IN FORCE Advance Authorisation

DGFT Minutes

Reliability

In force — no superseding record on file.

Document text

==> picture [187 x 19] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- Date of Uploading /2 //Z /2023 ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [204 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- Directorate General of Foreign Trade (PRC Section) ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [349 x 40] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- Minutes of the Policy Relaxation Committee Meeting Held on 24.11.2023under the Chairmanship of ShriSantosh Kumar Sarangi, Director General of Foreign Trade ----- End of picture text -----

Meeting No. 21/AM24 (PH) held on 24.11.2023

The following members were present in the meeting:

Shri S.B.S. Reddy Addl.DGFT 2. ShriAkashTanejaAddl. DGFT 3. ShriHardeep Singh Addl.DGFT 4. Dr. S.K. Bansal Addl. DGFT 5. ShriS.C.Agarwal Add. DGFT 6. ShriRandheep Thakur Joint DGFT 7. Shri K.M. Harilal Joint DGFT Following cases were discussed. The decision taken on the individual cases are as under:-

==> picture [413 x 325] intentionally omitted <==

ep Thakur Joint DGFT 7. Shri K.M. Harilal Joint DGFT Following cases were discussed. The decision taken on the individual cases are as under:-

==> picture [413 x 325] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- _S.No| Name of the firm |2.| M/s. AraniGhodawat Agro OilEnergy IndustriesPvt. Ltd., Pvt.Maharashtra Ltd., Thane |i =a4 M/s. Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur __lS |5. M/s. APRN Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai i a | 6. || M /s.s. APRNLuthra EI n dustrialterprisesCorporation, Pvt. Ltd., MumbaiUttar Pradesh a ea M/s. Indian Products Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka ae Pvt.M/s. AllroundLtd., HR. (India) Vegetable Processing Machines iL = ____9.| M/s. Rahul Agro Industries, Ajmer —QQ| M/s. Arch Pharmalabs Limited, Mumbai | ee M/s. Indapur Dairy and Milk Products Limited, Pune |12. |13.| M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., New Delhi | | M/s. JainHimalaya Irrigati F o nod Internationalsystems Limited,Limited, MH Delhi M/s. Himalaya Food International Limited, Delhi M/s. Technovaa Plastic Industries Limited, Gujarat | __17. | Mis.SKiPlastowarePvt.Lid..Mumbai 0] 47 Page 1 of 22 " ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [443 x 120] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- |||18.|19.20. |M/s.Medreich| [M/s.RusanPharmaLtd.,Mumbai,][M/s.ShakkthiOhmkaara] Ltd. BengaluruSpinners, TamilNadu||| OC181 |___22. | Ms.Afflatus International, Delhi. | Case No. 01 M/s. Arani Agro Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd., Thane ----- End of picture text -----

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00000694AM24

Meeting No.21/AM24 held on 24.11.2023

Subject:Requestto allow (i) Auto extension to EOP of EPCG Authorization no. 0930000647 dated 31% July 2003 up to 31.08.2013 considering 10 years ban on all edible products under Chapter (ii) Inclusion of export shipments undertaken against EPCG License No.0930002931 dated 21.02.2007 towards fulfillment of EOP against EPCG Authorization no. 0930000647 dated 31* July 2003 and regularize the same under Amnesty Scheme.

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, which was afforded 0n24.11.2023. Mr. DheerajTalreja, Mr. BaquerBengalwala and Mrs. Bharti Punjabi authorized representatives appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions:-

Applicant’s statement: The applicant stated that they are engaged in wide range of production of refined and fractionated oils and fats such as cooking oils, animal feeds and other by-products. The name of their company has been changed from Arani Agro Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. to AAK South East India Pvt. Ltd., w.e.f. 17.10.2023. They had obtained subject License from RA Hyderabad. DGFT imposed ban on export of all edible oils under Chapter 15 in 2008, the ban was extended multiple times by issuance of several notifications and finally ban lifted after 10 years. Since there was a ban on export of all edible oils under Chapter 15 as mentioned above and they got their EPCG license amended after said ban with two additional products i.e. Palm Oil Fractions and Animal Feed to complete their EO.

f all edible oils under Chapter 15 as mentioned above and they got their EPCG license amended after said ban with two additional products i.e. Palm Oil Fractions and Animal Feed to complete their EO. The ban on export of edible oil continued for a period of 10 years though they got license amended with two additional products. They could not complete the export obligation within the original EOP as the quantity and value of the byproducts was very low. They could have completed export obligation within EOP by exporting the edible oils in bulk. As per FTP they are entitled for automatic extension of the EOP till 14.12.2014 i.e. for 3 years 4 month and 14 days for the period from March 17,2008 to July 31,2011) on account of the ban. As per recently introduced Amnesty Scheme by DGFT vide PN No.02/2023 dated 01.04.2023, they are entitled to regularize EPCG license as per para 1(ii) whose export obligation period (original or extended) was valid beyond 12.08.2013 and para II (ix) where cases already been adjudicated (or pending for adjudication). They affirm that they have not claimed exports shipment for an amount ofPage 2Rs.3,81,97,159/-of 22 undereoEPCG Authorization

ix) where cases already been adjudicated (or pending for adjudication). They affirm that they have not claimed exports shipment for an amount ofPage 2Rs.3,81,97,159/-of 22 undereoEPCG Authorization

No.0930002931 dated 21.02.2007 while regularizing the same under Amnesty Scheme and they have paid total customs duty saved along with applicable interest and closed the said EPCG license. However, they are requesting to consider the said exports shipments for an amount of Rs. 3,81,97,159/- towards fulfillment of the EO against EPCG licence No.0930000647 dated 31.07.2003. Hence they are requesting to allow (i) Auto extension to EOP up to 31.08.2013 considering 10 years ban on all edible products under Chapter. (ii) Inclusion of export shipments undertaken against EPCG License No.0930002931 dated 21.02.2007 towards fulfillment of EOP under subject license to the tune of Rs. 3,81,97,159/-.

O-I-O has been issued against the subject Authorisation after adjudication.

Decision:The Committee heard and went through the submission made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length and decided to refer the case to ECA Division for considering review if filed by applicant.

Case No. 02 M/s. Ghodawat Energy Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra

F.No. HARPRCAPPLY00002881AM24

Meeting No.21/AM24 held on 24.11.2023

Subject: Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization no. 3110035744 dated 13.10.2008up to 31.12.2015 to avail amnesty scheme.

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Mr. RanjitWadhokar, Mr. GirishShirshikar and Mr. ShivajiGurav authorized representatives appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions:-

Applicant’s statement: The applicant stated that as per HBP guidelines AA are issued for 24 months and one extension for 12 months is granted. Accordingly, their AA, EO was valid till 12.10.2011. They had received the AA to export 2 Nos. of “Wind Turbine WT-1650. Since this was initial project to export “Wind Turbine”, they had made an investment of Rs. 7.02 crores for manufacturing, assembling, labour, power and other ancillary cost. The firm signed an agreement with M/s.Windtec Engineering GmbH, Austria dated 19th March, 2008 with an exclusive non-transferable licence to use its technical information and software for the manufacture, installation, sale, operation and maintenance of Wind Turbines, on an exclusive basis in India &other countries like Bangladesh, Shri Lanka etc. M/s. Windtec Engineering GmbH, had undertaken the responsibility of obtaining the Type Test Certificate for Wind Turbines as the same were to be manufactured as per Windtecs design. Thus, Ghodawat Energy was completel \ dependent on Windtec’s expertise, i.e. the ability of M/s.

he Type Test Certificate for Wind Turbines as the same were to be manufactured as per Windtecs design. Thus, Ghodawat Energy was completel \ dependent on Windtec’s expertise, i.e. the ability of M/s. Ghodawat Energy fo manufacture and sell Wind Turbines, including fulfill its export, was dependent inter al = Page 3 of 22

on the FRT achieving design parameters &type Test Certificate to get in to the RLMM (Revised List of Models and Manufacturers) of N.I.W.E. Unfortunately, it so happened that various parts/components of the FRT failed during the process of the FRT trial and inspection. Consequently, the FRT could not achieve the Type Test Certification, hence the firm could not fulfil the export obligation of Wind Turbines WT-1650 in time. Because of M/s. Windtec?s breach of the Agreement, Ghodawat was not in a position (for reasons beyond its control) to manufacture wind turbines at its facility and export the required number of wind turbines and fulfill its export obligations, as stipulated in the Advance Licence. Considering the above facts, it would be a travesty of justice to treat M/s. Ghodawat as having willfully failed to comply with the export obligations stipulated in the Advance Licence granted by DGFT, Pune. Furthermore, it would not only impose to shut business of M/s. Ghodawat Energy Pvt. Ltd., but also huge financial burden on company. The International ICC legal battle had consumed time till 2015, so we appealed to Regional Office of Dy. DGFT, Pune and Custom Authorities were approached and kept intimated from time to time.

mpany. The International ICC legal battle had consumed time till 2015, so we appealed to Regional Office of Dy. DGFT, Pune and Custom Authorities were approached and kept intimated from time to time. However, by this time the legal battle was still under final stage of closures and company had already accumulated expenses cum losses approx. Rs.16.53 Crs. in this transaction/ project.This was a huge financial burden on them and hence they are unable to pay the customs duty along with interest to close the AA issued to them. They could not take the advantage of this scheme as the legal battle was still under final stage of closure and the company had to close down. RA rejected their request for Amnesty Scheme by stating that amnesty scheme is valid for those authorization whose EOP (original + extended) was valid beyond 12.08.2013. Hence they are requesting to allow EOP extension up to 31.12.2015 against subject license to avail amnesty scheme for closure of license. legal The applicant has also handed over the documentary evidence which shows 2010. battle between the firm and M/s.Windtec Engineering GmbH, Austria started since The firm was completely dependent on Windtec’s expertise, i.e. the ability of M/s. Ghodawat Energy to manufacture and sell Wind Turbines, including fulfill its export, was dependent inter alia on the FRT achieving design parameters &type Test Certificate to get in to the RLMM (Revised List of Models and Manufacturers) of N.I.W.E.

ines, including fulfill its export, was dependent inter alia on the FRT achieving design parameters &type Test Certificate to get in to the RLMM (Revised List of Models and Manufacturers) of N.I.W.E. Due to breach of the Agreement the applicant did not fulfill the export obligation and manufacturing unit was totally closed. Decision: The Committee heard and went through the statement made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length. After detailed discussion the Committee noted that the applicant has faced difficulties which were beyond their control, and allowed the extension of export obligation of Advance Authorization no. 3110035744 dated 13.10.2008 up to 13.08.2013 subject to payment of composition fee as applicable, to avail amnesty scheme. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date/of uploading of the minutes of meeting. L

(Action: Applicant/RA, Pune)

==> picture [3 x 15] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- / ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [1 x 14] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- | ----- End of picture text -----

Page 4 of 22

Case No. 03 M/s. Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004649AM23

Meeting No.21/AM24 held 0n24.11.2023

Subject: Revalidation of MEIS Scrip no. 5019004491 dated 22.09.2021, 501900449 dated 22.09.2021 & 5019004492 dated 29.09.2021.

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Mr. Ravi Panpaliya Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions:-

Applicant’s statement: This is a defer case of PRC Meeting No.13/AM24 held on 31.08.2023 (Case No.34) wherein Committee defer the case and call the firm for personal hearing as the facts of the case have not been clearly specified by them. The matter was taken up. The entire submission made by the applicant was gone through. The applicant stated that they have sold above MESI authorizations to their holding company namely Solar Industries India Ltd. (SIIL) on 15.11.2021, who have substantial imports on regular intervals. M/s. SIIL has been regularly making payment of customs duty on imports through utilization of authorization as well as in cash when available authorizations are exhausted. Many such MEIS authorizations were sold to them and they have successfully utilized the same against their imports. However, due to some technical issues in DGFT site, above referred two authorizations could not be transferred in on-line mode and as per procedure prescribed by DGFT, they have opted for manual transfer of the same. However, when M/s.

s in DGFT site, above referred two authorizations could not be transferred in on-line mode and as per procedure prescribed by DGFT, they have opted for manual transfer of the same. However, when M/s. SIIL went for utilizing the said authorization against their import first time in the month of March, 2022, they have encountered an error in ICEGATE. Due to this they could not utilize the said authorization. Hence they are requesting to allow revalidation against subject MEIS Scrip.

Decision: The Committee heard the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed that there is no merit in firm's contention.

Case No. 04 M/s. APRN Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

F.No. HARPRCAPPLY00000497AM24

Meeting No.21/AM24 held 0n24.11.2023

Page 5 of 22

==> picture [123 x 65] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- Y || YPa ] ----- End of picture text -----

\ y Pal

Subject: Request to consider export made beyond EOP against Advance Authorization No. 0310824063 dated 28.08.2018 for the purpose of regularization only.

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Mr. GouravSogani and Mr. ManojAgarwal authorized representatives appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions:Applicant’s statement: This is a defer case of PRC Meeting No.17/AM24 held on 13.10.2023 (Case No.06) wherein the firm did not appear in the personal hearing accordingly, the Committee decided to defer the case. The matter was taken up. The entire submission made by the applicant was gone through. Now in the review application they have stated that due to covid-19 pandemic and frequent lockdowns in India there was minimal export activity. Movement of goods and material were badly affected They could not travel abroad for export marketing. The pharma companies world over had cut down their production of regular pharmaceutical products and were fully focused on the pandemic related medicines. Their supplies of packaging material i.e. Aluminum foil for pharma packaging was adversely impacted. However, once the situation normalized, they completed the balance export obligation. Practically entire one & half year had been wiped out. They are small scale unit and it will be unfair to penalize them for exports already affected.

ed, they completed the balance export obligation. Practically entire one & half year had been wiped out. They are small scale unit and it will be unfair to penalize them for exports already affected. Hence they are requesting to allow extension of EOP against subject license for further one month from 31.12.2022 to 30.01.2023 for the purpose of regularization.

Reference received from DRI was seen.

Decision: The Committee heard and examined the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm and decided to defer the case for further examination.

Case No. 05 M/s. APRN Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00000482AM24

Meeting No.21/AM24 held 0n24.11.2023

Subject: Request to consider export made beyond EOP against Advance Authorization No. 0310823348 dated 28.08.2018 for the purpose of regularization only.

==> picture [1 x 2] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- . ----- End of picture text -----

Page 6 of 22

Applicant’s statement: This is a defer case of PRC Meeting No.17/AM24 held on 13.10.2023 (Case No.05) wherein the firm did not appear in the PH accordingly, the Committee decided to defer the case. The matter was taken up. The entire submission made by the applicant was gone through. Now in the review application they have stated that due to covid-19 pandemic and frequent lockdowns in India there was minimal export activity. Movement of goods and material were badly affected They could not travel abroad for export marketing. The pharma companies world over had cut down their production of regular pharmaceutical products and were fully focused on the pandemic related medicines. Their supplies of packaging material i.e. Aluminum foil for pharma packaging was adversely impacted. However, once the situation normalized, they completed the balance export obligation. Practically entire one & half year had been wiped out.

Aluminum foil for pharma packaging was adversely impacted. However, once the situation normalized, they completed the balance export obligation. Practically entire one & half year had been wiped out. They are small scale unit and it will be unfair to penalize them for exports already affected. Hence they are requesting to allow extension of EOP against subject license for further one month from 31.12.2022 to 30.01.2023 for the purpose of regularization.

Reference received from DRI was seen.

Decision: The Committee heard and examined the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm and decided to defer the case for further examination.

Case No. 06 M/s. Luthra Industrial Corporation, Uttar Pradesh

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004323AM24

Meeting No.21/AM24 held 0n24.11.2023

Subject: Revalidation of MEIS Scrip no. 0619034782 dated 18.10.2021

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Mr. JaipreetLuthra and Mr. Sunil Kumar Parmarauthorized representatives appeared on behalf of the firm through Video Conferencing and made the following submissions:Applicant’s statement: This is a review case of PRC Meeting No.26/AM23 held on 03.01.2023 (Case No.29), wherein Committee reject the case. In this review application applicant stated that the Post 2nd wave of Covid in 2021, a lot staff had fs migrated to their hometowns due to the fear of long lockdowns once again. The person who use to handle these Licenses in their organization, also left suddenly overnight __7

Page 7 of 22

without any notice period and in all this due to oversight the license was misplaced and hence went unutilized& got expired which came to their knowledge much later and hence they submitted an application to Policy Relaxation Committee. They have filled an incorrect MEIS amount in the filled PRC application with Rs. 1541702.00 instead of 1451702.00. Hence they are requesting to allow revalidation of above mentioned MEIS to claim the benefits.

lled an incorrect MEIS amount in the filled PRC application with Rs. 1541702.00 instead of 1451702.00. Hence they are requesting to allow revalidation of above mentioned MEIS to claim the benefits.

Decision:The Committee heard and reviewed the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm and observed that there is no merit in firm's contention. Hence, it decided to maintain the rejection of the earlier decision of PRC Meeting No.26/AM23 held on 03.01.2023 (Case No.29).

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 07 M/s. Indian Products Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00003256AM24

Meeting No.21/AM24 held on 24.11.2023

Subject: Extension of EOP for delay in export of finished goods in their 100 % EOU in terms of para 6.06 (c ) (ii) & (iii) of HBP.

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Ms. SaranyaRavidran, Mr Chandrasekhar B and Mr. Tenzing Samuel authorized representatives appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions:-

Applicant Statement: The applicant stated that they are one of the exporters in value added spices, herbs and decaffeinated Tea having operations from Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Gujarat. They have an EOU situated at Walayar, Kerala State under the Development Commissioner of Cochin Special Economic Zone, Ernakulam. Althoughthe period of utilization of goods is co-terminus with the validity of LOP, the HBP at para 6.06 has specified certain products with lesser EOP. The EOP for value added spices has been stipulated as 120 days as per para 6.06(c) (iii) of the HBP. Similarly export obligation against import of items covered by chapter 9 of ITC(HS) shall be fulfilled within 90 days as per para 6.06(c) (ii) of HBP. The delay in EO fulfillment is due to the impact of post Covid pandemic and additional value addition process to promote make in India Scheme, etc.

led within 90 days as per para 6.06(c) (ii) of HBP. The delay in EO fulfillment is due to the impact of post Covid pandemic and additional value addition process to promote make in India Scheme, etc. Due to tight overseas competition from exporters of other countries like China, Vietnam and Indonesia, they changed their focus to more value addition by exporting the finished goods in consumer and retail packs. Keeping such restriction of EOP for EOU is appears as an injustice when comparing with the units under MOOWR/SEZ which are allowed to do the same products export without any EO time limitations. Hence they are requesting to allow condone if delay of > Page 8 of 22

==> picture [3 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- ) ----- End of picture text -----

fulfillment of EO in number of (max of 275) days and extend the EO fulfillment period in number of (max 365) days. The items are as follows:

Pepper: Quantity exported after the stipulated time: 2218 MTs;Quantity pending for export: 66.19 MT.
Casia: Quantity exported after the stipulated time: 307.68 MTs;Quantity pending for export: 65.65 MT.

antity exported after the stipulated time: 2218 MTs;Quantity pending for export: 66.19 MT.

Casia: Quantity exported after the stipulated time: 307.68 MTs;Quantity pending for export: 65.65 MT.

Decision:The Committee heard and went through the statement made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length. The Committee noted that the applicant has faced difficulty beyond their control and observed that there is merit in the case. Accordingly it decided to accede the request of the firm for extension of EOP for Quantities exported after the stipulated timeas stated above and further extension of EOP for 365 days from date of uploadingof the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/ Concerned RA/DC)

Case No. 08 M/s. Allround(India) Vegetable Processing Machines Pvt. Ltd., HR

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004700AM23

Meeting No. 21/AM24 held 0n24.11.2023

Subject: Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.3310030588 dated 06.09.2019.

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Mr. Karam Singh, authorized representatives appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions:-

Applicant Statement: This is defer case of personal hearing at PRC Meeting No.17/AM24 held on 13.10.2023 (Case No.08), and no one appeared on behalf of the firm. The Committee decided to defer the case.The matter was taken up. The entire submission made by the applicant was gone through. The applicant stated that they have not process application for modification due to error type of norms show as SION, but DGFT has been resolving the problem when EO extension time period expired. They have used many imported items against subject license because their export obligation period has expired and the DGFT server error did not allow them to update the Advance Authorization on the portal. They could not apply for the E ‘ extension timely. Hence they are requesting to allow six months extension in EOP as per para 4.42 (b) or (c) of HBP 2015-2020.

==> picture [102 x 20] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- | A ----- End of picture text -----

Page 9 of 22

ara 4.42 (b) or (c) of HBP 2015-2020.

==> picture [102 x 20] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- | A ----- End of picture text -----

Page 9 of 22

Decision :The Committee heard and examined the case on the basis of statement made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length. The Committee noted that the applicant has faced difficulty beyond their control and observed that there is merit in the case. Accordingly, it decided to accede to the request and allowed EOP extension of Advance Authorization No.3310030588 dated 06.09.2019 for a further period upto 31.03.2024 subject to payment of composition fees as per policy provisions. The firm shall approach RA concerned within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Panipat)

M/s. Rahul Agro Industries, Ajmer

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00003023AM24

Meeting No. 21/AM24 held 0n24.11.2023

Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization no. 1310049265 dated 22.04.2019, 1310049266 dated 22.04.2019 and 1310049267 dated 22.04.2019.

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Mr. RohitSadhwani, authorized representatives appeared on behalf of the firm through Video Conferencing and made the following submissions:-

Applicant’s statement: This is a review case of PRC Meeting No.13/AM24 held on 31.08.2023 (Case No.18) wherein Committee rejected the case. In this review application they have stated that they got these licenses revalidated from time to time but due to Covid-19 and lockdown they could not utilized the said licenses. In the meantime they approached the international supplier and sent advance payments for imports. Now Overseas supplier is not refunding their advance payment and insisted for taking the delivery. The Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the limitation period due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, therefore they haverequested for revalidation of these licenses. Hence they are requesting to allow six month revalidation against subject licenses.

Decision: The Committee heard and reviewed the case on the basis of justification. furnished by the firm and observed that there is no merit in firm's contention. Hence~ it decided to maintain the rejection of the earlier decision of PRC Meeting No. 13/AM24.-” A&A

==> picture [27 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

at there is no merit in firm's contention. Hence~ it decided to maintain the rejection of the earlier decision of PRC Meeting No. 13/AM24.-” A&A

==> picture [27 x 23] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- i” ----- End of picture text -----

Page 10 of 22

held on 31.08.2023 (Case No.18)and Meeting No.04/AM24 held on 26.05.2023 (case No. 44).

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 10 M/s. Arch Pharmalabs Limited, Mumbai

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00000980AM24

Meeting No.21/AM24 held 0n24.11.2023

Subject: Request for allowing FPS-FMS-MLFPS which could not be applied due to extenuating circumstances.

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Mr. RajendraKaimal and Mr. Sanjay Dhayalkar, authorized representatives appeared on behalf of the firm through Video Conferencing and made the following submissions:-

Applicant’s statement:This is a defer case of personal hearing at PRC Meeting No.17/AM24 held on 13.10.2023 (Case No.01), and no one appeared on behalf of the firm. The Committee decided to defer the case. The request of firm was last considered in PRC Meeting No.11/AM24 held on 20.07.2023 (Case No.30) wherein Committee rejected the case. The applicant stated that their company had undergone severe period of distress brought upon due to external circumstances brought upon them due to Chinese Dumping. They have recently undergone restricting and this provisioned incentive would aid their revival. In the earlier submission the applicant has Stated that they are pharmaceutical intermediates and API manufacturing company and their products are key raw materials in production of various life saving APIs. The applications for the FPS-FMS incentive could not be submitted online in time as the export documents required to make application were not readily available due to circumstances beyond their control.

applications for the FPS-FMS incentive could not be submitted online in time as the export documents required to make application were not readily available due to circumstances beyond their control. Following the 2008 Beijing Olympics, China had relaxed pollution norms thus, manufacturers in Pharma Intermediates and other Chemical Sector increased production and had set up new facilities, which was to be dumped across the world with state support. The unfair price competition was so severe that from A1 credit rating in 2011, they were pushed into default rating by 2013. They defaulted on their loans due to financial crises brought about by unfair price completion unleashed by Chinese companies. The financial crisis had turned their account NPA, therefore, services provided by banks and other service providers turned un-reliable and irregular. Banks failed to issue BRCs even after timely export realization and did not hand over BRCs to them even after issuance using those documents as tools to pressurize us pay their dues. The application for FMS-FPS is to a certain extent distinct from other schemes of that time an application comprises of 50 S/Bs and for each S/B an assortments of documents would be required; they in almost all the cases were lacking some or the other documents to complete the set required under each

==> picture [2 x 1] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- ; ----- End of picture text -----

Page 11 of 22

poe

omplete the set required under each

==> picture [2 x 1] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- ; ----- End of picture text -----

Page 11 of 22

poe

S/Bs. They needed S/Bs, BRC, B/L etc apart from invoices they had to rely on other to handover the documents in order to enable them to submit application. Even though winding up orders were issued, and their company was registered with BIFR, an ARC stepped in to restructure their loans and infused Funds. The Govt. of India is bringing in various schemes to encourage domestic manufacturing of APIs and intermediates. Their sector is now considered that of strategic importance by the Government and has recently been covered under the PL! Scheme for API and intermediate manufacturers. This only shows the need and importance of encouraging and supporting domestic manufacturing of APIs and intermediates. Hence they are requesting to allow relaxation policy/procedures to accept FPS-FMS application that are time barred. The matter was taken up. The comments received from the Policy Section were seen. The entire submission made by the applicant was gone through.

Decision: The Committee heard and reviewed the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm and observed that there is no merit in firm's contention. Hence, it decided to maintain the rejection of the earlier decision of PRC Meeting No.11/AM24 held on 20.07.2023 (Case No.30).

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 11 M/s. Indapur Dairy and Milk Products Limited, Pune

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00002890AM24

Meeting No.21/AM24 held 0n24.11.2023

Subject: Unable to make online request due to non transmission of shipping bill no 9688255 dated 03.11.2017 and SB no. 9661568 dated 02.11.2017 for MEIS benefits.

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Mr. R.S. Pranjpe authorized representatives appeared on behalf of the firm through Video Conferencing and made the following submissions:-

Applicant’s statement: This is a review case of PRC Meeting No.09/AM24 held on 07.07.2023 (Case No.36) wherein Committee rejected the case. The applicant stated that due to default reward benefits marked as “NO” in the both S/Bills hence not eligible for reward due to “No” option selection. However, they are eligible for reward and the option for reward should have been “Yes”. Therefore, the S/Bills were not transmitted to DGFT portal from Customs portal. It is prerequisite to claim reward under MEIS scrip that S/Bills are required to be transmitted to DGFT portal from Customs EDI systems as well as EBRC is also required to be transmitted to DGFT portal from Authorized Dealer — Bank. If anyone is missing the applicant could not make application for MEIS on porta of DGFT without linking of S/Bills and EBRC. After the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala anil

Page 12 of 22

Dealer — Bank. If anyone is missing the applicant could not make application for MEIS on porta of DGFT without linking of S/Bills and EBRC. After the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala anil

Page 12 of 22

Court on this subject, the exporter has applied to the Customs for amendment in the reward column in the s/bills. The Customs department states that after filing export general manifest (EGM) by the shipping company it is not possible to make amendment in the shipping bills. Since data is locked/freeze. In view of this the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Nhava-Sheva had issued manual certificate of amendment for both s/bills. The exporters had submitted claim for MEIS reward script to RA Mumbai and no communication received from them. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of MP (Indore Bench) in case of WP No.2614/2021, the exporter had applied for amendment in the shipping bill in the reward column through email and after follow up through reminder emails on various dates CPGRAM complaints were filed which is closed on 06.09.2022 saying that s/bill is already transmitted on DGFT portal and other s/bill does not pertain to this port. Hence they are requesting to allow MEIS Benefit against above mentioned two S/Bills.

Decision: The Committee heard and reviewed the case on the basis of Statement made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length. The Committee noted that one shipping bill had been transmitted anddecided to refer the issue to PC-3 Division for its examination and resolution.

(Action: PC-3 -Division/Applicant)

Case No. 12 M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., New Delhi

F.No.01/60/162/485/AM21/PRC

Meeting No.21/AM24 held 0n24.11.2023

Subject: Acceptance of payment received in INR in Advance Authorization No.0610013597 dated 01.07.2008 and Provide EODC.

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Mr. Z.U. Alvi, Mr C.P. Joshi and Mr. Avinash Sharmaauthorized representatives appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following[submissions:-]

==> picture [1 x 13] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- | ----- End of picture text -----

Applicant’s statement: This is a defer case of PRC Meeting No.11/AM23 held on 02.08.2022 (Case No.33) wherein Committee decided to call the firm for personal hearing. The matter was taken up. The entire submission made by the applicant was gone through. This is case was earlier considered in PRC Meeting No.04/AM23held onthe 11.05.2022firm to submit(CasecopyNo.05),of the whereinline of credit the Committeeissued by decidedMinistry ofto deferExternal theAffairs case as(MEA) ~~ i, for this project. The applicant stated that they have obtained the subject authorization a -— A Page 13 of 22 yf —

ommitteeissued by decidedMinistry ofto deferExternal theAffairs case as(MEA) ~~ i, for this project. The applicant stated that they have obtained the subject authorization a -— A Page 13 of 22 yf —

for importing raw material for execution of 3X14 MW Salma Afghanistan Project. As per authorization, 3 numbers of Transformers (Copper Wound) above 10,000 KVA up to and including 25,000 KVA, 3 phase, Oil Cooled (17.25 MVA) were required to be exported. The 3 Transformers of 17.25 MVA were dispatched vide Shipping Bill No.5495238 dated 13.04.2019, 5495239 dated 13.04.2019 and 5495240 dated 13.04.2009. Thereafter they have applied for redemption to RA, Kanpur in 2012. Payment have been received for 2 Transformers with Shipping Bill No.5495239 dated 13.04.2019 and 5495240 dated 13.04.2019. This payment was realized in INR and the original BRC copy issued by SBI for these two transformers was also submitted to RA, Kanpur in 2012 with request for redemption. The other Transformer exported against Shipping Bill No.5495238 dated 13.04.2019 could not reach the destination site in Afghanistan since same has fallen down during road transportation in Afghanistan. The transformer got damaged and due to political turmoil and terrorist attacks in Afghanistan in that period there was delay in return of damaged transformer into India. Finally, after 5 years the same was re-imported and brought back to India in 2014 for repair. After repairing successfully, it was re-exported vide shipping bill No.3130486 dated 02.03.2015.

India. Finally, after 5 years the same was re-imported and brought back to India in 2014 for repair. After repairing successfully, it was re-exported vide shipping bill No.3130486 dated 02.03.2015.

Since, Ministry of External Affairs had financed this project, the payment was realized in INR against the given license. However, RA, Kanpur had not accepted and advised to approach PRC. Hence, requested for acceptance of the payment received in INR against this project and redeem their license as they have already exported all the 3 transformers with a value addition of 21.26% in actual imports and exports.

Decision: The Committee heard and examined the case and discussed the matter at length.After detailed discussion on justification furnished by the firm Committee observed that there is merit in the case. Accordingly, it decided to accede to the request and consider thepayment received in INR in Advance Authorization No.0610013597 dated 01.07.2008 towards discharge of EODC. The other terms and conditions towards fulfillment of EO 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/RA-Kanpur)

M/s. Jain Irrigation systems Limited, MH

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00001076AM23 Meeting No.21/AM24 held 0n24.11.2023 Subject: Clubbing of three Advance Authorization nos. 0310404400 dated y 3 16.10.2006, 0310402990 dated 06.10.2006 and 0310424393 dated 26.03.2007. ( rs

==> picture [63 x 21] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- i / = ----- End of picture text -----

Page 14 of 22

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Mr. D.| Desarda and Mr. GautamRay authorized representatives appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions:-

This is defer case of personal hearing at PRC Meeting No.17/AM24 held on 13.10.2023 (Case No.13), and no one appeared on behalf of the firm. The Committee decided to defer the case.

Applicant’s statement: This case was earlier considered in PRC Meeting No.36/AM23 held on 28.03.2023 (Case No.14), wherein Committee decided to relax the condition 2(i) of Public Notice No.70 dated 30.01.2019 to consider the above mentioned three AAs for clubbing for regularization purpose only. In this application they have stated that they have import packaging material under 3 AAs and fulfilled EO in stipulated period under the same HS Code. They have used the same packing material which is import under 3 different AA and export the same as per the licenses.

terial under 3 AAs and fulfilled EO in stipulated period under the same HS Code. They have used the same packing material which is import under 3 different AA and export the same as per the licenses. The PRC Committee earlier meeting No.36/AM23 allowed clubbing of 3 subject license only for redemption purpose but RA Mumbai issued D/L stating that only two licenses having common import which can be clubbed and they have replied on declaring that the import item is packing martial and same in all 3 AAs but they have issued 4" D/L on 17.08.2023 Stating that clubbing of authorization import items have to be same. Hence they are requesting to allow clubbing of above mentioned subject licenses for redemption purposes.

Decision:The Committee heard and examined the case and discussed the matter at length.After detailed discussion on justification furnished by the firm the Committeedecided to refer the case to Policy-4 Division for examination of the matter.

(Action: Applicant/Policy- 4 Division)

Case No. 14 M/s. Himalaya Food International Limited, Delhi

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00003211AM23

Meeting No.21/AM24 held 0n24.11.2023

Subject: Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.0510250237 dated 01.10.2009.

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, > which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Mr. Kailash Sharma, authorized representative¢ _~ appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions:y call - Y we / at \

Page 15 of 22

Applicant’s statement: This is defer case of personal hearing at PRC Meeting No.18/AM23 held on 15.11.2022 (Case No.08), wherein Committee decided to call the firm for personal hearing along with all supporting documents.The matter was taken up. The entire submission made by the applicant was gone through. The applicant stated that their buyer cancelled order all of a sudden and they could not procure required quantity of export order for a long time. They have exported 60% of the required quantity within the original EOP of 3 years and managed to export the balance quantity within the next 10 months i.e. before September, 2013. The total exports have been completed and corresponding payments in foreign exchange has been realized. They could not apply for EOP extension on time as their previous consultant did not guide them about the policy and procedures. Hence they are requesting to allow EOP extension upto 15.09.2013 for regularization of export in respect of AA No.0510250237 dated 01.10.2009.

nt did not guide them about the policy and procedures. Hence they are requesting to allow EOP extension upto 15.09.2013 for regularization of export in respect of AA No.0510250237 dated 01.10.2009.

Decision: The Committee heard anddiscussed the matter at length. The Committeenoted that the applicant has faced difficulty beyond their control and observed that there is merit in the case. Accordingly, it decided to accede to the request and allowed EOP extension upto30.09.2013 in respect of AA No.0510250237 dated 01.10.2009. Other conditions remain same such as 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/CLA-New Delhi)

Case No. 15 M/s. Himalaya Food International Limited, Delhi

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00003243AM23

Meeting No.21/AM24 held on 24.11.2023

Subject: Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.0510272024 dated 01.09.2010.

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Mr. Kailash Sharma, authorized representatives appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions:-

Applicant’s statement: This is defer case of personal hearing at PRC Meeting No.19/AM23 held on 22.11.2022 (Case No.02), wherein Committee decided to call the firm for personal hearing along with all supporting documents.The matter was taken up. ~— Page 16 of 22 - P U/ V

The entire submission made by the applicant was gone through. The applicant stated that due to buyer cancelled export order all of a sudden and they could not procure required quantity of export orders from other sources against subject authorization. They have completed EO 79.48% of the required exports within the Export Obligation Period of 3 years and took another 1.5 years to export the balance 20.52%. They could not apply EOP extension within the time. Hence they are requesting for extension in EOP against subject authorization.

of 3 years and took another 1.5 years to export the balance 20.52%. They could not apply EOP extension within the time. Hence they are requesting for extension in EOP against subject authorization.

Decision: The Committee heard anddiscussed the matter at lengthand 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. Applicant may like to opt Amnesty scheme for closure of the case.

Case No. 16 M/s. Technovaa Plastic Industries Limited, Gujarat

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00000041AM24

Meeting No.21/AM24 held on 24.11.2023

Subject: Request to review Ratification of Norms approved against Advance Authorization no. 0810139322 dated 19.12.2016 and removal from DEL list. The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-2015-2020, which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Mr. AbhishekKankriya, authorized representatives appeared on behalf of the firmthrough Video Conferencing and made the following submissions:-

Applicant’s statement: This is defer case of personal hearing at PRC Meeting No.20/AM24 held on 14.11.2023 (Case No.15), wherein Committee decided to call the firm for personal hearing. The matter was taken up. The entire submission made by the applicant was gone through. The applicant stated that they had made ample of representations before RA Ahmadabad including a representation made by way of a personal visit duly explaining in detail that the undersigned has undergone a successful corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, whereby all the pre-CIRP claims including customs duty or any other Statutory payments stood settled in terms of the approved resolution plan as well as per the settled legal position and in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard. However, no action was taken by the said authority for removing the IEC of the undersigned from the DEL.

sition and in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard. However, no action was taken by the said authority for removing the IEC of the undersigned from the DEL. In view whereof, the company was é constrained to prefer a Special Civil Application (SCA) being No.15752 of 2021 before f \ the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad for seeking appropriate reliefs and ( : directions. It view of the foregoing legal position, it is crystal clear that a successful ee Page 17 of 22 f awe

resolution applicant like M/s. Kankriya Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., cannot be saddled or burdened with additional claims/liabilities after a resolution plan submitted by it is accorded an approval of the Ld.NCLT.

However, it is pertinent to mark that the existing management of the undersigned has not received a single documents from the erstwhile management so as to comply with the export obligation by submitting the relevant documents/information, based on which an EODC can be obtained. Moreover, the question of payment of any additional customs duty does not arise at all in the instant case on account of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Hence they are requesting to remove the IEC of the firm from Denied Entity List and review ratification of norms.

instant case on account of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Hence they are requesting to remove the IEC of the firm from Denied Entity List and review ratification of norms.

Decision: The Committee heard and examined the case on the basis of justification submitted by the applicant. In pursuance of the Order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Hon'ble high court of Gujarat in Special civil application No. 15752 of 2021 NCLT the Committee decided to remove IEC from Denied Entity List (DEL). The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Ahmedabad)

Case No. 17 M/s.SKIPlastowarePvt.Ltd., Mumbai

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004278AM23

Meeting No.21/AM24 held on 24.11.2023

Subject: Acceptance of FIRC/ manual BRC for the purpose of closure of 2 Advance authorization No.0310780916 dated 07.05.2014 and 0310670172 dated 13.12.2011.

The applicant had sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP-201 5-2020, which was afforded on 24.11.2023. Mr. Mitesh Parikh and Mr. RitikDeora authorized representatives appeared on behalf of the firm and made the following submissions:-

Applicant’s statement: This is defer case of personal hearing at PRC Meeting No.20/AM24 held on 14.11.2023 (Case No.29), wherein Committee decided to call the firm for personal hearing. The matter was taken up. The entire submission made by the applicant was gone through. The request of the firm was last considered in PRC Meeting No.29/AM23 held on 16.01.2023 (Case No.12) wherein Committee decided to withdraw the case from PRC and advised the firm to approach to concerned RA as per PN No.9 dated 14.05.2018. Now they have stated that they approached RA Mumbai for abeyance however they are insisting for e-BRCs. Out of 63 S/Bills, they have submitted e-BRCs from 55 S/Bill. Only 08 e-BRCs could not be generated due to technical reasons. However, the case is not squarely covered under the guidelines of PN 9. Page 18 of 22 .

==> picture [36 x 42] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- pony, / / ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [1 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

cture [36 x 42] intentionally omitted <==**

----- Start of picture text ----- pony, / / ----- End of picture text -----

==> picture [1 x 16] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- | ----- End of picture text -----

Their bankers are unable to upload e-BRC. All the obligations against the Advance license fulfilled in full during the valid EOP. They have been put in DEL since 2014 only due to non-availability of EBRC due to technical reasons. They met massive fire during year 2021 which wiped out their entire unit and after tremendous effort they are limping back to normalcy. During these years they have lost ample opportunities to scale up their exports due to non-availability of incentives/Advance License. Hence they are requesting to allow redemption against manual FIRC against subject licenses. Decision: The Committee heard and examined the case and discussed the matter at length. After detailed discussion on justification furnished by the firm Committee observed that there is merit in the case. Accordingly, it decided to accede to the request and consider manualFIRC/BRC for the purpose of redemption of 2 Advance authorization No.0310780916 dated 07.05.2014 and0310670172 dated 13.12.2011subject to payment of composition fees as per policy provisions.No other relaxation was provided.The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

(Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai)

Case No. 18 M/s.Shakkthi Ohmkaara Spinners, Tamil Nadu

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00000583AM24

Meeting No.21/AM24 held on 24.11.2023

Subject: Extension of EOP against EPCG License No.3230019820 dated 20.12.2013

Applicant’s statement: This is review case of 1°' Meeting of AM24 of the EPCG Committee held on 27.04.2023 (Case No.96) wherein Committee advise the firm to approach RA for extension of EOP beyond 8 years in terms of PN No.53 dated 20.01.2023. Now they have stated that RA has been rejected their application in terms of para 5.17 (h) of PN No.53 due to EPCG Authorisation’s EOP does not fall between 01.02.2020 to 31.07.2021 of the above said license. As per the para 5.17 (h) of the PN No.53 the above mentioned license validity for EOP has been naturally extended up to eighteen months from the date of expiry of EOP. Subsequently, concurrent to the above said PN, it appeared that nearly thirteen months period has been left unknowingly with regard to the natural extension of the EOP. Simultaneously, they have made a request to the EPCG Committee on 08.11.2022 for the extension of EOP, exactly 42 days prior to the issuance of Public Notice. Accordingly, they came to know the uploaded EPCG Committee's minutes on 12.06.2023 just seven days to the expi of the natural extension of EOP as per the Public Notice. Hence they are requesting © >) allow six months EOP extension against subject license. f —— Page 19 of 22 AN

23 just seven days to the expi of the natural extension of EOP as per the Public Notice. Hence they are requesting © >) allow six months EOP extension against subject license. f —— Page 19 of 22 AN

The matter is not of Common Service Provider as in other cases received from Coimbatore and RA Report( as decided in previous meeting) would not be relevant. Decision: The Committee reviewed the case on the basis of submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and observed that due to various restrictions imposed on account of ongoing lockdown during the period of Covid-19 Pandemic, firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control. Accordingly, it decided to accede to the request of the firm for extension in EOP for a period of 6 months from the date of endorsement against EPCG Authorization No. 3230019820 dated 20.12.2013 subject to payment of composition fee as per policy provisions. The other terms and conditions towards fulfillment of EO 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/RA-Coimbatore)

Case No. 19 M/s. Rusan Pharma Ltd., Mumbai.

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004973AM24

Meeting No. 21/AM24 held on 24.11.2023

Subject: Extension of EOP against AA No.0311011045 dated 01.02.2022.

Applicant’s statement: The applicant stated that the AA issued for import of 2034.90 grams of Naloxone Hydrochloride and for export of Buprenorphine & Naloxone Sublingual Tablet. They have imported the quantity of 2000 grams vide bills of entry 8028589 dated 26.03.2022 without of charge date 31.03.2022. Partial export obligation pending as on date. The initial EOP is valid till 31.03.2023, and they had applied approved 1** EOP extension up to 26.09.2023. They have planned to complete the EO within next six months. Hence they are requesting to allow six month EOP extension against subject license.

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 of Advance Authorization No. 0311011045 dated 01.02.2022for a further period of 6 months from the date of endorsement subject to payment of composition fees as per policy provisions. The firm shall approach RA concerned within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. E (Action: Applicant/RA-Mumbai) \

Page 20 of 22

M/s. Medreich Ltd.,Bengaluru.

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY000003913AM24

Meeting No. 21/AM24 held on 24.11.2023

Subject: Extension of EOP against AA No.0711001125 dated 19.05.2021.

Applicant’s statement: The applicant stated that they are manufacturer and exporters of pharmaceutical formulations and holder of AEO and Three Star Export House Certifications. They have obtained above license under Appendix 4J/Pre-import conditions and imported the raw material from unregistered source. The license has been obtained during the Covid-19 period. The import item is Nefopam Hydrochloride and the finished good item is Nefopam Hydrochloride 30mg tablets. The date of 1* import has been made on 31.07.2021 and the date of 2" and last import has been made on 14.12.2021. Due to short supplied of excipients and other items during that period they have changed the export schedule. 95% of the exports have been made within validity of 12 months from the date of each import as per the pre-import conditions. The last export has been made beyond the extendable validity of 18 months. The last export is made on 07.03.2023. Hence they are requesting to allow EOP extension up to 07.03.2023 against subject license.

t export has been made beyond the extendable validity of 18 months. The last export is made on 07.03.2023. Hence they are requesting to allow EOP extension up to 07.03.2023 against subject license.

Decision: The Committee examined the case on the basis of statement made by the firm and discussed the matter at length and decided to allow EOP extension up to 31.03.2023 against advance authorization No. 0711001125 dated 19.05.2021subject to payment of composition fees as per Policy provisions. The other terms and conditions towards fulfillment of EO 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/RA-Bangalore)

(Action: Applicant)

Case No. 21 M/s.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai.

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004328AM24

Meeting No. 21/AM24 held on 24.11.2023

Subject: Extension of EOP against AA No.0311003551 dated 04.05.2021.

Applicant’s statement: The applicant stated that they have fulfilled 100% EO quantity wise and value wise but EO is fulfilled after expiry of EOP. Due to unfavorable market _ / conditions post covid-19 pandemic, their buyer has cancelled the export ord

Page 21 of 22

therefore, they could not fulfill the EO within EOP validity. First import under the AA was made on 09.10.2021. RA has allowed EOP extension up to 09.04.2023 but EO was fulfilled on 17.05.2023. Hence they are requesting to allow EOP extension up to 31.05.2023 against subject license.

Decision: The Committee went through the statement made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length. The Committee noted that the applicant has faced difficulty beyond their control and decided to accede to the request and allowed EOP extension up to 31.05.2023 against advance authorization No. 0311003551 dated 04.05.2021subject 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. 22 M/s. Afflatus International, Delhi.

F.No.HQRPRCAPPLY00004588AM24

Meeting No. 21/AM24 held on 24.11.2023

Subject: Extension of EOP against AA No.0510415746 dated 05.11.2020.

Applicant’s statement: The applicant stated that the delay in EOP due to outbreak of Covid-19 in the beginning of 2020 and some of their export order are cancelled by the buyer due to low demand in the market. Now their entire factory is operation and they can meet the remaining export obligation, also after doing long follow-up with the new buyer now the new buyer is ready to take the same material. They have applied for 1* and 2” extension of this annual advance license but due to non availability of import and export data in DGFT web portal their EOP extension application was holded by DGFT due to that they are unable to complete their export obligation within the time period of EOP extension. Hence they are requesting to allow extension in EOP up to 31.03.2024 against subject license.

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 of Advance Authorization No. 0510415746 dated 05.11.2020 upto 31.03.2024 subject to payment of composition fees as per policy provisions. The firm shall approach RA \ concerned within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. ] (Action: Applicant/CLA-New Delhi) / a

Page 22 of 22

Verbatim extracted text (OCR/PDF). Older scans and tables may show extraction artifacts — verify against the original for anything you act on.

Analysis

No analysis generated for this document yet (analysis runs over brief docs + on-demand). Run build_analysis.py --ids 10697 --apply.