DGFT Minutes

—* ginutes of the 8 meeting of the Inter-Ministerial Committee dated 11.8.2016 for veto as a Pre-Shipment Inspection Agency The 8" meeting of the Inter-Ministerial Committee was held on 11.8.2016 at 3.00 p.m. in Room No. 11, H-Wing, Udyog Bhawan under the chairmanship of Shri K.C. Rout, Additional Director General of Foreign Trade to consider the applications for recognition as Pre-Shipment inspection Agency (PSIA).

2. The following members attended the meeting:

(i) Shri S.P. Roy,Jt.[DG,][DGFT] (ii) Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Deputy Industrial Adviser, Min. of Steel (iii) | ShriS.K. Jain, Development Officer, Dept. of Industrial Policy & Promotion (iv) Shri Ajeet Singh, Scientific Officer -C, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (the representative from Min. of Environment, Forest & Climate Change did not attend the

meeting)

3. At the onset of the meeting, AERB representative pointed out that same machines are being shown by more than one applicant. The Committee, accordingly was of the view that integrity of such applicants is under doubt and decided to reject applications of all such applicants in the first instance, where machines with same number figures, though there may still be other deficiencies. The Committee also decided that for applicants who have been approved as PSIA, if it is found that the machine they possess is actually being held by another company, then their case would also be re-considered by the Committee. The Committee further decided to return the Bank Guarantee of all applicants (if their Bank Guarantee is with DGFT) whose cases are rejected in this meeting. The Committee further decided that no fresh application will be accepted by DGFT until further notice.

4. The following decisions were taken by the Committee: , The Committee rejected the application of M/s Cosmos Inspection & Analysis, Haryana on the following grounds,

(i) Information not provided on dose rate of Radcomm Rhandy 100388 — 100397

(ii) Radcomm Rhandy 100397 shown by the applicant is also shown by M/s Neerakshan Engineers & Surveyors, Chennai as possessed by them (iii) Radcomm Mspec 200189 shown by the applicant is also shown by M/s Techsusho Kayaba Corp., Japan as possessed by them

shown by M/s Neerakshan Engineers & Surveyors, Chennai as possessed by them (iii) Radcomm Mspec 200189 shown by the applicant is also shown by M/s Techsusho Kayaba Corp., Japan as possessed by them

The Committee rejected the application of M/s Global Marine Inspection Unit, New Delhi on the following grounds; (i) The calibration certificates submitted by the applicant are not in acceptable format — (ii) Radcomm Mspec 200190 & 200191 shown by the applicant are also shown by M/s Techsusho Kayaba Corp., Japan as possessed by them The Committee rejected the application of M/s Bureau Veritas India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai onthe © following grounds(i) The membership of the applicant of IFIA is for the period 2005 and 2008 (ii) The applicant has not given declaration regarding qualification of manpower despite communication from this Directorate

==> picture [545 x 29] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> /| The Committee decided to hold in abeyance the application of M/s Ravi Energie Pvt. Ltd., Baroda<br>’ | till the investigation / procedure under FTDR Act against them is completed.<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

LLC, USA because the company has been delisted by DGFT vide P.N. No. 23 dated 22/7/2016.

The Committee rejected the application of M/s CWM Survey & Inspection, Netherland on the following grounds-

(i) The applicant does not have any spectrometer

• (ii) The validity of calibration certificates have expired

The Committee rejected the application of M/s Nectar Inspection Services LLC, UAE onthe following grounds-

not have any spectrometer

• (ii) The validity of calibration certificates have expired

The Committee rejected the application of M/s Nectar Inspection Services LLC, UAE onthe following grounds-

(i) All calibration results are same which is technically not possible (ii) Radcomm Mspec 200085 & 200086 shown by the applicant are also shown by M/s Techsusho Kayaba Corp., Japan as possessed by them | 8. | Akkrediteret Vejer & Inspection Aarhus A/S Vejebro Aarhus The Committee rejected the application of M/s Akkrediteret Vejer & Inspection Aarhus A/S Vejebro Aarhus on the following grounds(i) The applicant does not have any spectrometer (ii) The calibration certificates are unsigned (iii) The serial numbers are not embedded in the machines

[ 9. [Humber Inspection Intemational ltd, UK The Committee rejected the application of M/s Humber Inspection International Ltd., UK on the following ground(i) Inspector Alert 35148 shown by the applicant is also shown by M/s Techsusho Kayaba Corp., Japan as possessed by them

==> picture [518 x 97] intentionally omitted <==

on the following ground(i) Inspector Alert 35148 shown by the applicant is also shown by M/s Techsusho Kayaba Corp., Japan as possessed by them

==> picture [518 x 97] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> The Committee rejected the application of M/s National Marine Consultants Inc., USA on the<br>following grounds-<br>(i) The details of spectrometer have not been given in AERB format<br>(ii) Zoro Tools Monitor M4 74981, 75051 & 74975, GS Geiger Group Gamma Scout 59441, 59983<br>& 59086, Barringer Manufacturing Sabre 2000 - 20285, Building Material Centre Redalert 100 —<br>$0512 shown by the applicant are also shown by M/s Gurudev Overseas Ltd., Ludhiana as<br>possessed by them<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

followingThe Committeegrounds-rejected the application of M/s Baltic Control Internationaloo Ltd., UK on the

• (i) The applicant does not have any spectrometer (ii) The invoices are unsigned (iii) The serial numbers are not embedded in the machines

• (ii) The invoices are unsigned

742. | Pacific Trade Inspection Services P Ltd., Australia “The Committee rejected the application of M/s Pacific Trade Inspection Services P Ltd., Australia on the following ground(i) Radcomm Mspec 200062, 200059 & 200065 shown by the applicant are also shown by M/s Techsusho Kayaba Corp., Japan as possessed by them; the last two machines have also been shown to be possessed by Al Khalidiah Metal Tr. Co. LLC, UAE

65 shown by the applicant are also shown by M/s Techsusho Kayaba Corp., Japan as possessed by them; the last two machines have also been shown to be possessed by Al Khalidiah Metal Tr. Co. LLC, UAE

13. |AVS Inspection LLC, UAE The Committee rejected the application of M/s AVS Inspection LLC, UAE on the following grounds(i) The technical details have not been given (ii) Radcomm Mspec 200154 shown by the applicant is also shown by M/s Neerakshan Engineers & Surveyors, Chennai as possessed by them an (iii) Radcomm Mspec 200148 & 200149 shown by the applicant is also shown by M/s Techsusho Kayaba Corp., Japan as possessed by them Shackleton Freight & Services Pty. Ltd., SA - ; The Committee rejected the application of M/s Shackleton Freight & Services Pty. Ltd.,. SA on the following ground(i) The applicant does not have explosive detector . Ganapati Scientific Solution, Nepal | The Committee rejected the application of M/s Ganapati Scientific Solution, Nepal on the following grounds: (i) The serial number of the spectrometer given by the applicant is not matching with the | photograph (ii) The applicant does not have the minimum requirement of radioactivity detecting machines (1 surveymeter + 1 spectrometer or 2 spectrometers) : af Rank Inspection Services Ltd., UK The Committee rejected the application of M/s Rank Inspection Services Ltd., UK on the following ground. (i) The minimum detectable range of the machines has not been given NQAQSR North America, USA | .

Committee rejected the application of M/s Rank Inspection Services Ltd., UK on the following ground. (i) The minimum detectable range of the machines has not been given NQAQSR North America, USA | . The Committee rejected the application of M/s NQAQSR North America, USA on the following ground(i) Radcomm RC2 3622 shown by the applicant are also shown by M/s A/S Baltic Control Ltd., Denmark as possessed by them | Ravi Energie Inc., USA The Committee decided to hold in abeyance the application of M/s Ravi Energie Inc., USA till the investigation / procedure under FTDR Act against M/s Ravi Energie Pvt. Ltd., Baroda .is . completed, as the two companies belong to the same group of companies. . |

Ravi Energie Gulf FZC, UAE The Committee decided to hold in abeyance the application of M/s Ravi Energie Gulf FZC till the investigation / procedure under FTDR Act against Ravi Energie Pvt. Ltd., Baroda is completed, as the two companies belong to the same group of companies.

pO

The Committee rejected the application of M/s Intertak India P Ltd., New Delhi on the following grounds: : (i) ‘The applicant does not have explosive detector

(ii) The calibration certificates do not have any date

The Committee rejected the application of M/s Al Khalidiah Metal Tr. Co. LLC, UAE on the

| (i) Radcomm Mspec 200059 & 200065 shown by the applicant are also shown by M/s Pacific Trade Inspection Services P Ltd., Australia & M/s Techsusho Kayaba Corp., Japan as possessed by them

The Committee rejected the application of M/s Gurudev Overseas Ltd., Ludhiana on the following grounds-

pection Services P Ltd., Australia & M/s Techsusho Kayaba Corp., Japan as possessed by them

The Committee rejected the application of M/s Gurudev Overseas Ltd., Ludhiana on the following grounds-

(i) The technical details of the machines have not been given (ii) Zoro Tools Monitor M4 74981, 75051 & 74975,GS Geiger Group Gamma Scout 59441, 59983~ & 59086, Barringer Manufacturing Sabre 2000 - 20285, Building Material Centre Redalert 100 — S0512 shown by the applicant are also shown by M/s National Marine Consultants Inc., USA as possessed by them

The Committee rejected the application of M/s Silver Dragon Resources Singapore Pte. Ltd.,

(i) The applicant does not have any spectrometer

,

. | The Committee rejected the application of M/s Hamilton Steel Logistic Inc., Canada on the following ground-

(i) The calibration certificate of one of the two machines is not in acceptable format

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

----- Start of picture text -----<br> |<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

The Committee rejected the application of A/S Baltic Control Ltd., Denmark on the following ground(i) As per declaration in the AERB format, the applicant does not have any spectrometer (ii) Radcomm RC2 3622 shown by the applicant are also shown by NQAQSR North America, USA as possessed by them

The Committee rejected the application of M/s Simran International General Trading LLC, UAE on the following grounds-

(i) The applicant does not have explosive detector a

A as possessed by them

The Committee rejected the application of M/s Simran International General Trading LLC, UAE on the following grounds-

(i) The applicant does not have explosive detector a

(ii) The calibration certificates of Radcom Rhandy machines have not been given (iii) The model name is not shown in photographs of Radcom Mspec machines

The Committee rejected the application of M/s Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd., Mumbai on the following grounds-

) : .

(i) The applicant does not have explosive detector

(ii) The technical specifications of the machines have not been given

ot

:

|

• The Committee rejected the application of M/s NMCI Inspection & Survey Mtius Ltd., Louis on the | following ground-

• (i) The applicant has added new machines instead of giving details of machines initially shown in the application form / rectifying deficiencies of the machines earlier indicated

The Committee rejected the application of M/s Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd., Mumbai on the following grounds-

(i) The applicant does not have any spectrometer

• (it) The applicant does not have explosive detector

(iii) The calibration certificates / photographs of machines have not been given

|

• The Committee rejected the application of M/s Nippon Kaiji Kental Kyokai, Japan on the following grounds-

(i) The applicant does not have explosive detector

(ii) The applicant has not given invoice / photographs of the machines; serial number and date of calibration of spectrometer also not given

==> picture [519 x 384] intentionally omitted <==

(ii) The applicant has not given invoice / photographs of the machines; serial number and date of calibration of spectrometer also not given

==> picture [519 x 384] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> The Committee rejected the application of M/s, Ni-Met Metals Inc., Canada on the following<br>grounds-<br>(i) The applicant does not. have explosive detector|<br>(ii) The applicant does not have any spectrometer<br>(iii) The calibration certificates of the machines have not been given<br>(iv) Niton XL 2800 86759 shown by the applicant is also shown by M/s Iberinox 88, Spain as<br>possessed by them |<br>The Committee rejected the application of M/s Vienna Metal Trading FZC, UAE on the following<br>grounds-<br>(i) The applicant does not have explosive detector<br>(ii) The applicant does not have any spectrometer<br>(iii) The calibration certificates and invoice of the machine has not been given<br>|<br>The Committee rejected the application of M/s!MN Trade Services Inc., USA on the following<br>grounds-<br>(i) The applicant does not have any spectrometer<br>(ii) The calibration certificates of one out of two machines has not been given; date not mentioned<br>in the calibration certificate given | ,<br>(iii) The technical specifications of the machines have not been given<br>(iv) The model number / serial number not= in photograph<br>The Committee rejected the application of M/s|CLX Surveying & Evaluating Services LLC, UAE<br>on the following grounds-<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

,

l number not= in photograph<br>The Committee rejected the application of M/s|CLX Surveying & Evaluating Services LLC, UAE<br>on the following grounds-<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

,

(i) The calibration certificates of the machines' have not been given (ii) The photographs of the machines have not been given (iii) The invoices of the machines have not been given

• | —

|||35.[MeltEnterprisesLtd,<br>UK<br>C“‘“CSCOCOC#C#*#*#*C*“‘‘COCOC‘*@S||35.[MeltEnterprisesLtd,<br>UK<br>C“‘“CSCOCOC#C#*#*#*C*“‘‘COCOC‘*@S|
|---|---|---|
||Office||
||Areas applied for__| USA, South Africa, European Union, UAE, New Zealand,Australia|||
||Decision of<br>Committee|The Committee noted that the applicant has 1 spectrometerand 1<br>surveymeter, whichwerefound to be acceptable as given in theAnnexure.|
|||The applicant is member ofMRAI and has given declaration about|
|.|.<br>.|qualification ofmanpower. The applicant has also given undertaking that<br>they will not issue PSIC to any importer in India which has any proprietor,<br>any partner, any Directorcommon with theirfirm/company. The Committee<br>decided to recommend M/s Melt Enterprises Ltd., UK for recognition as<br>PSIA forthe areas they have applied for. The Public Notice recognising the<br>applicant as PSIA will be issued afterthe Bank Guarantee as perAppendix<br>2N-1 is submitted.|

r recognition as<br>PSIA forthe areas they have applied for. The Public Notice recognising the<br>applicant as PSIA will be issued afterthe Bank Guarantee as perAppendix<br>2N-1 is submitted.|

The Committee rejected the application of M/s Nireekshan Engineers & Surveyors, Chennai on the following grounds(i) Radcomm Rhandy 100397 shown by the applicant is also shown by M/s Cosmos Inspection & Analysis, Haryana as possessed by them 

(ii) Radcomm Mspec 200154 shown by the applicant is also shown by M/s AVS Inspection LLC, 

The Committee rejected the application of M/s G.P. & Associates, Bengaluru on the following grounds(i) The applicant has not submitted the application fee , 

The Committee rejected the application of M/s Techsusho Kayaba Corp., Japan on the following grounds(i) The applicant has same machines as also shown by M/s Cosmos Inspection & Analysis, Haryana; M/s Global Marine Inspection Unit, New Delhi; M/s Nectar Inspection Services LLC, UAE; M/s Humber Inspection International Ltd., UK; M/s Pacific Trade Inspection Services P Ltd., Australia; M/s AVS Inspection LLC, UAE; M/s Al Khalidiah Metal Tr. Co. LLC, UAE.

ction Services LLC, UAE; M/s Humber Inspection International Ltd., UK; M/s Pacific Trade Inspection Services P Ltd., Australia; M/s AVS Inspection LLC, UAE; M/s Al Khalidiah Metal Tr. Co. LLC, UAE. 

5: The Committee also reviewed its recommendation in the case of M/s Asia Inspection Agency Co. Ltd., Thailand on the basis of a complaint received. M/s Asia Inspection Agency Co. Ltd., Thailand was approved as PSIA vide P.N. No. 15 dated 31/5/2016. The Committee has recommended that only 2 machines, Radcomm 200125 & 200126 may be approved for the applicant, as these were the only machines found acceptable by the Committee as per the stipulated requirement, and approval granted to other machines as listed in P.N. No. 15 dated 31/5/2016 against M/s Asia Inspection Agency Co. Ltd., Thailand is withdrawn. 

6. The Committee also considered the request of M/s Exim World.Ltd., Canada and M/s WISE Services FZE, UAE for addition of new machines. The Committee decided that applications for new machines / areas will not be considered in this meeting as under consideration at this stage is only the cases of new applicants. 

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

**----- Start of picture text -----**<br>
:<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br>


**==> picture [503 x 717] intentionally omitted <==**

s. 

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

**----- Start of picture text -----**<br>
:<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br>


**==> picture [503 x 717] intentionally omitted <==**

**----- Start of picture text -----**<br>
L ] [el Fe<br>‘ 7<br>= <= ><br>oO oO 3<br>> | = S<br>mm9<br>oFsS 2<br>co}ols >oa+= ~~.|<br>3, S.<br>fo)n WV0)<br>Nn n<br>‘ awe | &lara<br>Cc Cc<br>x R<br>:<br>4<br>1a 2G 2 =<br>Hebe OO Lae Oo » za<br>F.1D OfM Oo x 2<br>33/3 3 ® m ;<br>4? 3/" 3 x<br>Cc<br>ame A<br>; TT<br>: |e].|e)of a 32oD —Q<br>—] a = ><br>io) fo) 5<br>1 | 6eB SnA r=4 .<br>iS)1a wiN oOOo .<br>] =<br>oO<br>{RR}1 oOo fo) By a<br>1 & LSE ca 3<br>a 2 om =.<br>2<br>. an<br><|/</|#82F 28 =<br>. ol] o}ebso56s a.<br>“| * |ees $3) |g<br>2. =}<br>: s|s " =<br>lolo & 9 |=<br>en rr Le ETL et ERR Sen a neem TT TS 5 S o A<br>» ft)<br>< < 8220750<br>mi m eof63<br>(7) (,) sass<br>® Do<br>fos 5 oy<br>ae sv<br>: o><br>cel o< < to<br>m m 2 06 i<br>i a) n 2<br>2 o »<br>os 2s<br>yt)<br>®<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br>


**==> picture [187 x 82] intentionally omitted <==**

**----- Start of picture text -----**<br>
:<br>;<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br>


.