DGFT Minutes

Directorate General of Foreign Trade (PRC-section) Minutes of the Policy Relaxation Committee Meeting held under the Chi Chairmanship of _ Shri Alok Vardhan Chaturvedi, Director General of Foreign Trade Foreign Trade Meeting No. 27/AM18 held on 09.01.2018 at 10:00 AM The following members were present in the meeting: 4. ShriN. P. 5. Monga Addl. DGFT 2. Shri k. ५. Rout Addl. DGFT 3. Shri J. V. Patil Addi. DGFT 4, ShriS. B.S. Reddy Addl. DGFT 5. Shri N. K. Srivastava Addl. DGFT 6. Shri Jay Karan Singh Jt. DGFT 7, Shri Akash Taneja Jt. DGFT 8, ShriR. Sharma Jt. DGFT Following cases were discussed. The decision taken on the individual cases are as under:-

Case No.1: M/s. PVC Converters India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

F. No. 01/60/162/405/AM18/PRC PRC Meeting No. 27/AM18 dated 09.01.2018

Subject: Request for revalidation of Advance Authorization no. 0310714075 dated 01.11.2012

The applicant sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded fo them on 99.01.2018. Shri Shekhar Thakkar, General Manager, Marketing from Mis PVC Converters India Pvt. Ltd. appeared before the committee and made the following submissions stating inter alia that: 1, They were making shipments against these Advance Authorizations for getting imported raw materials (PVC Resin, Plasticizer & Stabilizer) free of customs duty. 2. They could not import full raw materials against these AAs after getting the first revalidation from RA. They could not get the goods from indigenous supplier against Invalidation letter because the licence expired. 3. For clearing the raw materials against the invalidation letter they require 270 Revalidation til 31.03.2015. 4. Hence, they have requested to 2"¢ Revalidation till 31.03.2015. Decision: |t was noted that the Authorisation was issued having 12 months validity to import and 18 months validity to fulfil export obligation extendable by six more months. In this case party imported main material PVC resin more than 97%. This being Advance Authorisation, import could have been made even before export obligation. The facility of waiver of bond is allowed if exports are made prior to import by using duty paid materials. However, in such cases documents should be submitted to RA concerned within twelve months from the issue of the Authorisation.

llowed if exports are made prior to import by using duty paid materials. However, in such cases documents should be submitted to RA concerned within twelve months from the issue of the Authorisation. In such cases RA can allow six months further revalidation for making imports. In the instant case, the applicant did not submit documents for EODC within the initial validity of the Authorisation. Further, six months extended validity has been oblained by the applicant. Despite that they could not utilised the Authorisation in full. i=

No cogent ground of genuine hardship was given by the applicant. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request, (Action: Applicant)

Case No.2: M/s. PVC Converters India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

F. No. 01/60/162/403/AM 18/PRC

Subject: Request for revalidation of Advance Authorization no. 0310727561 dt. 11.03.2043.

The applicant sought persona! hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded to them on 99.01.2018. Shri Shekhar Thakkar, General Manager, Marketing from M/s PVC Converters India Pvt. Ltd. appeared before the committee and made the following submissions stating inter alia that: 4, They were making shipments against these Advance Authorizations for getting import raw materials (PVC Resin, Plasticizer & Stabilizer) free of customs duty. 2. They could not import full raw materials against these AAs after getting the first revalidation from RA. They could not get the goods from indigenous supplier against Invalidation letter because the licence expired. 3. For clearing the raw materials against the invalidation letter they require 277 Revalidation till 34.03.2015. 4, Hence, they have requested to 204 Revalidation till 31.03.2015. Decision: {n this case main raw material PVC resin has been imported in full 100%. Decision as per case No 1 is reiterated.

Case No.3: M/s, PVC Converters India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

EF. No, 01/60/162/406/AM18/PRC PRC Meeting No. 27/AM18 dated 09.01 2018

Subject: Request for revalidation of Advance Authorization no. 0310713051 dt. 17.10.2012.

The applicant sought personal hearing In terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded to them on 09.01.2018. Shri Shekhar Thakkar, General Manager, Marketing from M/s PVC Converters India Pvt. Ltd. appeared before the committee and made the following submissions stating inter alia that:

1. They were making shipments against these Advance Authorizations for getting import raw materials (PVC Resin, Plasticizer & Stabilizer) free of customs duty.
2. They could not import full raw materials against these AAs after getting the first revalidation from RA. They could not get the goods from indigenous supplier against Invalidation letter because the licence expired 3, For clearing the raw materials against the invalidation letter they require 2°¢ Revalidation till 34.03.2015
3. Hence, they have requested to 9nd Revalidation till 31.03.2015. Decision: In this case main raw material PVC resin has been imported fo the extent of more than 95%. Decision as per case No 1 is reiterated.

Case No.4: M/s. PVC Converters India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

EF. No, 04/60/162/401/AM18/PRC

Subject: Request for revalidation of Advance Authorization no. 0310707591 dt. 04.09.2012.

y

The applicant sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded to them on 09.01.2018. Shri Shekhar Thakkar, General Manager, Marketing from M/s PVC Converters India Pvt. Ltd. appeared before the committee and made the following submissions stating inter atia that: 1. They were making shipments against these Advance Authorizations for getting import raw materials (PVC Resin, Plasticizer & Stabilizer) free of customs duty. 2. They could not import full raw materials against these AAs after getting the first revalidation from RA. They could not get the goods from indigenous supplier against invalidation letter because the licence expired 3. For clearing the raw materials against the invalidation letter they require 24 Revalidation till 34.03.2015. 4. Hence, they have requested to 20० Revalidation till 31.03.2045. Decision: ॥ this case main raw material PVC resin has been imported to the extent of more than 99%.Decision as per case No 1 is reiterated.

Case No.5: M/s. PVC Converters India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

F, No, 04/60/162/404/AM18/PRC PRC Meeting No. 27/AM18 dated 09.01.2018.

Subject: Request for revalidation of Advance Authorization no. 0310718001 dt. 21.12.2012.

Aggtieved by the committee’s decision dated 13.08.2015, the applicant sought personal hearing in terms of Para 259 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded to them on 09.01.2018. Shri Shekhar Thakkar, General Manager, Marketing from M/s PVC Converters India Pvt. Lid. appeared before the committee and made the following submissions stating inter alia that: 1, They were making shipments against these Advance Authorizations for getting import raw materials (PVC Resin, Plasticizer & Stabilizer) free of customs duty. 9. They could not import full raw materials against these AAs after getting the first revatidation from RA. They could not get the goods from indigenous supplier against invalidation letter because the licence expired. 3. For clearing the raw materials against the invalidation letter they require 200 Revalidation till 31.03.2015. 4, Hence, they have requested to 2TM Revalidation till 31.03.2015. Decision: In this case main raw material PVC resin has been imported to the extent of more than 98%.Decision as per case No 1 is reiterated.

Case No.6: M/s. PVC Converters India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

F. No. 01/60/162/402/AM18/PRC

Subject: Request for revalidation of Advance Authorization no. 0310745836 dt. 19.08.2013.

The applicant sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded to them on 09.01.2018. Shri Shekhar Thakkar, General Manager, Marketing from M/s PVC Converters India Pvt. Ltd appeared before the committee and made the following submissions stating inter alia that: 1. They do not have the L/C opening facility through bank during that period because of weak financial condition of the company. 2. Hence, they have requested for Revalidation of above Advance Authorization. Decision: Decision as per case No 1 is reiterated. a ; a)

No.7: Mis. Thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/461/AM18/PRC PRC Meeting No. 27/AM18 dated 09.01 2018

Subject: Relaxation from furnishing specified document (Bill of Export) for the purpose of closure of Advance

Authorization no. 0310890941 dt. 16.04.2012. Aggrieved by the committee's decision dated 06.09.2016, the applicant sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded to them on 09.01.2018. Shri Laxmikant Dashpute, Head Materials, from M/s Thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel india Pvt. Lid. appeared before the committee and made the following submissions stating inter alia that 1. That they obtained Advance Authorization No.0310690941 dated 16.4.012 from the Ofo RA Mumbai and fulfilled the entire export obligation as undertaken against these Advance Authorisation by effecting exports including despatches to SEZ unit namely, Ms Temple Precision Metal Products india Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. The licence was submitted for redemption on 3% May, 2007, However vide D/L No.03/93/0165/0096/AM-15 dated 17.7.2014 , RA Mumbai asked them to submit copies of bill of export for the quantity of SEZ supply. The redemption of the licence herein only pending for wanting copies of Bill of exports against quantity dispatched to SEZ unit. 2, They have already submitted all original copies of ARE-| with relevant advance Licence/File No on it duly signed and stamped by the Customs Authority at SEZ area at Chennai towards fulfillment of export obligation. 3. {tis submitted that the recent decision of the Bombay High Court against writ petition fileld by L&T Mumbai (similar to their case) clearly favoured to the petitioner based on the available documents viz.

submitted that the recent decision of the Bombay High Court against writ petition fileld by L&T Mumbai (similar to their case) clearly favoured to the petitioner based on the available documents viz. ARE-| being considered as proof of export. The copy of judgement at FIX, 4 AtSI, No.68. They do not see how this subsequent decision can be reconciled with the earlier stands where the PRC was ready and willing to consider the dispensation provided there is proof of fulfilment of export obligation. 5. At Sl No.70 Once they have held on fact that the requirement is duly fulfilled, then, they do not think that it is necessary to comply to the provisions of the SEZ Rules and particularly Rule 30 thereof. All the more when supplying goods from the domestic tariff area to SEZ is taken as equivalent to an export of goods physically from this country to abroad. Once such an act of the petition is taken to be an export, entitling them to the benefits of the advance authorization ought to be taken as fulfilled. Therefore, the PRC as an afterthought, could not have directed the petitioner to get the case regularized as per provisions of the HBP 2009-14 Voll. Or the SEZ Rules 6, In their case, exports were made to SEZ by filing Bill of exports. They have been supplied 60% copies of Bill of Export by the recipient unit. However, around 40% copies were missing. 7.

EZ Rules 6, In their case, exports were made to SEZ by filing Bill of exports. They have been supplied 60% copies of Bill of Export by the recipient unit. However, around 40% copies were missing. 7. Hence they have requested to consider their case in the light of above judgement of the Bombay High Court and duly acknowledged copy of ARE-! by SEZ customs at Chennai as proof of export. Decision: {t was noted that this not the case where Bil of Exports were not generated but the case of loss of original Bill of Export. In case of loss of S/b or BRC, no policy relaxation is required, as Para 4.52 of HBP, 2015-20 prescribes procedures to be followed in case of loss S/b or BRC. The committee, therefore, decided to remand the case to RA concerned for examining the case in terms of Para 4.52 of HBP. The applicant is directed to submit the documents prescribed in the Para 4,52 of HBP (Action: Applicant/RA, Mumbai)

Case No.8: M/s. Thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

7 1९०. 01/60/162/460/AM18/PRC PRC Meeting No. 27/AM18 dated 09.01 2018

Subject: Relaxation from furnishing specified document (Bill of Export) for the purpose of closure of Advance

Authorization no. 0310329997 dt. 13.05.2005. Aggrieved by the committee's decision dated 29.08.2016, the applicant sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP. 2015-2020, which was afforded to them on 09.01.2018. Shri Laxmikant Dashpute, Head Materials, from M/s Thyssenkrupp

Electrical Stee! India Pvt. Ltd. appeared before the committee and made the same submissions as stated at case no 7 above: Decision: Decision at case no 7 is reiterated.

Case No.9: M/s. Thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

7, No. 01/60/162/465/AM18/PRC

Subject: Relaxation from furnishing specified document (Bill of Export) for the purpose of closure of Advance

Authorization no. 0310394036 dt. 10.08.2006. Aggrieved by the committee's decision dated 29.08.2016, the applicant sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded to them on 09.01.2018. Shri Laxmikant Dashpute, Head Materials, from M/s Thyssenkrupp Flectrical Steel India Pvt. Ltd. appeared before the committee and made the same submission as stated at case 107 above: Decision: Decision at case No 7 is reiterated.

Case No.10: Mis. Indian Ceremic House, Kanpur

7. No. 04/60/162/1287/AM17/{PRC)

Subject: Request for EOP extension of Advance Authorization no. 0610038217 dt. 08.09.2015.

Aggrieved by the committee's decision dated 06.06.2017, the applicant sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 9015-2020, which was afforded to them on 09.04.2018. Shri Samridh Agarwal, Partner of M/s Indian Ceremic House, Kanpur appeared before the committee and made the following submissions stating inter alia that: 1, They were issued above advance authorization dated 8.9.2015 by Jt. DGFT Kanpur. The import validity of the license was 12 months and the export validity was 18 months They had also requested this office for an extension of the same license for 6 months and the same was granted with a validity till 8.3.2017. 2. For their export product, they need small quantities of Gold, which they buy from MMTC through an ARO issued against an Advance Authorisation. However, MMTC has 2 conditions on giving told them (a) gold will not be given to export but will be given as replenishment against advance authorization license (copy of 8 mail from MMTC attached) (0) Minimum quantity of gold that will be given is 1 Kg. 3, Their Advance Licence No.0610038217 was obtained to procure 7 Kgs of gold against export. However, they would utlise the authorisation for 3 Kgs of gold. They have already procured 2 Kgs and will procure 1 KG more on export of balance 42gm of gold on prorata. 4.

gs of gold against export. However, they would utlise the authorisation for 3 Kgs of gold. They have already procured 2 Kgs and will procure 1 KG more on export of balance 42gm of gold on prorata. 4. {tis submitted that a since export validity period in Advance Authorisation is 18 months and import validity period is 12 months, in their case they must finish all export at any cost in 10 months to get gold from MMTC 5. In the above advance authorization under consideration, they have already taken 2 Kg. gold under replenishment from MMTC and have made exports worth $ 138k containing 2.958kg of gold ( (Details enclosed) As MMTC gives not less than 1 Kg gold bars to Advance Authorisation holders under replenishment scheme they need to export 42gm of gold to avail the last kilogram in their license. As small scale industry, the loss of not being able to avail another kg of gold from MMTC under Advance Authorisation No.0610038217 will be too harsh to bear. 6. Hence they have requested to extend the validity of their above authorization for six months so that they may export another shipment of 42 gms of gold equivalent and avail 10000 of gold as replenishment through MMTC

quested to extend the validity of their above authorization for six months so that they may export another shipment of 42 gms of gold equivalent and avail 10000 of gold as replenishment through MMTC

Decision: It was noted that MMTC did not supply 500 less than 1Kg and the applicant has already exported 2.958Kqs and imported only 2 Kgs Gold. The committee, therefore, decided the following: 4. The Authorisation be revalidated for 6 months from the date of endorsement and export obligation shall also be extended for further six months from date of endorsement, in continuity. if already not allowed by RA. 2. The applicant is directed to submit the Authorisation to the RA concerned for necessary endorsement, within a month from the date of uploading of these minutes on the Directorate website. (Action: ApplicantRA, Mumbai)

Case No.11: Mis. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., Tamil Nadu (Cuttack)

F, No, 01/60/162/461/AM15/PRC PRC Meeting No. 27/AM18 dated 09.01.2018.

Subject: Amendment in respect of ITC {HS) Classification of used Dump Truck Permitted for import on the heading

87091900 in the place of 87041010. Aggrieved by the committee's decision dated 13.08.2015, the applicant sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP. 2015-2020, which was afforded to them on 09.01.2018. Shri S.Kathiraman, AVP and Shri S.P.Mishra from M/s Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. appeared before the committee and made the following submissions stating inter alia that:

1. The PRC has been kind enough to grand them relaxation in respect of the revisions of Policy condition under Clause 1(ii) (a) (0) (i) (ii) & (iii) and (0) of chapter 87 of ITC (HS) 2012 , Schedule | (import Policy) for import of 49 Second hand mining equipment - Dump Trucks. On the basis of the Relaxation allowed by the committee, they have already imported 13 Nos. of Dump Trucks in semi knock Down (SKD) condition. Import of the balance 6 dump Trucks in under process.
2. While filling their request for relaxation they had inadvertently and erroneously mentioned wrong ITC (HS) code Viz. 87041010 against the Dump Trucks sought to be imported by them and the same {TC (HS) Code is also mentioned in letter, covering the granting of relaxation.

oneously mentioned wrong ITC (HS) code Viz. 87041010 against the Dump Trucks sought to be imported by them and the same {TC (HS) Code is also mentioned in letter, covering the granting of relaxation. Upon detailed examination of the ITC (HS) codes, they have realized that correct classification for the imported second hand dump trucks should be 87091900, the description of which read as “works trucks, Self-propelled, not fitted with lifting or handling equipment, of the type used in factories, warehouses, Dock areas or airports for short Distance Transport of goods, Tractors of the type used on railway station platforms; parts of the foregoing vehicles” 3, They would earnestly request to review the matter and modify the sanction letter indicating the correct ITC (HS) code, Viz. 87091900 in place of 87041010. Their prayer is based on the following grounds:- a. The dump trucks sought fo be imported by them are meant for exclusive use within the boundary (enclosure) of their mining activity area and will be essentially off highway. These are intended for short haul and transportation of coal from the pit head to the warehouse, located within the area of the mine and therefore complies with the broad description of the equipment, appearing at sl no. 87091900 of ITC (HS) Code. b. Since the equipment sought to be imported by them are exclusively for use in industrial application, as a part of mining activity, it is logical to presume that the import of these equipment it entitled to attract lower rate of customs duty.

by them are exclusively for use in industrial application, as a part of mining activity, it is logical to presume that the import of these equipment it entitled to attract lower rate of customs duty. On the other hand the equipment falling under 87041010 is broadly for transportation of goods, which may not necessarily be restricted to industrial application only, but may include commercial and trading a“ os i)

activity, like transportation of goods 88 is evident from the broad Heading of 8704, which reads “Motor Vehicies for the Transport of goods’ 6. The use of ITC (HS) code 87041010 in their case would unduly escalate the cost of the equipment which is exclusively meant for industrial application and therefore, may not be the intention of the Govt. as would the evident from the handout released by the Ministry of Finance, while justifying clause of tariff in the budget statement of FY- 2015-16. 4. Under the circumstance, they would earnestly request to classify the equipment’s allowed for import by them, under {TC (HS) heading 87091900, so that their industry does not suffer from undue cost escalation, which 1s bound to have a cascading adverse impact on their industrial activity. Decision: It was noted that no policy relaxation was required in the case. The matter be remand to Policy-2 division for further examination and disposal of the case. (Action: Policy-2)

Case No.12: Mis Jindal Aluminium Ltd., Bangalore

६. No, 01/60/162/12/AM18/PRC

Subject: Request for granting the MEIS benefit two shipping bills no. 9146584 dt, 29.07.2016 and 5208091 dt

44.06.2016. Aggrieved by the committee's decision dated 08.08.2017, the applicant sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 9015-2020, which was afforded to them on 09.01.2018. Shri Naveen Pant, Branch Manager from Ws Jindal Aluminium Ltd. appeared before the committee and made the following submissions stating inter alia that: 4. That their shipping agen/CHA entered wrong HS code i.¢.76011090 while filling shipping bill online, against the correct HS code applicable to their product which is 76069110. There is no MEIS benefit applicable/available for the wrongly entered HS code 7601 4090, Because at the same time they declared/ticked १/ for having intention to claim MEIS benefit in the shipping bill. However, the subject shipping bill was transferred to DGFT website by Customs ICEGAT but due to no benefits available for the wrongly entered HS code in the MEIS list, it's showing zero MEIS benefits. All other export documents such as invoice, Packing list, and Bill of lading bear the correct HS code. 3. Itis further stated that their CHA approached Customs for rectification /correction in the HS code online but Customs shown inability to amend it online to change HS code.

ear the correct HS code. 3. Itis further stated that their CHA approached Customs for rectification /correction in the HS code online but Customs shown inability to amend it online to change HS code. However, Customs issued a letter from F No.C.No.Vili/48/270/2016/ICD Tech dated August, 2016 confirming amendment in subject shipping bill for the HS code from 76011090 to 76069110 but as amendment was not done online so shipping bill showing zero benefit for MEIS and there is no provision to apply manually for MEIS based on the manual correction done by the Customs in the relevant shipping bill. As per above referred letter they were unable to submit their application for MEIS against subject shipping bill due to the reasons that shipping bill can't be rectified online 4. The approximate amount of MEIS benefit involved in this case is Rs. 241537 which is a big amount and they were not able to claim it thus it may be caused loss to them for no fault of their for this particular shipment. 5. While filing shipping bill no. 5208091dt 11.06.2046 online, their CHA by mistake ticked "५" for the intent to claim MEIS benefits so subject shipping bill not transferred by customs to DGFT website and thus they can't file online application for claiming MEIS benefits . 6 Their CHA approached the customs for rectification/correction in the intent from १५ to ‘Y' but Customs has shown inability to amend it online to make any changes online once shipping bill is filed.

Their CHA approached the customs for rectification/correction in the intent from १५ to ‘Y' but Customs has shown inability to amend it online to make any changes online once shipping bill is filed. As amendment was not done online 50 shipping bill not transferred to DGFT website and there is no provision to apply manually for such case so they were unable to submit their application for MEIS subject shipping bill which has not been transferred to DGFT Ss

website or shipping bill repository for applying for MEIS due to the mistake in selecting option to claim MEIS benefit as 'N’ Instead of ’Y' which is a procedural mistake, However, hard copy of relevant shipping showing declaration as * They intent to claim rewards under MEIS “ but this was not accepted by the PRC. 7. The approximate amount of MEIS benefits involved in this case is Rs.70245/- which is a loss for them for no fault of their if not given MEIS benefits. 8. Hence, they have requested (i) to allow MEIS benefit by filling manual application for both the above cases enabling them to encash MEIS benefits against export already done or they may please be given relief equivalent to the MEIS benefits by any other suitable way as deems fit by the respective Committee. Decision: ॥ was noted that as per policy, no manual scrip can be issued where exports were affected from EDI port. The applicant should be more careful while submitting EDI shipping 91, as no amendment could be possible once EGM is filed.

y, no manual scrip can be issued where exports were affected from EDI port. The applicant should be more careful while submitting EDI shipping 91, as no amendment could be possible once EGM is filed. Shipping Bill where option “N” in rewards column is selected, such shipping Bill is not transmitted to DGFT repository. No other person could be made responsible for mistake committed by their exporter or their agents (CHA). issue of scrip against such exports cannot be allowed. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request (Action: Applicant)

Case No.13: M/s. Union Quality Plastics Ltd. Mumbai

F. No, 01/60/162/1264/AM17/PRC

Subject: Request for clubbing of two Advance Authorization no. 0310580051 dt. 22.06.2010 and 0310732214 dt.

22.04.2013. Decision: Aggrieved by the committee's decision dated 01 08.2017, the applicant sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded to them on 09.01.2018. The date of personal hearing was communicated to them through e-mail. However, no one turned up for PH nor they requested for postponement of date. The committee, however, in the interest of natural justice decided to defer the case. The applicant may seek next date, if he so wish (Action: Applicant) Case ०.14: M/s. Bhawani Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgar Punjab (Ludhiana) F, No, 01/60/162/1154/AM17/PRC

Subject: Request for revalidation of DFIA no. 3010103266 dt. 16.12.2014,

Decision: Aggrieved by the committee's decision dated 01.08.2017, the applicant sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded to them on 09.01.2018. The date of personal hearing was communicated to them through e-mail. However, no one turned up for PH nor they requested for postponement of date. The committee, however, in the interest of natural justice decided to defer the case. The applicant may seek next date, if he so wish. (Action: Applicant) Gyre D>

a

Case No.15: M/s. Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. Pune

F. No, 01/60/162/1 16/AM18/PRC

Subject: Request for revalidation, prorate enhancement of FOB value, quantity of export, cif value import quantity

and issue of EODC of Advance Authorization no. 3110065736 dt. 30.10.2045. Decision: Aggrieved by the committee's decision dated 01.08.2017, the applicant sought personal hearing in terms Of Para 2.59 of ETP, 2015-2020, which was afforded fo them on 09.01.2018. The date of personal hearing was communicated to them through e-mail. However, no one turned up for PH nor they requested for postponement of date. The committee, however, in the interest of natural justice decided to defer the case. The applicant may seek next date, if they so wish (Action: Applicant)

Case No.16:M /s. Venus Industrial Corporation, Ludhiana

F. No. 01/60/162/269/AM18/(PRC) PRC Meeting No, 27/AM18 dated 09.01.2018

Subject: Request for condonation of delay to file SHIS benefit against the export made during 2011-12 for RS

22,14,022/- owning to misinterpretation of policy regarding eligibility of zero duty EPCG and SHIS scrip. Aggrieved by the committee's decision dated 31.08.2017, the applicant sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded to them on 09.01.2018. Shri Bipin Gupta, Managing Director and Shri Hemraj Mehta from M/s Venus Industrial Corporation appeared before the committee and made the following submissions stating inter alia that: 4. Due to confusing in wordings and misinterpretations of policy regarding simultaneous benefits of zero duty EPCG and SHIS, they could not apply for SHIS against exports made during 2011-12. Because of misinterpretation of policy, they found them not eligible for benefit and hence did not apply on time. The following licenses were simultaneously issued to them: SHIS No. 3010079289 dt. 29.9.2011 issued for Export be 2011-12 ae _during 2010-11 __ __ ! EPCG No. 3030008934 dated 09.11.2011 ___| 2011-12 1,16,75,400 [EPCG No. 3030008944 dt. 15.11.2011 2011-12 «27 AB.920 | 2. By the time they applied for EPCG, they were in perception that they cannot avail SHIS benefit for the exports made during the year in which goods are imported under EPCG license. Hence they did not apply for SHIS benefit for the exports made during the financial year 2011-1 2.

il SHIS benefit for the exports made during the year in which goods are imported under EPCG license. Hence they did not apply for SHIS benefit for the exports made during the financial year 2011-1 2. Thus due to lack of awareness, they even did not apply for 9115 against exports made during 2011-12 with late cut during the year 2013-14. 3, As per custom notification no. 102/2009 dated 18.09.2009, the EPCG exemption is subject to the condition that ° the importer does not avail in the year of import of goods. the benefit of Status Holder Incentive Scheme under para 3.16 of the FTP”. This wording was highly confusing due to which many exporters suffered and the authorities had to issue clarification subsequently 4. Thus their understanding of customs notification 102/2009 was correct before it was clarified. Various correspondences i.e. copy of letter of Indian Audit and Accounts Department dated 47.10.2014. ADGFT vide letter dated 21.01.2015 also explained that Mis Venus Industrial Corporation obtained SHIS and 0% EPCG correctly. Thus if issuing authorities were interpreting the poticy in such manner, so it was natural for exporters to do likewise. }

that Mis Venus Industrial Corporation obtained SHIS and 0% EPCG correctly. Thus if issuing authorities were interpreting the poticy in such manner, so it was natural for exporters to do likewise. }

Subsequently, DGFT vide PN No. 30/2015 -20 dt. 08.09.2016 clarified the anbiguity in the provision of Zero Duty EPCG & SHIS and allowed flexibility to choose one of the two schemes, as per provisions given in the said Public Notice. (Thus the above misinterpretation of policy was correct before it was clarified by DGFT in PN No. 30 dt. 08.09.2016). 5) Accordingly, within the provisions of DGFT PN No. 30 di. 08.09.2016, they returned full amount of SHIS Scrip along with applicable interest (Rs. 20,22,807 + Rs. 16,10,964) to the custom Authority taken by them during 2011-12 against exports made during 201-11. 7, Al present no SHIS benefits is granted to the firm (Neither SHIS of 2010-11 (which has been returned with interest) nor 2011-12 (which has not been claimed due to policy interpretation). 8. Thus they were deprived of both the benefits, Hence, they requested for condonation of delay in filing 9115 benefits, as all this happened owning to misinterpretation of policy. Decision: It was noted that it is a matter of fact that there was ambiguity in the wording of Para 3.16.1 of FTP which was rectified vide subsequent Public Notices. Vide PN 30 dated 08.09.2016, option to exporter was given to surrender elther SHIS or Zero duty EPCG Authorisation obtained during the same year.

P which was rectified vide subsequent Public Notices. Vide PN 30 dated 08.09.2016, option to exporter was given to surrender elther SHIS or Zero duty EPCG Authorisation obtained during the same year. The applicant has refunded duty with applicable interest against Duty Credit Scrip obtained during 2011-12 against exports made during 2010- 14. Before, surrendering the benefits, they offered RA to adjust duty Credit amount eligible for subsequent year that 2011-12. The committee, therefore, felt that it would be harsh to deny benefits for both the years. It was , therefore, decided to condone the delay in filing the application for SHIS for the year 2011-12. RA shall issue Duty Credit Scrip for the exports made during 2011-12 provided no EPCG Authorisation was issued during 2012-13, as per prevalent Policy. (Action: Applicant/RA, Ludhiana)

Case No.17; Ms. Nitta Gelatin Limited, Cochin

F. No, 01/60/162/624/AM18(PRC) Subject; Consideration of shipping bills filed under the DEPB - Cum- Drawback Scheme for DEPB post May 2010. The applicant sought personal hearing in terms of Para 2.59 of FTP, 2015-2020, which was afforded to them on 99.01.2018, Shri Sahasranaman.P Dy. General Manager (F&A) & CFO from M/s Nitta Gelatin Limited, Cochin appeared before the committee and made the following submissions stating inter alia that: 1. They exported Ossein from Cochin and Vishakhapatnam ports. On export of Ossein, they claimed benefit under Duty entitlement passbook scheme for the imported duty incident on crushed bones as only crushed bones is mentioned as input under Standard Input output Norms and for the excise duty and service tax incidence they claimed drawback at brand rates on Hydrochloric acid. 2. Shipping bills filed under DEPB cum Drawback scheme were transmitted by respective customs port to DGFT. On approval, the shipping bill was available on DGFT website for applying scrips under DEPB However, from June 2010 the shipping bills filed under DEPB cum Drawback Scheme were not reflected on the DGFT portal. Therefore, they were unable to apply for DEPB scraps. During the period may 2010 to July 2011, they were unable to claim DEPB benefit for 102 Shipping Bil.

eme were not reflected on the DGFT portal. Therefore, they were unable to apply for DEPB scraps. During the period may 2010 to July 2011, they were unable to claim DEPB benefit for 102 Shipping Bil.

w In this regard, they submitted a letter dated 29.08.2011 to the DGFT. Deputy Director General of FT vide letter dated 03.10.2011 stated that DEPB and Drawback cannot be allowed as it would amount to double benefit and not allowed as per para 4.3.5 of FTP. 4. Subsequently , they submitted letters dated 14.10.2011 and 1.11.2011 wherein they explained as to why their case would not be covered by para 4.3.5 ibid. Ld. Deputy D:rector General of FT vide letter dated 26.04.2012 replied to their request stating that they can claim benefit under DEPB on fulfillment of the following conditions a, Refund of the drawback availed on the impugned shipping Bills. b. For subsequent bills of entry, on an undertaking that drawback will not be claimed on additional inputs. 5. \tis in the above background that they are constrained to approach the Grievance Redressed Committee to consider their issue and render justice holding that claiming DEPB for the inputs included in the SION and Duty Drawback for the excise duty paid on the inputs not included in SION input is permitted. They also submit that claiming DEPB for the input included is SION and brand rate of drawback for the input nol included in the SION and obtained on payment of excise Duty in india, does not lead to any double benefit as incorrectly held in this case. 6.

ded is SION and brand rate of drawback for the input nol included in the SION and obtained on payment of excise Duty in india, does not lead to any double benefit as incorrectly held in this case. 6. It is submitted that the object of DEPB scheme is to neutralize tre deemed customs duty incidence on imported input included in the SION. The relevant para 4.3 of the FTP. ॥ is submitted that as per para 4.37 of Handbook of Procedures the rated of DEPB are calculated only on deemed customs duty on the inputs mentioned in SION 7, As DEPB rates would cover only the customs duty incidence and that too in respect of such inputs included in the SION. For the items not covers in SION for the export product, the excise duty and service tax on any indigenously procured inputs not so included in the SION and used in the manufacture of the exported goods would never be compensated by way of DEPB credit. 8. Therefore, Department of Revenue issued a circular no. 68/97 -Cus dated 02.12.1997 which allowed drawback under Rule 6(1) / 7(1) of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. 9. Hence, they have requested to hold that DEPB and Drawback at brand rate can be claimed simultaneously in this case and does not amount to double benefit and allow DEPB for pending Shipping Bills without refund of the drawback availed on these exports. ‘Decision: The case was discussed at length. It was noted that as per Para 4.3 of FTP, 2009-14, “Objective of DEPB is to neutralise incidence of customs duty on import content of export product.

rts. ‘Decision: The case was discussed at length. It was noted that as per Para 4.3 of FTP, 2009-14, “Objective of DEPB is to neutralise incidence of customs duty on import content of export product. Component of customs duty on fuel (appearing as consumable in the SION) shall also be factored in the DEPB rate. Component of Special Additional Duty shall also be allowed under DEPB (as brand rate) in case of non-availment of CENVAT credit. Neutralisation shall be provided by way of grant of duty credit against export product.” From the bare reading of these provisions, it is very clear that DEPB rate was fixed only for inputs appearing in SION. The applicant was eligible for fixation brand rate of duty drawback on duty paid inputs used in the resultant product provided no CENVATE credit was availed on it. Therefore, no policy relaxation is required in the case. The case was, therefore, remanded to policy-4 for reexamining and issuing necessary clarification. (Action: Policy-4) val

Case No.18: M/s. Veer-O-Metals Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

7 No, 01/60/162/641/AM18/(PRC} PRC Meeting No. 27/AM18 dated 09.01.2048

Subject: Accept the Bank realization Certificate in Appendix-22B for deemed exports in lieu of E-BRC for Advance

Authorization No, 0710107279 dated 24.12.2014 . Decision: It was noted that in this case deemed exports were made towards fulfilment of export obligation under the above mentioned Advance Authorisation and payments have been realised. However, the bank did not issue eBRCs. EODC is still issued manually under Advance Authorisation. The committee, therefore, decided to allow manual BRC on Appendix-22B provided export documents were negotiated through normal banking channel. (Action: Applicant/RA, Bangalore).

Case No.19: M/s. Shreeyam Power & Steel Industries Ltd., Gujarat

F. No. 01/60/162/443/AM18/(PRC)

Subject: Application towards the lapse done in Advance Authorization no. 3710000826 dt. 08.07.2008.

Decision: it was noted that the applicant did not export the goods under Advance Authorisation scheme. They have failed to indicate Authorisation number /File number on shipping bills while affecting exports, which is mandatory condition under Para 4.12 of FTP, 2009-2014. Authorisation is issued to allow import of inputs without payment of applicable duties. Therefore, accounting of duty free inputs is mandatory requirement. Therefore, only shipping bills which are having consumption of inputs details and Authorisation number on it are accepted towards discharge of export obligation. There is no requirement of indicating consumption of inputs details, in case exports are made towards discharge of obligation under EPCG Authorisation. Therefore, shipments made only indication EPCG Authorisation details but without declaring consumption of duty free inputs imported under Advance Authorisation, such shipping bili cannot be taken into account towards discharge of export obligation of Advance Authorisation. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request, as no case of genuine hardship, The applicant is hereby directed to get the case regularised under Para 4.49 of HBP, 2015-20. (Action: Applicant/RA, Ahmedabad)

Case No.20: M/s. Hiya Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Anmadabad

7. No. 01/60/162/149/AM18/PRC PRC Meeting No. 27/AM18 dated 09.04.2018

Subject: Request for EOP extension of Authorization no: 0840132893 dated 05.08.2014.

Decision: It was noted that PRC in its meeting No.13/AM18 dated 17.8.2017 has already considered the request of the applicant and allowed EO extension upto 36 months. In terms of Para 4.43 of HBP, 2015-2020, exporter can make exports on provisional basis against an acknowledgement issued by DGFT/RA against request for extension of export obligation period. Therefore, the applicant should not have awaited for the decision of the committee. As per HBP, no extension beyond 30 months is allowed. However, on the basis of genuine hardship, the committee

has already considered request upto 36 months. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request for further extension. The applicant is hereby directed to get the case regularised in terms of Para 4.49 of HBP, 2015-2020 within a month from the date of uploading of these minutes. Failing which, RA shail initiate action under the provisions of FT(DR)Act, 1992, as amended. (Action: applicantiRA, Ahmedabad)

Case No.21: M/s. Lupin Ltd., Mumbai

F. No. 04/60/162/1129/AM17/PRC

Subject: Waiver of PC-18 condition of Advance Authorization no. 0310786305 dt. 02.07.2014

Decision: ॥ was noted that the Authorisation under consideration was issued for import of drugs from unregistered sources. Import of drug from unregistered sources is not allowed as per Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1940. However, under Advance Authorisation, such drugs are allowed to be imported with Actual user condition for execution of export order provided imported drugs are consumed in the resultant products and same resultant products are exported within 12 months from import of each import consignment, as per Appendix-30A/4J. Diversion of such imported raw materials or resultant products manufactured out it, in the domestic area (DTA), is not allowed at all Therefore, even payment of duty and interest on unutilised imported raw materials would not suffice the purpose because such drugs are not allowed to be imported on payment of duty. The unutilised quantity in this case is 43.928Kgs, which is too high. The committee, therefore did not accede to the request. RA is hereby directed to adjudicate the case under the provisions of FT(DR)Act, 1992, as amended, under intimation to Drug Controller of India for necessary action under their Act. (Action: Applicant/RA, Mumbai)

Case No.22: M/s. Prime Industries Itd., New Delhi

F_ No, 01/60/162/23/AM18/PRC

Subject: Redemption of Authorization no: 0510391771 dated 18.10.2014.

Decision: “it was noted that in terms of Para 4.02(i) HBP, Application for grant of Advance Authorisation / Special Advance Authorization for export of Articles of Apparel and Clothing Accessories / Advance Authorisation for Annual Requirement / Duty Free Import Authorisation {DFIA) shall be filed online (digitally signed) by IEC holder to the concerned jurisdictional Regional Authority as per Appendix 1A. Applicant could be either Registered office or Head office or a branch office or a manufacturing unit of the IEC holder’. Therefore, application can be submitted by registered office/nead office or branch office to RA concerned. The applicant has registered office in Mumbai, branch office in New Delhi, Haridwar and other parts of India. Therefore, he can file application to any RA concerned. In the instant case, application was submitted to RA, CLA since they have a branch office in Delhi. The RA has issued Authorisation without raising any query at that point of time. However, when documents were submitted for EODC, issue of jurisdiction was raised by the RA.

branch office in Delhi. The RA has issued Authorisation without raising any query at that point of time. However, when documents were submitted for EODC, issue of jurisdiction was raised by the RA.

The committee was astonished to read the comments of RA and ground of rejection and viewed it very seriously. As per OM instructions issued time to time, it was directed to RA that no second deficiency letter shall be issued without the approval of Head of the office. Therefore, DG took it very seriously the deficiency letter issued by RA and more importantly comments were also furnished to PRC justifying the mistake instead of rectifying it. The committee. therefore, directed that EODC shall be issued immediately if the case is otherwise in order, as per policy and procedures. Committee also felt that the action of RA raising jurisdictional issue at the time of EODC that 100 without valid justification is not correct. This lead fo unnecessary harassment to exporter. Therefore committee decided to forward the case to vigilance division of this office (HQs) to initiate action against officials concerned for harassing exporters without valid justification. (Action: RA, CLA/ Vigilance division of HQs)

Case No.23: M/s. Prime Industries Itd., New Delhi

• 1१०. 01/60/162/24/AM18/PRC

Subject: Redemption of Authorization no: 05103993895 dated 23.04.2015.

Decision: Decision as per case No 22 is reiterated.

Case No.24: M/s. Malwa Industrial Ltd., Ludhiana

F. No. 01/60/162/592/AM18/PRC

Subject: Request for waiver of late cut as per Chapter -3 of FTP (2009) Para 9.3 of HBP (2009-14)

Decision: It was noted that application of MLFPS under FTP, 2009-2014 could be filed within 12 months from the date of export or six months from the date of realisation of payments or three months from the date of printing of EP copy of Shipping Bill. Application can also be made within next two years with 10% late cut in terms of Para 9.3 of HBP. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request as no cogent reason of genuine hardship given. (Action: Applicant)

Case No.25; M/s. Sarusilver Allowys Pvt. Ltd., Meerut (CLA)

F. No. 01/60/162/629/AM18/PRC PRC Meeting No. 27/AM18 dated 09.01.2048

Subject: Seeking relaxation from not mentioning technical characteristics of input in following Advance

Authorisations: 0510391262 dt. 22.09.2014 0510391261 dt. 22.09.2014 is 4 is 0510389762 dt. 17.07.2014 = ey -ON> 0510392025 dt. 17.11.2014

Decision: 1 was noted that above mentioned Authorisations were obtained to import Silver Bullion (minimum purity 99.09% and above) and to export Silver Brazing alloy in the form of strip/ wire! powder! foil! blanks/ discs/ profiie etc. containing silver 2% to 99.09%. However, in the shipping bills, purity of silver(inputs) used in the resultant products is not indicated. Therefore, entitlement of inputs cannot be calculated. The applicant was fully aware with these facts that indication of purity and technical characteristics is compulsory. Waiver of such mandatory requirement is not permitted. No cogent reason of genuine hardship given and no supporting documents like test report is submitted. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request. The applicant is hereby directed to get the case regularised as bonafied default in terms of Para 4.49 of HBP. (Action: applicant/RA, CLA)

Case No.26: M/s. AVA Apparels LLP, Delhi

F. No. 01/60/162/909/PRC/AM 17

Subject: Condonation of non-mentioning of Declaration of Intent “on 8 shipping bills.

Decision: 1 was noted that export under S/b No 1380032 dt. 14.06.2015, 2773074 dt. 02.09.2015, 4576367 dt. 08.12.2015, 4505343 dt. 15.12.2015, 5464075 dt. 25.01.2016, 5464381 dt. 25.01.2016, 5754057 dt. 09.02.2016, 6174604 dt, 01.03.2016 were affected either without opting option “Y” or without proper description, which is eligible for MEIS. Policy relaxation for such type of wilful mistake is not allowed. No case of genuine hardship is establised. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request. (Action: Applicant)

Case No.27: M/s. Sandoz Private Ltd., Mumbai

F, No. 01/60/162/690/PRC/AM18 Subject; Exemption from non-compliance of stipulated procedure, covered under Para 4.12 (iv) of FTP 2015-2020 against Advance Authorization no, 0310732470 dt. 24.04.2013. Decision: It was noted that inputs under this Authorisation were not allowed with per/kg contents in the resultant product and export item was Clopidogrel hydrochioride-bulk drug. The committee, therefore, decided the following: i. Shipping bills be accepted towards discharge of EO provided the Authorisation No/File No was indicated on it; ij. SION for the resultant products, so exported, is available; iii, Entitlement of inputs will be calculated on net quantity exported. iv. Shortfall, if any, shall be regularised in terms of Para 4.49 of HBP, 2015-2020. (Action: Applicant/RA, Mumbai) ~~,

Case No.28: M/s. Finolex Cables Limited, Pune

F. No. 01/60/162/406/PRC/AM18

Subject: Request for second Revalidation of Advance Authorization no. 3110065886 dt. 25.01.2016.

Decision: The committee, did not accede to the request. as no cogent reason of genuine hardship is given for not importing within 18 months. (Action: Applicant)

Case No.29: Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Mumbai

F. No. 01/60/162/338/PRC/AM18

Subject: Exemption from non-compliancy of stipulated procedure for obtaining SEIS from RA for services rendered

from SEZ and DTA. Decision: It was noted that issue related to Policy clarification and not policy relaxation. Therefore, it was decided to remand the case to Policy-3 for examination and suitable clarification. (Action: Policy-3)

Case No.30: M/s. Bafna Jewel Arts, Belgaum (Bangalore)

F. No, 01/60/162/632/PRC/AM18

Subject: Seeking policy / Procedure Relaxation in terms of Para 2.58 of FTP for fixation of notional rate in terms of

Para 4.82(c) of FTP.

Decision: |t was noted that issue presented was not clear to as to_kind of reliefs sought by the applicant.It was therefore, decided, to allow personal hearing to the applicant. The applicant may seek personal hearing on submitting proof of balance fee of Rs. 3000/- paid to RA. (Action: Applicant)

Case No.31: M/s. Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd., Mumbai

5, No. 01/60/162/626/PRC/AM18

Subject: Request to condone the procedural laps of non-generating of bill of exports against supplies made to M/s.

Meghamani Organics Ltd.(SEZ unit) Under Advance Authorization no. 0310795392 dt. 17.04.2015. Decision: The case was discussed at length. It was noted that Advance Authorisation is issued to allow duty free import of inputs with certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the exporter shall account for duty free inputs and submit documents within 2 months from the expiry of export obligation. Application for redemption of Advance Authorisation is required to be submitted on ANF-4F. In the ANF-4F under Para (a) (it) of guidelines for application (HBP, 2009-2014 Vol-l}, it is mentioned categorically that exporter shall submit ‘Bill of Export’ along with other ie iia)

prescribed documents. And, in terms of Para 4.12 of FTP, exporter is required to indicate consumption of inputs in the export documents. Further, for getting incentive on supply of goods to SEZ, “Bill of Export" is a prescribed document under Rule 30 of SEZ, Rule, 2006. in view of these provisions, it becomes imperative that Export obligation against an Advance Authorisation cannot be discharged without establishing nexus of duty free imported inputs [ or procured indigenously against advance authorization] and resultant product supplied to the SEZ Unit. Since ARE-1 does not have such information, the committee was of the view that requirement of ‘Bill of Export cannot be dispensed with.

authorization] and resultant product supplied to the SEZ Unit. Since ARE-1 does not have such information, the committee was of the view that requirement of ‘Bill of Export cannot be dispensed with. Further, no valuation of ARE-1 is being carried out by the Customs/Excise Authority at receiving end; such supplies are considered free shipment meaning thereby that the exporter/supplier do not intend to take any benefit against the supply made. The Committee, therefore, did not accede to the request and directed the applicant to get the case regularised as per the provisions in Para 4.49 of HBP, 2009-2014. (Action: Applicant! RA, Mumbai: in case the applicant fails to get the case regularised within a month from the date of uploading of this decision on the Directorate website, the RA shail initiate action as per the provisions of F.T. (DR) Act, 1992, as amended)

Case No.31: M/s. Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd., Mumbai

FE, No. 01/60/162/625/PRC/AM18 PRC Meeting No. 2TIAM18 dated 09.01.2018

Subject: Request to condone the procedural laps of non-generating bill of exports against supplies made to M/s.

Meghamani Organics Limited (SEZ Unit) under Advance Authorization no. 0310793454 dt. 30.01.2015 Decision: Decision at case No 30 is reiterated.

Case No.33: M/s. Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd., Mumbai

F. No. 01/60/162/627/PRC/AM18 PRC Meeting No. 27/AM18 dated 09.01 2018

Subject: Request to condone the procedural laps of non-generating bill of exports against supplies made to M/s.

Meghamani Organics Limited (SEZ Unit} under Advance Authorization no. 0310792666 dt. 08.01.2015 Decision: Decision at case No 30 is reiterated.

Case No.34: M/s. Naik Oceanic Exports, Mumbai

न. No. 01/60/162/622/PRC/AM18

Subject: Request to condone the delay of submission of application for the claim of VKGUY under file no

03/87/087/80083/AM 18 Decision: ॥ was noted that exports were made during July to September, 2014 and payments against the shipments were realised during August to December, 2014. However, eBRC was uploaded 0५ HDFC Bank during August to October, 2017. However, in terms of Para 3.7.1 of HBP, 2009-2044, application for Duty Credit Serip

under VAGUY scheme can be filed in ANF-3C along with documents prescribed therein. And, under ANF-3C, prescribed documents were EP copy of Shipping Bil! and BRC and not eBRC. Online submission of application was introduced after introduction of eBRC in August, 2012 . Though, application was submitted online but exporter had to feed details of shipping bill manually because there was no system of transmitting Shipping Bill online under VKUGY scheme. Exporter was required to feed shipping bill details and attach eBRC from DGFT repository in the application for VAGUY, In terms of Para 3.11.9 of HBP, application could be filed within 12 months from the date of export or six months from the date of realisation of payments or three montns from printing of EP copy of shipping Bill, However, application could also be 1180 within 36 months with 10% late cut in terms of Para 9.3 of HBP, 2009- 9014. Without eBRC, the applicant was not in position to submit application. The committee, therefore, decided to condone the delay in filing application under VKGUY scheme.

of Para 9.3 of HBP, 2009- 9014. Without eBRC, the applicant was not in position to submit application. The committee, therefore, decided to condone the delay in filing application under VKGUY scheme. However, RA shall verify the date of updation of eBRC and also check and ensure that benefits has not already been obtained by submitting BRC against the same shipping bills by the applicant. (Action: Applicant/RA, Mumbai)

Case No.35: Mis. Admiral shipping Ltd., Mumbai

F. No, 01/60/162/237/PRC/AM18

Subject: Request for relaxation in policy provision for not having 150 and valid RCMC.

Decision: It was noted that in terms of section 7 of FT(DR)Act, 1992, as amended by Act of 2010, “No person shall make any import or export except under an Importer-exporter Code Number granted by the Director General or the officer authorised by the Director General in this behalf, in accordance with the procedure specified in this behalf by the Director General. Provided that in case of import or export of services or technology, the Importer-exporter Code Number shall be necessary only when the service or technology provider is taking benefits under the foreign trade policy or is dealing with specified services or specified technologies”.

Para 3.08(f) of FTP, 2015-2020 categorically provides, “/n order to claim reward under the

scheme, Service provider shall have to have an active IEC at the time of rendering such services for which rewards are claimed.” In view of above provisions the committee was of the view that no IEC is required where services are exported with intent of not to claim any incentive on earning of foreign exchange against the services rendered. However, IEC is mandatory before exporting/rendering services where exporter intends to claim benefits under FTP. Therefore, dispensation from such condition cannot be allowed. The applicant has not given any reason of genuine hardship due to which they could not obtained Importer Exporter Code (IEC) before rendering services. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request. (Action: Applicant) }

Case No.36: Mis. Economic Traders (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot

£. No, 01/60/162/642/PRC/AM18 PRC Meeting No. 27/AM18 dated 09.01 2018

Subject: Request for revalidation of DEPB license no. 2410029109 dt. 22.07.2040 which was allegedly not verified

py Mundra Port Customs due to technical error 028 97. Decision: it was stated by applicant that above mentioned DEPB was not accepted by Customs server and was rejected with error code 97 which stands for “Product code group mismatch”. Committee felt that the DEPB was issued in the year 2010 and committee not willing to go through the request for relaxation after a gap of seven years. The committee, therefore, did not accede to the request. (Action: Applicant)

Case No.37: Mis. Alpha Foam Ltd., Pune

F_ No, 01/60/162/565/PRC/AM18 PRC Meeting No. 27/AM18 dated 09.01 2018

Subject: Request to condone the procedural laps of not generating bill of export for supplies made to SEZ unit

against Advance Authorization no. 3110044042 dt. 21.07.2010. Decision: The case was discussed at length. It was noted that Advance Authorisation is issued to allow duty free import of inputs with certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the exporter shall account for duty free inputs and submit documents within 2 months from the expiry of export obligation. Application for redemption of Advance Authorisation is required to be submitted on ANE-4F. In the ANF-4F under Para (a) (ii) of guidelines for application (HBP, 2009-2014 Vol-l), it Is mentioned categorically that exporter shall submit ‘Bill of Export’ along with other prescribed documents. And, in terms of Para 4.12 of FTP, exporter is required to indicate consumption of inputs in the export documents. Further, for getting incentive on supply of goods to SEZ, “Bill of Export’ is a prescribed document under Rule 30 of SEZ, Rule, 2006. In view of these provisions, it becomes imperative that Export obligation against an Advance Authorisation cannot be discharged without establishing nexus of duty free imported inputs [ or procured indigenously against advance authorization] and resultant product supplied to the SEZ Unit. Since ARE-1 does not have such information, the committee was of the view that requirement of ‘Bill of Export’ cannot be dispensed with.

authorization] and resultant product supplied to the SEZ Unit. Since ARE-1 does not have such information, the committee was of the view that requirement of ‘Bill of Export’ cannot be dispensed with. Further, no valuation of ARE-1 is being carried out by the Customs/Excise Authority af receiving end; such supplies are considered free shipment meaning thereby that the exporter/supplier do not intend to take any benefit against the supply made. The Committee, therefore, did not accede to the request and directed the applicant to get the case regularised as per the provisions in Para 4.49 of HBP, 2009-2014. (Action: Applicant! RA, Pune: in case the applicant fails to get the case regularised within a month from the date of uploading of this decision on the Directorate website, the RA shall initiate action as per the provisions of F.T (DR) Act, 1992, as amended) Se ० “

Case No.38: M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., Mumbai

F. No. 01/60/162/595/PRC/AM18 Subject: Request for Relaxation of 10 % late cut amounting to Rs. 123,038 applied in DEPB / MLFPS 3 Nos application for no fault to Tata Motors Ltd., but due to missing provision of ZAR Currency in Customs Server. Decision: It was felt that no policy relaxation is required in the case. The case was therefore, remanded to Policy-3 for examination and issue of suitable clarification. (Action: Policy-3)

Case No.39: M/s. Pahwa Manufactures, Sitapur (UP) (Kanpur)

F. No. 01/60/462/623/PRC/AM18

Subject: Request for Revalidation of Import license no. 0650000312 dt. 07.08.2015

Decision: |t was decided to allow revalidation of above mentioned Import Licence for further six months from the date of endorsement. The applicant is hereby directed to submit the licence to RA concerned, within a month from the date of uploading of these minutes, for necessary endorsement. (Action: Applicant/RA, Kanpur)

Case No.40: M/s. Laguna Clothing Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

F. No. 01/60/162/598/PRC/AM18 PRC Meeting No, 27/AM18 dated 09.01.2018

Subject: Request for Condonation of declaration of intent on shipping bill, in terms 2.58 of FTP.

Decision: No cogent reason of genuine hardship was given by the applicant due to which circumstances they could not select option “Y" in the shipping bills. Such shipping bill is not transmitted to DGFT repository by ICEGATE, Hence, question of issue of scrip against such shipping bill does not arise. The request was, therefore, rejected. (Action: Applicant)

Case No.41: Mis. Titan Company Limited. (Bangalore)

F. No, 01/60/162/636/PRC/AM18

Subject: Request for Revalidation of Restricted import license no. 750000919 dated 03.12.2015 for import of Gold

Dore. Decision: ॥ was decided to remand the case to Policy-2 for examination. 4 (Action: Policy-2) ” 6

Case No.42: M/s. Lyka BDR International Ltd., Mumbai

F. No, 01/60/162/190/PRC/AM 16

Subject: Waiver of destruction certificate as per PC-18 against Advance Authorization no. 0310739893 dt.

02.07.2013. Decision: It was noted that the Authorisation under consideration was issued for import of drugs from unregistered sources. Import of drug from unregistered sources is not allowed as per Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1940. However, under Advance Authorisation, such drugs are allowed to be imported with Actual user condition for execution of export order provided imported drugs are consumed in the resultant products and same resultant products are exported within 12 months from import of each import consignment, as per Appendix-30A/4J. Diversion of such imported raw materials or resultant products manufactured out it, in the domestic area (DTA), is not allowed at alll. Therefore, even payment of duty and interest on unutilised imported raw materials would not suffice the purpose because such drugs are not allowed to be imported on payment of duty. The unutilised quantity in this case is 100% for item No 6 and 17% for item No 1 and 3% for item No 4. The committee, therefore did not accede to the request. RA is hereby directed to adjudicate the case under the provisions of FT(DR}Act, 1992, as amended, under intimation to Drug Controller of India for necessary action under their Act. (Action: Applicant/RA, Mumbai)

Case No.43: M/s. AYM Syntex Ltd., Mumbai

F, No, 01/60/162/623/PRC/AM18

Subject: Request for waiver of e-BRC requirement against advance License no. 0310655033 dt. 21.09.2011 for

redemption. Decision: It was noted that e8RC was introduced in August, 2012 and this Authorisation was issued prior to that date. Secondly, exports were completed by October, 2012. EODC is issued still manually. The committee, therefore, decided to allow EODC against manual BRC on Appendix-22A. (Action: RA, Mumbai)

Case No.44: Maharashtra Solvent Extraction (P) Ltd. Dhule (Mumbai)

7. No, 01/60/162/623/PRC/AM 18

Subject: Request for relaxation as per para 2.58 of FTP of FTP for FPS benefit after uploading of e-BRC by the

bank. Decision: It was noted that exports were made during April, 2012 and payments against the shipments were realised by 2013. However, eBRC was not uploaded by HDFC Bank. However, in terms of Para 3.9.1 of HBP, 2009-2014, application for Duty Credit Scrip under FPS scheme can be filed in ANF-3C along with documents prescribed therein. And, under ANF-3C, prescribed documents were EP copy of Shipping Bill and BRC and not eBRC. Online submission of application was introduced after introduction of eBRC in August, 2012 . Though, 7

application was submitted online but exporter had to feed details of shipping bill manually because there was no system of transmitting Shipping Bill online under FPS scheme, Exporter was required to feed details of shipping bill and attach eBRC from DGFT repository in the application for FPS. in terms of Para 3.11.9 of HBP, application could be filed within 12 months from the date of export or six months from the date of realisation of payments or three months from printing of EP copy of shipping Bill. However, application could also be filed within 36 months with 10% late cut in terms of Para 9.3 of HBP, 2009-2014. Without ४७२९, the applicant was not in position to submit application. And, cBRC were uploaded by the Bank in July, 2017. The committee, therefore, decided to condone the delay in filing application under FPS scheme.

applicant was not in position to submit application. And, cBRC were uploaded by the Bank in July, 2017. The committee, therefore, decided to condone the delay in filing application under FPS scheme. However, RA shall check and ensure that benefits has not already been obtained by submitting BRC against the same shipping bilis by the applicant. (Action: Applicant/RA, Mumbai)

Case No.45: M/s. Renault Nissan Technology & Business Centre india F'vt, Itd., Chennai

F. No. 04/89/180/29/AM-09/PC-2(A}/oart-I!l

Subject: Request for relaxation of Para -1 (ii) [0] [i] fil] fill] of Chapter 8 7 of ITC {HS}, 2017, Schedule-! (import

Policy) for import of used left hand drive car for trail, testing and programming. Decision: The committee agreed to grant ex-post facto approval to allow import of car for R&E purpose subject to the condition that same would not ply on public road except mobilisation and demobilisation and the same would be re-exported back after three years from the date of import (Action: Policy-2) aa ८ The meeting ended with a vote thanks to the Chair. Seo oe