Dec 2015, inadvertently "No" mentioned in Reward Scheme Colum of shipping bills. G/^

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP. 2015-2020, which was afforded on 28.05.2019. Shri Rajinder Choudhary, GM - Commercial appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that they have not marked "Yes" in reward column of shipping bills as per Para 3.14 of HBP (2015-16) read with PN 40/2015-16 dated 9^^ Oct 2015 and PN 47/2015-16 dated Dec 2015. Inadvertently they have marked "No" in reward column of shipping bills for the period 01.10.2015 to 08.12.2015 and due to this they are unable to file application of MEIS license online. 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.02 M/s Bachwind Commission Agent, Punjab F. No. 01/60/162/790/AM19/PRC PRC Meeting No. 07/AM20 dated 28.05,2019

Subject: Acceptance of e BRC for FPS /VKGUY and MEIS benefit which was

uploaded delay by their bankers. The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 28.05.2019, 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. In their application they have stated that their shipping bills pertained to 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 for which payment have been realized on time but the BRCs have been uploaded by the bank in 2017 and 2018 and still uploading. Now when they are submitting the application for claim, the software itself is imposing the 100% cut. Decision: The Committee having examined the statement made by the firm observed that firm had not appeared in the personal hearing in spite of opportunities granted . It further found no case of genuine hardship in their case and accordingly decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No.03 M/s Wakeel Ahmad, Sitapur (UP) F. No. 01/60/162/772/AM19/PRC

Subject: To allow FPS/VKGUY and MEIS benefit against shipping bills pertain

to 2014-15 which payments have been realized on time but the eBRCs have been uploaded by the bank in 2017 and 2018.

which was afforded on 28.05.2019, 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. In their application they have stated that their shipping bills pertained to 2014-15, for which payment have been realized on time but the eBRCs have been uploaded by the bank in 2017 and 2018 and still uploading. Now when they are submitting the application for claim, the software itself is imposing the cut or RA rejected mentioning the case is time barred. Decision: The Committee having examined the statement made by the firm observed that firm had not appeared in the personal hearing in spite of opportunities granted. It further found no case of genuine .hardship in their case and accordingly decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No.04 M/s Smoothline Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/114/AM20/PRC

Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0310806169 dated

12.07.2016 for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement. Decision: The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 28.05.2019, but no one appeared on behalf of the firm. Accordingly, The Committee decided to defer the case. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No.05 M/s Sterling Auxiliaries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/75/AM20/PRC

Subject: Revalidation of 16 Advance Authorization No.(i) 0310798229 dated

17.08.2015, (ii) 0310802707 dated 19.02.2016, (iii) 0310806474 dated 21.07.2016, (iv) 0310806555 dated 25.07.2016, (v) 0310809065 dated 09.11.2016, (vi) 0310809727 dated 09.12.2016, (vii) 0310809512 dated 01.12.2016, (viii) 0310809086 dated 10.11.2016, (ix) 0310806458 dated 21.07.2016, (x) 0310809092 dated 10.11.2016, (xi) 0310806571 dated 25.07.2016, (xii) 0310806464 dated 21.07.2016, (xiii) 0310802715 dated 19.02.2016, (xiv) 0310802660 dated 17.02.2016, and (xv) 0310799822 dated 29.10.2015. which was afforded on 28.05.2019. Shri Vijendra S. Salunke, Authorized Representative appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: , — 3

They have stated that they had a major fire accident in their factory at Dahej, Gujarat on 31.01.2017. In this accident their lot of raw material, finish goods and semi finish goods were destroyed. Their factory shutdown was there for almost 2 years, due to this they could not complete their import against above advance licenses for which exports have already made. Decision: The Committee heard the submission made by the representative of the firm and after discussing the matter at length it decided to allow revalidatlon of above 15 Advance Authorizations for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement for making imports proportionate to the exports already made in each authorization.

ided to allow revalidatlon of above 15 Advance Authorizations for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement for making imports proportionate to the exports already made in each authorization. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA) PH Case No.06 M/s Maxop Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon F. No. 01/60/162/122/AM20/PRC Subject: Extension in EO Period against Advance Authorization No.0510320088 dated 14.03.2012. which was afforded on 28.05.2019. Ms. Kamla Joshi, Manager appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that due to cancellation of some of export orders by their customer

• M/s. Regal Beloit - USA, they could not complete their Export Obligations. The reason of cancellation was global recession in the export market during that period. The aftermath of meltdown had drop down the end Customers requirement too, which has led cancellation of their export orders. These licenses were Issued based on specific Export items, ordered specifically by M/s. Regal Beloit, but due to cancellation of orders, less exports were done. Decision: The Committee having examined the statement made by the firm observed that more than 7 years have already passed since the authorization was issued. Accordingly, it found no case of genuine hardship In their case and hence decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No.07 M/s Maxop Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon F. No.

ation was issued. Accordingly, it found no case of genuine hardship In their case and hence decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No.07 M/s Maxop Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon F. No. 01/60/162/121/AM20/PRC Subject: Interest waiver on customs duty paid on excess import and refund of CVD Paid in above mentioned customs duty against Advance Authorization No.0510390819 dated 28.08.2014 and 0510364144 dated 02.09.2013. (Vv)

which was afforded on 28.05.2019. Ms. Kamla Joshi, Manager appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that due to cancellation of some of export orders by their customer- M/s. Regal Beloit -USA, they could not complete their Export Obligations. The reason of cancellation was global recession in the Export market during that period. The aftermath of meltdown had drop down the End Customer requirement too, which has led cancellation of their export orders. These licenses were issued based on specific Export item, ordered specifically by M/s. Regal Beloit, but due to cancellation of Orders, less exports has made the import status of the license as "Excess Imports", on which they have paid applicable customs duty. Since the import of material was done with bona fide Intension and company had applied for redemption.

port status of the license as "Excess Imports", on which they have paid applicable customs duty. Since the import of material was done with bona fide Intension and company had applied for redemption. Now their request is to waive the payment of interest on the customs duties paid by them and refund of excise duty paid by them. 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 M/s Mosaic India Tours Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi F. No. 01/60/162/118/AM20/PRC

Subject: Relaxation in Para 2.56 of the FTP regarding RCMC against 3 files

(F.NO.05/21/094/50139/AM19, 05/21/094/50138/AM19 and 05/21/094/80395/AM19) The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP. 2015-2020, which was afforded on 28.05.2019. Shri Sumeet Bali, Director appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They had applied for RCMC on 18.07.2018 and they were granted the same w.e.f. 05.03.2019. Later on, they came to know that RCMC should be available on or before the date of application for grant of incentive under SEIS scheme. Hence, Relaxation of procedural requirement is sought in respect of RCMC registration date being their bona fide lapse. Decision: The Committee having examined the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm and noted that the firm is a small exporter and faced genuine difficulties being a new comer. Hence committee decided to accede to the request of the firm and allowed Chapter-3 benefit under SEIS for the services rendered during financial year 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA) PH Case No.09 M/s Orbit Textiles Mills Private limited, Tirupur F. No. 01/60/162/34/AM20/PRC

Subject: To allow 100% alternate export product of same sector i.e. cotton

made-ups, cotton bags and fabrics to fulfill export obligation against 6 EPCG Authorization No.(i) 3230012599 dated 29.09.2008, (11) 323002601 dated 29.09.2008, (111) 3230014582 dated 16.03.2010, (Iv) 3230012600 dated 29.09.2008, (V) 3230014036 dated 24.11.2009 and (vi) 3230025983 dated 02.6.2010. The applicant had sought personal hearing In terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 28.05.2019. Shri V. Sasivarnan, Director appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that they could not affect export of cotton yarn fonrt/ards - 50 % of EO value owing to market situation and lack of overseas orders. But fulfilled 100% EO with alternative product viz. Cotton Fabrics and made ups those are made out of cotton yarn manufactured out of the spinning unit machines procured under EPCG Authorization referred above. After taking over the company they made the same a composite unit manufacturing cotton fabrics & made ups besides Cotton Yarn. The said yarn manufactured in the unit has been used in the weaving and made - ups divisions and exported towards 100% EO fulfillment.

nit manufacturing cotton fabrics & made ups besides Cotton Yarn. The said yarn manufactured in the unit has been used in the weaving and made - ups divisions and exported towards 100% EO fulfillment. Owing to companies' financial tight corner and unviable overseas yarn market they could not export yarn and thus they may be considered for 100% alternative textile product which is made out of the yarn manufactured in the spinning unit using the machines procured under EPCG scheme. Decision; The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and decided to remand back the matter to EPCG Division to examine and thereafter the case would be again placed before the PRC. (Action: EPCG-Dlvlslon)

Case No.10 M/s Blocon Limited, Bangalore

F. No. 01/60/162/112/AM20/PRC

Subject: To allow Chapter 3 benefit (MEIS) against shipping bills In which

inadvertently "No" mentioned in reward column. They have stated that the shipping bills were filed by inadvertently ticking as "NO" instead of "Yes" in the "reward" column of shipping bills. However, the intent of claiming the MEIS reward has been declared affirmatively, in wording, in the said shipping bills. Trade notice 24/2018 dated 21.02.2018 was issued by DGFT to collect information of such cases and consider the matter. Later on dated 10.01.2019, received an e-mail confirmation from the Office of DGFT that shipping bills were not considered for granting the MEIS reward. Since, the intention of claiming reward was declared in affirmative, in wordings, inadvertent ticking of reward column as "No" instead of "Yes" while filling shipping bills is a procedural lapse, which can be condoned and MEIS incentive for the aforesaid shipping bills be granted. —■

Decision: The Committee having examined the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm found no case of genuine hardship in their case and accordingly decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant) Case No.11 WI/s Palvi Industries Limited, Baroda F. No. 01/60/162/117/AM20/PRC PRC Meeting No. 07/AI/I20 dated 28.05.2019

Subject: Revalidation of DFIA No.3410043790 dated 08.01.2018.

They have stated that one of their main export products is Caustic Soda Flakes / Solids which they have been exporting to African and Latin American countries. The main raw material for manufacturing Caustic Soda Flakes / Solids is Caustic Soda Lye. Bureau of Indian Standards on 04.10.2018, enforced an Order namely Bureau of Indian Standard (Caustic Soda) order, 2018. As per the order, all goods mentioned in Table 2 (Caustic Soda) shall confirm to ISI252:2013 else imports and sale would not be allowed. The time for Foreign Manufacture to get their manufacturing process approved and registered by BIS takes between 4-5 Months. They are holding import Authorization and because they are not allowed to import the Raw Material, these licenses are due to get expired, since none of the foreign suppliers could get the mandatory BIS registration till now. Decision: The Committee went through the statement made by the applicant and concluded that there is a genuine hardship in this case due to change in law and therefore decided to allow revalidation of DFIA No.3410043790 dated 08.01.2018 for a period of 12 months from the date of endorsement. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action; Applicant/RA)

Case No.12 M/s Rama Cylinders Pvt. Ltd, Kutch Gujarat

F. No. 01/60/162/124/AM20/PRC

Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0310811593 dated

03.03.2017. They have stated that they had fulfilled their export obligation and import is balance. The sufficient imported raw material was available in their factory till the time of advance authorization for their export products. 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.13 WI/s Rama Cylinders Pvt. Ltd, Kutch Gujarat

F. No. 01/60/162/125/AM20/PRC , 7

Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0310811595 dated

03.03.2017. They have stated that they had fulfilled their export obligation and import is balance. The sufficient imported raw material was available in their factory till the time of advance authorization for their export products. 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.14 M/s Rama Cylinders Pvt. Ltd, Kutch Gujarat F. No. 01/60/162/123/AM20/PRC

Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0310811594 dated

03.03.2017. They have stated that they had fulfilled their export obligation and import is balance. The sufficient imported raw material was available in their factory till the time of advance authorization for their export products. 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.15 M/s Rajendra Ravindra Printers Limited, New Delhi

F. No. 01/60/162/63/AM20/PRC

Subject: Extension in EOP of 3 EPCG Authorization No.(i) 0530153587 dated

01.10.2010, (ii) 0530153748 dated 19.10.2010 and (iii) 0530153985 dated 16.11.2010. Firm has stated about huge problems and hardship faced by them as well as other entities in the printing and publishing sector in wake of the technological changes having taken place all over the world with introduction of e-books, which are now most popular than the physical books. As a result, their export of published printed books has considerably gone down and the down trend is continuing from year to year. Hence, books publishing industry are facing various serious challenges from electronic era even their survival has become a major issue. Further, they used to print the books from M/s Chand and Company and the EO was met through exports to various countries. Many exports made by M/s Chand and Company Ltd. out of books manufactured by RRPL through Amritsar Customs were not permitted by Customs, as a result of which many shipments under above 3 (Zero Duty) EPCG Authorizations could not be endorsed in shipping bills and they are not able to count 8

tsar Customs were not permitted by Customs, as a result of which many shipments under above 3 (Zero Duty) EPCG Authorizations could not be endorsed in shipping bills and they are not able to count 8

these shipments towards fulfillment of EO. The shipping bills could not be endorsed because of a change in their constitution which was taken over (merged) with M/s Vlkas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. and because of this technical observation, the EPCG license details could not be incorporated on the shipping bills by the Customs Authorities at Amritsar. Decision: The Committee went through the contention of the firm and discussed the matter at length. The Committee observed that due to change in technology, the firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control and accordingly decided to allow BOP extension of 3 EPCG Authorization No.0530153587 dated 01.10.2010, 0530153748 dated 19.10.2010 and 0530153985 dated 16.11.2010 for a period of 2 years (24 months) from the date of endorsement. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA) PH Case No.16 M/s Eastman International, Ludhiana F. No. 01/60/162/97/AM20/PRC

Subject: Relaxation in context to Para 4.16 of EXiM Poiicy, to convert 4

Advance Authorization applications File No.(i) 30/21/040/0005/AM16, (ii) 30/21/040/00035/AM16, (iii) 30/21/040/00057/AM16 and (iv) 30/21/040/00088/AM16) to DFiA application, no advance authorization issue but export done under advance authorization file numbers. which was afforded on 28.05.2019. Shri Akhil Puri, Export Executive appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that in their over enthusiasm they opted to export under advance authorization against SIGN E38, allowing raw material for PP Bags, used for packing Rice. But when got into the actual nitty-gritty of procuring the product of export, the realization dawned that it was a wrong option. Because Rice for export is available and accordingly procured by them on PAN India basis. It emerged that each Rice Vendor /Mill, area-wise irrespective of being in remote area, had its pre-existing arrangement to procure PP Bags, at a lowest possible cost, which they could not have assured or managed to match under advance authorization because supporting manufacturer tie-ups with manufacturers, supplying PP Bags to their any- many rice vendors at different location was impractical. The fact is that sizeable export has been done by them under the said advance authorization in above 4 files, but not in position to utilize the advance authorization to be issued.

n was impractical. The fact is that sizeable export has been done by them under the said advance authorization in above 4 files, but not in position to utilize the advance authorization to be issued. Accordingly, their request is to convert these AA applications into DFIA applications. Decision: The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and found no merit in their case and decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No.17 M/s Fortune Cotton and Agro Industries, Karnataka 9

F. No. 01/60/162/72/AM20/PRC

Subject: Condonation for not mentioning the name of supporting manufacturer

and EPCG Authorization No. 0730012446 dated 17.08.2013 in 3 shipping bills. which was afforded on 28.05.2019. Shri Sandip Chourasia, Authorized Representative appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have obtained above EPCG license for capital machinery import during 2013. They had exported the Raw Cotton against this EPCG license through third party exporters in terms of full value vide 3 shipping bills nos.9057900 dated 17.04.2015, 9059271 dated 17.04.2015 and 9059427 dated 17.04.2015. They had exported Raw Cotton by third party and third party had mentioned EPCG license number and date in customs invoice cum packing list. At the time of removal of material from the factory, they had mentioned in their tax invoice of the EPCG license no. and date. Since the exported Raw Cotton which is not excisable, the "H" form was got issued by the sales tax department which mentioned the bill no. and date and bill of lading. Decision: The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and found no merit in their case and accordingly decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No.18 M/s Fortune Cotton and Agro Industries, Karnataka F. No. 01/60/162/74/AM20/PRC

Subject: Condonation for not mentioning the name of supporting manufacturer

and EPCG License no 0730012026 dated 16.01.2013 in shipping bills. which was afforded on 28.05.2019, Shri Sandip Chourasia, Authorized Representative appeared before the committee on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have obtained above EPCG license for capital machinery import during 2013. They had exported the Raw Cotton against this EPCG license through third party exporters in terms of full value vide shipping bill no.9059683 dated 17.04.2015. They had exported Raw Cotton by third party and third party had mentioned EPCG license number and date in customs invoice cum packing list. At the time of removal of material from the factory, they had mentioned in their tax invoice of the EPCG license no. and date. Since the exported Raw Cotton which is not excisable. The "H" form issued by the sales tax department also mentioned the bill no. and date and bill of lading. Decision: The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and found no merit in their case and accordingly decided to reject it. 10

(Action: Applicant) Case No.19 Wl/s T P Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi F. No. 01/60/162/43/AM20/PRC

Subject: Waiver of procedural requirement as per HBP (i) Supply affected to

SEZ bill of exports not obtained, (ii) Authorization No.0510398930 dated 28.06.2016 and date not endorsed on the shipping bills of 3'^ party export. They have stated that the supplies effected to SEZ and Export through 3^^ party has procedural lapse was informed to OLA New Delhi office. In reply OLA - New Delhi vide their letter dated 11.01.2019 specifying that the shipping bills without authorization number cannot be considered towards discharge of EO and also supply made to SEZ for own consumption cannot be taken towards fulfillment of EO. They exported the material through third party and full container stuffing was made in their factory premises with one time lock, was supervised by Central Excise Authorities. The shipment was made under ARE 1 and the same was endorsed by the Customs authorities mentioning relevant shipping bill through which let export was released. These 3^^ party shipping bill no.4961024 dated 24.03.2017 & 7135939 dated 07.04.2017 need condonation of procedural lapse of not mentioning advance authorization no. & date in the shipping bills. The ARE 1 is endorsed by the customs on the back side of the ARE1 which has corroborative evidence that the export material was manufactured by them. Decision: The Committee having examined the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm found no merit in their case and accordingly decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant)

Case No.20: Incomplete Cases

Following cases were discussed. The Committee observed that the applications have been received without ANF 2D and Application Fee as per Appendix 2K (fully/partly) and also without Reasons/Justifications as per Para-15 of ANF 2D are to be treated as incomplete applications. Therefore, such cases are not been taken up by the Committee as mentioned below: s. No. Name of the firm Subject of the firm Remarks 1. M/s Rattan Rice & Gen. Mills, Karnal, Haryana Consideration of Export towards used in Multiple EPCG License of Multiple Manufacturers in respect of EPCG License No.3330002847 dated 24.05.2013. ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted. 2. M/s Suraj Rice Mills, Ambala, Haryana Consideration of Export towards used in Multiple EPCG License of Multiple Manufacturers in ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted. 11

respect of EPCG License No.3330003126 dated 16.12.2013. 3. M/s Deepak Agro Industries, Kurukshetra, Haryana Consideration of Export towards used in Multiple EPCG License of Multiple Manufacturers in respect of EPCG License No.3330002948 dated 19.07.2013. ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted. 4. M/s G.S. Foods, Kurukshetra, Haryana Consideration of Export towards used in Multiple EPCG License of Multiple Manufacturers in respect of EPCG License No.3330003301 dated 16.06.2014. ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted. 5. M/s J.K.

ion of Export towards used in Multiple EPCG License of Multiple Manufacturers in respect of EPCG License No.3330003301 dated 16.06.2014. ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted. 5. M/s J.K. Rice Land, Kurukshetra, Haryana Consideration of Export towards used in Multiple EPCG License of Multiple Manufacturers in respect of EPCG License No.3330003156 dated 10.01.2014. ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted. 6. M/s Mangal Rice Mills, Kurukshetra, Haryana Consideration of Export towards used in Multiple EPCG License of Multiple Manufacturers in respect of EPCG License No.3330002902 dated 28.06.2013. ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted. 7. M/sH.M. Foods,Kaithal, Haryana Consideration of Export towards used in Multiple EPCG License of Multiple Manufacturers in respect of EPCG License No.3330003378 dated 05.09.2014. ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted. 8. M/s Kafila Forge Limited, Delhi Acceptance of Installation Certificate from Chartered Engineer. ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted. 9. M/s Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd., Pune To allow MEIS claim against application file no.27/21/090/5004/ AM19 dated 02.04.2018. Proof of application fee not submitted. 10.

n fee not submitted. 9. M/s Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd., Pune To allow MEIS claim against application file no.27/21/090/5004/ AM19 dated 02.04.2018. Proof of application fee not submitted. 10. M/s Salcomp Manufacturing India Private Limited, Tamil Nadu. Condonation of procedural lapse in mentioning MEIS benefit related details in shipping bills. ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted. 11 M/s Deal Exports Private Limited, Chennai To consider and transmit to customs server to DGFT server for availing the MEIS claims against 8 shipping bills. ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted. 12 M/s Godawat Consumer Products LLP, Kolhapur, Maharashtra TED Refund ANF 2D not submitted. 12

13. M/s Konkan Mango TED Refund ANF2D not Processing submitted. (Ratnagiri) Pvt. Ltd., Ratnagirl, Maharashtra 13