Directorate General of Foreign Trade (PRC Section) Minutes of the Policy Relaxation Committee Meeting Held on 09.07.2021under the Chairmanship of Shri Amit Yadav, Director General of Foreign Trade

Meeting No.05/AM22 held on 09.07.2021

The following members were present in the meeting:

1.	Shri	Vijay Kumar	Addi. DGFT
2.	Shri	S.B.S. Reddy	Addl. DGFT
3.	Shri	Hardeep Singh	Addl. DGFT
4.	Shri	AnilAggarwal	Addl. DGFT
5.	Shri	AkashTaneja	Addl.DGFT

Following cases were discussed. The decision taken on the individual cases are as under:-

‘S.No |[_Nameofthefirm] =| Case No. | -1.|Ms.Kirtanlal - 2. |BerylindiaAdviserLLP,GurgaonMs. Steel Pvt.Ltd,Pune | -_4.|-_3.|HabibpurMalda(WB) Mls. Sharma Exports, || 5. |Produ Mls. MccDyn a nnmic EriFlow c ksontsPIndia P v t.Ltd,t.Ltd.,ThaneMumbai | 4 -_6.|Ltd..Kancheepuram(TN)M/s. Hyundai Motor India || 6 -_8.| M/s. Almelo Private Limited, Hyderabad | | 9. | M/s. Shish Industries Ltd., Mangrol, Surat | 12 -10. | M/s. Mercedes-Benz R&D India Pvt.Ltd. Bangalore | 13 12. |Mis.PreetiAgro Tech, Coimbatore | 15 - 13. | Mis. Haffkine Bio Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Mumbai | 16 -_44. |M/s.GVVentures,MumbaiCi‘ | 18. |MiM/ s. BLSAsian PolymersStar Enterprise,Ltd., New Kolkata Delhi | 19. |M/s. OrientExports Pvt.Ltd. Kolkata | |- 20. |M/s.GarudaIntercust,Bangalore| - 2 21 . | M /i s. Shibu Enterprises,Kyusep Healthcare Jagadhri/HRYPvt.Ltd, Mumbai|| 58 . 24. | Mis. Kala Jyothi Process Pvt.Ltd. Telangana | 28829 "25. | Mis.Borosil Limited (Hopewell Tableware Pvt.Ltd.) [30 Page 1 of 20 Ly 7——

Case No. 01 M/s. Kirtanlal Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pune F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00046076AM22

PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.0310832439 dated 24.10.2019.

The applicant stated that their company was shut for around 2 months due to lockdown. Later the company was working on 50 percent staff for safety reason. Due to delay in production, they had lost some orders due to lockdown and covid-19. Now they are slowly picking up and promise to fulfil all the pending EO within 6 months. They will have to fast track as 30 plus containers i.e. 60 M.T. materials planned for dispatch this month but unfortunately validity of the said advance authorization is over on 24.05.2021. As they had made import almost full and proportionately, they could not complete the exports. So when they are trying to apply for EOP extension, they have to pay composition fees @ 0.5% on unfulfilled obligation value. The said value is around 2 lakh. It is a very much huge amount to pay the composition fees. Because of the lockdown situation, they could not complete their exports, so they request to condone their composition fees. Hence, requested to allow 14** EOP extension for further 6 months without payment of composition fees.

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)

Case No. 02 Mis. Beryl India Adviser LLP, Gurgaon F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00104176AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: Waiver of additional late cut of 8% for SEIS application for FY 201819.

The applicant stated that on 31.03.2021 they were struggling to make the online application of SEIS incentives for financial year 2018-19 due to a lot of system glitches on the DGFT website. Finally, when they manage to upload all the documents and paid the application fees as well, the system did not accept their application, since the server was very slow and the website was unresponsive. As a result of which the late cut which was 2% on 31.03.2021 was increased to 10% on 01.04.2021 which they feel is unfair as it was a system glitch and not their mistake.From 01.04.2021 until today, they have raised numerous cases, made multiple calls explaining this technical issue to the DGFT HQ technical support team, but none of them were able to help. They then reached out to SEPC Director Mr. Abhay Sinha whose team member connected with Mr.J.P. Mishra from the NIC Technical Team at the DGFT HQ, after a lot of struggle, and follow up. They are now advised by the DGFT HQ team to apply to the PRC. They honestly feel that the late Page 2 of 20 Qa ont —

cut of 2% is fair and are ready to accept the late cut of 2%, however the additional burden of 8% will be too much and they won't be able to bear it. Hence it is request to allow relaxation for the same.

2% is fair and are ready to accept the late cut of 2%, however the additional burden of 8% will be too much and they won't be able to bear it. Hence it is request to allow relaxation for the same.

Decision: The Committee went through the statements made by the firm and noted that late cut of 10% has been applied correctly as per the extant policy and 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 of the firm.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 03 M/s. Sharma Exports, Habibpur Malda (WB) F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00049164AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: Waiver of late cut for MEIS application for FY 2017-18.

The applicant stated that under File No.02/90/090/50252/AM22, MEIS Duty Scrip No.0219099128 dated 07.05.2021 was issued to them against their application from the port LCS INCBDB. The shipping bills belong to the FY 2017-18. There was a glitch in the technical system and online modules due to which they could file application only after 2 years when PRC ruled the decision in their favour. The meeting details are PRC Meeting No.23/AM21 held on 18.02.2021 (Case No.12). After this when they applied, one of their authorisation application had a total claim value less of almost 3 lakhs and authorisation was issued. When they reconciled, they found that the dollar realised and the dollar inputted in the shipping bill details, the decimal was placed a point ahead i.e. instead of 112225.80 it was mentioned as 11222.58. They have not cancelled the license yet as they want to help them out first or else after cancellation, late cut won’t be waived making it nil. Hence, requested to look into this matter and help them out or else they would be in major trouble.

Decision: The Committee went through the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and it decided to refer the issue to EDI-Division for its examination and resolution.

(Action: Applicant/EDI-Division)

Case No. 04 M/s. Mccann Erickson India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00099773AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: To allow SEIS Application for the year of 2017-18.

The applicant stated that the filing of SEIS Application for the year of 2017-18 was due on 31*March, 2021, with applicable late cut fees as per FTP provision. But, due to the current Covid-19 situation and the lockdown restrictions which started from 23™March, 2020, they are still working from home from the initial lockdown. Their offices remain non-operative and they are working from home with limited resources as per government norms. It was a strenuous task to arrange the requisite Page 3 of 20 (Qayout__—

documents for submitting the SEIS application from home. However, they were able to prepare and arrange for all the necessary documents as per FTP provision and were ready for filing on the due date. They initiated the filing process and tried to file online SEIS application for FY 2017-18 on 31%March, 2021 (within the prescribed period), however due to some technical glitch on the DGFT portal, the server went down at 5:55 PM and they were unable to file their SEIS application for FY 2017-18 of 31.03.2021. Despite making multiple attempts to file the SEIS application within the stipulated time period, they were unsuccessful and could not file the application on account of the DGFT portal technical issue and the same got time barred. DGFT extended the filing date of SEIS application for FY 2018-19 from 31.03.2020 till 31 December, 2020 without any late cut fees due to the on-going pandemic situation.

and the same got time barred. DGFT extended the filing date of SEIS application for FY 2018-19 from 31.03.2020 till 31 December, 2020 without any late cut fees due to the on-going pandemic situation. It is imperative that to allow them to file the SEIS application for FY 2017-18 considering the on-going pandemic situation. They were unable to file the application online on account of the technical error on DGFT server and for no fault of theirs. Hence, requested to allow them to file their SEIS application for the year 2017-18 with applicable late cut fee as per FTP provision 2015-20.

Decision: The Committee after examining the case in detail on the basis of justification submitted by the firm, it decided to reject the case as the same was found to be without any merit.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 05 M/s. Dynamic Flow Products Pvt. Ltd., Thane F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00101572AM22

PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.0310827574 dated 08.03.2019.

The applicant stated that due to Covid-19 pandemic situation and its 2" wave in India, the oil & gas production activity had been adversely affected and demand for Pup Joints and NPST has gone down drastically. The customer is not in a position to buy presently. The customer wants them to wait for revival of market condition and place order thereafter. Their foreign buyer is from USA and nowadays USA is not support to any country. They have also approach to their local industry first,and as they knew that covid-19 is spreading very rapidly in all over the India, and it happened in Maharashtra, so many restrictions imposed, due to this restriction, their factory production also decreased.No man power, no electricity affected their production, their factory in Vasai, Maharashtra. So as per present situation they require 1 years EOP extension to complete the export order and fulfil balance EO against aforesaid advance license. Hence requested to allow them 2™ EOP extension of period 1 year from the date of approval (from 18 months to 30 months).

te the export order and fulfil balance EO against aforesaid advance license. Hence requested to allow them 2™ EOP extension of period 1 year from the date of approval (from 18 months to 30 months).

Decision: The Committee went through the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length. The Committee observed that due to COVID-19 Pandemic firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control. Accordingly, the Committee decided to allow EOP extension of Advance Authorization No.0310827574 dated 08.03.2019 for a further period of 6 months from the date of endorsement subject to payment of composition fees @0.5% per month on the Page 4 of 20 wz a

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. The firm shall approach RA concerned within 30 days of the uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai)

Case No. 06 M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Kancheepuram (TN) F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00104374AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 7 shipping bills.

This is review case of PRC Meeting No.27/AM21 dated 31.03.2021 (Case No.13), wherein the Committee maintained rejection of earlier PRC meeting No.10/AM21 dated 10.09.2020 (Case No.10).The applicant stated that there was a delay in interfacing the shipping bills data from Customs — EDI system to DGFT System. Due to this they are not able to file MEIS application on time. With this interface was possible after their constant and continuous follow-up with Customs. The delay in interface of shipping bills was also informed to RA, Chennai. However, as the shipping bills are not available in the DGFT system, they could not file the application on time in the period March 2017 to December 2017. As per Para 9.02 of HBP 201520 they are eligible for the MEIS with 10% late cut. Hence, requested to allow MEIS benefit against the said 7 shipping bills without late cut.

Decision: The Committee after examining the case in detail on the basis of justification submitted by the firm, it decided to maintain rejection as in the earlier decision of PRC in its Meeting No.10/AM21 dated 10.09.2020 (Case No.10) and 27/AM21 dated 31.03.2021 (Case No.13) as the same was found to be without any merit.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 07 M/s. Lupin Ltd., Mumbai F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00105802AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 14 Shipping bills.

The applicant stated that initially at the time of shipment, at the insistence of Customs, HS code was mentioned as ‘30046000’ for export product Atovaquone tablets. In the said 14 shipping bills as the same was falling under anti-malaria category though said code was not there in either HS Code or MEIS rate schedule of DGFT. Meanwhile, with due pursuance supported by end usage justification, they could convince customs to amend the HS Code to ‘30049029’ for said all shipping bills Custom’s File No.S/6-Amend-127/2019-2020 MCD(X), ACC dated 10.08.2020, but unluckily in the absence of any provision in Custom for online transfer of such date to DGFT server, their MEIS claim got stuck as DGFT portal has not been able to capture entitlement of said shipping bills. Considering genuine circumstances,

\Qaomt_—

Page 5 of 20

relaxation is sought to allow filing MEIS claim for the said shipping bills based on the letter issued by Customs, manually amending HS Codes.

Decision: The Committee having discussed the case at length observed that manual amendments made by Customs in the shipping bill data are not transmitted online in the automated environment. As a result such S/bills are not available at DGFT portal. Thus no MEIS scrip can be issued. Moreover, it happened due to mistake committed by the firm and thus committee did not find any merit and hence decided to reject the request of the firm.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 08 M/s. Lupin Ltd., Mumbai F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00105806AM22

PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 07 Shipping bills.

The applicant stated that due to technical glitch being faced in customs portal at the time of filing of shipping bills, declaration of intent to claim MEIS could not be ticked 'Y’ for 7 shipping bills. Subsequently, customs allowed the applicability of declaration of intent through manual amendment mode. However as per policy, DGFT allows MEIS claims for shipment made on or after 30.09.2015 subject to transmission of shipping bills online from Customs server to DGFT portal. Here in this case as manually amended data of shipping bills could neither be transferred online nor could be captured in DGFT portal. They are unable to file MEIS claim. Considering genuine circumstance relaxation is sought to allow filing MEIS claim for the said shipping bills based on the letter issued by the Custom manually amending declaration of intent.

Decision: The Committee discussed the case at length observed that conversion of declaration of Intent from ‘No’ to ‘Yes’ as well as reflection of such manual amendments in the automated system is not possible. Accordingly, it found no merit in it and hence decided to reject the request of the firm.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 09 M/s. Lupin Ltd., Mumbai F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00105807AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: To allow receipt of balance due MEIS benefit of Rs.20,94,574/- either by amendment in the existing scrip or by filling supplementary with RA.

The applicant stated that while filing MEIS claims for Shipping BillNo.6942277 dated 07.04.2016 and 8032029 dated 02.06.2016 which were raised in CNY currency for exports to China, DGFT module worked out the benefit inaccurately. For Shipping Bill No.8032029, MEIS scrip (No.0319084898 dated 16.09.2016) accordingly was issued for duty credit of Rs.2,865.00 as against due benefit of Rs.1,330,714.00.And for Shipping BilINo.8032029, MEIS scrip (No.0319096610 dated 27.12.2016) accordingly was issued for duty credit of Rs.6,851.00 as against due benefit of Page 6 of 20 Laona

Rs.773,576.00.Reason might be attributed to improper mapping of currency conversion factor. While pointing out the lapse, RA was requested to amend the duty credit amount in the scrip already issued as per the due entitlement. However, their request got rejected citing no provision in policy for such amendment nor any scope for filing of supplementary claim for shipment made on or after 01.04.2015. Considering genuine circumstances relaxation is sought to allow receipt of balance due MEIS benefit of Rs.20,94,574.00 either by amendment in the existing scrip or by filing supplementary application with RA.

ng genuine circumstances relaxation is sought to allow receipt of balance due MEIS benefit of Rs.20,94,574.00 either by amendment in the existing scrip or by filing supplementary application with RA. Decision: The Committee having examined the case in detailed and in view of justification provided by the firm, it found no merit in the case as there is no provision of filing supplementary claims in the automated system of issue of MEIS. Accordingly, the Committee decided to reject the request of the firm.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 10 M/s. Lupin Ltd., Mumbai F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00105811AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: To allow receipt of balance due MEIS benefit of Rs.3,48,865/-/- either by amendment in the existing scrip or by filling supplementary with RA.

The applicant stated that as MEIS claim for Shipping BilINo.7807382 dated 23.05.2016 and 1600431 dated 13.10.2016 could be filed for partial amount of benefit as corresponding e-BRC uploaded be bank was for partial value of SB despite of having realised fully against MEIS Scrip No.0319084957 dated 19.09.2016 and 0319105439 dated 07.03.2017. While pointing out the lapse, RA was requested to amend the duty credit amount as per due entitlement. However their request got rejected citing no provision in policy for such amendment nor any scope for filing of supplementary claim for shipments claim for shipments made on or after 01.04.2015.

ent. However their request got rejected citing no provision in policy for such amendment nor any scope for filing of supplementary claim for shipments claim for shipments made on or after 01.04.2015. Considering loss of benefit on account of improper SB value uploaded in e-BRC by the Bank, relaxation is sought to allow claim balance due MEIS benefit of Rs.3,48,865.00 by filing supplementary application with RA.

Decision: The Committee having examined the case in detailed and in view of justification provided by the firm, it found no merit in the case as there is no provision of filing supplementary claims in the automated system of issue of MEIS. Accordingly, the Committee decided to reject the request of the firm.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 11 M/s. Almelo Private Limited, Hyderabad F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY0094283AM21 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: Issuance of EODC against Advance Authorization No.0910064537 dated 26.12.2016.

1 et[ee]

Page 7 of 20

, Hyderabad F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY0094283AM21 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: Issuance of EODC against Advance Authorization No.0910064537 dated 26.12.2016.

1 et[ee]

Page 7 of 20

The applicant stated that they are a manufacturing company located in a government established industrial estate near Hyderabad City. They manufacture key drug intermediates needed for new drug discovery bulk drugs. Based on their R&D and manufacturing capabilities, an American Drug Discovery Company i.e. Cempra Pharmaceuticals Inc, North Carolina, USA has given the process development R&D work for the development of key intermediate of Solithromycin to them. In the present case, Cempra Pharmaceuticals INC, USA issued to them a purchase order bearing No.621799 dated 12.09.2016 for the manufacturing and supply of the advanced intermediate 2200 Kgs of “Oxo Erythronolide A-11,12Carbamate”. For the manufacture and export of their finished product, 2774 Kgs of Oxo Erythronolide A- 11,12Carbamate, they have imported only 5000 Kgs of Clarithromycin as against the mentioned quantity of 6502.26 Kgs in the subject authorization. Because of this, their EO had been 2133.11 Kgs. They could export 400 Kgs of their finished goods to Cempra, USA and balance quantity they could not export.

502.26 Kgs in the subject authorization. Because of this, their EO had been 2133.11 Kgs. They could export 400 Kgs of their finished goods to Cempra, USA and balance quantity they could not export.

The Cempra, USA released the balance payment as per the terms of the purchase order in USD and transferred to their State Bank of Hyderabad. Upon non-approval of Solithromycin by USFDA, Cempra, USA could not sustain its activity and got merged with M/s Melinta Therapeutics Inc., USA. During 2019, Meinta Therapeutics INC, declared bankruptcy under Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in USA. The balance quantity of Oxo Erythronolide A-11,12Carbamate lying with them for a few years time was tested and found to have deteriorated with efflux of time as there is a problem of stability for the intermediate. By following due process they had sent the 1733.11 Kgs of Oxo Erythonolide A-11,12Carbamate to TSDF facility for incineration purpose as the material has become unusable over storage of few years time.

ollowing due process they had sent the 1733.11 Kgs of Oxo Erythonolide A-11,12Carbamate to TSDF facility for incineration purpose as the material has become unusable over storage of few years time.

Thereafter, they had submitted their EODC application to RA, Hyderabad. However, their request was not considered by RA and in the meantime, they have received the Show Cause Notices from the Customs, Chennai for the payment of Customs Duties with interest. As a last chance, they had approached the Hon'ble High Court for the state of Telangana with IA No.1 of 2020 in WP No.21827 of 2020 and IA No.2 of 2020 in WP No.21827 of 2020, wherein the Hon'ble High Court passed two interim judgment dated 14.12.2020 and directed DGFT to consider request of the petitioner relating to issue of EODC against said authorization.

Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm along with the Court Order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Hon’ble High Court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad and discussed the matter at length. It was observed that all imports made against the said AA have been consumed in the manufacture of export product, which could not be exported because of force majeure situation i.e. non approval of the final drug by the US FDA and bankruptcy of the merged company. However at the same time payments towards fulfillment of export obligation have been realised through banking channels.

approval of the final drug by the US FDA and bankruptcy of the merged company. However at the same time payments towards fulfillment of export obligation have been realised through banking channels. And the final product (which could not be exported due to situation mentioned above) was finally destroyed At TSDF, Hyderabad Waste Management Project as organic waste. Keeping in views of above facts, the Committee decided to accede to the request of the firm and allowed to issue EODC against Advance Authorisation No.0910064537 dated 26.12.2016. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

Page 8 of 20

(Action: Applicant/RA-Hyderabad)

Case No. 12 M/s. Shish Industries Ltd., Mangrol, Surat F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00109218AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No.5210042811 dated 17.10.2018.

The applicant stated that they are a Surat based manufacturer exporter of Articles of Plastic products having good track record and one star export house status. For the last several years they have been obtaining advance authorization from the RA, Surat and export/import activates were completing within prescribed time limit. But under this advance authorization, they could not be done import of raw material even in the extended time period because of very serious financial crisis due to Covid-19 pandemic situation and the subsequent lockdown which badly affecting in their business since last more than one year. However they have completed entire export obligation under this advance authorization. Now their business is slowly growing and they can import the raw material. Therefore, in view of the fact that the adverse situation was beyond their control and limits. Hence, requested to revalidate the authorization for a period of 6 months from the date of such endorsement.

Decision: The Committee went through the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed there is merit in their case and accordingly decided to accede to the request and allowed revalidation of Advance Authorization No.5210042811 dated 17.10.2018 for a further period of 6 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-Surat)

Case No. 13 M/s. Mercedes-Benz R&D India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00109378AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: Relaxation for vehicles to Ply on road upon import of one RHD Used Mercedes Vehicles at designated Custom Mumbai Sea port for R&D testing purposes only, allowed as per Policy Condition 1 (ii) (d) (vi) of Chapter 87.

The applicant stated that they desires to conduct certain on road tests on MercedesBenz C- Class vehicles for R&D activity carried out for its overseas Group Company. They also desire to conduct tests on imported vehicles given that the Indian variants do not meet the required specification for conducting & tests. However, public circulars have also been issued wherein these condition have been laid down when import has been effected and activity conducted is in furtherance of R& D purpose. Prior decisions of this committee have also accorded a liberal disposition to such imports and read down applicable conditions. All the necessary safety measures would be ensured by them. Given the vehicles sought to be imported are very crucial to carry out their activity, it is requested to allow the vehicles to Ply on road upon

(Qryom_,

Page 9 of 20

import of one RHD Used Mercedes Vehicles at designated Custom Mumbai Sea port for R & D testing purposes only.

Decision: The Committee went through the justification provided by the firm and decided to agree to the request to import one RHD used Mercedes vehicles at designated Customs Mumbai Sea Port for R&D testing purposes and its plying on Indian roads subject to necessary permission by Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 14 M/s. Pinnacle Clothing Co., Noida F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00110050AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: Regularization of Export made beyond EOP (within 30 Month 4 days) against Advance Authorization No.0510401478 dated 03.02.2017.

The applicant stated that they have obtained advance authorization 0510401478 dated 03.02.2017 with the initial EOP of 18 moths and obtained first EOP extension fromadvanceRA i.e, up to 24 Months (26.12.2019).They have imported 100% against above upto authorisation and completed 100% export obligation within the EOP i.e. 30 months 4 days. Within 24 Month 74.81% against Shipping Bill No.4998385 dated 25.03.2017, 4998270 dated 25.03.2017, 4997900 dated 25.03.201, 4997906 dated 25.03.2017 and 4998445 dated 25.03.2017. Buyer has postponed order, balance 25.19% shipment had shipped within 30 months 4 days, against Shipping Bill No. 6085292 dated 06.08.2019. They have completed 100% EOP within 30 Months 4 days i.e. on 06.08.2019. Hence, requested to regularize the export made beyond EOP i.e. 30 Months 4 Days i.e. upto 06.08.2019 for regulation of said advance authorization.

0% EOP within 30 Months 4 days i.e. on 06.08.2019. Hence, requested to regularize the export made beyond EOP i.e. 30 Months 4 Days i.e. upto 06.08.2019 for regulation of said advance authorization.

Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and in view of justification provided by the firm, it decided to accede to the request and allowed EOP extension up to 06.08.2019 of Advance Authorization No.0510401478 dated 03.02.2017 for regularization purpose only subject to payment of composition fees @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. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/CLA-New Delhi)

Case No. 15 M/s. Preeti Agro Tech, Coimbatore F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00111392AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 09 Shipping bills.

The applicant stated that they have created MEIS e-com Ref.No. 32/16/920/30500/0700/4174 dated 31/08/2020 for filing MEIS benefit against Page 10 of20 = a

following 9 Shipping bills No.(1) 5675783 dated 20.06.2018, (2) 5730436 dated 22.06.2018, (3) 3844363 dated 27.06.2018, (4) 6599201 dated 01.08.2018, (5) 7003451 dated 20.08.2018, (6) 7352222 dated 04.09.2018, (7) 7741903 dated 22.09.2018, (8) 8311764 dated 17.10.2018 and (9) 8733028 dated 05.11.2018. However, these shipping bills could not be linked for submission of MEIS benefit due to the error message as “Could not be copied, ITCHS code / Country of Export is not eligible for MEIS benefit’. They represented to Chennai Sea Customs regarding their inadvertent mistake of wrong indication of ITC HS Code ‘53050090’, instead of ‘53050010’ against their export product viz., “COCUNUT FIBRE” while filing EDI shipping bills, and the Chennai Customs Authority was kind enough to issue them an Amendment Certificate by making correction in ITC HS Code from ‘53050090’ to ‘53050010’. While issuing the above referred certificate, it was stated therein that, “since the correction request could not be carried out in the EDI shipping bill after completing of exports, the manual certificate was issued at the request of the exporter”. At DGFT website, their claim for MEIS benefit is still pending against e- commerce Reference No.32/16/920/30500/0700/4174 dated 31.08.2020.

ual certificate was issued at the request of the exporter”. At DGFT website, their claim for MEIS benefit is still pending against e- commerce Reference No.32/16/920/30500/0700/4174 dated 31.08.2020. Hence, requested for correction of the existing ITC Code from ‘53050090’ to ‘53050010’ as per amendment letter issued by customs department so that the shipping bills could be linked for claim of MEIS duty credit scrip.

Decision: The Committee having discussed the case at length observed that manual amendments made by Customs in the shipping bill data are not transmitted online in the automated environment. As a result such S/bills are not available at DGFT portal. Thus no MEIS scrip can be issued. Moreover, it happened due to mistake committed by the firm and thus committee did not find any merit and hence decided to reject the request of the firm.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 16 M/s. Haffkine Bio Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00111399AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 19 Shipping bills.

The applicant stated that their products OPV (Oral Polio Vaccine) were exempted from online processing of shipping bills as OPV is a temperature sensitive label, needs stringently monitored cold-chain. Therefore they have been allowed for shipment under manual shipping bills under Facility Notice No.17/2007 dated 14.08.2007 issued by Commission of Customs(Export), Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. They are regularly exporting OPV to various countries and claiming export incentive in the form of Duty credit scrip from DGFT office under Chapter 3 of FTP as per regular practice under above exempted notice. They had filed 19 manual shipping bills at ACC Mumbai by making "Y" in reward item box to claim MEIS benefit and declaration to this effect i.e. "they intend to claim reward under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS)" was also indicated in all shipping bills. All the cargo shipment of 19 shipping bills had been shipped successfully & their payments were also realized through banking channels. However, at the time of applying MEIS benefit from RA, Mumbai, they came to know that MEIS reward scheme benefit can be availed only through online processed shipping bills having EDI port i.e. shipping Page 11 of 20 Unout__

lying MEIS benefit from RA, Mumbai, they came to know that MEIS reward scheme benefit can be availed only through online processed shipping bills having EDI port i.e. shipping Page 11 of 20 Unout__

bills must be reflecting in repository system of DGFT sever as per guidelines of FTP 2015-20. Thereafter they have approached to RA, Mumbai as well as ACC, Mumbai for solution of their problems for which they have been shown their inabilities to help in this matter. They would like to add here that they have made the export and realized the foreign exchange by completing all norms/rules of FTP except manual shipping instead of EDI shipping bills and are very much eligible to claim the righteous MEIS incentive available as per Chapter-3 of FTP 2015-20. Hence, requested to allow for manual filling of MEIS application under non EDI shipping bills to enable them to get their long pending legitimate incentives of Rs.62.67 Lakhs. 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. 17 M/s. G V Ventures, Mumbai F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00111438AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 02 Shipping BillINo.6473899 dated 01.06.2017 and 6473878 dated 01.06.2017.

The applicant stated that for 2 shipping bills, their MEIS is pending. They are unable to file their MEIS benefits application to DGFT due to showing 100% cut in application file. They are ready made garments exporter from MSME sector. Please also note bank have taken time to uploaded BRC (uploaded on 16.02.2021 and 18.02.2021) due to which they are unable to file their application in time. There were continuous changes in their Forex banking division which caused delay of issuing e- BRC due to their transferring formalities. They have also raised online complaint Ticket No.20210661072 dated 02.06.2021, for which it was suggested them to contact policy relaxation department. Owing to current pandemic situation, it is requested to allow them to file their MEIS application.

Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed that though realization is within time, due to delay in uploading the BRCs by their banker, firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control and decided to allow MEIS benefit against two Shipping Bills No.6473899 dated 01.06.2017 and 6473878 dated 01.06.2017 without any late cut. The firm shall approach RA within 90 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

nst two Shipping Bills No.6473899 dated 01.06.2017 and 6473878 dated 01.06.2017 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-Mumbai/ EDI-Division for necessary updation in the system)

Case No. 18 M/s. ITC Limited, Secunderabad F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00113332AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

==> picture [97 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> Uta—<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

Page 12 of 20

Subject: To allow to apply and issuance of MEIS scrip.

The applicant stated that they could not apply for MEIS duty credit scrips as the intent was inadvertently mentioned as "NO". Considering that MEIS incentive is offered to exports to neutralize some of the taxes and duties incurred and to ensure that exporter is competitive in international markets-they request to consider their request and allow for applying and issuance of scrips against these shipping bills. They were exporting Paperboards. The error was inadvertent by them/clearing agent and request to approve for manual application and issuance of MEIS scrips. The value of the scrip is above Rs.10 lakhs and favourable reply will support their efforts to be competitive in the international market.

Decision: The Committee having discussed the case at length observed that conversion from ‘N’ to ‘Y’ as well as reflection of such manual amendments in the automated system is not possible. Accordingly, it found no merit in it and hence decided to reject the request of the firm.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 19 Mis. ITC Limited, Secunderabad F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00117641AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: To allow to apply and issuance of MEIS scrip.

The applicant stated that MEIS benefit could not be claimed as both shipping bills and BRCs are not available at DGFT portal. They have repeatedly followed up with the Customs and NIC. However issue remained unresolved. As the MEIS incentive involved is above Rs.7 lakhs, they are requesting to consider favourably and allow them to manually apply for MEIS scrip and advice office of the DGFT to issue Scrip. As per FTP last date of filing for duty credit scrip is within period of 12 months or 3 months from date of uploading. As these shipping bills are still not uploaded in DGFT portal, hence requested to allow them to apply manually.

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. 20 M/s. Paramount Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., Madurai F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00114193AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: To allow ROSCTL benefit against Shipping Bill No.2523603 dated 30.04.2020. The applicant stated that they have exported one shipment of 100% organic Cotton Made up items under the Shipping Bill No.2523603 dt.30.04.2020 and Invoice Page 13 of 20 oo

523603 dated 30.04.2020. The applicant stated that they have exported one shipment of 100% organic Cotton Made up items under the Shipping Bill No.2523603 dt.30.04.2020 and Invoice Page 13 of 20 oo

No.PEXMUP2 dated 30.04.2020 for FOB value of Rs.10,288,745.99. This shipment is under HS Chapter 63, covers the ROSCTL claim to them. But, at the time of export while registering the shipping bill in the EDI system, their CHA clerical staffs has inadvertently put ‘NO’ instead of ‘YES’ while opting for ROSCTL scheme, i.e. scheme code is filed wrongly as ‘19’ instead of correct scheme code ‘60’. At the time of filing the above said shipping bill, they are actually eligible for RoSCTL scheme. Moreover, before and after the said shipping bill they have opted the RoSCTL scheme regularly. They have been following up with their jurisdictional Customs to get the NOC and now they have got the NOC from the Customs. Hence, requested to allow RoSCTL benefit against said shipping bill.

Decision: The Committee after examining the case in detail on the basis of justification submitted by the firm and it decided to reject the case as the same was found to be without any merit.

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 21 M/s. BLS Polymers Ltd., New Delhi F. No. HARPRCAPPLY00114206AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.0510409865 dated 07.03.2019.

The applicant stated that they have already fulfilled the 25% EO of the subject license and balance EO was pending due to Covid-19 Pandemic and Global Market crashed and down. From last more than half years, their item order were affected and did not get as per their expectation and few orders were also cancelled by the buyer. In this pandemic period no export were executed and now, they have an export order for this item and they don’t have any other license for this export. Hence, requested for 2" extension of EOP of above advance authorization as same has not been allowed by RA because 50% of EO has not been fulfilled.

Decision: The Committee went through the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length. The Committee decided to allow EOP extension of Advance Authorizations No.0510409865 dated 07.03.2019 for a further period of 6 months from the date of endorsement subject to payment of composition fees @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. The firm shall approach RA concerned within 30 days of the uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/CLA-New Delhi)

Case No. 22 M/s. Asian Star Enterprise, Kolkata F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00105074AM21 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 07Shipping bill No.(i) 0705801 dated 20.07.2017, (ii) 0705047 dated 25.07.2017, (iii) 0705936 dated 23.07.2017, (iv) Page 14 of 20 Un ent

0705692 dated 18.07.2017, (v) 0705802 dated 20.07.2017, (vi) 0705755 dated 19.07.2017 and (vii) 0705540 dated 13.12.2017.

The applicant stated that against the export through INGJXB for the year 2017-18, they have received the BRC through Bank in the month of February, 2021. When they were going to apply for MEIS, the system is not allowing and entitlement comes to ‘00’. The bank has released the BRC through online as the exports were made through Manual Port (then INGJXB). Hence, they are requesting to allow them to get their claim as they have no option to apply for the same in time.

Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed that though realization is within time but due to delay in uploading the BRCs by their banker, firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control and decided to allow MEIS benefit against 7 Shipping Bills No.(i) 0705801 dated 20.07.2017, (ii) 0705047 dated 25.07.2017, (iii) 0705936 dated 23.07.2017, (iv) 0705692 dated 18.07.2017, (v) 0705802 dated 20.07.2017, (vi) 0705755 dated 19.07.2017 and (vii) 0705540 dated 13.12.2017 without any late cut.

7 dated 25.07.2017, (iii) 0705936 dated 23.07.2017, (iv) 0705692 dated 18.07.2017, (v) 0705802 dated 20.07.2017, (vi) 0705755 dated 19.07.2017 and (vii) 0705540 dated 13.12.2017 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-Kolkata/EDI-Division for necessary updation in the system)

Case No. 23 M/s. Orient Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata F. No. HQRPRCAPPLY00000785AM22 PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 04 Shipping bill No.(i) 0709352 dated 12.09.2017, (ii) 0709326 dated 11.09.2017, (iii) 0709142 dated 28.11.2017 and (iv) 0709631 dated 16.11.2017. The applicant stated that as the port is manual port and bank was not able to issue the BRC on time. They have been issued BRC after three years from the let export date of shipping bills. Hence, requested to allow them as they have not done any mistake.

Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed that though the realization is within time but due to delay in uploading the BRCs by their banker, firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control and decided to allow MEIS benefit against only 3 Shipping Bills No.(i) 0709352 dated 12.09.2017, (ii) 0709326 dated 11.09.2017 and (iii) 0709142 dated 28.11.2017 without any late cut. The Committee did not allow EIS _ benefit against Shipping _ Bill No.0709631dated16.11.2017 as the e BRC had been uploaded by the bank within time.

iii) 0709142 dated 28.11.2017 without any late cut. The Committee did not allow EIS _ benefit against Shipping _ Bill No.0709631dated16.11.2017 as the e BRC had been uploaded by the bank within time. The firm shall approach RA within 90 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Kolkata/EDI-Division for necessary updation in the system) pe a

Page 15 of 20

Case No. 24 Ms. Garuda Intercust, Bangalore F. No. 01/60/162/10/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: Revalidation of 17 Duty Credit Scrips in terms of provisions of para 2.20 of HBP 2015-20 as the consolidated refund order has been issued by the customs after the expiry of the Scrips.

The applicant stated that though as per provisions of para 2.20(c) of HBP 2015-20 revalidation of freely transferable duty credit scrips is permitted if validity has expired while in custody of Customs Authority /RA /Government Authority but the same is not being accepted by CLA-New Delhi. The 17 Duty Credit Scrips that were submitted, within validity of the authorization to Customs for issuance of refund order but the consolidated refund order was issued by Customs after the expiry fof the authorization. Therefore, the period between the date of SAD refund application submitted to Customs and date of refund order issued against the said Duty Credit Scrips to be treated as “Deemed Custody of Duty Credit authorization with Customs. They approach CLA, New Delhi in August 2017, but were given that as the Duty Credit Scrips have expired, they were not accepting the application till the necessary certificate from Customs.

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. 25 M/s. Shibu Enterprises, Jagadhri / HRY F. No. 01/60/162/558/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: EOP Extension up to 31.03.2014 to regularize the export already fulfilled, beyond EOP against Advance Authorization No.3310013913 dated 11.09.2009.

The applicant stated that though the exports against the said advance authorisation were completed by 31.03.2014, but the operations of the said firm were attended by his father late Shri Kanta Parshad who was proprietor of the firm. As he was suffering from Cancer hence was not attending the office on regular basis from November 2013 onwards and due to ill health his father expired on 18.02.2016.Further, stated that during the illness there was heavy financial crunch & at the same time due to slow demand of the products his father was not able to fully concentrate on the day to day activities and thus had to depend on the departmental head attending the matter. After 18.02.2016 the company was taken over by him as proprietor but as already stated above due to financial crunch and no guidance he had to totally depend on the office staff but as the business was slow hence some of the office staff left the organization between June 2018 to September 2018 including the departmental head who was attending all their import /export related matters. However, he was given to understand that 100% EOis fulfilled against all the

Page 16 of 20 ron

ber 2018 including the departmental head who was attending all their import /export related matters. However, he was given to understand that 100% EOis fulfilled against all the

Page 16 of 20 ron

pending advance authorisations. It is only after the COVID-19 lockdown that all the old records were being verified for destruction & in the month of July-August 2020, it was found that the redemption/closure is pending against some of the advance authorisations. On follow up with the RA, Panipat it was found that the EOP extension is required from PRC to regularize the said exports to grant the redemption / closure certificate. Hence, requested to accept the exports already, made beyond EOP against the advance authorization and regularized.

Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and in view of justification provided by the firm it decided to accede to the request and allowed EOP extension up to 31.03.2014 of Advance Authorization No.3310013913 dated 11.09.2009 for regularization purpose only subject to payment of composition fees @0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB value for the period 11.09.2013 to 31.03.2014(Beyond 48 Months).The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Panipa t)

Case No. 26 M/s. Kyusep Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/175/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against Shipping Bill No.4460632 dated 01.03.2017 and 4460522 dated 01.03.2017 which were lately transmitted online by the customs authority on 28.04.2020 due to some system Related technical issue at their end. The applicant stated that the above 2 shipping bills are lately transmitted Online by the Customs Authority on 28.04.2020 due to some system related technical issue at their end. The detailed point-wise are; (i) They have made exports of Pharmaceutical Formulations against 2 Shipping Bill Nos.4460632 dated 01.03.2017 (LEO 02.03.2017) & 4460522 dated 01.03.2017 (LEO 02.03.2017) from Bombay Air Cargo Customs. (ii) But due to some system related technical issue with the Customs Authority both these Shipping Bills did not get transmitted online to DGFT. (iii) After lot of follow up with the customs department, finally these Shipping Bills got transmitted online to DGFT on 28.04.2020. (iv) Since the last date to file claim for MEIS was 01.03.2020, they were unable to file their claim for MEIS benefit against these Shipping Bills within the stipulated time frame. Hence, requested to allow MEIS benefit against the said shipping bills.

Decision: The Committee went through the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and it decided to refer the issue to EDI-Division for its examination and resolution.

(Action: Applicant/EDI-Division)

Case No. 27 M/s. Ronak Chemicals, Gujarat F. No. 01/60/162/495/AM21/PRC PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

==> picture [85 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> my omt_<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

Page 17 of 20

Subject: Condone the delay in submitting the request for enhancement of EO and to allow redemption against 2 Advance Authorization No.3410043824 dated 23.01.2018 and 3410043889 dated 13.02.2018.

The applicant stated that under the Advance Authorization No.3410043824 dated 23.01.2018 they have (i) Export quantity 4975 Kgs completed within validity of EO period. They have completed 54975 Kgs export whereas the licence stipulated EO 50000Kgs. They have made additional export of 4975 Kgs within validity of EO period. RA rejected their request as they had applied for enhancement of EO after expiry of the authorisations. (ii) They have not imported import item no.2 and hence they did not mention this item in export documents as exempt material. To close the licence, RA, Vadodara has raised query for not mentioning this item as exempt material-Sr 4 vide query dated 19.03.2020.

In Advance Authorisation No.3410043889 dated 13.02.2018 they have (i) Export quantity 8075 Kgs completed within validity of EO period. They have completed 88075 Kgs export whereas the licence stipulated EO 80000Kgs. They have made additional export of 8075 Kgs within validity of EO period. RA rejected their request as they had applied for enhancement EO after expiry of authorisation. (ii) They have not imported import item no.2 and hence they did not mention this item in export documents as exempt material. To close the licence, RA, Vadodara has raised query for not mentioning this item as exempt material Sr 2 vide query dated 20.03.2020.

did not mention this item in export documents as exempt material. To close the licence, RA, Vadodara has raised query for not mentioning this item as exempt material Sr 2 vide query dated 20.03.2020. Hence requested to condone the delay in submitting the request for enhancement of EO quantity and to allow redemption of above mentioned authorisations. Decision: The Committee discussed the case in detail on the basis of submission provided by the firm. It observed that RA has not considered request for EODC and enhancement on the ground that AA has expired. Accordingly, it decided to allow revalidation of 2 Advance Authorsations No.3410043824 dated 23.01.2018 and 3410043889 dated 13.02.2018 for a period of 6 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-Vadodara)

Case No. 28 M/s. Kala Jyothi Process Pvt. Ltd., Telangana F. No. 01/60/162/902/AM20/PRC PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021 Subject: Clarification regarding Bank Guarantee imposed by PRC in its Meeting No.22/AM21 dated 05.01.2021 by allowing EOP extension against EPCG license No.0930001522 dated 02.06.2005.

This is review case of PRC Meeting No.20/AM21 dated 05.01.2021 (Case No.21), Wherein the Committee approved the case. The application stated that in the minutes it was mentioned to submit 100% BG of duty saved amount. They believed that the BG amount shall be for EO still outstanding after taking into account exports completed and Customs duty paid so far. Hence, requested to suitably clarify.

==> picture [92 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> \Goth<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

Page 18 of 20

Decision: The Committee reviewed the case on the basis of submission provided by the firm and discussed the matter at length. The Committee decided to allow extension of EOP against EPCG Authorisation No.0930001522 dated 02.06.2005 for a period of 12 months from the date of endorsement subject to submission of Bank Guarantee for duty saved amount of unfulfilled EO (Outstanding EO), with the validity period of 18 months. Earlier the Committee has imposed the condition for submission of 100% Bank Guarantee for the entire duty saved amount with the validity period of 18 months vide its Meeting No.22/AM21 Dated 05.01.2021.

lier the Committee has imposed the condition for submission of 100% Bank Guarantee for the entire duty saved amount with the validity period of 18 months vide its Meeting No.22/AM21 Dated 05.01.2021. Firm shall approach RA concerned within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of the meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA-Hyderabad) Case No. 29 M/s. Kala Jyothi Process Pvt. Ltd., Telangana F. No. 01/60/162/901/AM20/PRC PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: Clarification regarding Bank Guarantee Imposed by PRC in its Meeting no. 22/AM21 dated 05.01.2021 by allowing EOP extension against EPCG License No.0930000540 dated 04.04.2003.

This is review case of PRC Meeting No.20/AM21 dated 05.01.2021 (Case No.20), Wherein the Committee approved the case. The application stated that in the minutes it was mentioned to submit 100% BG of duty saved amount. They believed that the BG amount shall be for EO still outstanding after taking into account exports completed and sutoms duty paid so far. Hence, requested to clarify that BG is for the unfulfilled EO.

believed that the BG amount shall be for EO still outstanding after taking into account exports completed and sutoms duty paid so far. Hence, requested to clarify that BG is for the unfulfilled EO.

Decision: The Committee reviewed the case on the basis of submission provided by the firm and discussed the matter at length. The Committee decided to allow extension of EOP against EPCG Authorisation No.0930001522 dated 02.06.2005 for a period of 12 months from the date of endorsement subject to submission of Bank Guarantee for duty saved amount of unfulfilled EO(Outstanding EO), with the validity period of 18 months. Earlier the Committee had imposed the condition for submissions of 100% Bank Guarantee for the entire duty saved amount with the validity period of 18 months vide its Meeting No.22/AM21 Dated 05.01.2021. Firm shall approach RA concerned within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of the meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Hyderabad)

Case No.30 Mis. Borosil Limited (Hopewell Tableware Pvt. Ltd.,) Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/07/AM22/PRC PRC Meeting No.05/AM22 dated 09.07.2021

Subject: Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.0310816275 dated 10.10.2017.

The applicant stated that against the subject authorization, they have exported 100% against first 2 export items and 98.63% against third export item within the extended

Page 19 of 20 Dea

obligation period granted by RA. They further declare that balance obligation against third item have been completed within 62 days i.e. within 11.12.2020. All item imported against the subject license are consumed in manufacturing of export items and no balance material left with them at their factory premises. Please note that due to covid-19, they are not able to fulfill the export obligation within the stipulated period for 1 export product viz. Veg Bowl-Size: 110 MM. Hence, requested to grant them 2 month (till 11.12.2020) EOP extension with applicable composition fees. As per the Para 4.17 of HBP of FTP 2015-20.

for 1 export product viz. Veg Bowl-Size: 110 MM. Hence, requested to grant them 2 month (till 11.12.2020) EOP extension with applicable composition fees. As per the Para 4.17 of HBP of FTP 2015-20.

Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and in view of justification provided by the firm it decided to accede to the request and allowed EOP extension up to 11.12.2020 of Advance Authorization No.0310816275 dated 10.10.2017 for regularization purpose only subject to payment of composition fees @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. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai)

==> picture [103 x 20] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> a<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

Page 20 of 20