Date of Uploading o (10? 12020 Directorate —wectorate General of Foreign Trade of Foreign Trade (PRC Section) Section Minutes of on 24.08 4020 suey Relaxation Committee Meeting Policy Relaxation Committee Held on 2108-2020 under the टोटके Held on 24 -08.2020 under the Chairmanship of Shri Amit Yadav Director =tector General of Foreign Trade of Foreign Trade ral Of Foreign Trade Meeting No.08/AM21 held on 21.08.2020 The following members were present in the meeting: 1. Shri Vijay Kumar Addl. DGFT 2. Shri S.B.S. Reddy Addl. DGFT 3. Shri Satyan Sharda Addl. DGFT 4. Shri Hardeep Singh Addl. DGFT 5. Shri Rajbir Sharma Jt. DGFT 6. Dr. Praveen Kumar Dy.DGFT are as under:- [S.No | No Name of the firm Case No. 15-45 1 7 | Mis. IKA India Private Limited, Bangalore Sem atte! BROS] M/s. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai AS ey 2 a Mis. Asian Tea Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata Saat ee a डा Mis. Citizen Umbrella Manufactures Ltd., Kolkata aay ता] a ae M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ee eae at | M/s. Nuvocraft A\ arels India Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka a a to 9 Te a MIs. PrayagPol lechPvt. Ltd., HR Tee). ais 4 M/s. Brahmos Aerospace Thiruvananthapuram, Ltd., ee ea Trivandrum (Kerala aS M/s. Saaj Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Pune ac | & 13 1 10 | M/s. MPD Industries Pvt. Ltd., Indore eS ae is M/s. Diamond Forever International, Mumbai an oa Case No. 01 M/s. IKA India Private Limited, Bangalore F. No. 01/60/162/426/AM20/PRC PRC Meeting No.08/AM21 dated 21.08.2020

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit without late cut against disallowed shipping

bills filed under RA file No.01/21/090/89000/AM18 dated 31.03.2018, The applicant stated that they had submitted the application on 31.03.2018 with 50 Shipping bills for the total claim value is Rs. 15,18,460/-. Thereafter a deficiency letter was raised on 04.04.2018 to furnish original landing certificate and shipping bills Page 1 of 11 CLran._ —

which were duly replied and Submitted on 06.12.2018. In the D/L reply they requested to omit six Shipping Bills for non-availability of landing certificate. Further they re-submitted the D/L reply once again on 12.04.2019. They also personally confirmed the eligibility claim under the PN No.40/2015-20 dated 97 October 2015 and PN No.47/2015-20 dated gt? December 2015. After removing the ineligible Shipping bill due to non-availability of landing certificate and declaration not mentioned in the 38 Shipping bills, amounting to scrip value of Rs.12,24,253/-. The Scrip was generated for the value of Rs.2,39,251/- only instead of value of Rs.12,24,253/- with the reason as disallowed even for eligible shipping bills. As the Shipping bills, they request to reinstate the Shipping bills for claim without any late cut to facilitate them to lodge a fresh claim on Priority. Decision: The Committee went through the statements made by the firm along with the report received from RA, Bangalore and discussed the matter at length.

ate them to lodge a fresh claim on Priority. Decision: The Committee went through the statements made by the firm along with the report received from RA, Bangalore and discussed the matter at length. The Committee noted that as per the RA report there are 29 Shipping bills out of 50 shipping bills, which were disallowed inadvertently due to misinterpretation of PN 40 dated 09.10.2015 by the RA and accordingly committee found merit in the case as initially the firm had filed the application within time. Therefore it decided to accede to the request of the firm for grant of MEIS benefit against 29 Shipping Bills No.(1) 29.05.2015 & (29) 9870205 dated 29.05.2015. Late cut, if any, on the entitlement will be decided taking date of submission of original application in RA, Bangalore as the date of application. In order to implement the decision, if required, NIC/EDI will also make these shipping bills available for filing the application. The firm shall approach RA within 90 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA-Bangalore) Case No.02 Mis. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai F. No. 01/60/162/35/AM21/PRC

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 3 Shipping Bill No.(i) 8176864 dated

23.08.2017, (ii) 8177469 dated 23.08.2017 and (iii) 8177464 dated 23.08.2017 as per Para 3.14(b) of HBP 2015-2020. Lyon Page 2 of 11

The Applicant stated that in the above Shipping bills declaration of intent in reward column of shipping bills have been mentioned “N’” instead of “Y” due to which these shipping bills become ineligible for MEIS benefit as per Para 3.14 (b) (i) of HBP. Moreover, it stated that goods under above referred Shipping bills were exported under DRAWBACK scheme and not as free shipping bills. Whenever any product / Market included in MEIS table, a grace period of one month is allowed for making this declaration of intent. Since, no EDI modification in shipping bill can be carried out once EGM is filed. Hence, requested to allow them to claim MEIS benefit either manually or suggest some way out so that they can make application through MEIS module as LEO date of all above shipping bills are well within one month grace period as allowed under Para 3.14(b)(i) of HBP Vol.| 2015-20. Decision: The Committee having discussed the case at length decided to refer the issue to PC-3 Division for its detailed examination and resolution. (Action: PC-3 Division/Applicant) Case No.03 Mis. Asian Tea Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata F. No. 01/60/162/42/AM21/PRC

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against 16 export shipment during 2018-19 in

Chinese currency and exports proceeds are realized in USD terms. The applicant stated that they have made 16 export shipments in FY 2018-19 to China in CNY Currency and payments realized in equivalent USD. Due to regulatory and they were advised to contact NIC-DGFT (HQ), New Delhi. Again they approached to NIC DGFT, New Delhi. DGFT ED! helpdesk informed them that Decision: Committee after going through the representation observed that no policy relaxation is involved in the case. Accordingly it decided to refer the case to EDI- Division for its detailed examination and resolution. (Action: EDI-Division/Applicant) Case No.04 Mis. Citizen Umbrella Manufactures Ltd., Kolkata F. No. 01/60/162/50/AM21/PRC :

Subject: To allow MEIS benefit against Shipping Bill No.5035865 dated

30.12.2015. The applicant stated that the Customs vide their letter dated 25.01.2016 intimated them that the benefit claimed remained suspended against the above shipping bill Page 3 of 11 2,००५

and thereafter they have issued Show Cause Notice on 31.03.2017 to the firm and final order only on 24.01.2019, after the expiry of 3 years, time frame for the filling of MEIS claim against the shipping bill. Firm has further stated that as the respective Customs Authority had suspended the benefit as mentioned above, claiming the MEIS during the period would have resulted in breach of the same. Their shipment was allowed on provisional basis as per details mentioned in the said Show Cause Notice, and claiming MEIS benefit may have resulted in refund with interest, if decision was adverse. Now they are trying to file their MEIS application but the duty credit /claim amount is coming Zero with 100% late cut due to time barred. Hence, requested to allow them the MEIS benefit against the above shipping bill. Decision: The Committee went through the submission made by the firm and discussed the matter at length. It observed that firm had been issued a show cause Notice by customs and finally case has been adjudicated by them with imposition of fine/penalty on the firm. After discussions, the Committee found no merit or genuine hardship in the arguments made by the firm and hence decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant) Case No. 05 M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., F. No.

mittee found no merit or genuine hardship in the arguments made by the firm and hence decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant) Case No. 05 M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., F. No. 01/89/180/1 4/AM10/PC-2(A)/part-I/E-5975

Subject: Request for grant of Policy relaxation for import of used vehicles for

R&D purpose from Europe. The applicant stated that they want to import 2 (two) used Motorcycle for technical analyses/research and Development purposes and these vehicles will be kept off the road. These vehicles are not registered under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules (CMVR) 1989. The details of the motorcycles are as under: जे Description | Type | Vehicle identification 7 anal Country of of vehicle of Chassis no. origin

1. YAMAHA Used | VG5SH131000029404 | Xmax 300 FRANCE XMAX 300 ise SYM =. 300 pan RFGLWA701KSA00489 | SYM Joymax | FRANCE JOYMAX 300 Both vehicles are registered in France. Moreover the above vehicles are required only for technical analyses / R&D purpose and will not ply on Public road. Hence, it is requested for approval to import above 2 used motorcycles by relaxing the policy condition Rule 1(II) d (iv) of Chapter 87 of ITC (HS) 2017, Schedule-! (Import policy). Decision: The Committee went through the justification provided by the firm and after deliberations it decided to allow relaxation of only port condition as at Para 1(II)(d)(iv) of the Note of Chapter 87 of ITC (HS) 2017, Schedule-! (Import policy) to import of above 2(Two) Motorcycles through Mumbai Airport by air mode. Rest of the conditions of Note would remain unchanged. Care अटल Page 4 of 11

(Action: Applicant) Case No. 06 Mis. Nuvocraft Apparels India Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka F. No. 01/60/162/48/AM21/PRC

Subject: Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.0710111817 dated

23.06.2017. The applicant stated that they could export only up to 82.30% within original EOP due to the sudden demise of their foreign Customer. With too many hurdles, finally they could receive the further orders which need to be executed in few months utilizing the balance fabric available which was imported under this license. They declared that they have inventory of balance fabric of 8516Sq. meters to execute the orders to retain the huge work force as they have given employment to 1000s of workers predominantly women. Decision: The Committee having discussed the case in detail observed that firm has not availed opportunities of 2 EO extensions provided in the FTP/HBP. Moreover it did not find any merit in the request. Hence, it decided to reject the request of the firm. The applicant is directed to get the case regularized in terms of Para 4.49 of HBP, 2015-2020 within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: RA, Bangalore: if the applicant fails to get the case regularized within a month from the date of uploading of these minute on the Directorate website, necessary action as per the Provisions of F.T.(DR)Act, shall be initiated/Applicant) Case No. 07 M/s. Nuvocraft Apparels India Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka F. No. 01/60/162/47/AM21/PRC

Subject: To Accept S/Bill No.9854202 dated 24.12.2018 to count for EO or

extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.0710110739 dated 06.12.2016. The applicant stated that their 58 No.9854202 dated 24.12.2018 for counting EO has been rejected by RA, Bangalore saying it is out of EOP even though the licensed export products of 3440 Nos. of Shirt and 3440 Nos. of Trousers have been shipped under the same advance authorization without claiming any duty DBK and the with license number in the SB and debited fabric too in the Shipping bill. They said pair of Shirt and Trouser was shipped off late EOP under same advance ven, — Page 5 of 11 x.

Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and in view of justification Provided by the firm it decided to allow EOP extension up to 24.12.2018 against Advance Authorization No.0710110739 dated 06.12.2016 only for regularization of €xport made vide Shipping Bill No.9854202 dated 24.12.2018 subject to payment of (Action: Applicant/RA-Bangalore) Case No. 08 M/s. Nuvocraft Apparels India Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka F. No. 01/60/162/46/AM21/PRC

Subject: Extension of EOP against Advance Authorization No.07101 12450 dated

23.11.2017, The applicant stated that they have completed 100% import but EO completed ‘NIL’. They could not export the order in full ie.7500 numbers of Men Trousers within EOP Decision: The Committee having discussed the case in detail observed that firm has neither made any exports nor has applied for any EO extension to RA. Accordingly it Case No. 09 M/s. Nuvocraft Apparels India Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka F. No. 01/60/162/45/AM21/PRC Page 6 of 11

unutilized. They cannot use this ‘made in order’ fabric for any other export orders as the specific fabric has been imported under advance authorizations are based on specific garment quality, nature and style. They have already fulfilled EO quantity- extension in EO. Decision: The Committee having discussed the case in detail observed that firm has not availed opportunities of 2 EO extensions already provided in the FTP/HBP. minutes of meeting. (Action: RA, Bangalore: if the applicant fails to get the case regularized within a month from the date of uploading of these minute on the Directorate website, necessary action as per the provisions of F.T.(DR)Act, shall be initiated/Applicant) Case No. 10 Mis. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd., HR F. No. 01/60/162/58/AM21/PRC

Subject: To allow MEIS

benefit against partially utilized shipping bills (pertaining to the year 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19) where multiple BRCs were issued and shipping bill is used with first BRC. The applicant stated that due to lack of knowledge their staff has filed the application for MEIS claims on part payments received by buyer. Shipping bill is being shown as utilized with one of the multiple BRC issued on same shipping bill. So these BRCs which are available need to be availed on same shipping bill where the complete value of shipping bill is not utilized. The justification /reason for this is the complete gross ignorance of their team which was filing MEIS. The filing of their application of pending BRCs which are available but site shows shipping bills are already utiised on the part payments. So they want to file application for MEIS claims on the balance payments received from their buyer. Decision: The Committee discussed the case on the basis of justification submitted by the applicant and it found no merit in the case as there is no provision of filing oe eee Page 7 of 11

supplementary claims in MEIS. Moreover there is a lapse on the part of the firm. Accordingly, the Committee decided to reject the request of the firm. (Action: Applicant) Case No. 11 M/s. Brahmos Aerospace Thiruvananthapuram, Ltd., Trivandrum (Kerala) F. No. 01/60/162/60/AM21/PRC

Subject: Second Extension of Export Obligation Period against Advance

Authorization No.5310019545 dated 05.01.2018. The applicant stated that they had obtained the Subject authorization for import of components used for manufacture and export of Canister Parts of Military Weapons to a later date. Since May, 2019 after last export Invoice No.E1/006/2019-20 dated 21.05.2019, they could not Progress further awaiting clearance for dispatch from extension of EO from 04.01.2020 to 04.01.2021, so as to enable them to arrange export of the sets most of which are lying in finished and unfinished condition at its plant. Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and in view of justification provided by the firm it decided to accede to the request and allowed EOP extension for 6 months of Advance Authorization No.5310019545 dated 05.01.2018 from the date of endorsement, subject to payment of composition fee @ 1% per month of the extension period granted, on the unfulfilled FOB Value. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA-Cochin) Case No. 12 M/s. Saaj Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Pune F. No.

lfilled FOB Value. The firm shall approach RA within 30 days from the date of uploading of the minutes of meeting. (Action: Applicant/RA-Cochin) Case No. 12 M/s. Saaj Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Pune F. No. 01/60/162/61/AM21/PRC Subject: Clubbing of two Advance Authorization No.3130007281 dated 19.06.2002 & 3110009778 dated 03.02.2003. The applicant stated that there is no default in EO, but only mismatch in making imports and exports against each individual authorization and the delay in submitting these advance authorization for closure to RA, Pune due to the various problems and genuine hardship and adverse impact on their business (such as cancellation of Page 8 of 11 (Qeronn'_

export orders from Russia, stoppage of credit facilities by banks, company take over by bankers selling of the company to another company in 2013, adjudication of their case by adjudicating authority and order-in-appeal by the appellate authority in 2019 in their favor). Hence requested for clubbing. Decision: The Committee examined the case in detail and in view of justification and hardships Provided by the firm, it decided to accede to the request of the firm for (Action: ApplicantvRA-Pune) Case No. 13 Mis. Saaj Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Pune F. No. 01/60/162/62/AM21/PRC export orders from Russia, stoppage of credit facilities by banks, Company take over by bankers, selling of the company to another company in 2013, adjudication of their case by adjudicating authority and order-in-appeal by the appellate authority in 2019 in their favor).

y take over by bankers, selling of the company to another company in 2013, adjudication of their case by adjudicating authority and order-in-appeal by the appellate authority in 2019 in their favor). Hence requested for clubbing. (Action: Applicant/RA-Pune) Case No. 14 M/s. MPD Industries Pvt. Ltd., Indore F. No. 01/60/162/133/AM20/PRC (उनका ene Page 9 of 11

Subject: To add import item no.03 “CRUDE DEGUMMED SOYABEAN OIL

REFINDED SOYABEAN OIL” in Advance Authorization No.5610005399 dated 14.05.2018 which was deleted by RA, Indore after completion of exports. The applicant stated that they had completed 100% exports on 02.06.2018 by considering price benefit to their export Customer of duty free import of raw material Indore has deleted the import item No.3 Crude Degummed Soyabean Oil or Refined Soyabean Oil. Therefore, they are requesting to add this item and allow them to import under said advance authorization. ‘ineligible’ item, allowed inadvertently. Accordingly, committee after discussions, decided to reject the request of the firm for allowing this ineligible item, as the same was found to be without any merit. (Action: Applicant) Case No. 15 M/s. Diamond Forever International, Mumbai F. No. 01/89/180/36/AM1 1/PC-2(A)

Subject: Application for second re-validation of import authorization for import

of restricted item (Gold Dore Bars) 8 applicant has not submitted any Cogent reason/ justification in support of any genuine hardship faced by them. Accordingly, the Committee decided to reject the request. (Action: Applicant)

Case No. 16: Incomplete Cases

Following cases were discussed. The Committee observed that the applications which have been received without ANF 2D and Proof of Application Fee as per Page 10 of 11 Data...

Appendix 2K (not paid/ Column-15 of ANF 2D Cases which are not ta Paid partly) and also with are to be treated as incom ken up by the Committee a Name of the fi M/s POSCO rm _| Subject of the firm Automatic exte plete applications. Th 18 mentioned as below:- nsion of EOP for out Reasons/Justifications as per erefore, such ANF 2D and Proof Page 11 of 11 Maharashtra Steel EPCG License expiring in FY Of application fee Pvt. Ltd., Pune 2020-21 due to impact of Covid- not submitted, 19 & Nisarg C clone. | M/s Ganga Roller (a) Request for closure of EPCG ANF 2 0 and proof of Flour Mills (P) Ltd., Authorisation on Payment of excise application fee not Delhi duty only instead of notional submitted. Customs duty. (b) Request for waiver /relaxation in deposit of customs duty as no benefit has been taken/availed against the invalidation letter dated 22.09.2014 issued against EPCG authorisation No.0530163424 dated 22.09.2014, le M/s Shalina Request for issuance of Manual ANF 2 0 and proof of Laboratories Pvt. MEIS licenses for the Shipping bills application fee not Limited, Mumbai Pertaining to the Period 2018-19, submitted. 2019-20. 4. | M/s Centum Policy relaxation of intent to ANF 2 0 and proof of Electronics Limited, declaration on Shipping bills to avail application fee not Bangalore MEIS benefit.

, submitted. 2019-20. 4. | M/s Centum Policy relaxation of intent to ANF 2 0 and proof of Electronics Limited, declaration on Shipping bills to avail application fee not Bangalore MEIS benefit. submitted iy M/s Grove Limited, Extension of 2 EPCG Authorisation | ANF 2 D and proof of Cochin No. 1030001257 dated 05.12.2007 application fee not and 1030001240 dated submitted 07.11.2007. | M/s Sangam (India) | Condonation of non-mentioning the | ANF 2D and proof of Limited, Rajasthan details of AA No. in 2 shipping bills application fee not No.3567300 dated 01.07.2005 and submitted 3567293 dated 01 -07.2005 common for 2 AA No.03102194114 dated 19.08.2003 and 0310144825 dated 01.07.2002 for regularisation purpose. 7. |M/SU.K Monu Request for relaxation of Policy ANF 2 0 and proof of Timbers, Karnataka condition in AA No.0710110420 application fee not dated 16.09.2016 and to issue submitted EODC or to extend time limit for fulfilment of EO, Ts ००.