DGFT Committee Minutes

Date of I (9 9/2019 Directorate General of Foreign Trade fPRC Section) Minutes of the Policv Relaxation Committee Meeting held on 24.09.2019 under the Chairmanship of Shri Alok Vardhan Chaturvedi, Director General of Foreign Trade Meeting No.19/AIV120 held on 24.09.2019 The following members were present in the meeting:

1. Shri K.C. Rout
2. Shri R. P. Goya!
3. Shri Vijay Kumar
4. Shri Satyan Sharda
5. Shri Anil Aggarwal
6. Shri Rajbir Sharma Addl. DGFT Add). DGFT Addl. DGFT Addl. DGFT Addl. DGFT Jt DGFT Following cases were discussed. The decision taken on the individual cases are as under:- S. No

Name of the firm M/s Shri Lalitha Enterprises Industries (P) Ltd.. Peddapuram (A.P.) M/s Sanjay Kumar & Sons. Delhi 4. 5. 6. 7. M/s Raiesh Kumar & Brothers. Bhadohi M/Q/nlvn India Pvt. Ltd.. Bengaluru r:—^ 7":—:: . i-»..i i i.j /r^r M/s Gujarat Infrapipes Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara M/s Ziva Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.. Mumbai M/s Stic On Papers Pvt. Ltd.. Hyderabad M/s. Ladhar Paper Mills. Jalandhar Q — j 9. M/s Kftmwell BiopharmaPvt. Ltd.. Bangalore_ M/s KKP Petchem Private Limited. Mumbai M/s. Fitex Industries Limited. Ludhiana 10. 11. 12. 13. M/s. Liberty Shoes Limited. Karnal 14. 15. M/s. Malik International. Haryana M/s. M. P. Impex. Mumbai 16. 17. 18. 19. M/s Raiauru Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.. Mumbai 7T~, !• _ r-*. .1. I ^Al lrYthoi M/s. -lahil Circuit India Pvt. Ltd.. Mumba] M/s. Rushil Decor Limited, Gujarat M/s. Manjeet Hotels Pvt. Ltd.. Mumbai IVl/S. IVIcii ijcci I ^ 1—— M/s. Big Bags International Pvt. Ltd.. Bangalore 20^ fihashi Cables Limited. JSgn^ur ^^— M/s Centex International Pvt. Ltd.. Ludhiana 21. 22. Ltd.,li/lum^ Case No. 10&11

M/s Shachi Enqineerinq Pvt. Ltd., Pune 25 24. M/s Maruti Rub Plast Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 26 25. M/s Pinnacle Clothing Co. Noida 27 26. M/s Transpek-Silox Industry Pvt. Limited. Vadodara 28 27. M/s Everest Kanto Cylinder Limited, Mumbai 29 28. M/s A-1 Fence Products Company Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 30 29. M/s Vikash Ecotech Limited, New Delhi 31 30. M/s Steelman Industries, Ludhiana 32 31 M/s Gem Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 33 32. M/s Indo Rama Synthetic (India) Limited, Bhopal 34 Mh. /pHanta 1 imit<=^d, Mumbai 35 00. 36 34 M/s Jindal Saw Limited, New Delhi 35 M/s Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai 37 36 MM PI Industries Ltd.. Udaipur 38&39 37. Incomplete Cases 40 PH Case No. 01 Wl/s Shri Lalitha Enterprises Industries (P) Ltd., Peddapuram (A.P.) F. No. 01/60/162/208/AI/l20/PRC PRC Meeting No. 19/AM20 dated 24.09.2019 Subject: Permission to files WiEiS claim manually against shipping bill No.8835608 dated 12.11.2018. Decision- The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2^59 of FTP 2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.09.2019, but no one appeared on behalf firm. The Committee decided to defer the case. (Action; Applicant) PH Case No. 02 M/s Sanjay Kumar & Sons, Delhi F. No. 01/60/162/770/AM19/PRC c .Kionf To allow FPS/VKGUY and WIEIS benefit against shipping bills Uploading. The applioantted .ought pa^onal following submissions; by the back in 2017, 2018 and Still uploading.

Decision: The Committee went through the statement made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length. The Committee observed that due to delay in uploading of BRC by the banker in DGFT Portal, 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 FPSA/KGUY and MEIS benefit against shipping bills pertaining to 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 without any late cut. The firm shall approach RA within 90 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA) PH Case No. 03 Wl/s Rajesh Kumar & Brothers, Bhadohi F. No. 01/60/162/366/AI/l20/PRC Subject: Time extension for filling of WIEIS application against four time barred shipping bills. Decision: The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.09.2019, but no one appeared on behalf of the firm. The Committee decided to defer the case. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No. 04 Nils Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara F. No. 01/60/162/412/AM20/PRC Subject: Permission to count the exports made prior to obtaining the Advance Authorization No. 0710077828 dated 04.03.2011 towards fulfillment of export obligation. The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, wh^h'Srafforded on 24.09.2019. Shri Devender Bagia. and Shri Raghav Khurana, Senior Associate/Advocate appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions; They stated that they are regularly obtaining the advance intermediate supply. VBIPL( Volvo Bus) have received an 20100721 dated 21 07.2010 for manufacture and export of 12 number of Volvo Mu i Axle Air-Conditloned Buses. In order to manufacture the said Buses VBIPL require 12 numbers of chassis and thus they have placed a purchase order on them for supply of 12 numbers of chassis. Pursuant to receipt of said PO, they have imported various inputs on payment of applicable customs duties and comnnenced manufacture of chassis. VBIPL had filed an application for issuance of advance authSm n the month of September 2010 and obtained the Advance Sorlzation No.0710074544 dated 01.10,2010 a. incuts including Chassis for manufacture and export of buses. VBIPL "as oWaine an invalidation letter dated 11.11.2010 to procure noted that though the invalidation letter had been obtained by VBIPL in the montn o November 2010, they have placed an order on them for procurement of chassis

the month of August 2010 itself. It Implies that VBIPL has simultaneously applied for Issuance of advance authorization and also placed PO on them for supply of chassis. They have supplied the chassis manufactured out of duty paid inputs to VBIPL under 12 numbers of Central Excise Invoices raised between September 2010 and December 2010. They submit that they have not claimed any deemed export benefits provided under the FTP 2009-14 for the supplies of chassis to VBIPL since the same were Intent to be accounted towards fulfillment of EO imposed against the subject authorization. Decision: The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and noted that policy is very clear in this regard. It discussed the matter at length and found no merit in it and hence decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action; Applicant) PH Case No. 05 M/s Gujarat infrapipes Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara F. No. 01/60/162/422/AI/120/PRC Subject: Extension in E.G. period against Advance Authorization No.3410043260 dated 02.06.2017 for a period of 4 months from the date of endorsement. The applicant had sought personal hearing In terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020 which was afforded on 24.09.2019 and Shri Paras Shah, Manager - Commercial appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions. They have stated that they are the largest manufacture of products made from carbon steel, stainless steel, duplex stainless steel, a"°y Copper-Nickel Titanium. They carries up the widest range of PW ^ biaqest projects of various sector of oil and gas refineries, power generation plar^ts fertnizers ihipbuilding and marine. Nuclear etc. Their facility is spread across he (75000 SQMT) area at Manglej, Vadodara, Gujarat. The plant has an installed oroduction capacity of 15000 MT equipped with required chemical and mechan^al °CarL'.Wl»ing pr.daoB sector undertakings like Indian Oil, Bharat PeUoleum HMEL NTPC hinnpet nrivate sector like Punj Loyd Group, Reliance Industries Ltd., L&T and Adam Group etc They are also supplying to foreign suppliers of government exDort All the items being manufactured by them are tailor made based on the a. Nigeda i, ,s «P>, bouad ..pod order. Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and ^ SncJ i'r?oi4« "rs "f a°s a'b^e, on the unfulfilled FOB value. The

firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: AppiicantyRA) PH Case No. 06 M/s Ziva Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Nlumbal F. No. 01/60/162/199/AM20/PRC Subiect: To allow refund of Bank Guarantee against three Invoices No D1L/OX19G1KMUM494 dated 03.04.2019, D1UOX19G1K1UW1521 dated 09.04.2019 and DIL/OX19G1KMU1V1522 dated 15.04.2019 for the hand carry exports of Diamond Studded Gold Jewellery. The applicant had sought personal hearing In terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.09.2019 and Shrl Saumll Shah, Director appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that they had purchased gold under Outright Scherne against a Purchase Order from his overseas buyer. He has exported Jewellery within 90 days and received full proceeds. To this extent. It satisfies the provisions of Outright Purchase Scheme. However, he has prepared documents and fo"owed the export procedure as applicable for Exhibition Scheme. He has obtained GJEPC approva^ Customs endorsement for hand carry etc. As the documents are under E^'bition Scheme he Is expected to price gold for the sold quantity. Hence, Pricing should be made after sale of jewellery and duty free gold to be delivered under ReP enishmert Scheme. In this case, the pricing has happened before sale of jewellery dehvery of gold taken under Outright Scheme. Thus, the documents do not support the delivery of duty free gold under Outright Scheme. The fact rernains that the exporter has purchased gold, made jewellery, exported jewellery with endorsements from customs and obtained full proceeds. Ordinarily, he should become eligible for dujr benefit However, he has not followed the correct documentation. He has not oartlclpated In Trade Fair for which he obtained GJEPC permission, but delivered j^ewellery to his buyer who was participating In Trade Fair. He has purchased gold under Outright Scheme against a confirmed order whereas exhibition would call fo purchase of quantity sold under Replenishment Scheme. (As the quantity which can be sold in exhibition Is not known beforehand, HBP provides for pricing of the sc^d Entity under Replenishment scheme. He also mentioned that he is m the export business for more than 15 years and never have faulted on procedure. He also ha no relation with the Importer and this supply may be treated as regular exports. Decision- The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and discussed the meeting.

(Action: Applicant/Diamond India Ltd., Mumbai) PH Case No. 07 M/s Stic On Papers Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad F. No. 01/60/162/88/AI/l20/PRC Subject: 2"^ Extension in E.G. period against Advance Authorization No.0910064927 dated 19.04.2017. The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.09.2019 and Shrl Ayyappa, Assistant Manager Import & Export and Shrl Ashish Gupta, Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions; They have stated that they have completed 50% of the EO proportionate to import made within the stipulated EOF but due to technical limitation of capital goods, they could not manufacture adequate quantity on time. 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 EOF extension of Advance Authorization No.0910064927 dated 19.04.2017 for a period 6 months from the date of endorsement subject to payment of composition f®® month on the unfulfilled FOB Value, if exports are fulfilled imore than 50/o wi h n n a EOF or @ 1% per month where exports have been made less than 50/o vvithin initia EOF. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. PH Case No. 08 M/s Stic On Papers Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad F. No. 01/60/162/87/AM20/FRC Subject: 2"" Extension in E.G. period against Advance Authorization No.0910064895 dated 10.04.2017. The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-202^ which was afforded on 24.09.2019, Shri Ayyappa, Assistant Manager Irnport & Export and Shri Ashish Gupta, Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the firm and mad© th© following submissions. Thev have stated that they have completed 50% of the EO proportioriate to irn^port made within the stipulated EOF but due to technical limitation of capital goods. They could not manufacture adequate quantity on time. Decision- The Committee examined the case in detail and in view of justification f-

EOP or @ 1% per month where exports have been made less than 50% within initial EOP. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. PH Case No. 09 M/s. Ladhar Paper Willis, Jalandhar F. No. 01/60/162/172/AM20/PRC Subject: Regularization of export already made beyond EOP (2 months) against EPCG Authorization No.3030002682 dated 26.04.2007. The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020 which was afforded on 24.09.2019 and Shri Rajiv Bhardwaj, Commercial Head appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that they imported the second hand machine from UK in 20^ which was more than 50 years old. Due to technical issues, machine was delayed and they started producing the export quality product in 2014 ^ y completed 85% of the EO within 3 years i.e. 25.04.2017. They have balance 15% EO within 2 months from the date of expiry of the EOP. They had tiled K w«catta — EPCG Committa. tor axterr.lon in EOP. The Co— meeting dated 24.01.2019 allowed them extension of 2 the duty in proportion to the unfulfilled EO. They have calculated Rs.1100848 as 50% of the duty in proportion to unfulfilled EO, which is very harsh on them to pay 50% duty for delay of only 2 months. They have tried their best in comp eting the EO but there were reasons which were beyond their control and request to condone delay as per Para 5.11.2 of HBP 2004-09. In fact completion of exports is delayed by only 53 days from the date of first EO extension. ,fr.s 1Q 06 2017 of EPCG Authorization No.3030002682 ^a^®" . u\^ the minutes of meeting. PH Case No. 10 Wl/s Kemwell Biopharma Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore F. No. 01/60/162/339/AM20/PRC

subject- To count the export of 2 Shipping N°-2544315 dated

S77 dated 02.12.2016 under Advance Authorization No.0710110362 dated

01.09.2016 instead of Advance Authorization No.0710109957 dated 15.08.2016 for regularization and discharge of export obligation. The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.09.2019 and Shri Aruldoss Samathanam, Assistant General Manager - SCM appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that they had procured material against invalidation letter and manufactured the product for export. While applying the advance license, they have selected port of Registration "Deemed" wrongly, since they were procuring the material locally. Due to this, advance license is not transmitted to Customs Portal. While filing Export shipping bill at Customs Port, Bangalore Airport, the system is showing an error and no Record found in the ICEGATE system. By oversight in shipping bill they have mentioned advance authorization no.0710109957 dated 15.06.2016 instead of No.0710110352 dated 01.09.2016. Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and noted that there is merit in firm's contention and there appeared to be a genuine mistake. Therefore the Committee decided to consider the export of two Shipping Bills No.2544315 dated 30 11.2016 and 2595277 dated 02.12.2016 against Advance Authorization No.0710110352 dated 01.09.2016 instead of Advance Authorization No.0710109957 dated 15.06.2016 subject to following conditions: i. Composition fee of Rs.200/-per shipping bill shall be imposed. ii. RA shall ensure that above shipping bills have not been taken into account in any other Advance Authorization for discharge of export obligation. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. PH Case No. 11 M/s Kemwell BiopharmaPvt. Ltd., Bangalore F. No. 01/60/162/336/AM20/PRC Subject: To count the export of one shipping bill No.6395272 dated 30.05.2017 under Advance Authorization No.07100110656 dated 17.11.2016 instead of Advance Authorization No.0710111251 dated 07.03.2017 for regularization and discharge of export obligation. The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.09.2019 and Shri Aruldoss Samathanam. Assistant General Manager - SCM appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: Thev have stated that they had procured material against invalidation letter and manufactured the product for export. While applying the advance license, they have selected port of Registration "Deemed" wrongly, since they were procuring the

material locally. Due to this, advance license is not transmitted to Customs Portal. While filing Export shipping bill at Customs Port. Bangalore Airport, the system is showing an error and no Record found in the ICEGATE system. Hence, they have used their demerged company Recipharm Pharmaserves Pvt. Ltd.. AA No.0710111251 dated 07.03.2017 in the above shipping bill instead of AA No.0710110656 dated 17.11.2016 and moved the export shipment without delay. Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and noted thatjherejs merit in firm's contention and there appeared to be a genuine mistake. Therefore the Committee decided to consider the export of one Shipping Bill No.6395272 dated 30.05.2017 against Advance Authorization No.0710110656 dated 17.11.2U1b instead of Advance Authorization No.0710111251 dated 07.03.2017 subject to following conditions: i. Composition fee of Rs.200/-per shipping bill shall be imposed. ii. RA shall ensure that above shipping bills have not been taken into account in any other Advance Authorization for discharge of export obligation. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action; Applicant/RA) PH Case No. 12 M/s KKP Petchem Private Limited, Wlumbai F. No. 01/60/162/297/AI/120/PRC Subject: Condonation of delay in filing of WIEIS application against 109 Shipping bills export made in year 2015-16. The applicant had sought personal hearing In terms of Para 2,59 of FTP, 2015-2020 Which was afforded on 24.09.2019 and Shri Kiran Savla, and Shri Vinay Khetan. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions; Thev have stated that due to lack of clarity by issuing authority; Kandia SEZ, they lould not appt to Kandia SEZ as they had raised an objection & even issued o der SEZ) In filing of their legitimate and eligible MEIS claim. bilMor export made during the year 2015-16 with late cut of 10% on the entitlement.

(Action: Applicant/Concerned SEZ) PH Case No. 13 WI/s. Fitex Industries Limited, Ludhiana F. No. 01/60/162/85/AM20/PRC Subject: Condonation of procedurai lapse of not mentioning the advance authorization no. and date in 10 shipping bills towards fulfillment of EO of Advance Authorization No.2010061221 dated 12.05.2009. Decision: The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.09.2019, but no one appeared on behalf of the firm. The Committee decided to defer the case. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No. 14 WI/s. Liberty Shoes Limited, Karnal F. No. 01/60/162/202/AM20/PRC Subject: Re-fixation of Annual Average Export Obligation against EPCG Licenses. The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FJP. 2015-2020 which was afforded on 24.09.2019. Shri Pradeep Tayal. Chartered Accoun ant and Ms. Suman Bansal. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that due to insolvency and bankruptcy of their two major overseas buyL i.e.M/s Shoes & Shirt. Austria (2006-07) and M/s Romika 2005), n° export was made to these customers thereafter. Moreover, illegal ® , their 3 units at Haryana during the period 2006-06 and 2006-07, which not only adversely affected their export performance but also affected their JV ® brand amonq foreign customers. Due to these factors, they could not be fulfilled the AEO They also stated that if export to these two customers is not counted in 3 years of average export fixation, their EO would be completed rather than surplus. Solvency orcustomers abroad is beyond their control and is a force measure situation it is submitted that various departments of central Government are not able to recover their huge dues from so many corporate under Sdvenc! there"roniy case of not able to export to their customers who becorne insolvenl. in ordm to Mm its EO and al.o to improvo 1772 SKoi talo tlair In.oWeno,. «er. not aPI. to Ml.ll a„rag. EO. 10

overseas buyers, firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control. Therefore, Committee decided to accept their request for re-fixation of Annual Average EO against the EPCG Authorisations. Accordingly, the firm shall approach RA with revised OA certificate duly reducing the average exports to the extent of exports made to these 2 major buyers in the previous 3 years, on the basis of which average EO was fixed initially. Firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. PH Case No. 15 Wl/s. Wlalik International, Haryana F. No. 01/60/162/271/AM20/PRC Subject: Considering the fulfillment of EO against EPCG Authorization No.0530132857 dated 20.05.2002 and 0530133002 dated 20.06.2002 in US$. The applicant had sought persona! hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.09.2019. Shri Anil Kumar Malik, Owner appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions; They have stated that they were under export Obligation to export Readymade Garments worth Rs.3324077/- (USD 676380/-) while maintaining annual average exports of Rs.84610661.66. They have fulfilled EO during the following 4 years i.e. in 2002-03 to 2005-06 while maintaining annual average export in terms of USD 7036228 during the Export Obligation Period. They had applied for redemption, however, RA, informed that there is shortfall in Average EO for the period AM03 & AM04 and also informed that the average export obligation is required to be fulfilled in INR only. Decision: The Committee went through the statements made by the firm and noted that the applicant has not submitted any cogent reason/ justification in support O' genuine hardship faced by them. Accordingly, the Committee decided to reject the request. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No. 16 Wl/s. Wl. P. Impex, Wlumbai F. No. 01/60/162/448/AM20/PRC Subject; Revalidation of DFIA No. 3010103922 dated 06.01.2017. The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2 59 of FTP, 2015-2020 which was afforded on 24.09.2019 and Shri Aayush Mandhanya, Chartered Accountant appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions. They have stated that having lEC No.031504446 they are importer and trader of scrips such as DFiA's. They have purchased DFIA.s from Mis. Sectors Foods SpTcy^tes Limited, Theing Road, Phillaur-144410 in 16.02.2017 to import sugar 11

along with other raw materials which were allowed as per SION for export of biscuits. However, the DFIA's could not be used for import before expiry for import of sugar due to refusal of request by the licensing Authority to correct the ITC MS code mentioned on the DFIA. All the 21 DFIA's were Issued by RA Ludhiana against export of biscuits as per SION wherein "cane sugar" is allowed as one of the input. In the manufacture of biscuits "refined sugar" is used which is made from sugarcane thus the input is Indicated in the norms as "cane sugar". As refined cane sugar was used in the manufacture of the export product, in order to comply with the FTP provisions for importing specific inputs used in the manufacture of the export product they through the exporter requested the licensing Authority, Ludhiana for endorsement of ITC HS code for refined sugar to read 17019990 as against 17011190 which was mentioned on the body of the DFIA. RA, Ludhiana refused the request to rectify the code of cane sugar to read as 17019990. Due to this refusal by the concerned licensing Authority the DFIAs could not be used for import of cane sugar as without proper ITC HS Code the custom would not have allowed imports. They could utilize the DFIAs for import of all other inputs before the expii^ of the DFIAs but for cane sugar as the right ITC HS code was not allowed by the licensing Authority Now they have come across DFIA which have been issued by the same licensing Authority for export of biscuits against which cane sugar is allowed wrth proper ITC HS code 17019990 which was requested by them to be endorsed he correct ITC HS code for Import of cane sugar can also be verified from the bi o entry filed for import of cane sugar against other DFIAs and which was accordingly accepted by customs. In view of the foregoing facts it is obvious ^hat the correct code for import of sugar in the DFIA has been accepted by the LA and they hope to get it corrected on their DFIAs by the LA. Decision: The Committee having heard the case on the basis of justjficatton furnished by the firm and observed that there is no merit in firm s contention and decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No. 17 Wl/s. Rajguru Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Wlumbai F. No. 01/60/162/445/AM20/PRC Subject- Relaxation for exports made urider DF'A No^ 03/91/076/00048/AW118 dated 17.11.2017 against import of Stainless Steel Coils I Sheet. The aoDlicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2016-2020 which Ls afforded on 24.09.2019 and Shri Sumeet Bafna, Director appeared behalf of the firm and made the following submissions. The, have «ate<l that the, are uaawara of the product .Binless Beit application for SJi'e of DHA was TTP,'their oohhpah, in past 12

had been availing DFIA In a similar manner and there is no way they would have exported under this scheme if they had been aware of the newly Introduced Import condition. As on today, the first import condition stands withdrawn as it was not found constructive to their country's export. They accept that this was a lapse on their part., but while generating DFIA file numbers the system takes Into account the Export and Import products and in fact the system should not have issued them the fiie number as pre import condition was in place. They have already exported and taken the Import right under the DFIA Into account. 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 to issue DFIA by regularizing exports already made before Imports against DFIA file No.03/91/076/00048/AI/l18 dated 17.11.2017. Imports against DFIA file would be allowed proportionate to the exports already made In subject DFIA file. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Appilcant/RA) PH Case No. 18 Mis. Jabii Circuit India Pvt. Ltd., Wlumbai F. No. 01/60/162/446/AI/l20/PRC Subject: Condonation of delay in submitting SHIS application for the export made during the period 2010-11. The applicant had sought personai hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.09.2019. Shri Laxmikant Govind Bhagwat, Deputy anager

• Finance appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that the matter where their company is being denied SFIIS benefit for exports of 2010-2011 for the reasons of delayed application. Their last request tor Policy/Procedure relaxation was declined and they largely Inadequacy In explaining the reasons behind the delay. They have further stated that their company for the exports made in year 2010-11 was eligible for Status Holder Incentive Script (SHIS). Their application for claiming this incentive was delayed by about 360 days. This lapse was caused by circumstances they had little control over. Their office in the year 2011-12 had shifted to a new premise and the emp^yee managing the documents had resigned; with all this going on they were unable to trace the documents for a prolonged period. After multiple consultations with their Regional Authority they were asked to file a FIR for loss/misplacernent of documents. They filed an FIR and they began the process of reconstructing the whole file for their application. They made application for copies do^ments to Customs Excise Banks and Shipping Agents this proved to be herculean task. Their company had 3000 plus Shipping and had used three different P° ^ name the JNPT/Mumbai Air Cargo and ICD Talegaon. For each port they had toJe I^th different Customs CHA and a different freight forwarder. The process of reconstruction of documents/information took about 24 month. It is in trade in order to meet the submission deadline to make application without C certificate and later keep delaying the reply to any D/L which ought to be issued by 13

the Licensing Authority, tili CA certificate is avaiiabie for submission. Thereby, the appiication inspite being "incomplete" would be treated as submitted in time. Decision: The Committee went through the statements made by the firm and noted that the applicant has not submitted any cogent reason/ justification in support of any genuine hardship being faced by them. Accordingly, the Committee decided to reject the request. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No. 19 Wi/s. Rushil Decor Limited, Gujarat F. No. 01/60/162/784/AM19/PRC Subject: Clubbing of 3 Advance Authorization No.0810119526 dated 18.03.2013, 0810134777 dated 12.03.2015 and 0810135483 dated 17.06.2015. The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020 which was afforded on 24.09.2019. Ms. Puja Agarwal, Executive (Admn) appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions; They have stated that the first Advance Authorization No.0810119526 dated 18.03.2013 and the first import was made on 09.04.2013. The subsequent Advance Authorization and the gap between first is work out to be Advance Authorization No 0810134777 dated 12.03.2015 - 23.24 Months and Advance Authorization No 0810135483 dated 17.06.2015 - 27 Months. The last date of export in subsequent Advance Authorization was made on 21.05.2016 thus between first Advance Authorization is work out around to 38.03 months and 37.05 Mon hs respectively. The excess export made on subsequent Advice Authorization No 0810135483 dated 17.06.2015 are sufficient enough for shortfall of earliest two Authorization on pro-rata basis. Moreover on pro-rata basis the export are works out within the permissible EOP of 36 months from the date of each individual import made on. Decision: The Committee observed that policy with regard to clubbing of is very clear now After having reviewed the case on the basis of justification furnished by ob»™ed « «,er. i. no mer« in decided to maintain rejection of the earlier decision of PRC in its Meeting NO.10/AM20 dated 02.07.2019. (Action; Applicant) PH Case No. 20 Wl/s. Wlanjeet Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Wlumbai F. No. 01/60/162/225/AIV120/PRC Subject: Re-fixation of average EO in view of Celebration Lounge at Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport agai^^^^^^^ EPCG Authorization No.0330018138 dated 19.11.2007 and 0330019008 datea 11.02.2008. ^ _ Cwi' 14

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.09.2019 and Shri Alok Agarvyal, Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that both the above EPCG licenses have been issued in terms of FTP 2004-09. and Customs Notification No.97/2004-Cus dated 17.09.2004, Para 4 of the Customs Notification No.97/2004-Cus dated 17.09.2004 and Para 5.11.2 of HBP (2004-09) specifically prescribe waiver of EO on account of Force Majeure. Provision for maintenance of AEO was inserted in the Notification dated 17.09.2004 vide Notification No.65/2008 dated 09.05.2008. Since, licenses are issued on 19.11.2007 and 11.02.2008 (prior to 09.05.2008), hence there should be no liability of maintenance of average EO on the part of license holder. Termination of licenses by the Airport Authority for beautification of the Airport was a decision of Govt. of India and denial of extension by the Hotel Days Inn beyond 31.12.2007 was unforeseen and both situations were not in the control of license holder which kept the license holder in a huge financial crisis. Both situation are legally attributable to Force Majure and accordingly merits waiver of export obligation. Since specific EO has been fulfilled hence exchequer has not suffered any loss. Decision: The Committee discussed the case at length and found no merit or hardship in the arguments made by the firm and hence decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No. 21 M/s. Big Bags International Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore F. No. 01/60/162/196/AI/120/PRG Subject- Relaxation of Para 4.20 of FTP 2015-20 against following 7 DFIA Nos.(i)0710102098 dated 06.09.2017, (ii) 0710111987 dated 09.08.2017, (iii) 0710112102 dated 06.09.2017, (iv) 0710111999 dated 09.08.2017, (v) 0710112887 dated 27.02.2018, (vi) 0710112671 dated 10.01.2018 and (vii) 0710112877 dated 26.02.2018 by allowing to include more shipping bilis (total 51 S/Bills) not included in the eariier transferability applications for the exports after receiving the transferability for the part of DFiA and allow to claim the DFIA for balance exports benefit with revaildation. The applicant had sought personal hearing In terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.09.2019 and Shri Mehul Shah, Director appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions: They have stated that they had obtained above mentioned DFIAs and completed the exports against all the DFIAs. Since, the delay In issue of some Electronic Bank Realization Certificate by their Bank, they had applied for the transferability for some of the shipping bills. They have received the transferable DFIA for these shiPPinS bills and utilized the same. Then after receiving the Electronic Bank Realization Certificate for the remaining shipping bills, they had filed the online application for inclusion of the balance shipping bills, enhancement in quantities and values. But 15 ^

RA, Bangalore had rejected their application stating that the transferable DFIAs cannot be amended by adding more shipping bills. Decision; The Committee having reviewed the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm observed that there is no merit in firm's contenbon and hence decided to maintain rejection of the earlier decision of PRC in its Meeting No.11/AM20 dated 09.07.2019. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No. 22 M/s Shashi Cables Limited, Kanpur F. No. 01/60/162/806/AM16/PRC Subject: 2"^ Revalidation of Duty Free import Advance 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 24.09.2019, but no one appeared on behalf of the firm. The Committee decided to defer the case. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No. 23 M/s Centex International Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana F. No. 01/60/162/365/AM20/PRC

Subject: Regularization of EO against Advance Authorization No.3010103022

dated 16.07.2014 and 3010103430 dated 18.03.2015. The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 ^P_2015 2020^ which was afforded on 24.09.2019. Shri Sumit Kumar, CA & CEO appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions; They have stated that they couid not fuifiii the EO within vaiijy Period- This was due tn thP cancellation of few of their big export order of M/s. the GAP Inc as per tne company ifs licenses were in financial disturbance / glitch and due to l;The market the products were not saleable. These export orders were for about 30000 pieces equaily to the pending EO of these two licenses. Decision- The Committee having heard the case on the basis of justification Sid by the firm it observed that there is no merit in firm's contention and hence decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant) Case No. 24 M/s ATC Tires Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/416/AM20/PRC 16

Subject; Waiver of procedural requirement for MEIS benefit against 2926 shipping bills. They have stated that they manufactures of off Road Tyres in SIPCOT Special Economic Zone, Gangaikodan, Tirinelveli, Tamilnadu. Their port has been changed from SEZ port to EDI port with effect from 08.04.2019. While filing shipping bills for export of Tyres to their customers from 08.04.2019 upto 09.08.2019 the column relating to intent for availing reward under MEIS schemes was filed the code no. "00" for each line item except for the first line item for which the code no.36 was entered as was being done by them in the past and the system automatically defaulted the code no.OO against remaining items. This inadvertent error resulted in their inability to claim MEIS incentive for all the other line items in the shipping bill except for the first line item. The total shipping bills will be 2926 Nos. FOB value Rs. 542,3429.330.00 and claim value Rs.162,702,879.00 they are working with their export customers on a meagre margin and the this will result in huge loss in their business. Hence, requested to condone and allow them to avail the export reward under MEIS scheme as a special case. Decision: The committee went through the statement made by the firmjn 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: Applicant/PRC) Case No. 25 WI/s Shachi Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Pune F. No. 01/60/162/417/AM20/PRC Subject; Waiver for submission of copy of bill of exports for closure of Advance Authorization No.3110066607 dated 01.03.2017. They have stated that they had received letter indicating to submit bill of export for the material supplied to SEZ against the subject authorization. However they could notTu^it the'^ srrne. Their customer prepared on their behalf bill of export of Rs 22 05,158/- against their total order value of Rs.6,49,19,272/- (out of which sale value of Rs 66 97 075.29 under Advance License). The said bill of exPort was nreiared agSt duty drawback instead of advance license. They referred the same number of bill of export on all the bills/invoices, as suggested by their c^mer and Ttiration that they will make necessary changes in bill of export at their end However they have not made any changes in the bill of export. Hence they a",® no Sing to s'ubmit the bill of export as required by DGFT Pune. They have not claim any amount against Duty Drawback Scheme. DGclsion- The committee went through the statement made by the firm m its afd .ha, the .acts of .ha case ha« no. b^n ola.rh, sp«,had b, the firm and hence decided to call the firm for Personal Hearing. (Action: Applicant/PRC) Case No. 26 Wl's Maruti Rub Plast Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 17

F. No. 01/60/162/207/AM20/PRC Subject: Extension in E.O. period against Advance Authorization No.0510396385 dated 20.11.2015. They have stated that they have not got any export orders due to various reasons. Now, they got the order and also got assurance from their customer that they will be getting further orders till December 2019, whereas the validity of the Export Obligation has already been expired and hence they could not do any exports. They have been exporting regularly to various countries for the products other than the one mentioned in the subject authorization. Hence, requested for EOP extension till February, 2020. Decision- The Committee having reviewed the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm observed that there is no merit in firm's contention and hence decided to maintain rejection of the earlier decision of PRC in its Meeting No.11/AM20 dated 09.07.2019. (Action: Applicant) Case No. 27 WI/s Pinnacle Clothing Co., Noida F. No. 01/60/162/419/AM20/PRC Subject: Regularization of export made beyond EOP (within 26 months) against Advance Authorization No.0510400962 dated 27.12.2016. They have stated that they had obtained the above authorization with the initial EOP of 18 months and obtained first EOP extension from RA re. up to 24 f27 12 2018) They applied for second EOP Extension from RA i.e. up to 30 Month was not allowed due to not fulfill 50% export obligation y^thln 24 They have imported 100% and 100% export obligation within EOP i ®- (2b Months) They had orders in hand which were supposed to be dispatched wthin EOP but they could not dispatch as their customers had cancelled the orders. Their customers told to dispatch the goods in the month of May 2018 which they have already dispatched and completed on 25.02.2019, Decision: The Committee having discussed the case in detail found no merit in it and hence decided to reject the requests of the firm. (Action: Applicant) Case No. 28 M/s Transpek-Sllox Industry Pvt., Limited, Vadodara F. No. 01/60/162/413/AM20/PRC Q.ihiprt- To accept the export item description as mentioned Sh'PP'ng towirds fulfillment of EO against Advance Authorization No.3410041931 dated 29.02.2018. r 18

They have stated that they had submitted their EODC files closure however rejected by RA, Vadodara stating that suffix attached with export item description is not permitted. It is not in line with condition of authorization. Also this rule is imposed with retrospective effect for the Authorization issued for the year 2015-16 onwards. Now, insisting them to regularize the case by payment of customs duty plus interest though they have completed 100% EODC as per the SIGN. The shipping bill is registered with actual product name as well as correct HS code as per the SIGN fixed. However as per contractual I LC conditions they need to give additional information I synonyms I trade name etc., of the product on the shipping bill. The shipping bill is registered with actual product name as well as correct HS code as per the SIGN fixed. This is required for getting the same reflected on the BL. Without declaring such information on the shipping bill, shipping lines will not mention the same on the BL. This was the practice for all these years and all their EGDCs were issued without any objection. This is the only reasons for their mentioning additional information on the shipping, but currently the same is not Vodadara and in turn declared their name under DEL for non-completion of EODC. Decision; The Committee examined the case in detail and in view of justification provided by the firm it decided to accede to the request of the firrri to accept the export item description as mentioned in Shipping Bills towards fulfillment of EG against Advance Authorization No.3410041931 dated 29.02.2016. The other terms and conditions for fulfillment of export obligation shall remain same as per policy/HBP provisions. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. Case No. 29 M/s Everest Kanto Cylinder Limited, IWumbai F. No. 01/60/162/479/AIV119/PRC Subject- Extension in E.O. period against Advance Authorization No.0310803839 dated 07.04.2016 for reguiarization purpose. They have stated that shortfall in fulfillment of EO happened due to circumstances beyond their control. They had their major export markets in and Iran They lost the whole market In these countries because of different causes in different countries I.e. ban of CNG cylinder import in Pakistan as they started using CNG for the production of Electricity instead of Automobile Fuek scarcity of CNG In Bangladesh and progressive USA sanction in Iran. They had completed 100% EO within the admissible EOP (29 months from the issued date of the Authorization). Decision; The Committee examined the case in detail "oted Jhat the d^ances Jated by tjeji- above^wem Je control ^of the^h^^^^.^^ NrosToBOSSSQ dated 07.04.2016 for a period of six months from the date of expi^ only for reguiarization purpose subject to payment of fomposSn fee i 0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB Value, if exports are 19

fulfilled more than 50% within initial EOP or @ 1% per month where exports have been made less than 50% within initial EOP. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Appllcant/RA) Case No. 30 WI/s A-1 Fence Products Company Pvt. Ltd., Wlumbai F. No. 01/60/162/197/AM20/PRC

Subject: Relaxation of Para 4.42 (f) of minimum 50% fulfillment of EG for 2"^

Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.0310812843 dated 26.04.2017. They have stated that due to delay in confirmation of export orders for this particular item they were unable to fulfill export obligation of the said authorization. On the other hand they are in the export business for the last 25 year and have obtained several advance authorizations against which they have fulfilled EG within prescribed time period. This is the one for which they have approached for 2 EO extension. Minimum 50% export obligation should be fulfilled in quantity as well as in value as pro-rata basis. They have completed 37.942% of EO pro-rata quantity wise to imports and 51.139% value wise. Now, they have confirmed Export Orders with Sales contract for balance Quantity of product to be exported from M/s. Aravali Fence LLC. Dubai. UAE & M/s. CLIC National Industries, Safat, Kuwait and they have started production activates to exports the remaining quantity of Export product against this Authorization and they will be able to fulfill the remaining EO within a period of Six Months. 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.0310812843 dated 26.04.2017 for a period oi 6 months from the date of endorsement subject to payment of composition fee @ 0 5/o per month on the unfulfilled FOB Value, if exports are fulfilled more than 50 /> within initia EOP or (® 1% per month where exports have been made less than 50/o within initial EOP. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading o e minutes of meeting. (Action; Applicant/RA) Case No. 31 M/s Vikash Ecotech Limited, New Delhi F. No. 01/60/162/411/AM20/PRC

Subject: Revalidation of 16 advance authorizations.

They have stated that they formerly known as Vikas G'o'f various type to plastic / Chemical compound. On 27.01.2018 DRI tracked their three shipments at Nhava Sheva on 17.01.2018 and asked for sampling J J after sampling the shipments were allowed under the M^finn Based on the written communication from DRI, RA, Delhi rejected their revalidation 20

of advance authorizations. They have already made export under issued advance authorizations to some extent. Decision: The Committee having examined the statement made by the firm found no merit in the case and decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant) Case No. 32 Wl/s Steelman Industries, Ludhlana F. No. 01/60/162/414/AM20/PRC Subject: Revalidation of DFIA Authorization No.3010104227 dated 02.02.2018. They have stated that after issuance of this Transferable DFIA License, they tried very hard and their best to sell this license in the market but no one got ready to buy due to market panic from DRl. They received response from Market that DRI used to send the notice on using DFIA for import of Corn. Moreover the import feasibility is there due to rising demand for Maize/Corn because of failure of Maize Crop which is infested by Virus and pests. Not reaping the benefit of this license directly means a great loss for them as they take into account all DGFT incentives while estimating costing of the particular product. Hence, requested for revalidation of 6 months. Decision: The Committee went through the statements made by the firm and noted that the applicant has not submitted any cogent reason/ justification in support of any genuine hardship faced by them. Accordingly, the Committee decided to reject the request. (Action: Applicant) Case No. 33 Wl/s. Gem Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., Wlumbai F. No. 01/60/162/455/AM20/PRC

Subject: Relaxation of procedures in pending export benefits.

They have stated that they were not aware that the export benefits are available on exports under advance authorization. Recently, while attend a seminar of FIEO they came to know about their major miss out. They were also depending on consultants for advice on DGFT compliance's and claiming exports. Now. since everything is online they made a policy decision to do all applications their selves, call for their DSC and they came to know about the missed out Shipping Bills for claiming exports benefits. Decision: The Committee having examined the statement made by the firm found no merit in their case and decided to reject it. (Action; Applicant) 21

Case No. 34 Wl/s. Indo Rama Synthetic (India) Limited, Bhopal F. No. 01/60/162/451/AM20/PRC Subject: Clubbing of 10 Advance Authorizations (4 from RA, Bhopal No.(i) 1110022007 dated 13.03.2010, (ii) 1110022095 dated 25.03.2010, (ill) 1110022221 dated 19.04.2010 and (iv) 1110022588 dated 11.08.2010,and 6 from RA, Nagpur No.(i) 5010001383 dated 21.06.2012, (ii) 5010001385 dated 21.06.2012, (iii) 5010001413 dated 09.07.2012, (iv) 5010001636 dated 04.04.2013, (v) 5010002068 dated 08.03.2013, and (vi) 50/21/040/00006/AM14 dated 06.05.2013). They have stated that they could only complete EO of 4 advance authorizations taken from RA, Bhopal by clubbing 6 advance authorizations of RA Nagpur. They are manufacturing five final products (POY, PSF, DTY FDY and PET Chips) and advance authorization has been taken for each final product separately. Raw materials for all final products are common (PTA, MEG, SB 203. TI02 and SFO). Market trend for export of their final product declined from 2012 and w.e.f. 05.06.2012 EOP of advance authorization reduced to 18 months from 36 months. It has caused very hardship to close advance authorizations individually. Inspite of all possible efforts, they could not export as planned and could not cover up based on FTP during 2010-11 versus changed on 05.06.2012. Out of total 10 (6 are under clubbing Issued by RA, Nagpur and 4 issued by RA, Bhopal). They have Import in first advance authorizations and rest all added to fulfill EO only. Decision; The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and decided to allow clubbing of above 10 Advance Authori^zations No(i) 1110022007 dated 13.03.2010, (ii) 1110022095 dated 25.03^2010 (m) 1110022221 dated 19.04.2010, (iv) 1110022588 dated 11.06.2010, (v) 5010001383 dated 21 06 2012, (vi) 5010001385 dated 21.06.2012, (vii) 5010001413 dated 09.07.2012, (viii) 5010001636 dated 04.04.2013, (ix) 5010002068 dated 08^3.2013 and (x) 50/21/040/00006/AM14 dated 06.05.2013, issued by 2 different Authorities. RAs shall ensure that other terms and conditions provisions for clubbing are fully met. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Appiicant/RA) Case No. 35 M/s. Vedanta Limited, Wlumbai F. No. 01/60/162/521/AM19/PRC Subiecf Grant of WIEIS entitlement against actual foreign fealized in respect of 3 shipping bill No. 6972420 dated 09.04.2016, 7040784 dated 13.04.2016 and 4331903 dated 23.02.2017. ThPv have stated that due to oversight, incorrect unit price has been entered in shipping bills by CHA/Gustoms and accordingly FOB DBK vLes have become Incorrect in respect of shipping bill No^6972420 dated S9 M 20?6 7040784 dated 13.04.2016 and 4331903 dated 23.02.2017. Department of Sstom has issued a certificate dated 07.07.2017 and 05.06.2017 confirming the

same. Due to wrongly transmitted FOB value they are unable to claim the actual MEIS benefit and they are eligible against the subject shipping bills. Hence, requested to allow them to claim the MEIS benefit on the correct/actual realized in respect of subject shipping bills and not on the incorrect/low value entered by CHA. Decision: The Committee having reviewed the case on the basis of comments received from E-governance and Trade Facilitation (EGTF) Section and observed that the reflection of such manual amendments in the automated system is not possible. Hence, the Committee decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant) Case No. 36 Wl/s. JIndal Saw Limited, New Delhi F. No. 01/60/162/524/AM19/PRC Subject: To allow MEIS claim manually against Shipping Bill No.5561585 dated 14.06.2018. Thev have stated that they had exported "Carbon Steel Longit, welded (SAWL) line pipes" falling under chapter Sub heading No.73051129 from Mundra Sea Port to Chile against shipping bill bearing number 5561585 dated 14.06.2018. While filling shipping bill one line in the EDI system of Custom Inadvertently system caught the Incorrect value of goods exported. They have represented before the concerned Custom Authority and requested them for the necessary rectification which was accepted by the department on due verification and payment of necessary fee. Since the Custom Mundra has already assessed/finalized the consignment before the above amendment hence, the said amendment has not been reflectirig m the EDI system of DGFT which resulted In preventing filling their genuine MEIS claim. Now on the basis of amendment sheet bearing F.No. VIII/48- 640/AMD/EXPMCH/18-19 dated 02.07.2018 Issued by the Customs (Exports) Mundra, they requested to take a lenient view and allow them to file their claim manually. Decision: The Committee having reviewed the case on the basis of comments received from E-governance and Trade Facilitation (EGTF) Section and observed that the reflection of such manual amendments in the automated system is not possible. Hence, the Committee decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Appiicant) Case No. 37 M/s. Reliance industries Limited, Wiumbai F. No. 01/60/162/633/AM19/PRC Subiecf Change in duty credit entitiement under MEIS due to wrong finaSon of Foreign Currency of export in US$ instead of EURO at the time of final assessment of shipping bill. 23

They have stated that their request for change In duty credit entitlement under MEIS due to wrong finalization of Foreign currency of export in USD instead of EURO at the time of final assessment. They also intimated that at the time of filing th^r shipping bill, they have declared the currency as EURO only but due to oversight finalized with wrong currency transmitted to DGFT. They have proceeds against this shipment is in actual exchange rate for arriving FOB in INR on which MEIS benefit is calculated. Decision; The Committee having reviewed the case on the basis of comments received from E-governance and Trade Facilitation (EGTF) Section and observed that the reflection of such manual amendments in the automated system is not possible. Hence, the Committee decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant) PH Case No. 38 Wl/s. PI Industries Ltd., Udaipur F. No. 01/60/162/463/AM20/PRC Subject: To allow denial MEIS claim on account of mismatch in the ITS HS codes between DGFT and Customs. The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP 2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.09.2019 and Shri Rajesh Kothari, General Manager - Commercial appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions. They have stated that denial of their genuine MEIS claims on the ITS HS codes between DGFT and customs is pending since 2016 with no relief. The h." oStained en Advance authodz.tion No,1310M7642 dated 26,0«0"'o, the Lport of product namely ethyl 4-chloro-2 Flouro-5 Phenylcarbamate and t^^e ITC HS code was correctly mentioned as 29299090 as per table 2 of MEIS schedu^ SI. No 1095 However, at the time of physical export against this advance authorizat on He Xping ble gene^ted ITC HS code »299000 for the »nae the customs ITC HS code. Thus, there was a mismatch of ITC HS code at the ends of DGFT and customs, which resulted in denial of their genuine claims DGFT also issued a PN 61/7.3.2017 in this regard. Decision- The Committee heard the submission made by the firm and discussed the Sflength and the Committee observed that due to technical error, 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 MEIS benefit against shipping bills pertain to the yeSe-TT ihout any late cut. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. PH Case No. 39 M/s. PI industries Ltd., Udaipur F. No. 01/60/162/464/AM20/PRC 24

Subject: To allow denial WIEIS benefit against 9 Shipping Bills Nos.(i) 0000015 dated 08.04.2015, (li) 0000016 dated 20.04.2015, (iii) 0000017 dated 24.04.2015, (iv) 0000018 dated 06.05.2015, (v) 0000019 dated 18.05.2015, (vi) 0000020 dated 27.05.2015, (vll) 0000021 dated 08.06.2015, (viii) 0000022 dated 26.06.2015 and (ix) 0000023 dated 30.06.2015 for not declaring "Y" or "N" in the intent column. The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.09.2019 and Shri Rajesh Kothari, General Manager - Commercial appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions; They have stated that denial of their genuine MEIS claims for not declaring "Y" or "N" in the intent column. In their case, although they mentioned "Y" against the "Declaration of intent" in their MEIS application, they did not mention "Y" or "N" in the above 9 shipping bills consequent to which their claims were not passed by SEZ, Kandla. Public Notice No.40/2015-20 dated 09.10.2015 allowed the claim for EDI for the same but not allowed by RA, Kandla as PN is not specified for claim of SEZ. 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 grant of J^^IS benefit against nine Shipping Bills Nos.(i) 0000015 dated 08.04.2015 0') dated 20.04.2015, (iii) 0000017 dated 24.04.2015. (iv) 0000018 dated 06.05.2015, (v) 0000019 dated 18.05.2015, (vi) 0000020 dated 27.05.2015, (vii) 0000021 dated 08.06.2015, (viii) 0000022 dated 26.06.2015 and (ix) 0000023 dated 30.06.2015 without any late cut. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/Concerned SEZ)

Case No. 40: 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. Corvine Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited, Karnataka Acceptance of Documents for issue of EODC related to EBRCs. ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted 2. M/s. Cropnosys India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Extension in EOP of Advance Authorization No.031078654 dated 08.07.2014. Proof of application fee not submitted 3. M/s. NICE Tractor (India), Ludhiana To allow MEIS benefit. ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted 25

M/s. Flexituff Ventures International Ltd., Dhar, UP 'Difficulty for filing of online Export Incentive application due to non correction of eBRC in DGFT server by our bankers. ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted 5. M/s. Sachdeva Fabric World Pvt. Ltd.. New Delhi Revalidation of AA no. 0510399795 dated 21.09.2016. ANF 2D not submitted 6. M/s. Dewas Metal Sections Limited, Dewas (MR) Extension in EOF of zero duty EPCG License. ANF 2D and Proof of application fee not submitted 26