Directorate General of Foreign Trade (PRC Section) Minutes of the Policy Relaxation Committee Meeting held under the Chairmanship of Shri Alok Vardhan Chaturvedi, Director General of Foreign Trade on 03.01.2019 Meeting No.26/AM19 held on 03.01.2019 at 10:30 AM The following members were Present in the meeting: 1. Shri K. C. Rout Addl. DGFT 2. Shri R. P. Goyal Addl. DGFT 3. Shri Vijay Kumar Addl. DGFT 4. Shri Satyan Sharda Addl. DGFT 5. Shri N K Srivastava Addl. DGFT 6. Shri Anil Aggarwal Addl. DGFT 7. Shri Rajbir Sharma Jt. DGFT are as under:-

Case No.01:

Mis Balakrishna Industries Limited, Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/425/AM19/PRC PRC Meeting No. 26/AM19 dated 03.01.2019 Subject: Relaxation in para 3.01(g) of HBP 2015-20 to allow manual feeding in order to claim MEIS reward against shipping bill pertaining to December 2016 (of which LET exports dates are falling January, 2017). Decision: The Committee discussed the matter at length and decided to refer the issue to Policy-3 Division to sort out the matter in consultation with 80] (Action: PC-3 Division)

Case No.02:

M/s Balakrishna Industries Limited, Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/424/AM19/PRC Subject: Relaxation in accepting manual application for MEIS against ED} Shipping bill (5 Nos. of shipping Bills (i) 1919484 dated 21.07.2015, (ii) 2151034 dated 31.07.2018, (tii) 3294431 dated 30.09.2015, (५) 7505579 dated 06.05.2016 and (v) 9121690 dated 28.07.2046). Decision: The Committee discussed the matter at length and decided to refer the issue to Policy-3 Division to examine and sort out the matter in consultation with ED]. (Action: PC-3 Division)

Case No.03:

M/s Shashi Cables Limited, Kolkata F. No, 01/60/162/613/AM19/PRC Subject: Revalidation of DFIA No.0610038629 dated 26.05.2017 for a period 6 months from the date of endorsement. country and they cannot be declared as defaulter. They have completed 100% exports and revalidation for import for 6 months is required. recently issued Public notice 63/2015-2020 dated 27.12.2018. (Action: Applicant/RA)

Case No.04:

M/s RMG Polyvinyl India Ltd., New Dethi F. No. 01/60/162/78/AM19/PRC Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No.0510293595 dated 16.06.2011. get a suitable offer for balance 4 materiats which also include PVC flooring / sheet scrap / off cuts which are not available on a regular basis. Since their export has already been completed and all payments duly received, delayed information of revalidation by the CLA has caused shorter revalidation period.

condition that the firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. kata

Case No.05:

M/s Apex Exports, Kol F. No. .01/60/162/385/AM17/PRC ० Subject: Revalidation against DFIA No,0210094428 dated 16.10.2006, The R.A. reduced the quantity of the imported fabric without referring the matter to them. But, subsequently the reduced period was restored by the R.A though it did not restore the reduced quantity even after suitable clarification in the matter by DGFT HQ. Due to the above reason, as the original quantity was not restored by RA, they could not utilize the authorization within the extended validity period, Decision: The Committee having discussed the case, found no merit in it and hence decided to reject the request of the firm, (Action: Applicant)

Case No.06:

Mis Dee Development Engineers Limited, Haryana F. No, 01/60/162/519/AM19/PRC Subject: To waive off the composition fee for extension in 6.0. Period against advance authorization No.0510402870 dated 23.05.2017, Firm's request is to waive off the composition fee for extension in £.0. period against advance authorization No.0510402670 dated 23.05.2017. Decision: The Committee after examining the case decided to reject the case as the Same was found to be without any merit, (Action: Applicant)

Case No.07:

Mis Poddar Pigments Ltd., Jaipur F. No, 01/60/162/830/AM16/PRC Subject: Revalidation of Advance Authorization No. 1310044952 dated 29.10.2013 or issue of new authorization in lieu thereof. They have been facing a Prolonged problem of technical error Authorization No 1310044952 dated 29.10.2013 issued by DGFT. The Said error is Continuing since last more than 4 years due to which they are unable to use the given license. Authorization has been revalidated thrice by DGFT, but stilt firm has not been able to use the authorization because of the system error. in Advance

Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and noted that the circumstances stated by the firm above were beyond the control of the firm and therefore decided to issue a fresh Advance Authorization in tieu of Advance Authorization No. 1310044952 dated 2 10.2013 without imposing any fresh export obligation (EO already fulfilled against authorization dated 29.10.2013 would be counted towards EO to be fulfilled against fresh authorization). Fresh authorization will have validity of 6 months from the date of its issue. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: ApplicantRA)

Case No.08:

M/s Best Value Chem Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara F. No. 01/60/162/617/AM19/PRC Subject: To accept the export made to SEZ unit for discharge of E.0. of the 7 Advance Authorizations Nos. (i) 3410041662 dated 05.11.2015 (ii) 3410042152 dated 10.05.2016 (ili) 3410042966 dated 27.02.2017 (iv) 3410042258 dated 10.06.2016 (५) 3410042595 dated 17.10.2016 (vi) 3410042596 dated 17.10.2016 and (vii) 3410043035 dated 17.03.2017 without certificates from the Bankers of SEZ unit stating that Payment have been realized from their Foreign Currency. RA has raised the deficiency with regard to Para 4.21 (ii) ‘of FTP 2045-20 which supplies received by SEZ fulfillment of export obligation against the Advance Authorization of the DTA Suppliers as per Rule 30(8) of SEZ. Bills of Export & e- BRCs are available in Foreign Currency (USD), the exports to SEZ Unit should be taken into account for discharge for export obligation of the AA holder without insisting for the said Bank Certificate. Decision: The Committee having examined the case found that it is not a case of policy relaxation and therefore rejected the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant)

Case No.09:

Mis Global Gourmet Pvt, Ltd., Vadodara F. No. 01/60/162/604/AM19/PRC PRC Meeting No, 26/AM19 dated 03.01.2019 Unc

Subject: Consider their exports as per authorization as ata aed ans izati 11.10. was fixed afte Authorization No. 3410031853 dated | d aft camplotee ae exports and Norms Committee had advised to add suffix with import and export item name. Firm explained that Norms have been fixed by NC with addition of suffix for both export and import item as “made of wheat flour not containing cocoa”. However, their exports were completed much before the ratification of norms and therefore, they could not add the suffix in the shipping bills and therefore RA has rejected their closure request. Subject: EO extension for further period of 90 days against 03 advance authorizations (i) No.3210051346 dated 09.12.2011, (ii) No.3210051882 dated 30.12.2011 and (iii) No.3210049129 dated 29.07.2044 without bank guarantee clause which was imposed by the decision of PRC Meeting NO.01/AM18 dated 11.04.2017, Firm expressed that they were not able to furnish the Bank Gaurantee (BG), as required by the decision of PRC, as the duty saved amount along with interest amounts to huge value. However, they are trying hard with the bank, but banks were insisting on 100% margin money and company is not in a position to provide due to to liquidity crisis because of demonetization and tight money market. equivalent to amount of duty saved only. The firm shail approach RA within 30

Case No.13:

M/s Fermenta Biotech Ltd., Thane F. No. 01/60/162/171/AM19/PRC PRC Meeting No. 28/AM19 dated 03.01.2049 Deen

Subject: Extension of validity of MEIS Script No.3719000687 dated 03.06.2016 and No.3719000789 dated 02.07.2016. issuing authority viz, Kandla SEZ (KASEZ), who also informed that there is no provision in the system for extending validity of the script. Hence, they had obtained manual extension from KASEZ. In the whole process, the scripts €xpired and could not be utilized completely. Decision: The Committee went through the justification furnished by the firm and observed that PN no. 33 was very clear and therefore found no merit in the case and hence decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant)

Case No.14:

Mis Wintac Limited, Bengaluru F. No. 01/60/162/629/AM19/PRC business along with all its as Therefore, the Company seeks to transfer the Captioned Advance Authorizations to

Case No.15:

M/s SAS international, Chennai F. No. 01/60/162/427/AM19/PRC PRC Meeting No. 26/AM19 dated 93.01.2019 Subject: Ciubbing of 4 Advance Authorizations Nos. (i) 0510390018 dated 30.07.2014 (2) 0510392102 dated 21.11.2014, (3) 0510393955 dated 24.04.2015 and (4) 0510395575 dated 10.09.2015. 6 Gaya

They have approached the Central Licensing Authority, New Delhi for the clubbing of the above 4 Advance Authorization for Annual Requirements. The Regional Authority, New Delhi has denied their application for fulfillment of export obligations as it is found deficient on technicalities relating to imports and exports of silk and fine animal hair. Being fully involved in designing, marketing and quality control quality control aspect of the business, firm mentioned that they were unable to comprehend that the Government of India did not permit the duty free import of silk and fine without availing the benefit of duty-free inputs amounting to Rs 10,406, 155/- which has already caused them serious operational losses. Because of the disruption of policy and the customs department not agreeing to endorse the exports made of articles wholly consisting of silk and blends of silk, they had to export them without any export benefits under free shipping bills. Decision: The Committee having examined the statement made by the firm found no merit in their case and decided to reject it. .

Case No.16:

‘M/s Ganga Bag Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi F. No. 01/60/162/632/AM19/PRC

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 04 shipping bill Nos. (1) 8172748 dated

09.06.2016 (2) 8692921 dated 06.07.2016 (3) 9154458 dated 29.07.2016 and (4) 2004014 dated 02.11.2016. export shipment due to system error in Customs so they were unable to claim the MEIS Benefit online. When they proceed to attach third party BRC, it says “No Third Party Data Available’. Customs have corroborated the Statements of the firm in writing. Decision: Committee went through the request in detail and after deliberations decided to refer the matter to ED! to update the detail in shipping bills on the basis of amendment letter issued by Customs. (Action: ED!)

Case No.17:

M/s Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/633/AM19/PRC (Depo

Subject: Change in duty credit entitlement under MEIS due to wrong finalization of Foreign Currency of export in US$ instead of EURO at the time of final assessment of shipping bill. They have exported benzene vide shipping bill no, 7330839 dated 13.07.2017 in “EURO” currency on provisional basis as Quantity and pricing were not final at the time of export but when they approached customs authority for finalization of shipping bill, Customs authority due to oversight finalized the shipping bill with wrong foreign currency “USD” instead of EURO. When they approached Sikka Customs for correction of the same, Customs authority issued certificate of amendment manually stating that amendment in EDI system is not possible one EGM is filed. Due to this Decision: The Committee having examined the Statement made by the firm found no case of genuine hardship in their case and accordingly decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant)

Case No.18:

M/s Centurion Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara F. No. 01/60/162/637/AM19/PRC Subject: Extension in E.O. period against Advance Authorization No.3410040759.dated 04.12.2044 issued under PC 9 condition. Above mention Authorization was obtained under PC 9 with prior import condition. Due to cancellation of in hand order they are unable to fulfill their export obligation in time, but fortunately they have got another order and completed their whole of the export obligation in July 2016. As per PC 9, they had to complete it by 14.01.2016, but in fact it was completed by 22.07.2016 (delay of around 6 months). composition Fee @0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB Value in case export are effected more than 50% within the initial EOP and @1% per month if the export within the initial EOP are less than 50%, (Action: Applicant/RA)}

Case No.19:

Mis Bosch Limited, Bangalore F. No. 01/60/162/634/AM19/PRC Subject: Import of used machineries and used Spares under EPCG Scheme. ४ (0०.०५

Firm has mentioned that they have a requirement to upgrade the technology i.e. to manufacture new fuel injection systems at their various units to meet the stringent emission & safety norms 85५ & BSVI to be rolled out by .2020 involving huge investment on Capital goods. The proposed second hand machines are being imported from their parent company which has the residual life of 8-10 years. The products manufactured out of used machineries has huge export potential and are well proven and approved by OEMs abroad and are capable to meet BS6 emission norms. These machines are customs built and not readily available off the shelf. Lead time to produce these machines in India will be considerably long. Decision: The Committee went through the justification furnished by the firm and found no merit in the case and hence decided to reject it. (Action: Applicant)

Case No.20:

M/s Mezhukatti! Mills, Kochi £. ४०. 01/60/162/638/AM19/PRC Subject: Extension in ६.0. period against advance authorization No.1010059950 dated 25.05.2018 issued under pre-import condition. The above Advance Authorization js used with pre-import condition and the EO is to be fulfilled within 90 days from the date of clearance of each import consignment, Their export orders are normally long term contract with international buyers. But unfortunately with the new EO period of 90 days (PN 57/25.1.18),it has become practically impossible for them to buy raw material competitively. In their case jn order to avoid the foss due to the price fluctuation of their raw material (Copra) in the extension. Decision: The Committee went through the statements made by the firm in its application and after detailed deliberations decided to accede to the request of the firm by granting extension of EO for a maximum period of 6 months from the date of endorsement subject to payment of composition Fee @0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB,

Case No.21:

Mis Upper India Smelting and Refinery Works, Yamuna Nagar F.No. 01/60/41 62/195/AM19/PRC न हु Subject: Exemption from non compliance of Stipulated procedure — relaxation of para 4.15 of HBP against Advance Authorization No.0510267704 dated 07.07.2010. The firm had taken advance licenses (under SION) for intermediate exports. Their case was discussed in an earlier PRC meeting dated 19.4.2017. As a 9 (६७५ _ _

consequence to that meeting, Now M/s Apolllo Tyres Ltd., {the recipient) has got issued consolidated “material receipts”, duly counter signed by their concerned Central Excise to the effect that they took these supply from the applicant under above advance license. As there is no loss of revenue of Govt. of India and all imports etc. are accounted for by both parties. Therefore relaxation from compliance of the prescribed procedure for intermediate supplies may be granted to them. Decision: The Committee went through the justification furnished by the firm and after detailed discussions it observed that there is merit in firm’s contention and hence decided to accede to the request of the firm for exemption from non- compliance of ‘stipulated procedure in Para 4.15 of HBP against Advance Authorization No. 0510267704 dated 07.07.2010 and advice concerned RA to redeem the authorization based on the corroborative evidence:

Case No.22:

M/s Gazebo Industries Lid., Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/495/AM19/PRC PRG Meeting No. 26/AM19 dated 03.01.2019

Subject: Regularization of shipping for redemption purpose of shipment

effected after 11 EOP period but within 277 EOP period against Advance License No.0310803728 dated 04.04.2016 and additional EOP extension required till 31.12.2018 for balance shipment. Due to unavoidable circumstances their overseas buyer held up the order, due to which they could not fulfill the export obligation within first export obligation period extension. They applied for 217 extension EOP at Addl. DGFT Mumbai. However, as their export were less than 50% they could not get extension of 2" EOP. Decision: The Committee having reviewed the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm and observed that there is no merit in firm's contention as 50% exports have not been done till first EOP extension. Accordingly it decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant)

Case No.23:

M/s 3F industries limited, A.P. F.No. 01/60/162/649/AM19/PRC

Subject: EOP extension of Advance Authorization No.0410160270 dated

11.03.2015 During initial EOP they had fulfilled 60.85% in terms of value and 54.54% in terms of ५0०० 10

lying with RA, Chennai and presently Customs are not allowing export unless the EOP is extended. Decision: The Committee went through the statement made by the applicant and concluded that genuine hardship is there in this case and therefore decided to allow EOP extension for a period of 3 months from the date of endorsement subject to payment of composition Fee @0.5% per month on the unfulfilled FOB. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

Case No.24:

M/s Kailesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd., Chennai F_No. 01/60/162/646/AM19/PRC

Subject: Condonation for delay in submission for issue of EODC/No Bond

Certificate and allow Import validity for 6 months under Advance Authorization No.0410160840 dated 29.07.2015. Firm has mentioned that they have fulfilled export obligation well within prescribed time limit of 18 months under the above referred advance authorization. Since, pre- export condition was imposed, they are not allowed to import before EODC and hence, import validity was also expired before EODC. According to Note 2 at SION E 124, first export will take place and import will be allowed only after grant of EODC. According to Policy Circular No. 13 dated 29.06.2005 Point (iii), The NO import condition as stated in SI. No. (ii) May be deleted after export obligation discharge certificate is issued in terms of Para 4.25 & 4.26. Their imports are pending due to Non-issueé of EODC / No Bond Certificate (Bond Waiver) and Removal of Pre-Export Condition. The pre-export condition is fulfilled by them within the time frame of FTP and within the validity period of the advance authorization. After realization of all exports proceeds and BRC uploading they have submitted complete necessary documents to RA for EODC. Decision: The Committee went through the statements/justification made by the firm and the relevant policy provisions and concluded that there iS merit in firm's contention and decided to accede to their request and grant 6 months time from the date of endorsement for making the imports ( as exports have already been completed). The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting.

Case No.25:

M/s Kishore Chandra Kalyanji Agri LLP, Mumbai F.No. 01/60/162/660/AM19/PRC Subject: Permission for import of Peas under RC No.03/27/153/00017/AM19, They had entered into contracts with M/s. Tradex Impex DMCC, Dubai for import of Peas (ITC Code 07131000) on 97" April 2018. Advance amount of USD 440000 was 11 * LPs wash,

paid to Tradex Impex DMCC on 11" April 2018 vide swift reference number 240BC09181010143. The DGFT issued 4 notification dated 25" Apri! 2018 restricting the import of Pease. Further DGFT issued Trade Notice no. 19/2018-19 dated 0571 July 2018 Stating that import will only be allowed to the extent of the 100% License to DGFT, RA, Mumbai and accordingly the Mumbai R.A. has issued RC bearing no. 03/27/153/00017/AM19 dated 07 August 2018 as per 100% of the remitted value which is 1760 mts. But their supplier is not agreeing to the R C issued of 1760 mts. and is claiming damages for not fulfilling the entire contract and have also claim to forfeit the entire amount of advanced paid 1.6. USD 4,40,000/., They have not yet used the said RC dated 07.08.2018 for 1760 mts. Decision: The Committee went through the statements made by the firm and noted that there is no merit in the case and decided to reject it, (Action: Applicant)

Case No.26: M/s Lalitha Chem Industries Pvt, Ltd., Thane

F. No. 01/60/162/661/AM19/PRC

Subject: Extension of EOP for regularization of shipping against advance

license No.0310652064 dated 07.09.2011. (Action: Applicant)

Case No.27:

M/s Bang Overseas Limited, Mumbai 5. No. 01/60/162/656/AM19/PRC PRC Meeting No, 26/AM19 dated 03.01.2019

Firm has explained that they have missed to indicate the GSM of fabric in the export item detail in the shipping bills which were towards fulfillment'’of EO imposed against the above two advance authorizations. However GSM of fabric is indicated on the inputs used column of the shipping bills. In the copies of the shipping bills, the descriptions of the export items have been shown. The composition of fabric is also specifically indicated. Decision: The Committee went through the submission made by the firm and after discussing the matter at length decided to accede to the request of the firm to condone mentioning of GSM in the export product and advise the RA to consider cases for redemption.

Case No.28: Mis Platinum Textiles Limited, Mumbai

F.No. 01/60/162/659/AM19/PRC Subject: Consideration of TED claim against invoice /supplies made after issuance of EPCG License No.0230047334 dated 12.06.2017 but before issuance of invalidation letter, है They had applied TED claim at RA, Mumbai, but same was rejected as their supplies are made prior to issue of invatidation. However, they have stated that their invalidation was submitted on time and the same was under consideration. Their supplies were made during the period of application for invalidation and issue of invalidation letter. Invoices clearly show’the EPCG license number and there is a clear correlation between supply and EPCG license. Supplies are covered under same invalidation letter. Decision: The Committee went through the statements made by the firm and noted that there is no merit in the case and decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant)

Case No.29: M/s Orchid Overseas Pvt. Lid., New Defhi

F. No. 01/60/162/655/AM19/PRC Subject: Condonation of delay to file chapter-3 application (F.No.05/51/087/80452/AM18) They applied FPS claim on 11.01.2018 after appearance of their BRC on DGFT portal although their payment realization was much earlier and within time but problem was that without BRC uploading they could not attach any BRC with shipping bill. That's why they could not file claim in time. When they find that BRC is available in portal they applied their claim, but concerned RA (.e.CLA,, New Dethi) rejected their case as time barred. Lo, oy wo

Decision: The Committee went through the statement made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length. The Committee observed that due to delay in uploading of BRC by the banker in DGFT Portal, the firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control and accordingly decided to accede to the request of the firm for grant of FPS without any late cut.

Case No.30:

M/s Orchid Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Dethi F. No, 01/60/162/654/AM19/PRC Subject: Condonation of delay to file chapter-3 application (F.No.05/51/087/80453/AM18 They applied FPS claim on 11.01.2018 after appearance of their BRC on DGFT portal although their payment realization was much earlier and within time but problem was that without BRC uploading they could not attach any BRC with shipping bill. That’s why they could not file claim in time. When they find that BRC is available in portal they applied their Claim, but concerned RA (.e.CLA,, New Delhi) rejected their case as time barred. Decision: The Committee went through the statement made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length. The Committee observed that due to delay in

Case No.31:

M/s Orchid Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi F. No, 01/60/162/653/AM19/PRC Subject: Condonation of delay to file chapter-3 application (F.No.08/51/087/80449/AM18) Decision: The Committee went through the statement made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length. The Committee observed that due to delay in uploading of BRC by the banker in DGFT Portal, the firm has faced the problem 14

which was beyond their control and accordingly decided to accede to the request of the firm for grant of FPS without any late cut.

Case No.32:

M/s Orchid Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi F.No. 01/60/162/651/AM19/PRC Subject: Condonation of delay to file chapter-3 application (F.No.05/51/087/80342 /ANi18) They applied FPS claim on 13.10.2017 after appearance of their BRC on DGFT portal although their payment realization was much earlier and within time but problem was that without BRC uploading they could not attach any BRC with Shipping bill. That’s why they could not file claim in time. When they find that BRC is available in portal they applied their claim, but concerned RA (ie. CLA,, New Dethi) rejected their case as time barred, Decision: The Committee went through the statement made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length. The Committee observed that due to delay in uploading of BRC by the banker in DGFT Portal, the firm has faced the problem which was beyond their control and accordingly decided to accede to the request of the firm for grant of FPS without any late cut.

Case No.33:

M/s Orchid Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi F.No. 01/60/162/652/AM19/PRC Subject: Condonation of delay to file chapter-3 application (F.No.05/51/087/80282 /AM18) they applied their claim, but concerned RA {i.e.CLA,, New Delhi) rejected their case as time barred. : . Decision: The Committee went through the statement made by the applicant and discussed the matter at length. The Committee observed that due to delay in uploading of BRC by the banker in DGFT Portal, the firm has faced the problem which was beyond their contro! and accordingly decided to accede to the request of the firm for grant of FPS without any late cut.

Case No.34:

M/s Plasma Impex inc., Noida F.No. 01/60/162/750/AM18/PRC ; PRC Meeting No. 26/AM19 dated 03.04.2049 Subject: Consideration of 2% incremental progress for the year 2012-13 with 2013-14. Firm explained that partial payment of few buyers were outstanding for the Year 2013-14, against which the BRC were not generated in due course of time. However the partial payment was also received within time frame. But since their name was still in RBI Caution List and Bank’s letter dated 26.07.2017 was received late, they fail to submit their 2% Incremental Application within stipulated Time Frame. For removing/waive off their name from outstanding payment list they have submitted to Bank all the Post Shipping documents in time. But in spite of their all-best efforts the BRC were generated after time and application became time Barred. Decision: The Committee having reviewed the case on the basis of justification furnished by the firm observed that there is no merit in firm’s contention and decided to reject the request of the firm. ; (Action: Applicant)

Case No.35:

Reference from PC-4 Section F.No. 01/94/180/325/AM19/PC-4 Subject: Extension of EO period in respect of Advance Authorizations issued to cashew Industry- reference by The Cashew EPC of India. Cashew EPC has explained that the Cashew industry has been importing raw cashew nut without any duty for the last over 40 years. The introduction of 5% Customs Duty w.e.f.01.03.2016 has created much problem and confusion in their operation. we imposition of duty also forced the industry to obtain advance authorizations They are traditional processors and have no knowledge of the Advance Authorization and its conditions. Many of their member exporters are facing difficulties in exports during stipulated EOP. EPC has requested that 6 months additional EOP may be given to the Advance authorizations issued to cashew industry. Decision: The Committee went through the request made by the Cashew EPC and after detailed discussions, Yecided to allow 6 months additional extension (beyond permissible extension period in Para 4.42 of the HBP) in the EOP to advance authorizations involving import of Raw cashew (SION E 8) subject to payment of composition fee @1% per month on the unfulfilled FOB value of the export obligation. (Action: Applicant/PC-4 Section) x ५१८०० है ch} wok 8, bey foceel by fomebd ApA Ars Id tod RAH Rows, ,जज

Case No.36:

Reference from Export Cell F. No. 01/91/110/153/AM19/EC PRC Meeting No. 28/AM19 dated 03.01.2019 Subject: Request for grant of permission / Export License for export of 26,250 MTs of imported chemical fertilizer Urea 46% N (from UAE) with CIF value of USD 10,736,250 under ITC (HS) code 31021000 to Krishi Samagri Company Ltd (KSCL) Kathmandu, Nepal (A Govt. of Nepal Company), for agricultural use. Against global tender floated by M/s KSCL, Nepal (A Govt of Nepal Company), the firm bagged supply order for supply of 25,000 MTS UREA (+/-5%) @ USD 409.00 PMT CIF Nepal, amounting to USD 10,225,000/- (+/-5%). The Urea has to be delivered on CIF basis to the buyers warehouses _ in Nepal at Birganj/Bhairahwa/Biratnagar. The urea is of UAE Origin and has been shipped Ex Ruwais Port (UAE) B/L dated 12.11.2018 at Vizag port through MV GLOBAL FAITH. The cargo will be kept in custom bonded warehouse at Vizag Port till its onwards transportation to Nepal by Railway Rakes, The export/sale price of the Same on CIF Nepal basis is USD 409.00 PMT. The firm has further stated that Nepal being a landlocked country and sea. ports nearest to Nepal are located in India, almost the entire sea imports of Nepal are transited via Indian seaports, Further as. Nepal and India have a Transit Tréaty and Trade Treaty for free movement of authorized goods through India to Nepal. The import consignment from UAE has already arrived at Vizag Port on 23.11.2018, presently stored in Customs bonded warehouse at Vizag, and waiting for clearance for onward transport through india into Nepal under customs bond. As farmers in Nepal are in urgent need of the agricultural grade Urea for ensuing crop season, the Govt. of Nepal is pressurizing the firm for expeditious delivery of item, Decision: The Committee considered the case and after detailed discussions, observed that the goods imported by M/s Indian Potash Limited, New Delhi are meant for export to a 3% country through Customs bonded area. The Committee observed that the Import Policy on Urea, vide Notification No. 41 dated 05.10.2018, is for domestic consumption and does not restrict for export of imported Urea from the Customs bonded area, without clearance in DTA. Since the goods are not being cleared for DTA and straight away being exported to a 37 country from Customs bonded area, the Committee decided to relax the policy condition under Para 2.46(e) ‘Import for Export’ of the revised FTP-2015-20 relating to. ‘free’ import condition’ and_decided 10 allow export of 26,250 MT imported Urea 46% N [HS Code 31021000] by M/s Indian Potash Limited, New Dethi to Nepal. (Action: Applicant/Export Cell)

Case No.37: {Incomplete Cases):

Following cases were discussed. The Committee observed that the applications have been received without ANF 2D and Application Fee as per Appendix 2K (fully/partly) are to be treated as incomplete applications. Therefore, the committee decided to reject such cases as mentioned below: |. व तल fan | Sl! Name of the firm | Subject of the firm __Reasons for | 17 De gery QO

Ss oer —— is —| 5. teiestion Too | 1 M/s. Greenply Request to review of PRC Proof of fee and ANF : | Industries Limited, Meeting No.19/AM19 dated =e not submitted rhs: Shah | 16.10.2018. _ 2 M/s. गत |p Nanji Grant of duty credit under MEIS as ANF 2D not submitted tt Nagpur Nagsi Exports Pvt. per chapter 3 of ETP 2015-20 Ltd., Nagpur “लिp ence या, ainst followin | 54 shipping bills. 3 Beles ini Safal Seeds & | MEIS license under chaper 3 ofae | of fee । Biptech Limited, [ee book and ANF 2D not Mumbai है _ submitted | 4 M/s. Jindal Extension of OEP With pre Import Proof of fee not. i Aluminium Ltd., condition of AA no.0710112460

Be का eee . 27.11.2017 5 Mis Shreeyam Extension of EOP of Advance Proof of fee not | Power and Steel Authorizations for 2 years from the submitted ॥ । | Industries Limited, date of endorsement as company | Indore was declared sick __ 1 2012. 5 0 Under BIFR from | है ear 2012. bee