Date of Uploading 2-) 05/2023 Directorate General of Foreign Trade (PRC Section) Minutes of the Policy Relaxation Committee Meeting Held on 12 .05.2023 under the Chairmanship of Shri Santosh Kumar Sarangi, Director General of Foreign Trade Meeting No. 03 /AM24 held on 12.05.2023 The following members were present in the meeting: 1. Shri S.B.S. Reddy Addl. DGFT 2. Shri Hardeep Singh Addl. DGFT 3. Shri AkashTaneja Addl. DGFT 4. Shri Anil Aggarwal Addl. DGFT 5. Dr. S.K. Bansal Addl. DGFT Following cases were discussed. The decision taken on the individual cases are as under:- | S.No | No Name of the firm Case No. | M/s. Technofab Engineering Limited, New Delhi 1

M/s. Fresenius Kabi Oncology limited, New Delhi 2 a M/s. Phoenix Overseas Limited, Kolkata 3 4, M/s. Devu Tools Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 4 5. M/s. L&T Valves Ltd., Mumbai 5 6. M/s. Sanchita Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 6-7 bg M/s. G-Cube Webwide Software Pvt. Ltd., Noida SS ae M/s. Kanishka collection, Delhi

cae M/s. T.C. Terrytex limited, Punjab 10 a M/s. Supermelmpex, New Delhi 11 a M/s. Star Vetchem Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad 12 Page 1 of 34

Pvt. Ltd., Noida SS ae M/s. Kanishka collection, Delhi

cae M/s. T.C. Terrytex limited, Punjab 10 a M/s. Supermelmpex, New Delhi 11 a M/s. Star Vetchem Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad 12 Page 1 of 34

M/s. Aquarelle India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore 14 14. M/s. Chelsea Mills LLP., Haryana 15 15. M/s. AurobindoPharma Ltd., 16 16. M/s. Arch Pharmalabs Limited, Mumbai 17 7: M/s. BenzoChemIndsustries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 18-19 aS M/s. Mudrika Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd., Baroda 20 19. M/s. Opera Global Private Limited, Noida 21 20. M/s. Morepen Laboratories Limited, New Delhi 22 ae M/s. Prasol Chemical Limited, Mumbai 23 22. M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceutical Limited, Mumbai 24 236 M/s. Derik Monofil Pvt. Ltd., Tamil Nadu 25 24. M/s. Aadilcunial Components India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai 26 25. M/s. Mangal Dal & Oil Mill, Rajasthan 27 26. M/s. PRO Labels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi 28 27. M/s. Grover Sons, Maharashtra 29 28. M/s. Fringe Papo International, Delhi 30 29. M/s. Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 31 30. M/s. Verat Hosiery Mills, Punjab 32 aL. M/s. Welspun Corp Limited, Mumbai 33 32. M/s. Sharco Enterprises, Delhi 34 33. M/s. Accura Enterprises Limited, Anmadabad 35 34. M/s. 56016) Textiles Pvt.Ltd., Gujarat 36 38, M/s. Mayithara Home Decor Pvt. Ltd.,Kerala 37 Page 2 of 34

/s. Sharco Enterprises, Delhi 34 33. M/s. Accura Enterprises Limited, Anmadabad 35 34. M/s. 56016) Textiles Pvt.Ltd., Gujarat 36 38, M/s. Mayithara Home Decor Pvt. Ltd.,Kerala 37 Page 2 of 34

M/s. PoggenampNagarshethPowertronics Pvt. Ltd., 39 Gujarat 38. M/s. International Packaging Products Pvt. Ltd., Dadra | & Nagar Haveli 39. M/s. Tokyo Plast International Ltd., Gandhidham 41 40. M/s. Asiatic Electrical & Switchgear Pvt. Ltd., Delhi 42 41. M/s. RecipharmPharmaservice Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore 43 42. M/s. DEUTSCHE LABS INC., Ahmadabad 44 * 43. M/s. Elimar Frozen Foods, Mumbai 45 44. M/s. Sanjay Soya Pvt. Ltd. MH 46 45. M/s. APL Valueclay Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat 47 46. M/s. AshapuraPerfoclay Ltd., Mumbai Pe 47. M/s. Govind Rubber Ltd., Mumbai 49 48. [M/s. BenzoChem Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 50

Case No.01 M/s. Technofab Engineering Limited, New Delhi

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00003280AM23 Meeting No. 03/AM24 held on 12.05.2023 Subject: Registration of MEIS Duty Credit scrip no: 0519228665 dated 06.07.2020, Total Duty Credit amount Rs. 1014093.00 port code INJIGB (JAIGAON). The applicant stated that they have applied earlier and their application has been rejected without placing the same in PRC Meeting. They have been issued MEIS license as per policy and provisions and they have been denied benefit by Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata which is conveyed to them by CP GRAM. They have made exports to Bhutan and payment against these shipping bill has been realized in terms of public notice no.8/2015-2020 dated 14.05.2020 and remittance against these shipping bills are received in USD from Asian Development Bank as part of their project funding and payment has been received vide SWIFT as confirm by their bankers. They have made request to Kolkatta customs for registration of MEIS license which is available at ICEGATE but they refuse to register the same saying that Jaigaon LCS is neither a notified port nor any public notice is issued for registration of MEIS and they have issued them the objection letter. They have written mail to |ICEGATE in this regard and they have asked them to approach DGFT Page 3 of 34

lic notice is issued for registration of MEIS and they have issued them the objection letter. They have written mail to |ICEGATE in this regard and they have asked them to approach DGFT Page 3 of 34

advised RA to given extension to their MEIS license for six months. Decision: The Committee discussed the case on the basis of justification provided by the applicant along with the comments received from PC-3 division. The Committee noted that the applicant has faced a genuine hardship which were beyond their control and decided to allow revalidation for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement against MEIS Scrip No. 0519228665 dated 06.07.2020. EDI-division will examine the feasibility of changing port to Kolkatta. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/CLA-New Delhi/EDI-division)

Case No.02 M/s. Fresenius Kabi Oncology limited, New Delhi

F.No.01/60/162/864/AM20/PRC

Subject: Re-issuance of duty scrip as per para 3.12 of HBP 2015-20 to the

extent of 98% against 3 MEIS duty scrips on account of re-export of unfit imported goods. The applicant stated that they had applied and approved for 3 MEIS scrips against shipping bills and on 27.08.2010 they had applied issuance of fresh scrip has informed that they had paid customs duty on import as per referred MEIS scrip of defective item and re-export defective item. As per para 3.12 (HBP) they had apply for issuance of Fresh scrip for duty credit amount utilized for import of goods. As per above there is no policy/provision to issued MEIS scrip manually and they advised to approach NIC, DGFT for help to filling application online for issuance of MEIS scrip on re-exports of goods. Hence they are requesting to allow re-issue of duty scrip as per para 3.12 against 3 MEIS scrip. Decision:The Committee went through the representation received from the applicant alongwith the report received from CLA,New Delhi and it observed that no policy relaxation is involved in this case. Accordingly, it decided to withdraw this case from PRC. Firm may approach PC-3 division in the matter for resolution. (Action: Applicant/PC-3 division )

Case No.03 M/s. Phoenix Overseas Limited, Kolkata

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY0004635AM23

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 22 shipping bills in which “N” has been

mentioned in reward column instead of “Y”. Page 4 of 34

No.06) wherein Committee reject the case. Now the applicant has stated that they have filled the petition against the decision of PRC at Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata vide WPA # 1409/2023 (M/s. Phoenix Overseas Ltd. &Anr. V. Union of India &ors.)and High Court passed order on dated 25.01.2023 in the above WPA. Based on Hon'ble High Court order the Ld. Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Krishnanagar Customs Division, Krishnanagar, Nadia had passed the order on dated 02.03.2023. Customs has mentioned that in compliance to such Order of the Hon'ble High Court, whereby amendment in the “Reward Scheme” column from “No” to “Yes” has been allowed w.r.t. their 22 S/Bills for the MEIS benefit under FTP 2015-20. Hence they are requesting to allow MEIS benefit against 22 S/Bills. Decision: The Committee on the basis of representation submitted by the firm along with Court Order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta and discussed the matter at length. The Committee decided to refer the case to PC- 3 division for implementation of court order. (Action: Applicant/PC-3 Division ) Case No.4 Mls. Devu Tools Pvt.

tta and discussed the matter at length. The Committee decided to refer the case to PC- 3 division for implementation of court order. (Action: Applicant/PC-3 Division ) Case No.4 Mls. Devu Tools Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00002621AM23 Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 11 S/Bill No.(1) 5142691 dated 31.03.2017, (2) 5142767 dated 31.03.2017, (3) 5142770 dated 31.03.2017, (4) 7820183 dated 23.05.2016, (5) 5541722 dated 20.04.2017, (6) 8557152 dated 09.09.2017, (7) 9216119 dated 11.10.2017, (8) 9728061, dated 06.11.2017, (9) 1330013 dated 04.12.2017, (10) 2344781 dated 22.1.2018 and (11) 2344745 dated 22.01.2018. This is a defer case of PRC Meeting No.18/AM23 held on 15.11.2022 (Case No.43) wherein Committee decided to defer the case and seek a detailed report from RA, Mumbai regarding the period of DEL and abeyance of the firm. The applicant stated that due to non-fulfilment of E.O. against Advance Authorization they were put in DEL on 05.08.2019 which was removed on 17.01.2022. They had earlier filed eleven S/Bills in ECOM No.03/99/035/47800/0655/7922 and now this ECOM No. is not shown in the system of DGFT due to which they are unable to claim MEIS benefit. As per policy in MEIS Scheme they can apply for within three years from S/Bill date to avail the benefit and same were kept in DEL from 05.08.2019.

due to which they are unable to claim MEIS benefit. As per policy in MEIS Scheme they can apply for within three years from S/Bill date to avail the benefit and same were kept in DEL from 05.08.2019. A detailed report from RA, Mumbai has been received vide their letter no. 03/84/040/00243/am16/0139 dated 07.01.23 dispatched on 27.03.23 according to which applicant was given 2 months abeyance twice from 06.08.2019 to 17.01.22. Hence they are requesting to reactivate the subject ECOM and allow MEIS application for Eleven S/Bills. Page 5 of 34

the report received from RA, Mumbai and discussed the matter at length. The Committee noted that applicant had Opportunity to file the applications when they were given abeyance of two months on two occasions. Accordingly, the case was deferred for submission of reply by applicant. (Action: Applicant) Case No.5 Mls. L&T Valves Ltd., Mumbai F.No. HQRPRCAPPLY00004017AM23

Subject: To condone the time limit for filing MEIS application against 542 time

barred shipping bills pertaining to the year 2016-17 to 2019-2020 without late cut. This a defer case of PRC Meeting No.27/AM23 held on 05.01.2023 wherein Committee decided to defer the case and ask the firm to submit a revised statement showing the date of uploading the BRCs before taking the decision. They have submitted the revised statement showing the date of uploading the E-BRCs. The applicant stated that grant MEIS benefit against shipping bills pertains to FY 2016- 2017 and 2019-2020 which were time barred due to delay in uploading of eBRC. Hence firm has requested to condone the delay filling MEIS. 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 some of the BRC by the banker in DGFT Portal, the firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control. Accordingly it decided to allow MEIS benefit only for those shipping bills whose realization has happened within 3 years from the date of let export and e-BRC have been uploaded by the bank after the expiry of three years from the date of let export. It also decided that no cut would be imposed on the entitlement. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA-Concerned/PC-3 Division for necessary updation) Case No.6 Mls. Sanchita Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F.No. HQRPRCAPPLY00002661AM23

Subject: Acceptance of MEIS claim for the period 2015-16 & 2016-17.

This is a review case of PRC Meeting No.02/AM23 held on 13.04.2022 (Case No.37) wherein Committee decided to reject the request of the firm. The applicant stated Page 6 of a

time S/Bill shown as available. Since both are the contradictory to each other and they could not able to file application for MEIS within time limit. If they did not received MEIS benefit, it is huge loss to their company and they are facing financial crunch after lock down. Due to technical error of DGFT server they were not able to submit their claim and therefore requested to review the decision of the Committee. Hence they are requesting to allow MEIS claim for the above mentioned period. Decision: The Committee reviewed the case on the basis of justification furnished by the applicant and discussed the case at length. It observed that the evidence provided by the applicant is of November 2019 showing used e-BRC's by which time all the shipping bills had become time barred and found no merit in the request of the firm. Accordingly, it decided to maintain the earlier decision of PRC in its Meeting No. O2/AM23 _— dated 13.04.2022 (Case No.37). (Action: Applicant) Case No.7 Mis. Sanchita Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F.No. HARPRCAPPLY00002651AM23

Subject: Acceptance of MEIS claims for the period 2015-16 & 2016-17.

This is review case of PRC Meeting No.02/AM23 held on 13.04.2022 (Case No.35) wherein Committee reject the case. The applicant stated that BRC uploaded detailed showing as USED on DGFT server and at the same time S/Bill shown as available. Since both are the contradictory to each other and they could not able to file application for MEIS within time limit. If they did not received MEIS benefit, it is huge loss to their company and they are facing financial crunch after lock down. Due to technical error of DGFT server they were not able to submit their claim and therefore requested to review the decision of the Committee. Hence they are requesting to allow MEIS claim for the above mentioned period. Decision: The Committee reviewed the case on the basis of justification furnished by the applicant and discussed the case at length. It observed that the evidence provided by the applicant is of November 2019 showing used ebrc's by which time all the shipping bills had become time barred and found no merit in the request of the firm. Accordingly, it decided to maintain the earlier decision of PRC in its Meeting O2/AM23 _— dated 13.04.2022 (Case No.35). (Action: Applicant) Case No.8 M/s. G-Cube Webwide Software Pvt. Ltd., Noida F.No. HQRPRCAPPLY000000997AM23 Page 7 te? 34

Subject: To allow SEIS benefit for FY 2017-18.

authorized CA MunishMehta and the last date of submission of such application was 317 March, 2021 but he was not able to file such application within the due date of such application due to 3" Wave of covid-19. After that in the month of November, and December, 2021 due dates of Income Tax returns fallen and government did not extended due dates and they were busy in Tax Audit, statutory audits and other compliances. Further as per the order issued by Supreme Court “In March, 2020, this court took Suo-Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other quasi proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special law due to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. On 23.03.2020, this Court Directed extension of the period of limitation in all proceedings before courts/tribunals including this court w.e.f. 15.03.202 till further order. On 08.03.2021 the order dated 23.03.2020 was brought to an end, permitting the relaxation of period of limitation 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021, while doing so it was made clear that the period of limitation would start from 15.03.2021.

03.2020 was brought to an end, permitting the relaxation of period of limitation 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021, while doing so it was made clear that the period of limitation would start from 15.03.2021. In addition to above, the order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. Hence they are requesting to allow filing an application for SEIS for FT 2017-18. Decision: The Committee went through the statements made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed 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 of the firm. (Action: Applicant) Case No.9 Mls. Kanishka Collection, Delhi F.No. HQRPRCAPPLY00002736AM23

Subject: To allow RoSCTL benefit against 16 shipping bills.

The applicant stated that they had made exports of readymade garments vide 16 S/Bills under Scheme code 60 and drawback for all the S/Bills was also granted on time. Due to technical issue of DGFT/EDI online website their above S/Bills were not reflecting on DGFT Portal. They had emailed the concerned department addressing the issue on 13.01.2022 and requested to reflect their S.Bills on DGFT website as their S.Bills were not available on DGFT website. Furthermore they waited for some time for the concerned department to take action on it but they had not received any Page 8 of 34

to furnish S/Bills details in a tabular form. They shared S/Bill detail as requested but till date they did not received any reply from them. Hence they are requesting to allow ROSCTL benefit against 16 S/Bils. Decision: The Committee discussed the case on the basis of justification provided by the applicant 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.10 Ms. T.C. Terrytex limited, Punjab

F.No. HQRPRCAPPLY00001391AM23 Mestirig No. 03/AM24 held on 12.05.2023

Subject: To allow RoSCTL benefit against 17 Shipping bills.

The applicant stated that S/Bills have been filed by them under RoSCTL Scheme wherein intent has also been declared to avail the benefit of same. Due to non- transmission of same from ICEGATE to DGFT portal they were unable to file the claims. They have made several repeated requests to RA for facilitating the online submissions of application for ROSCTL claims before the sunset period as per DGFT Public Notice but nothing positive has been heard within the due date prescribed. Hence they are requesting to allow RoSCTL claims against 17 Shipping Bills. Decision: The Committee examined the statements made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed 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.11 M/s. Supreme Impex, New Delhi

F.No. HARPRCAPPLY00004591AM23 Subject: Revalidation of RoSCTL of 2 Scrip No. (i) 0519284946 dated 21.01.2022 & (ii) 0519284947 dated 20.01.2023. The applicant stated that they have two scrips which was expired on 20.01.2023. | intended to import some goods using these RoSCTL and they got misplaced in files. In the meanwhile | fell ill for around 15 days and later when they found the scrip validity date has passed. Hence they are requesting to allow revalidation of above mentioned two RoSCTL scrips to claim the benefit. Page 9 of 34

discussed the matter at length and it decided to defer the case to PC-4 division for its examination/comments. (Action: Applicant/PC-4 Division)

Case No.12 Mis. Star Vetchem Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

F.No. HARPRCAPPLY00004588AM23

Subject: Condonation / Procedure laps issue of Advance license for export

product ‘ACIDOVIT (Compounded Animal Feed) against Advance Authorization no. 3210064990 dated 11.07.2013. The applicant stated that their case was reconsider in ad-hoc norms committee against subject license and was rejected by the Committee. Norms Committee considered the case as per agenda and noted that the firm has imported Vitamins on self declaration basis which is not permissible under Para 4.11 (ix) of FTP. As such the Committee decided to reject the case with direction to the firm to pay Customs Duty and applicable interest for regularization of the case. They have inadvertently/wrongly mentioned the license under Para 4.7 instead of 4.4.2 of HBP at the time of submitting an online application. They have already exported net weight in all five invoices. Hence they are requesting to allow convert the subject license from Para 4.7 instead of 4.4.2 and ratify the norms accordingly. Decision: The Committee discussed the case on the basis of justification provided by the applicant 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.13 M/s. OMFA Rubbers Limited, Delhi

F.No. HQRPRCAPPLY00003424AM23

Subject: Wavier of procedural requirement against 3 Advance Authorization

no. 0510405824 dated 09.03.2018, 0510407615 dated 27.08.2019 and 0510410735 dated 27.05.2019. The applicant stated that one of the input is “Natural Rubber” which is covered under Appendix 6 stipulating condition of export within 6 month from the date of import. Due Covid-19 problem worldwide there was no proper communication with overseas buyer and supplier. Therefore, export against some shipping bill is beyond 6 months. There is procedural lapses which was beyond their control. However, total export is more than the obligation imposed on licenses. There is no loss to government and also there is no malafied intension to misuse Govt. Scheme. Hence Page 10 of 34 ~~

PN 62/15-20 dated 24.03.2017 against subject licenses. Decision: The Committee examined the statement made by the applicant in its application and it decided to refer the matter to PC4 for comments as to whether recent order of Supreme court on pre-import condition under Advance Authorisation Scheme has a bearing on the request made by the applicant. (Action: PC-4 Division/Applicant)

Case No.14 M/s. Aquarelle India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

F.No. HQARPRCAPPLY00004435AM23

Subject: EOP Extension of 5 Advance Authorization No.(i) 0710092791 dated

31.12.2012, (ii) 0710092002 dated 19.11.2012, (iii) 0710091482 dated 19.10.2012, (iv) 0710096581 dated 10.07.2013 and (v) 0710090725 dated 14.09.2012. The applicant stated that they applied for PRC after 30 months from the date of issuance of AA license but PRC transferred the case to RA. PRC remanded back approximately 80 cases to respective RAs giving reason that they are empowered to decide the cases in terms of Para 4.38 and 4.42 of HBP 2015-20 as amended bide Public Notice 16 dated 04.06.2015 read with Public Notice 20 dated 09.06.2015, although the PN states RA is not empowered to give any type of extension beyond 30 months. Their case all 5 licenses were crossed 30 months time when they had applied to PRC. Instead of giving decision of PRC against subject licenses they transferred the case to RA. When they are approached the PRC again, PRC in turn asked them to get the rejection letter which took 6 months time. Their buyer was threatening them stating that if they are not going to ship the goods he will cancel the order and claim his sales loss. They convinced the customs by showing the PRC application and shipped the goods. Hence they are requesting to allow EOP extension up to against subject licenses for regularization purpose only.

loss. They convinced the customs by showing the PRC application and shipped the goods. Hence they are requesting to allow EOP extension up to against subject licenses for regularization purpose only. Date of last export is 08.01.2017. Decision: The Committee reviewed and examined the statement made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length and it decided to refer the case to PC-4 division for its comments as to whether RA was competent to allow EO extension in terms of Para 4.38 and 4.42 of HBP 2015-20 as amended bide Public Notice 16 dated 04.06.2015 read with Public Notice 20 dated 09.06.2015 when case was referred to RA Bangalore vide PRC decision dated 09.06.2015. (Action: Applicant/PC-4 Division) Case No.15 ‘M/s. Chelsea Mills LLP., Haryana Page 11 of 34

F.No. HQRPRCAPPLY00003698AM23 dated 09.10.2018. This is a defer case of PRC Meeting No.24/AM23 held on 27.12.2022 (Case No.43) wherein Committee decided to defer the case and seek detailed report from RA, concerned in the matter for taking the decision. The applicant stated that they have obtained the subject authorization under scheme 4.04A on repeated basis of the earlier approved norms for the same product. Further exports orders were received for export of same product declaring style 624766 /674431 /663111.

zation under scheme 4.04A on repeated basis of the earlier approved norms for the same product. Further exports orders were received for export of same product declaring style 624766 /674431 /663111. The multiple style numbers for same product has nexus with the different country of destination and in order to avoid the multiple identity number for one product they have to re-named this product identity with their export code 126CF and have followed this No.126C of their Special Advance Authorisation application. Upon completion of EO they have submitted their application for issue of EODC but the same was rejected for want of post fixation of norms due to variation as explained above. Accordingly, as per the direction issued by RA they applied for post facto approval of Adhoc norms to SION Committee which was consequently rejected by the Committee in the meeting no.NC/5/MEET/Sep/202223/8 dated 22.09.2022. Since, the norms of the same product was approved by SION Committee repeated authorization under scheme code 4.04.A were issued and the nexus of product description was followed with export product code 126C as declared in all export documents as well as in shipping bills are in existence mutatis mutandis with the description given in the authorization be accepted for issuance of EODC on basis of export code adopted by them. Decision:The Committee went through the representation received from the applicant along with the report received from CLA, New Delhi.

d for issuance of EODC on basis of export code adopted by them. Decision:The Committee went through the representation received from the applicant along with the report received from CLA, New Delhi. The Committee noted that the applicant has faced a genuine hardship which were beyond their control and decided to relax the provision for prior fixation of norms which is the reason why Norms Committee has rejected the case. The applicant may approach concerned Norms Committee in the matter. (Action: Applicant ) Case No.16 M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Hyderabad. F.No. HARPRCAPPLY00072603AM21 Page 12 of 34

March 2017 to December 2019 by giving retrospective effect corrigendum / Notification. This is a defer case of PRC Meeting No.12/AM23 held on 23.08.2022 (Case No.38) wherein Committee refer the issue to PC-4 Division for its examination and resolution. Accordingly, the matter was referred to PRC-4 Division and they have furnished their comments in the matter. PC 4 has commented as follows: The issue has been examined by this Division and following facts have been noticed: i. The item 6-APA was removed from the Appendix-30A (now renamed as Appendix 4J), vide Public Notice No.02 dated 27.08.2009. ii. |The 6-APA is not a drug and it is an intermediate as certified by DCGI vide their letter dated 21.05.2018 in file no.01/94/180/250/AM19/PC-4. iii. | However, there was no rationale provided while replacing the item 6APA under Appendix-4J, vide Public Notice No.62 dated 24.03.2017. The item 6APA was again removed from Appendix-4J vide Public Notice No.54 dated 02.01.2020. iv.

le provided while replacing the item 6APA under Appendix-4J, vide Public Notice No.62 dated 24.03.2017. The item 6APA was again removed from Appendix-4J vide Public Notice No.54 dated 02.01.2020. iv. The PRC has taken a decision in a similar nature of case Nos.1, 2, & 3 in its meeting No.16/M16 held on 18.12.2015, that specific provision as notified by PN No.2 dated 27.08.2009 will prevail over the general provision of HBP and the AA issued on or after 27.08.2009 will be covered under normal EOP of 18 months. The Public Notice in this matter is not retrospectively applicable as desired by the firm. Hence, these factual inputs are forwarded to PRC for suitable instructions in this matter. It was observed that the effect of public notice number 54/2015 dated 02.01.2020 read as follows, "6 APA — ITC (HS) Code No. 29411050 is removed from Appendix 4J of HBP and from Point No. 15 under general notes for Chemical and Allied Products of Standard Input Output Norms (SION) under handbook of procedure volume 2 of 2015-2020.” Additionally, it was stated in Public Notice 54/2015 dated 02.01.2020 that Public Notice 62/2016 dated 24.03.2017 ( which had added the item to Appendix 4 J ) also stands amended to that extent. Decision:The Committee discussed the case on the basis of submission made by the applicant alongwith the comments of PC-4 Division. The Committee noted that the applicant has faced a genuine hardship which were beyond their control observed and that there is merit in the case.

he applicant alongwith the comments of PC-4 Division. The Committee noted that the applicant has faced a genuine hardship which were beyond their control observed and that there is merit in the case. Accordingly, the Committee decided to relax the 4 J condition for 6- APA for 140 numbers Advance Authorisations issued between March 2017 to December 2019. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA-Hyderabad) Page 13 oe 34

Case No.17 M/s. Arch Pharmalabs Limited, Mumbai F.No. HARPRCAPPLY00004648AM23 auto — extension information was not reflected in Customs system. This case was last considered in PRC Meeting No.24/AM23 held on 27.12.2022 (Case No.37) and Committee decided to count the export made of above mentioned shipping bills towards fulfillment of EO against Advance Authorizations subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:- i. Composition fee of Rs.200/-per shipping bill shall be imposed. ii. | Subject Shipping Bills should not be free shipping bill. ii, All other relevant export documents like ARE-1, Invoice ete should also contain relevant file/license number. iv. RA shall ensure that subject shipping bills have not been taken into account in any other Advance Authorization for discharge of export obligation. v.

also contain relevant file/license number. iv. RA shall ensure that subject shipping bills have not been taken into account in any other Advance Authorization for discharge of export obligation. v. The applicant would submit an affidavit-cum-indemnity bond in order to indemnify the Government for any harm or loss occurring due to utilization of these shipping bills towards fulfillment of EO against these Advance Authorizations. Now the applicant has stated that their request was for consideration of exports in S/Bills against the Advance Authorisation where auto extension as per PN 67 dated 31.03.2020 did not happen due to technical reasons and AA details were not reflected in the Custom System as per the relief provided in the PN for authorizations expiring during the Covid period. Out of the 73 S/Bills notified in the PRC decision, 22 were already filed under AA Scheme and therefore no relaxation was required for consideration of these S/Bills. They had inadvertently mentioned these S/Bills instead of the actual bills where relaxation is required. They are requesting to replace these 22 S/Bills which are already filed under Advance Authorization with the 22 S/Bills where they were not able to avail timely EO extension/benefit of Public Notice providing auto extension of authorization during the Covid period.

filed under Advance Authorization with the 22 S/Bills where they were not able to avail timely EO extension/benefit of Public Notice providing auto extension of authorization during the Covid period. Hence they are requesting to allow correction in list of S/Bills mentioned in PRC Meeting minutes quoted earlier. Decision: The Committee discussed the case on the basis of submission made by the applicant and noted that the applicant has faced a genuine hardship which were beyond their control and that there is merit in the case. Accordingly, the Committee decided to accede to the request and allow correction in list of S/Bills mentioned in PRC Meeting minutes quoted earlier by replacing 22 S/Bills which are already filed under Advance Authorization with the 22 S/Bills where they were not able to avail timely EO extension/benefit of Public Notice providing auto extension of authorization during Covid, subject to the same conditions as imposed earlier including that these are not free SBs. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. Page 14 of oe.

ubject to the same conditions as imposed earlier including that these are not free SBs. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. Page 14 of oe.

(Action: Applicant/ RA-Mumbai ) Case No.18 M/s. BenzoChemindsustries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F.No. HQRPRCAPPLY000003779AM23 This is a defer case of PRC Meeting No.26/AM23 held on 03.01.2023 (Case No.31) wherein Committee decided to defer the case to seek a detailed report from Dahej, SEZ in the matter before taking the decision. Reply has been received from Dahej SEZ vide their letter dated 02.03.2023 in which they have stated that they have campleted port registration of all the six scrips by 31.01.2023. The applicant stated that they are manufacturer exporters of ball pen tips and supplied product around 36 countries. They had obtained the said MEIS scrip on 25.10.2021 for export made from SEZ-Dahej Unit. As per PN No.58 they have option to choose jurisdictional RA on the basis of Corporate Office/Registered Office/Head Office/Branch Office address endorsed on IEC for submitting application under MEIS and SEIS. This option need to be exercised at the beginning of financial year. Once an option is exercised no change would be allowed for claims relating to that year. On the basis of the above they have applied and get the MEIS Scrips issued from. DGFT Mumbai but they are unable to register the same with SEZ-Dahej Customs. They have also approach DGFT in this regard but not get the proper response.

applied and get the MEIS Scrips issued from. DGFT Mumbai but they are unable to register the same with SEZ-Dahej Customs. They have also approach DGFT in this regard but not get the proper response. Hence they are requesting to allow six months revalidation to get the scrip register and self utilize. Decision: The Committee discussed the case on the basis of statement made by the firm alongwith the report received from SEZ, Dahez.The Committee noted that the applicant has faced a genuine hardship which were beyond their control and it decided to accede to the request of the firm and allowed revalidation for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement against MEIS Scrip No.0319337150 dated 25.10.2021. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai /PC-3 division) Case No.19 M/s. BenzoChem Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F.No. HARPRCAPPLY000003780AM23

Subject: Revalidation of MEIS Script No.0319337152 dated 25.10.2021.

This is a defer case of PRC Meeting No.26/AM23 held on 03.01.2023 (Case No.32) wherein Committee decided to defer the case to seek a detailed report from Dahej, SEZ in the matter before taking the decision. Reply has been received from Dahej Page ee of 34

SEZ vide their letter dated 02.03.2023 in which they have stated they have completed port registration of all the six scrips by 31.01.2023. The applicant has stated that they had obtained the said MEIS scrip on 25.10.2021 for export made from SEZ-Dahej Unit. As per PN No.58/2015-20 dated 10.02.2017

para 3.06 (a) they have option to choose jurisdictional RA on the basis of Corporate

Office/Registered Office/Head Office/Branch Office address endorsed on IEC for submitting application under MEIS and SEIS. This option need to be exercised at the beginning of financial year. Once an option is exercised no change would be allowed for claims relating to that year. On the basis of the above they have applied and get the MEIS scrips issued from DGFT Mumbai but they are unable to register the same with SEZ-Dahej Customs. They have also approach DGFT in this regard but not get the proper response. Now they have applied for 06 months revalidation to get the scrip register and self-utilize. Hence, they are requesting for revalidation in EOP for 06 months. Decision: The Committee discussed the case on the basis of statement made by the firm alongwith the report received from SEZ, Dahez . The Committee noted that the applicant has faced a genuine hardship which were beyond their control and it decided to accede to the request of the firm and allowed revalidation for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement against MEIS Scrip No.0319337152 dated 25.10.2021. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai/PC-3 division) Case No.20 M/s. Mudrika Ceramics India Pvt. Ltd., Baroda F.No. HQARPRCAPPLY00004068AM23

Subject: Revalidation of 3 MEIS Script No.(i) 3419023633 dated 03.10.2022, (ii)

3419023635 dated 03.10.2021 & (iii) 3419024952 dated 24.11.2021. This is a defer case of PRC Meeting No.32/AM23 held on 24.02.2023 (Case No.46) wherein Committee decided to defer the case and ask the firm to submit a copy of letter from Customs Authority specifying scrips in which re-credit is to be done by them. The applicant stated that above mentioned MEIS were granted with the validity of one year. And they have utilized the said licenses for their own import clearance. However, at the time of import of RM on account of the classification of product i.e. HSN they have been granted the provisional assessment of the B/E and accordingly they have paid the import duty in cash as well as through the usage of MEIS license. After completion of the all required formality and paper work at the time of providing final assessment of the imported Cargo Custom has arrived to the final decision of the Excess Import duty collected from Mudrika Ceramics (I) Pvt. Ltd. They have arranged the refund of the excess custom duty in two way i.e. re- as Page 16 of 34 ee

arrived to the final decision of the Excess Import duty collected from Mudrika Ceramics (I) Pvt. Ltd. They have arranged the refund of the excess custom duty in two way i.e. re- as Page 16 of 34 ee

order in hand two MEIS license is expired and another MEIS license is about to expired. On receipt of this order, they have approached the Local RLA and they denied to do needful anything since the original validity of license is expired. Hence they are requesting to revalidation of above mentioned MEIS. Decision: The Committee examined the statement made by the applicant in its application and it decided to defer the matter and ask the firm to submit a letter from customs as already decided in earlier PRC Meeting No.32AM23_ dated 24.02.2023(case no.46). (Action: Applicant)

Case No. 21 M/s. Opera Global Private Limited, Noida

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004602AM23

Subject: Clubbing of Advance Authorization No. 0511015838 dated 15.11.2022

and 0511017613 dated 03.03.2023. The applicant stated that they are two star export house and manufacturer exporter in readymade garments and their buyer has changed item from Girls Work Trouser (71/262) to Girls Frock (71/313). They have already purchased the fabric from China against BE No.3462832 dated 25.11.2022, Fabric 11982.12 SQM, Special Advance License dated 15.11.2022 for Girls Work Trouser = 5000 PCS). As there is no provision in the DGFT Portal to amend the SION amendment therefore they could not amended the Item from Girls Work Trouser to Girls Frock. Now they have issued fresh Special Advance Authorisation No.0511017613 dated 03.03.2023 from CLA New Delhi and imported fabrics for export of new Garments (Girls Frock ). Hence they are requesting to allow clubbing of both the licenses for redemption purposes as the import fabrics are same in both the licenses. Decision:The Committee went through the representation received from the applicant and it noted that there is no restriction in the Policy but apparently the portal does not allow. The Committee noted that the applicant has faced a genuine hardship which were beyond their control and it decided to allow the request and refer the matter to EGTF for examination and resolution for all such cases. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/ CLA-New Delhi/EGTF)

Case No. 22 M/s. Morepen Laboratories Limited, New Delhi

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004424AM23 Page 17 of 34 ,

and 0510212744 dated 29.11.2007. The applicant stated they are exporter and importer and manufacturer of Bulk Drugs Intermediates from India for the past 30 years who has never defaulted in the past on any account. They have initially submitted their application for clubbing and redemption in the CLA, New Delhi and the RA raised a DL dated 22.11.2013. RA could not club these licenses due to revised clubbing guidelines issued whereby Powers to club the license issued prior to 31.03.2009 were withdrawn from RLA. They have fulfilled all conditions and parameters as per latest clubbing guideline vide PN No.70 dated 30.01.2019 but RLA is not empowered to club the licenses. There is no loss of revenue in their case as they have timely completed all export obligations and also paid duty and interest on excess imports upon clubbing. Hence they are requesting to allow clubbing of subject Advance Licenses for redemption. Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of submission made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length. The Committee noted that the applicant has faced a genuine hardship which were beyond their control and decided to relax the condition 2(i) of Public Notice No. 70 dated 30.01.2019 for clubbing of 2 Advance Authorization No. 0510184215 dated 09.06.2006 &0510212744 dated 29.11.2007 issued before 31.03.2009 for regularization purpose only.

of Public Notice No. 70 dated 30.01.2019 for clubbing of 2 Advance Authorization No. 0510184215 dated 09.06.2006 &0510212744 dated 29.11.2007 issued before 31.03.2009 for regularization purpose only. The other terms and conditions for clubbing 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. (Action: Applicant/CLA-New Delhi)

Case No. 23 M/s. Prasol Chemical Limited, Mumbai

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004692AM23 Subject: Extension of EOP and clubbing of Advance Authorization no.0310837174 dated 14.07.2020 and 0311011970 dated 28.02.2022 for redemption purpose only. The applicant stated that the 1st AA No.0310837174 was obtained on 14.07.2020 and the 2" AA No.0311011970 was obtained on 28.02.222 i.e. approx. 18 + 1 = 19 months from the date of issue of 1° license. Due to delay in receipt of orders from their international customers they were not able to fulfill 50% export obligation within 24 months from the date of 17 license. However, considering the exports made under both the licenses they have already fulfilled 100% export obligation within (18+6+6) = 30 months from the date of 1" license. Since they have already completed the required exports and fulfilled the export commitment they are left with no other choice but to request for grant of EOP & allow clubbing of both Advance Licenses for redemption purpose only. Hence they are requesting to allow EOP extension and clubbing of both the licenses mentioned in the subject for redemption purpose only. Page oy of 34

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. 24 M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceutical Limited, Mumbai

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004670AM23

Subject: Clubbing of Advance Authorization no. 0310825316 dated 30.11.2018

and 0311000087 dated 10.12.2020. The applicant stated that they had obtained AA No.0310825316 dated 30.11.2018 and 0311000087 dated 10.12.2020 for import of item “Escitalopram” and export item “Escitalopram Tablets” as per Normal condition. They have applied RLA Mumbai for clubbing and redemption of Advance License but the same was rejected by RLA, Mumbai as per para (vi) in view of PN No.70 dated 30.01.2019 ie. only such authorization can be club which was issued 18 months from the date of issue of earliest authorization. Due to sudden Covid Pandemic in the year 2020 they are unable to manufacture and export their export product and when they able to export but their license were expired. Hence they are requesting to allow clubbing of both the licenses as mentioned in the subject for redemption purpose. 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. 25 M/s. Derik Monofil Pvt. Ltd., Tamil Nadu

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004610AM23

Subject: Extension of EOP against EPCG Authorization no. 3530004570 dated

23.06.2011. This is a review case of EPCG 9g! Meeting of AM23 held on 12.12.2022 (Case No.28) wherein Committee decided to reject the case. Now they have stated that their company has been set up to manufacture Wooden Plastic Composite Decking in 2011 which was then a new product to Indian market. The said Wooden Plastic Composite Decking were a new concept of tiles to all over Asian continent. They had a contact of foreign counter part who had given assurance to place orders for exports in the year 2011 but they could not mobilize export order for this product and Page 19 of 34

heavy loss in this industry. After importing the machines they have installed the same in the factory and submitted the installation certificate but they could export ~ final product directly to the overseas buyer within the stipulated EOP and fulfill EO due to quality issues that they were facing during the trial run of the unit. Machine impaired and documentary evidence for contacting the machine supplier and their inability to repair the machine. Due to Covid-19 pandemic caused the total business stand still. Hence they are requesting to allow two year extension in EOP against subject license. Decision: The Committee having examined the case on the basis of justification 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)

Case No. 26 Mis. AadilCunial Components India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00003868AM23

Subject: Condonation of non mentioning of EPCG Authorization number

0430007059 dated 20.01.2009 on shipping documents. This is defer case of PRC Meeting No.28/AM23 held on 11.01.2013 (Case No.47) wherein Committee defer the case and ask the firm to submit more detail stating how they intend to fulfill the pending EO before taking the decision. In their reply they have stated that an affidavit/declaration to assure that the EO will be fulfilled again in 2 years, if EOP are granted to them. They will again meet the export obligation by Direct Export/Third party exports. They are requesting to grant them one more opportunity to fulfill their comments. It will provide a huge amount of relief to medium size industries and will be a step towards ease of doing business for MSME. Hence they are requesting to allow EOP extension against subject license. Decision: The Committee having examined the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm and observed that there is no merit in firm’s contention and decided to reject the request of the firm. Applicant may like to opt Amnesty Scheme for closure of the case. (Action: Applicant)

Case No. 27 Mis. Mangal Dal & Oil Mill, Rajasthan

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004689AM23 Page 20 of 34

02.01.2014. This is a review case of EPCG 9" Meeting of AM23 held on 12.12.2022 (Case No. 51) wherein Committee reject the case. The applicant stated that they had granted subject EPCG license on 02.01.2014 and expired on 02.01.2020 and they could not completed obligation within the time period in lack of export order. When they received an export order then tried to export but got to know that their license has been expired and cannot be exported. Due to lack of knowledge they could not file an application for extension on time but when they got to know about extension, the Covid-19 pandemic already been started. They could not file due to pandemic situation. Now they have export order in hand and they are liable to pay duty as applicable along with penalties as will be imposed if they fail to complete the EO. Hence they are requesting to allow one year EOP extension to fulfillment of export obligation against subject licence. Decision: The Committee went through the submission made by the applicant. It observed that applicant's request had been discussed in detail by the EPCG Committee and has been rejected giving detailed reasons. After discussing the matter at length, the Committee found no merit in its application. Hence, decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant)

Case No. 28 M/s. PRO Labels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00003562AM23 Subject: Extension of Total EOP against Advance Authorization No. 0530161240 dated 19.07.2013. This is a review case of EPCG 10" Meeting of AM 23 held on 18.01.2023 (Case No.136) wherein Committee reject the case. The applicant stated that they had issued EPCG license under Zero Duty Scheme in respect of import of Gallus EM 280 (flexo printing press) with an obligation to 6 times of the duty saved with in time frame of 6 years. The unit came into operation in October 2013 and due to Covid19 pandemic in March, 2020 halted all exports as there was global lock down. Another major constraint has been the awareness and ban on plastic items across globe since the year 2016. Their EPCG License has been issued for export printed plastic labels and this is a major obstacle to export in this scenario. The plastic ban is being initiated in India, around 60 countries have already banned single-use plastic fully or partially in their countries. Meanwhile they have been exploring overseas market for exports and have several serious enquiries from African Countries for export of flexible and rigid printed/coated packaging and fiber material. They have added several machines during these years and these machines are capable to handling some process of above items along with Gallus Machine against which EPCG license has been availed but unable to fulfill the export obligation due to Ban on Page 21 of 34

ines are capable to handling some process of above items along with Gallus Machine against which EPCG license has been availed but unable to fulfill the export obligation due to Ban on Page 21 of 34

subject license. Decision: The Committee examined the records submitted and statement made by the firm. It observed that applicant's request had been discussed in detail by the EPCG Committee and has been rejected giving detailed reasons. After discussing the matter at length, the Committee found no merit in its application. Hence, decided to reject the request of the firm. Applicant may like to opt Amnesty Scheme for closure of the case. (Action: Applicant)

Case No. 29 M/s. Grover Sons, Maharashtra

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00003220AM23

Subject: Condonation of delay in submission of online TMA application for the

period 01.07.2019 to 30.09.2019. This is a review case of PRC Meeting No.22/AM22 held on 29.03.2022 (Case No.19) wherein Committee rejects the case. The applicant stated that due to Covid-19 their offices were closed and could not process the documents required for application on time. Their online submission date for the application is 05.04.2022 and submission of physical documents is on 08.04.2022, which is within the time limit of 30 days of submission for physical documents. They had even faced issues with the DGFT TMA portal as the site was not working correctly and further delayed applying. Hence they are requesting to allow condonation of delay in submission of online TMA application for the above said period. Decision: The Committee reviewed the case on the basis of justification furnished by the applicant and discussed the case at length and found no merit in the request of the firm. Accordingly, it decided to maintain the earlier decision of PRC in its Meeting No.22/AM22 held on 29.03.2022 (Case No. 19). (Action: Applicant)

Case No. 30 Mis. Fringe Papo International, Delhi

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00002981AM23

Subject: Condonation of delay in submission of physical application file

DLITMAAPPLY00149217AM22 and DLITMAAPPLY00094951AM22. The applicant stated that they were not submitted original documents to the DGFT RA Office within 30 days of submission of application because they were misguided from the DGFT — Call Centre that the application is completely on online basis and confirmed by them that no requirement of off line documents submission for claim Page 22 of 34

application personally but no information have been received. Hence they are requesting to allow condonation of delay in submission of physical application against subject file nos. for claim TMA benefits. 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. 31 Mls. Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004635AM23 Subject: Extension in EOP against Advance Authorization No. 0310738169 dated 19.06.2013. The applicant stated that they are exporter of pharmaceutical products for over four decades. They have exports only to African countries and have been able to fulfill the export obligation under most of Advance Licenses with in time and have a clean record with DGFT office. However, in few cases there have been delays in meeting ६.0. due to several challenges and the extraordinary condition in their export market in Africa. The subject license was issued with conditions stipulated under PC-9 conditions read with Appendix 30A of HBP which allows 12 months period for EO fulfillment from import of each consignment. While considering 11 import of Eucalyptus oil they have not completed EO within 12 months as per PC-9 condition and last date of export was 16.01.2015 and they have already paid composition fees @ 1% and 0.5% per month on unfulfilled FOB value. Hence they are requesting to allow extension in EOP up to 16.01.2015 against subject license for regularization purpose only. Decision: The Committee discussed the case on the basis of submission made by the applicant and in view of justification provided by the firm. The Committee noted that the applicant has faced a genuine hardship which were beyond their control and it decided to accede to the request and allowed EOP extension up to 16.01.2015 against advance authorisation No.

applicant has faced a genuine hardship which were beyond their control and it decided to accede to the request and allowed EOP extension up to 16.01.2015 against advance authorisation No. 0310738169 dated 19.06.2013 only for regularization purpose subject to payment of composition fees as per Policy provisions. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai)

Case No. 32 Mis. Verat Hosiery Mills, Punjab

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004645AM23 Page 23 of 34

dated 02.08.2018. The applicant stated that at the time of obtained subject license they had export order in hands but due some uncertain circumstances in their company, export orders got cancelled and buyer refused to give another order due to slackness in the market. Due to covid panic all over the world they could not received further orders. As this is reality buyers only place orders, when some physical preparation of the garment samples are shown to them and displayed properly on their personal visit to buying house of the garment traders. More over they are to make canvassing regarding the quality and durability of the garments and negotiation of the price. They have done export of 4320 pcs. FOB value 1109056 and their business is a small business and it is very difficult for them to pay the customs duty and interest. Hence they are requesting to allow six months EOP extension against subject license. Decision: The Committee having examined the case on the basis of justification 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)

Case No. 33 M/s. Welspun Corp Limited, Mumbai

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00003283AM23

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against two shipping bills no. 3128858 dated

29.03.2019 and 3128142 dated 29.03.2019. The applicant stated that their two S/Bills (3128858 and 3128142 dated 29.03.2019 port INMUN1) was transmitted to DGFT by ICEGATE several times, however it is not appearing in MEIS repository. They are enclosing communication exchanged with Custom and DGFT in the last three years in respect of MEIS Claim. They have not been able to claim the MEIS for the captioned S/Bills due to non-appearance of the S/Bill on MEIS repository. Hence they are requesting to allow MEIS benefits against above mentioned two S/Bills. 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. 34 Mis. Sharco Enterprises, Delhi

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004624AM23 Page 24 of 34 aes

The applicant stated that they are exporter of home furnishing and accessories goods and have been exporting the goods to abroad since so many years and also has been granted Duty Scrip under MEIS Scheme. Due to change in the export staff and change of CHA due to Covid-19 pandemic they faced a great loss against shipment. In connection to this they draw attention towards their export made in the FY 2020-21 and 2021-22 in which the export done under wrong scheme code 19 or against free shipping bills by them and due to which they were unable to apply for the Duty Scrip under MEIS Scheme. Further as per the presence of the MEIS scheme under FTP they negotiated with the buyer over a very nominal profit margin only because of the view of getting MEIS benefits in future over these shipments. But only because of the above mentioned clerical mistake regarding wrong scheme code mentioned in the S/Bills they are unable to get the incentive. Hence they are requesting to allow getting the full incentive against above mentioned S/Bills. Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length. The Committee 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. 35 M/s. Accura Enterprises Limited, Anmadabad

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004654AM23

Subject: Condonation of delay in submission of online TMA application for the

period 01.01.2020 to 31.03.2020. The applicant stated that they submitted online application for TMA on 16.09.2021 and physical set of documents were submitted on 24.09.2021 under purview of PN No.14/2015-2020 dated 13.07.2021 whereas extension of time limit was granted till 30.09.2021. D/L issued by RA Ahmadabad as application and the CA certificate does not match. They have submitted revised CA certificate but RA rejected their TMA application as time barred. Hence they are requesting to allow condonation of delay in submission of online TMA application for the above mentioned period. 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.36 M/s. Geotex Textiles Pvt.Ltd., Gujarat

Page 25 of 34 ,

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004634AM23 2 11.07.2017. The applicant stated that the above mentioned license was submitted to the Surat RA for Bond Waiver and Revalidation on 27.02.2018 after completing E.O. they had applied for Bond Waiver as the full quantity of 275 MT of the import i.e. PP Granules were not made. However, the process in the RA took so long that they could learn that the Bond Waiver was granted but after the expiry of 24 months period and they will not be able to use the authorization for imports. Till now they have not received the Bond Waiver advice from the RA. However, while checking the status of this particular authorization for the EODC status they could see the EODC letter related to some other party not related to them. Hence they are requesting to allow revalidation of above mentioned license for closure purposes. Decision: The Committee after discussing the matter on the basis of justification submitted by the applicant, it was decided to defer the case and seek a detailed report from RA, Surat to take final decision. (Action: Applicant/RA-Surat)

Case No. 37 M/s. Mayithara Home Décor Pvt. Ltd., Kerala

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004616AM23

Subject: Request for condone the delay in filling of MEIS beyond 3 years for

the period 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. This is a review case of PRC Meeting No.22/AM22 held on 22.03.2022 & 29.03.2022 wherein reject the case. Now they have requested to review the earlier decision of PRC. In this connection they have submitted their Banker;s certificate dated 04.03.2023 confirmed that e-BRC for 27 S/Bills were uploaded after the period of 3 years from the date of relevant S/Bills. Out of 27 e-BRC 10e-BRC’s were uploaded during 2020-21 and the balance 17 were uploaded as late as 04.03.2023. When the e-BRC’s were uploaded the relevant S/Bills were automatically shut down by the system as it was more than 3 years. Hence they are requesting to allow condonation the delay in filling of MEIS beyond 3 years against above mentioned period. Decision: The Committee reviewed the case on the basis of justification furnished by the applicant and discussed the case at length and found no merit in the request of the firm. Accordingly, it decided to maintain the earlier decision of PRC in its Meeting No.22AM22 dated 22.03.2022 &29.03.2022 (Case No.21). (Action: Applicant) Page 26 of 34

Case No. 38 M/s.

SRS M&CO, Surat F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004639AM23 The applicant they had obtained subject SEIS from RA Surat for Rs. 2,25,886.00. The online FOB was Rs. 47,75,874.74 and the FOB certified by the C.A. was Rs. 45,17,716.71. Hence the SEIS was issued based on the C.A. Certificate for the lesser amount. However, the entitlement amount as shown by the system irRs. 2,38,794 based on the actual FOB. Due to this discrepancy they are facing difficulty in registering the SEIS at the Customs, as the online shows the value of the Scrip as 2,38,794/- and the hard copy of the scrip shows Rs. 2,25,886/-. The Customs is refusing to register the scrip due to this discrepancy. Hence they are requesting to revalidation of above mentioned SEIS Scrip for another one year so they can utilize the same. Decision: The Committee discussed the case on the basis of justification provided by the applicant and observed that due to technical error, the firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control. Accordingly, it decided to allow revalidation for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement against SEIS Scrip No.5211002177 dated 16.03.2022. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA-Surat)

Case No. 39 M/s. Poggenamp Nagarsheth Powertronics Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004652AM23

Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 0810148883 dated

22.10.2020. The applicant stated that they are manufacturer exporter of Rotor/Rotor stampings and stator stack/stator stampings for electric motors and against their export they are obtaining Advance Authorization and they had exported the whole quantity i.e. 114,286.00 Kgs against subject license. Due to increase in price and shortage of CIF value they could not import the balance quantity and in the meantime the license was expired. They need to amend the license for revalidation as well as enhancement of CIF value. As per the new online system first they have to validate their license in system and then they can apply for revalidation and enhancement. Accordingly, they applied for validation of the license after complying discrepancy the license was validated on 20.12.2021. Due to new system procedure they are not able to amend the license for both revalidation and enhancement in one request. Hence they are requesting to allow revalidate of above mentioned license. Page 27 of 34

submitted by the applicant, it was decided to defer the case and seek a detailed report from RA, Ahmdabad to take final decision. (Action: Applicant/RA-Ahmedabad)

Case No. 40 M/s. International Packaging Products Pvt. Ltd., Dadra & Nagar

Haveli F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00150997AM22

Subject: Request for relaxation to the provisions of Para 9.03 of Handbook of

Procedures to FTP 2015-20 with respect to incentive under MEIS to enable filling of Supplementary claim towards receipt additional consideration for export value of goods on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment. The applicant stated that they had applied for MEIS scrips with respect to the export of goods from FY 2015-16 onwards. The majority of the export being to related parties, the export value is subject to the benchmarking process under the Transfer pricing regulations prescribed under the income Tax Act, 1961. They follows a total cost-plus markup model where the transfer price is arrived after computing the actual cost of goods manufactured and exported during a period and upon adding a benchmarked margin to such costs. Since estimating actual costs is difficult at the time of entering into export transactions, the prices are agreed on budgeted figures and benchmarking is undertaken at a later point in time. Such benchmarking results in the many types of transfer pricing (TP) adjustment. While the applications for the surrender of proportionate MEIS incentive arising from downward TP adjustments were accepted by the RA, the application for requesting MEIS incentive on additional export realizations arising from upward TP adjustment has not been accepted till now with respect to export transactions for FY 2017-18.

A, the application for requesting MEIS incentive on additional export realizations arising from upward TP adjustment has not been accepted till now with respect to export transactions for FY 2017-18. Hence they are requesting to allow relaxation to the provisions of para 9.03 of the HBP to FTP 2015-20 to enable to file MEIS application for the additional exports consideration received in FY 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21. 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. 41 Mis. Tokyo Plast International Ltd., Gandhidham F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004321AM23 Page 28 of 34

the claim of MEIS benefit. This is a defer case of PRC Meeting No.35/AM23 held on 16.03.2023 (Case No.33) where in Committee decided to defer the case and ask the firm to submit more detailed justification along with the information that when did they applied for MEIS benefit. Now applicant stated that they were unable to apply for MEIS benefits as they are unable to mention the Declaration clause of MEIS Scheme in the S/Bills. This MEIS system had just begun and at that time there was no option to mention this declaration in the Shipping Bill.

they are unable to mention the Declaration clause of MEIS Scheme in the S/Bills. This MEIS system had just begun and at that time there was no option to mention this declaration in the Shipping Bill. Hence they are requesting to allow one time barred Shipping Bills against MEIS Scrip. Decision: The Committee discussed the case at length and found no merit or genuine hardship in the arguments made by the firm and hence decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant) Case No. 42 Ws. Asiatic Electrical & Switchgear Pvt. Ltd., Delhi F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004019AM23

Subject: Request for Relaxation of the actual user condition under para 2.58

of the FTP 2015-20. This is a defer case of PRC Meeting No.27/AM23 held on 05.01.2023 (Case No.46) wherein Committee decided to defer the case. RA may obtain justification from the application and forward a detailed report in the matter for taking the decision. In this connection RA informed that AA was issued to firm for export item namely “fuses” and import item which were components except one import item at SI.No.07 which is raw material for export item No.03. The firm at the time of filing of application stated that the import item is either raw material and components. The firm has not stated that they are importing spares. The application and CEC indicated the import item as raw material and components only. The firm has not declared in this office that they are exporting against tender to Govt. of Ethiopia and supplying spares more than the value of 10% of the CIF Value (as allowed under para 4.10 of FTP). They have stated that the order was a unique order from Govt. of Ethiopia and the export product has always gone with components fitted in the resultant product. This is the only license from the Govt. of Ethiopia that includes mandatory spares of different specifications for usages as per load requirement, the provision of “spares” was not understood by their accounts team at the time of applying AA. This was a procedural error in declaring spares as components due to not being aware of policy provisions to allow 10% spares to their accounts team. The Govt.

unts team at the time of applying AA. This was a procedural error in declaring spares as components due to not being aware of policy provisions to allow 10% spares to their accounts team. The Govt. Of Ethiopia includes spares of different specifications to use in their country as per site load requirement. Hence they are requesting to allow relaxation of actual use condition under para 2.58 of the FTP against subject license. Decision:The Committee examined the case on the basis of submission made by the firm along with the detail reports received from concerned RA and discussed the Page 29 of 34

hardship which were beyond their control. The Committee decided to accede to the request and allowed relaxation of policy provisions to allow only 10% spares against * subject license. The firm shall approach RA concerned within 30 days of the uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/CLA-New Delhi) Case No. 43 Ms. Recipharm Pharmaservices Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004309AM23

Subject: Request to allow SEIS 2019-20 Service Export Incentive Claim under

Research and Development Service. The applicant stated that they are providing R&D Services to their foreign Customers also they are falling under category of service Research and Development service to claim SEIS benefits. Since the said export of R&DS falls under the service category SI.No.1 (B)(a) of the Appendix-3X (Central Product Classification Code of 851 and Sub-code 85105 - Research and experimental development services on medical sciences and pharmacy, including research and experimental development services on treatment of diseases preventive hygiene, pharmacy etc.) in respect of the said service exported for the FY 2019-20. They were eligible to claim SEIS benefit in terms of Para 3.08 (aa) of the FTP 2015-20, Accordingly, vide application dated 30.11.2021, they have claimed benefits under the SEIS for benefits in respect of the said R&D service rendered during the year 2019-20 which is in accordance with para 3.08 (aa) of the FTP. RA Bangalroe rejected their application stating that they are not entertained to claim SEIS under the Service category of R&DS. They have claimed SEIS benefits during 2016-19 under Technical Testing and Analysis Services Category and with lower claim, even though they were eligible under R&D services with higher Rates.

R&DS. They have claimed SEIS benefits during 2016-19 under Technical Testing and Analysis Services Category and with lower claim, even though they were eligible under R&D services with higher Rates. Hence they are requesting to allow SEIS claim 2019-20 under the Service Category of Research and Development Services. Decision:The Committee went through the representation received from the applicant and it observed that no policy relaxation is involved in this case. Accordingly it decided to withdraw this case from PRC. Attention of applicant is drawn to the provisions for filing for review of Orders of RA. (Action: Applicant )

Case No. 44 M/s. DEUTSCHE LABS INC., Ahmadabad

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00362336AM22

Subject: Grant of Permission to apply for MEIS for the period from April 2018

to June 2018. Page 30 of 34

as such payment were realized from third parties located in different countries. It took much time by their banker to co-relate such payment against relevant invoices and upload E-BRC since MEIS can only be claimed once banker is uploaded the E- BRCs. Further due to Corona the payment were realized late and because of that BRC could not be generated on time. The system does not permit them to make application. Hence they are requesting to allow MES benefits for the period 01.04.2018 to 30.06.2018. Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of submission made by the firm along with the comments received from the PC-3 division and discussed the matter at length. The Committee 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. 45 M/s. Elimar Frozen Foods, Mumbai

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00410157AM22

Subject: Request for acceptance of MEIS or RODTEP claim against S/Bill No.

7594203 dated 31.12.2020. The applicant stated that they have made exports of Indian frozen raw PD Shrimps on 31.12.2020 and Leo date is 01.01.2021. When they trying to apply for MEIS its shows Leo date is 01.01.2021 and hence not accepting claim for MEIS and when they try to apply for RODTEP the system does not allow them to make on the ground that date of exports is 31.12.2020. Due to this technical reasons they are not able to file any claim against subject S/Bill. Hence they are requesting to allow of MEIS or RODTEP claim against above mentioned shipping bill due to technical reasons. 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 PC-3 Division for its examination and resolution under MEIS Scheme. (Action: Applicant/PC-3 Division) Case No. 46 Mis. Sanjay Soya Pvt. Ltd., MH F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004734AM23

Subject: Extension in EOP against EPCG License No.0330030538 dated

12.09.2011. Page 31 of 34

received extension of EOP as per PN 35 dated 25.10.2017 for 6 years to 8 years upto 12.09.2019 which they received the same on 26" May, 2021 after expiry extension well before EPCG Committee meeting of AM 23 dated 04.05.2022 as said in minutes of PRC Committee meeting No.9/AM 23 _ dated 12.12.2022. Simultaneously applied for addition of export product to Zonal DGFT office on 18.06.2018 which they got it on 17.08.2021 after expiry of extended EOP. Customs authority was not allowing shipment without additional of export product hence they could not make shipment before receipt of letter. After approval of Additional of export products they made the shipment and completed EO within 3 months. Hence they are requesting to allow extension in EOP against subject license for regularized purpose. Decision: The Committee went through the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and decided to defer the case for further examination. (Action: PRC-Division) Case No. 47 Mis. APL Valueclay Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004729AM23

Subject: To allow MEIS application for years 2019-20 and 2020-21 in relaxation

of Policy Provisions without late cut. The applicant stated that they manufacturer export of processed minerals like Kaolin crude, other kaolin pharmaceutical grade, crude bentonite and other activated natural mineral products. During the years 2019-20 and 2020-21 they had made exports and due to severe impact of Corona in India and overseas all have suffered huge financial losses. They are still awaiting foreign exchange payments from their foreign buyers. As per EXIM policy there is no provision for filing any supplementary MEIS applications. As such they are not able to file MEIS application even under late cut provisions. Hence they are requesting to allow MEIS application for FY 2019-20 and 2020-21 in relaxation of Policy provisions with late cut. Decision: The Committee examined the statement made by the applicant in its application and it decided to defer the matter and ask the firm to submit a statement /chart showing the shipping bill-wise date of realisation and the date of uploading the BRC before taking the decision. (Action: Applicant) Case No. 48 Mis. Ashapura Perfoclay Ltd., Mumbai F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004730AM23 Page 32 of 34

ise date of realisation and the date of uploading the BRC before taking the decision. (Action: Applicant) Case No. 48 Mis. Ashapura Perfoclay Ltd., Mumbai F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004730AM23 Page 32 of 34

of Policy Provisions without late cut. The applicant stated that they manufacturer export of processed minerals like Kaolin

crude, other kaolin pharmaceutical grade, crude bentonite and other activated natural mineral products. During the years 2019-20 and 2020-21 they had made exports and due to severe impact of Corona in India and overseas all have suffered huge financial losses. They are still awaiting foreign exchange payments from their foreign buyers. As per EXIM policy there is no provision for filing any supplementary MEIS applications. As such they are not able to file MEIS application even under late cut provisions. Hence they are requesting to allow MEIS application for FY 2019-20 and 2020-21 in relaxation of Policy provisions with late cut. Decision:The Committee examined the statement made by the applicant in its application and it decided to defer the matter and ask the firm to submit a statement /chart showing the shipping bill wise date of realisation and the date of uploading the BRC before taking the decision. (Action: Applicant) Case No. 49 M/s. Govind Rubber Ltd., Mumbai F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004733AM23

Subject: To consideration of S/Bills against which NO MEIS claim could be

filed on time due to the delay in uploading of the BRCs by the Bank. The applicant stated there is no claim submitted against the said shipping bills mainly due to the reasons that thought he payment have been realized within 36 months from the date of exports. But due to Covid-19 and other technical reasons the BRCs were uploaded only after the expiry of the prescribed time period. In cases wherein the BRCs are uploaded within the 36 months period from the date of exports the claim was not submitted due to the name of the firm appearing under DEL. Hence they are requesting to allow MEIS benefits against shipment bills. Decision: The Committee after discussing the matter on the basis of justification submitted by the application, decided to defer the case and seek a detailed report from RA,Mumbai for taking the decision in the matter. (Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai) Case No. 50 M/s. BenzoChem Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004614AM23 Page 33 of 34

etailed report from RA,Mumbai for taking the decision in the matter. (Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai) Case No. 50 M/s. BenzoChem Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004614AM23 Page 33 of 34

The applicant stated that they have applied almost all the S/bills for Chapter-3 benefit of MEIS but due to non-transmission of 05 S/Bills which were filed at SEZ, Dahej Unit the SEZ and DGFT Portal shows the current LEO date on 08.12.2021 against 05 S/Bills due to which they are unable to apply the said S/Bill online for MEIS application. They filed complaint and informed that the S/Bills were re-transmitted with LEO date 08.12.2021 and are not eligible for any benefit but LEO date of all the 05 S/Bills are within the limit of application dates i.e. in between 16.01.2020 to 11.06.2020. As per Notification No.15/2015-20 dated 01.07.2022 the last date of submitting application under MEIS, for export made in the period 01.09.2020 to 31.12.2020 has been extended up to 31.08.2022. They have received the amendment letter of LEO against these S/Bills in end of July, 2022 but they were unable to apply MEISscrips as the amendment was not updated/transferred in the system. Hence they are requesting to allow MEIS benefits against above mentioned S/Bills. Decision:The Committee examined the statement provided by the applicant in its application and it decided to defer the matter and ask the firm to submit bill of Lading before taking final decision in the matter. (Action: Applicant) Page 34 of 34 ,