Supplementary Agenda -II for the 126th meeting of the BoA for SEZs

3 4 No. K-43022l I 5 4 /2024-5E7. Govemment of India Ministry of Commerce and lndustry Department of Commerce (SEZ Section) Vanijya Bhawan. New Delhi Dated the 20'h January. 2025 O}-[ ICE MENIoR,\NI)T.IM

Subject: l26th Meeting of the Board ol Approval (BoA) for Special Economic Zones (SEZs)

scheduled to be held on 24th January. 2025 - Supplemcntary Agenda - II - regarding. The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. of even number dated 26rh December. 2024 and 30th December, 2024 on the subject cited above and to inform that the l26th meeting of the BoA lbr SEZs is scheduled to be held on 241h January. 2025, I I .00 AM. at Room No. 427. Vanijya Bhawan, New Delhi under the Chairmanship of Commerce Secretary in hybrid mode. 2. The Supplcmentary Agenda - I I for thc I 26!h meeting of the BoA for SEZs is enclosed herervith. Thc same has also bcen lrostcd on thc website: www'sezindia.qov.in. All the addrcsses arc requcsted to kindly make il convenient to attend the mecting. The meeting link ol'the aforesaid meeting will be shared shorty (Sumit Kum Under Secrelary to the Govemment of lndia Tel: 23039829 Ilmail: sumit.sachan@nic.in lo l. Central Board ol llxcise and Customs. Member (Customs). Department of Revenue- North Block. Ncw l)elhi. (f'ax: 23092628). 2. Central Board ol'lndircct 'l-axes and Customs. Membcr (l'l'). Department of Revenue. No(h Block. New Delhi. (23095479
3. Joint Secretary. Ministry of Finance. Department of Financial Services. Banking Division. Jeevan Deep Building. New Delhi (Fax:23344462123366797)- 4. Shri Sanjiv. Joint Secrctary, f)epartmcnt of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT). UdyogBhawan, New Delhi. 5. Joint Secretary. Ministry ol Shipping, Transport Bhawan. New Delhi. 6.

7)- 4. Shri Sanjiv. Joint Secrctary, f)epartmcnt of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT). UdyogBhawan, New Delhi. 5. Joint Secretary. Ministry ol Shipping, Transport Bhawan. New Delhi. 6. Joint Secretary (E), Ministry olPetroleum and Natural Cas. ShastriBhawan. New Dclhi 7. .loint Secretary. Ministry of Agriculture. Plant Protection. KrishiElhawan. Ne w Delhi. 8. Ministry of Science and Technology, Sc 'G' & t{ead ('l'DT), 1'echnology Bhavan' Mehrauli Road. New I)elhi. ('l'elefax: 26862512)
Sachan)

9. Joint Secretary. Departmenl of Biotechnology. Ministry of Science and Technology. 7tr' Floor. Block 2. CGO Cornplex, Lodhi Road. New Delhi - 1 l0 003.
10. A<jditional Secretary and Development conrmissioner (Micro. Small and Mediun Enterpriscs Scale Industry). Room No. 701. NirmanBhavan, Ncw Delhi (Fax: 230623 l5). I I . Secretary, Depa(ment of Electronics & Inlormation Technology. Electronics Niketan. 6, CGO Complex, New Delhi. (Fax: 24363101)
11. Joint Secretary (lS-l). Ministry of Home Alfairs. North Block' New Delhi (Fax: 23092569)
12. Joint Secretary (C&W). Ministry olDefence, Irax: 23015444. South Block, New Delhi.
13. Joint Secretary. Ministry of Environment and Foresls. PariyavaranBhavan. CGo Complex. New Delhi - I 10003 (Fax: 24363577)
14. Joint Secretary & Legislative Counsel, Legislative Department. M/o Law & Justice. A- Wing. ShastriBhavan. New Delhi. (Tel: 23387095).
15. Department olLegal Affairs (Shri Hemant Kumar. Assistant l,egal Adviser), M/o Law & .lustice. New Delhi. I 7. Secretary. Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals. Shastri Bhawan.

(Tel: 23387095). 16. Department olLegal Affairs (Shri Hemant Kumar. Assistant l,egal Adviser), M/o Law & .lustice. New Delhi. I 7. Secretary. Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals. Shastri Bhawan. New Delhi 18. Joint Secretary. Ministry ol Overseas Indian Aftairs. Akbar Bhawan. Chanakyapuri. New Delhi. (l: axl. 2467 41 40) 19. Chiel Planner. Department o1' Urban Aftairs. Town Country Planning Organisation. VikaslJhavan (E-Block). l.P. Estate. New Delhi. (Fax: 2i073678i23379197) 20. Director General. Director Gcneral of f-oreign 1rade, Department of Commerce. UdyogBhavan. New Delh i. 2l . Director General. Export Promotion Councit lbr EOUs/SEZs, 8G, 8'h Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15. Barakhamba l{oad, New Delhi I l0 001 (Fax: 223329770) 22. Dr. RupaChanda. Proiessor, Indian Institute of Management. Bangalore, Ilennerghata Road. Bangalore. Kamataka 23. Developnent Commissioncr. Noida Special [.]conomic Zone. Noida. 24. Development Commissioner. Kandla Special Economic Zone, Gandhidham. 25. Development Commissioner. [ralta Special Economic Zone, Kolkata. 26. Development Commissioner. SEEPZ Special Economic Zone, Mumbai. 27. Development Commissioner. Madras Special Economic Zone. Chennai 28. Development Commissioner. Visakhapatnam Spccial Economic Zone. Visakhapatnam 29. Development Commissioner. Cochin Special Economic Zone. Cochin. 30. Development Commissioner. Indore Special Flconomic Zone. lndore. 31. Dcvelopment Commissioner. Mundra Special Economic Zone, 4th [iloor, C Wing. Port Users Building, Mundra (Kutch) Gujarat. 32. Development Commissione r.

ner. Indore Special Flconomic Zone. lndore. 31. Dcvelopment Commissioner. Mundra Special Economic Zone, 4th [iloor, C Wing. Port Users Building, Mundra (Kutch) Gujarat. 32. Development Commissione r. Dahcj Special Rconomic Zone. Fadia Chambers. Ashram Road. Ahmedabad. Gujarat 33. Development Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Special Economic Zone. SEEPZ Service Center. Central Road, Andheri (East). Mumbai 400 096 34. Development Commissioner. Sterling Special Economic Zone, Sandesara Estate, AtladraPadra Road" Vadodara - 390012 35. Developn,ent Commissioner. Andhra Pradeslr Special Economic 7,one. UdyogBhawan, 9th Floor, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam 3 36. Development Commissioner, Reliance Jamnagar Special Economic Zone. Jamnagar, Cujarat 37. f)evelopment Commissioner. Surat Special Economic Zone. Surat. Guiarat 38. Development Commissioner. Mihan Special llconomic Zone. Nagpur. Maharashtra 39. Development Commissioncr. Sricity Special Economic Zone. Andhra Pradesh.

rat Special Economic Zone. Surat. Guiarat 38. Development Commissioner. Mihan Special llconomic Zone. Nagpur. Maharashtra 39. Development Commissioncr. Sricity Special Economic Zone. Andhra Pradesh.

40. Developmcnt (-'ommissioner. Mangalore Special Economic Zone' Mangalore'
41. Development Commissioncr. GIF"I' SEZ' Gujarat
42. Commercc Department. e.P. Secretariat' Hyierabad 500022' (Fax: 040-23452895)'
43. Gor..nrn.nt of Telangana. Spccial Chief Secretary' lndustries and Commerce

• O"pun.*,. Tclangana-secretariat Khairatabad' Hyderabad''[elangana' ++. Co'r"-..nt of Kainataka- Principal Secretary' Commcrce and Industry Depanment' Vit u, Saudha. Bangalore - 560001 (Fax: 080-22259870)

45. Government of Maharashrra. principal Secretary (lndustries). Energy and l-abour Depanment. Mumbai - 400 0i2'
46. Govemment of Gujarat' ftinciput Secretary' Industries and Mines Department Sardar PatelBhawan.BlockNo.5.3rdl.loor.Gandhinagar-382010(Fax:079-23250844)..
47. Govemment of W.rt s"ngut, l"intipuf Secretary'-lCommerce and Industry)' lP Branch 14'h Floorl. StlZ Section- 'L-Abanindranath Tagore Sarani (Camac Street) Kolkata - 700 016 48.Governmentol.].amilNadu.PrincipalSecretary(lndustries).FortSt.George.Chennar

• 600009 (Fax: 044-25370822)'

49. Govemment of Kerala' p""tip"l Secretary (lndustries)' Government Sccretariat' Trivandrum - 695001 (Fax: 0471-2333017)'
50. Govemntent of Haryana. F inancial Commissioner and Principal Secretau)' -" O.p""..", oi Ind.,stties' tlaryana Civil Secretariat' Chandigarh (Fax: 0172-1740526). ---:^. /-^-^... St.

71-2333017)' 50. Govemntent of Haryana. F inancial Commissioner and Principal Secretau)' -" O.p""..", oi Ind.,stties' tlaryana Civil Secretariat' Chandigarh (Fax: 0172-1740526). ---:^. /-^-^... St. Co*.n.nt of Rajasthan' Principal Secretary-^( Industries)' Secretariat Campus' '" Ahug*un l)as Road. Jaipur 302005 (014l -2227 7 88) r ^r '-L-.r,,r qh^.,' 52. Governntenr of Uttar p.J".[. principal Secretary. (lndustries). Lal Bahadur Shastrt

Bhuun. Lucknow - 226001(Fax: 0522-2238255)' 53. Government ol' Punjab. erincipat Secretary Department of Industry & Commerce UdyogBhawan). Secior - l7' Chandigarh- 160017' 54. Govemment of Puducherry' Secretary' Department of lndustries' Chiei Secretariat' Puducherry. SS. -C"""-rt of Odisha" Principal Secretary -^(lnd

• -' Shrbune.h*ar 75 I 001 (Fax: 067 I -5368 19124062q9' ustries). Odisha Secretariat' of Madhya Pradcsh. Chief Sccrctary' (Commerce and lndustry).

56. (iovcrnmcnt Vallabhllhav
57. Govcmlmcnt an, Bhopal (Fax: 0755-2559974) "iU*r"f.fr""a. Principal Secretary. (lndustries)' No' 4' Subhash Road' Secretariat. Dehradun. Uttarakhand
58. Governnrent oi Jharkhand (Secrctary)' Department of lndustries Ncpal llouse' Doranda' Ranchi - 834002'
59. Union 'l'erritory ol' Oaman and Diu and Dadra Nagar llaveli' Secretary (lndustries)' Department of Industries. iccrctariat' Moti Daman I 396220 (Fax: 0260-22307 7 5)'
60. Government ol Nagatal p*ttfp"f Secretary' Dcpartment of lndustries and Commcrcel. Kohima. Nagaland' r..-.-:^^ ni-^^,^,ara ^t

dustries. iccrctariat' Moti Daman I 396220 (Fax: 0260-22307 7 5)' 60. Government ol Nagatal p*ttfp"f Secretary' Dcpartment of lndustries and Commcrcel. Kohima. Nagaland' r..-.-:^^ ni-^^,^,ara ^t 61. Government of Cnutti't'gi't''' Commissioner-cum-secrctarv Industries' Dircctorate ol lndustries. Llc Building L:a;p;;:il;i;;;' Pandri' Raipur' Chhattisgarh (Fax: 0771 -258365 I ). Copy to: PPS to CS / PPS to AS (LSS) / PPS to JS (Vn)/ PA to Dir (GP)'

Agenda ltem No. rz6.ro: Request for Co-Developer status It proposal - lz6.ro(i)l Relevant provision: In terms of sub-section (rr) under Section 3 of the SEZ Act, 2oo5, Any person who or a State Gouernment uhich, intends to prouide any infrastruclure facilities in the identified area or undertake antt authorized operation after entering into an agreement with the Deueloper, make a proposal for the same to the Board for its approual. r26.1o(i) Proposal of M/s. Steinncg Sharaf (India) Private Limited for Co-Developer status in Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority-SFlZ, Raigad, Navi Mumbai. Jurisdictional SliZ - SIiIiPZ SFIZ (SIiEPZ) Facts of the case: I Name of the Developer & location M/s. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority, Raigad, Navi Mumbai - 4oo7o7 2 Date of LOA to Developer 16.o7.2ot4 3 Sector of the SFIZ Multi Product/ Multi Sector SEZ 4 Date of Notification rr.o8.zor4 5 Total notified area (in Ilectares) 277 387 Hectare 6 Whether the SEZ is operational or not Operational I If operational, datc of Operationalization 24.06.2o2o ii. No. of Units 54 llt Total Exports & Imports for the 'last S years (Rs.

77 387 Hectare 6 Whether the SEZ is operational or not Operational I If operational, datc of Operationalization 24.06.2o2o ii. No. of Units 54 llt Total Exports & Imports for the 'last S years (Rs. in Cr.) Thc SEZ became operational w.e.f. 24.06.2020 and the total Exports and Imports are lls. 4816.69 crores and Rs.1o342.94 crores, respectively for the period from 24.06.2o2o till date. I'. Total Employrnent (In Nos.) 784 Nos. 7 Name of the Co-Developer sought approval for Co-Developer status M/s. Steinweg Sharaf (lndia) Private Limited, Page I of 27 Supple-uqcnlary4ccadLll for the-re6l1 mepting of the Bqard sf Apprqyal jor Special flconomic Zones (SFlZs) to be held on 24th January. 2o2s

PIot No. 6o4+6o5+6o6, Sector 6 at JNPA- SEZ, Village Sonari, 'l'aluka: Uran, l)ist: Raigad, Maharashtra, PIN 4oo7o7 Recommendation b-v- DC, SEB,PZ: The request of M/s. Steinweg Sharaf (India) Private Limited for granting Co-Developer status in Plot No. 6o4+6o5+6o6, Sector 6 at JINPA- SEZ, Village Sonari, Taluka: Uran, Dist: Raigad, Maharashtra, PIN 4oo7O7 for "Development, operation and Maintenance of Processing Zone and to develop Free 'I'rade warehousing Zone (FTWZ) and infrastructure like Modular Infrastructure Facilities, Container Yard, office complex, Open spaces, Roads, Operations Leasing of project infrastructure, and its allied logistics and supply of utility in the SIIZ Area" at JNPA -SFIZ and undertaking other default authorized operations as per Mocl Instruction No.

tions Leasing of project infrastructure, and its allied logistics and supply of utility in the SIIZ Area" at JNPA -SFIZ and undertaking other default authorized operations as per Mocl Instruction No. 5o dated: 15.o3.2o1o in 48572 Sq. Mtr (+.8s Hectare) area, is recommended, in terms of section 3(rl) of sEZ Act zoo5 & Rule 3-A of SEZ Itules zoo6 and forwarded for consideration of the BoA' Page 2 ol 27 Developmcnt, OPerat Maintenance of Processing Zone and t er,elop Free Trade Warehousing Zon (F-lWZ) and infrastructure lik odular Infrastructure Facilities, ontainer Yard, office comPlex, OPe Roads, Operations Leasing o roject infrastructure, and its ogistics and suppll' of utility in the S ea" at JNPA -SEZ and undertakin ther default authorized operations per MOCI Instruction No.5o dated lon an paces, alli 15.C)3.2O1O fl"tails of Infrastructure authorized operations to be undertake facilities/ y the co-develoPer B,5Zz Sq Mtr (4.85 llectare ) 9 otal area (in Hectares) on ctir.ities will be performed by the co- uhi developer Rs. 169.93 crores 1(). Proposed investment by the Co- eveloper (Rs. in Cr.) Rs. r15.65 crores (Co-Deve Steinweg Sharaf (lndia) Privat mited) + Rs.597.25 crores (Steinw haraf FZCO, Dubai (Holdi mpanl) - Rs.7rz.9o crores loper Net r,r'orth of the Co-developer (Rs. in Cr) 6.77.2024 Date of the Co-developer agreement 12 B. 11.

Privat mited) + Rs.597.25 crores (Steinw haraf FZCO, Dubai (Holdi mpanl) - Rs.7rz.9o crores loper Net r,r'orth of the Co-developer (Rs. in Cr) 6.77.2024 Date of the Co-developer agreement 12 B. 11.

Agenda Item No. 126.11: Request for partial/full de-notification [r proposal - rz6.u(i)] Proccdural euidelines on de-notification of SEZ Page 3 of 27 In terms of first proviso to rule B of the SEZ Rules, zoo6, the Central Gouernment may, on the recommendation of the Board (Board of Approual) on the application made by the Deueloper, if it is satisfi.ed, modifu, uithdrau or rescind the notifi.ccttion of a SEZ issued under this rule. In the 6oth meeting of the Board of Approval held on o8.rr.zor3, while considering a proposal of de-notification, the Board after deliberations decided that henceforth all cases of partial or complete de-notification of SEZs will be processed on file by DoC, subject to the conditions that: (a) DC to furnish a certificate in the prescribed format certit/ing inter-alia that; o the Developer has either not availed or has refunded all the tax/duty benefits availed under SEZ Act/Rules in respect of the area to be de- notified. o there are either no units in the SEZ or the same have been de-bonded. (b) The State Gor.t. has no objection to the de-notification proposal and (c) Subject to stipulations communicated vide DoC's letter No. D.rz/ 45 I 2oog-SEZ dated r3.o9.zor3.

me have been de-bonded. (b) The State Gor.t. has no objection to the de-notification proposal and (c) Subject to stipulations communicated vide DoC's letter No. D.rz/ 45 I 2oog-SEZ dated r3.o9.zor3.

r25.11(i) Proposal of M/s' Adani Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd' for partial de-notificatio., oi Sis'r3q6 Ha out oi 8z8z'762o Ha of their multi product SEZ at Mundra, Kutch, Gujarat' .Iurisdictional SliZ - Adani Ports & SEZ (APSEZ) Facts ofthe case: Name of DeveloPer location LoA issued on (date) Sector Operational or not operational Notified Area (in Hectares) Area proposed for de- notification (in Hectares) : M/s. Adani Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd' : Mundra, Kutch, Gujarat I t4.o4.2c,C,6 (Formal APProval) : Multi Product : Operational with 60 units and 29,9o5 employments (in Nos.) : 8282.767o l[a. : 333.7396 Ha. on as-is-where-is basis. As per DoC's O.M. dated ;.4.07.2cl16 regarding required documents for partial de- notification and the status thereof is as below: tatus Documents/Details Required .

7396 Ha. on as-is-where-is basis. As per DoC's O.M. dated ;.4.07.2cl16 regarding required documents for partial de- notification and the status thereof is as below: tatus Documents/Details Required . No. es, provided orm-C5 for decrease in area recommendation along with DC's (i) es, provided DC's certificate in Prescribed format (ii) es, provided by DC ed n t n r e S COu I e o S r e\l D pe (iii) es, provided Land details of the area to tified countersigned be de-no YDC es, provided olored Map of the SEZ c ting area to be de- notified and left-over area dulY countersigned bY DC learlv indica (v) Page 4 of 27 M/s.AdaniPorts&SpecialEconomicZoneLtd.hasrequestedforpartialde-notification of Z3g.ZSg6Ha out of 8z8z.767o Ila' As regards reasons' the developer has submitted that due to stiff competition in the solar market and severe dumping of solar equipment intolndia,theUnitsinEMCarebecomingeconomicallyunviab]ewithintheSEZ.In order to sunive in this difficult market, it has become essential for these units to exit from SEZ. In view of this, the constituent units in the EMC area have desired not to continue their operations in SEZ format' Hence' the co-developer' Mundra So'lar Technopark Prt. Ild' Has requested the developer to de-notif;i the EMC are from SEZ Certificate (iv)

ve desired not to continue their operations in SEZ format' Hence' the co-developer' Mundra So'lar Technopark Prt. Ild' Has requested the developer to de-notif;i the EMC are from SEZ Certificate (iv)

No Objection Certificate" from the State Government (,i) .r.t. instructions issued by DoC vide its instruction No. es, provided D.rzl 45lzoog-SEZ dated 13.09.2013 for partial de- otification shall be complied with The State Government of Gujarat vide letter dated zz.o3.zoz4 has conveyed their No- objection to the proposal and requested to process the application of partial de- notification of an area of SS3-ZS-96 Flectares subject to below mentioned conditions:

1. APSEZ has to submit Boundary map of proposed de-notify area, which is prepared by DI l,R.
2. Developer has to assure for approach to proposed area of de-notification, if proposed area is surrounded by SEZ area. DC, APSEZ has certified that; . The existing units have been de-bonded following the procedure prescribed in Rule 74 of the SEZ Rules, zoo6. . The Developer, APSEZL had availed the following tax/duty benefits under SEZ Act/Rules - VAT/Commercial Tax - INR 7,r3,254l- and cST -lNR7,Bo,447l- All tax/duty benefits indicated above have been refunded by the Developer to DC's satisfaction. . The SEZ shall remain contiguous even after de-notification of the area of 333.n96 Ha and shall meet the minimum land requirement prescribed for multiproduct SEZ which is 50 hectares. In compliance of DoC's No.

all remain contiguous even after de-notification of the area of 333.n96 Ha and shall meet the minimum land requirement prescribed for multiproduct SEZ which is 50 hectares. In compliance of DoC's No. roz dated r8-rr-eorg regarding Phvsical Inspection and Contiguity condition, the site was inspected on 28.11.2c24 by PO, APSEZ along with Circle Officer, Mundra and the representative of the Developer. It is noted that the land area, proposed to be de-notified, u,as found to have independent access to DTA post de- notification with DTA arca (north and west) and notified SEZ (south and east). Remaining special economic zone shall remain contiguous after de-notification of the proposed area. Further, vide Certificate dated r4.rr.zoz4, the DC has certified that the SEZ shall remain contiguous even after the de-notification of 333.74 Ha. Recommendation by DC, APSIiZ: In view of the above, it is requested to kindly consider the proposal of the Developer for partial de-notification of an area of S33.ZSS6 IIa. of land out of the existing 8234.1840 hectares of notificd SEZ at Mundra. (vii) l'No Dues Certificate' from specified officer [V"r+.- iaea Page 5 of 27

al de-notification of an area of S33.ZSS6 IIa. of land out of the existing 8234.1840 hectares of notificd SEZ at Mundra. (vii) l'No Dues Certificate' from specified officer [V"r+.- iaea Page 5 of 27

As per Rule r8(r) of the SEZ ltules, lhe Approual Committee maA approue ot' reject a proposal for setting up oJ Unit in a Special Economic Zone' Cases for consideration of extension of t€ttcr of Approval i'r'o' units in SEZs are governed by Rule r9(4) of SEZ Rules. nule tg(+) states that toA shall be valid for one year' First Proviso grants power to DCs for extending the LoA for a period not exceeding 2 years' becond pro'iso grants furthcr power to DCs for extending the IoA for one more year subject to the condition that two-thirds of activities including construction, relating to the setting up of the Unit is complete and a Chartered Engineer's certificate to this effect is submitted b1' the entrepreneur. Extensions beyond 3'd year (or beyond 2nd year in cases where two-third activities are not complete) and onwards are granted by BoA' BoA can extend the validity for a period ofone year at a time' Relevant Rule position: 'l'here is no time limit uP to u,hich the Board can extend the validiq'. Page 6 of 27 Agenda Item No. r26.t22 Request for extcnsion of l,oA of StiZ Unit [r proposal - rz6'rz(i)]

evant Rule position: 'l'here is no time limit uP to u,hich the Board can extend the validiq'. Page 6 of 27 Agenda Item No. r26.t22 Request for extcnsion of l,oA of StiZ Unit [r proposal - rz6'rz(i)]

r26.12(i) Proposal of M/s. Mundra petrochem Limited, APSEZ, Mundra for grant ofLOA extension for a period ofone-year. Jurisdictional SEZ - Adani Port & SEZ, Mundra (APSEZ) Facts ofthe case: Name of the Unit LOA issued on (date) Nature of business of the unit No. of extensions granted LOA Valid up to (date) Request for Mundra Petrochem Limited 30-72-2027 Manufacturing of Caustic Soda, PVC, Tar, Sodium Sulphate, Ammonium Sulphate etc. z years by Development Commissioner 29-12-2024 One-year extension upto 30-12-2025 (a) Details ofbusiness plan: - \pe of Cost P&M, civil construction and other costs (b) Investment made so far & incremental investment since last extension: Tlpe of Cost Incremental investment since last extension (Rs. in cr) P&M and Civil 3,703 r. The overall CAPEX and timeline for completing the construction and commissioning of project is ANR 34,7oo Cr. and 4 years from the start of the construction activity. z. While the LOA was issued in December, zozr, due to Covid pandemic and other issues, the start of the project and commissioning was rescheduled. J. Now, the project activities are progressing in full swing. Total Investment made so far (Rs. in cr) S. No Proposed Investment (Rs. in INR) 1 34,7oo ct S. No 1 436s Page 7 oI 27 Details as informed by the Unit:

oject activities are progressing in full swing. Total Investment made so far (Rs. in cr) S. No Proposed Investment (Rs. in INR) 1 34,7oo ct S. No 1 436s Page 7 oI 27 Details as informed by the Unit:

4.TheCharteredEngineerhascertifiedthattheprojectcompletionstatusof Mundra Petrocheni Ltd. is under 1/31<r o1u"t' 't'"s relating to setting up ofthe unit. 5. The unit expects to employee more than zooo employees including contractors on regular basis for the production and other related activities' DetailsofPhysicalprogresstilldate:Ascertifiedbythecharteredengineervide certificate daled z7-rt-zoz4: - Activitiescompleted-TemporaryRoad,Drainage,Powerconnectionfacilities for construction work and Labour colony, Construction site office, Security facilities, Canteen Building, ground levelling, Construction of Water storage facilities, Warehouse - 5 nos. Activities under progress- Pile cap/ sub-structures (RCC work) & pre-cast column, Structure Fabrication & Equipment erection for VCM finishing column, piping, civil work for chlor alkali plant & PVC cooling tower etc' project Implementation schedule: - considering the size of the project, the unit has submitted that the project activities will be ready in another I year and thereafter the trial run may take another 6-8 months.

mentation schedule: - considering the size of the project, the unit has submitted that the project activities will be ready in another I year and thereafter the trial run may take another 6-8 months. Accordingly, the commercial production is expected to start by the end of zoz6. Reason for Delay: - The unit has informed, considering the size ofthe project and big investment, the start of the project and commissioning was rescheduled due to covid pandemic and other issues. Recommendation bY DC, APSEZ: DC, APSEZ, Mundra has recommended for extension of the LoA for r year i.e. upto 30- t2-2O25. Page 8 of 27

Agenda Item No. t26.t3: Miscellaneous [r case - r26.4(i)] 126.$(i) Proposal of M/s. Perungudi Real Estates private Limited for Dual Use Infrastructure in Non-Processing Area of SEZ in terms of Rule u A(r) ofSEZ Rules, zoo6. .Iurisdictiona'l Sts,Z - l{i-,PZ Str,7, (tr{t;,p7,) Facts of the case: Name of the SIiZ Location M/s. Perungudi Real Estates Private Limited No. 5/t42, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, OMR Road, Perungudi, Palavakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu ITlITES 3r.03.2O17 Sector Formal Approval (date) Notified land area (in Hectares) Operational status 4.28 I-la Operational w.e.f. or.o8.zozr r.t ith r7 no. of Units The Developer vide letter dated r5tt' Ju]y zoz4 and 19th November 2024 has now requested for Dual use approval of Tower 4 building admeasuring 3,oBo.oo Sq,mtr. built-up area in non-processing area in terms of Rule rr A(r) of SEZ Rules zoo6.

y zoz4 and 19th November 2024 has now requested for Dual use approval of Tower 4 building admeasuring 3,oBo.oo Sq,mtr. built-up area in non-processing area in terms of Rule rr A(r) of SEZ Rules zoo6. The Developer stated that they have a proposal to utilize the non-processing area for Dual Use purpose for Restaurant/Resto bar and retail outlets. Particulars Details Total Built-up area (in Square meters), as informed by the developer. 2,S9,261.oo Sq.mtr Total Built-up area rn 1,86336.oo Sq.mtrs 72,925.oo Sq.mtrs Page 9 of 27 In this regard, the Developer has submitted the following details: - Total Built-up area in Processing Area (in Square meters), as informed by the developer.

Non-Processing area Square meters), informed bY developer. l)etails of Sq.mtrs.) rB57.oo Sq.mtrs Dual Use lnfrastructure in Non-Processing area (in (in as the Ground l]loor l.irst Floor Second F'loor 'l'otal area Block Total extent utilized for Infrastructure of Dual land Use 308O.Oo (4.22o/o of lolal NPA) q66.69 756i31 Restaurant / Restobar Infrastructure ProPos to be develoPed bv r / Co-develoPer Net Worth Certificate rB57.oo ed Develope r,42,,o3,725.oO (Rupees One Crore Forty-Two Lakhs 'l'hree Thousand Seven Ilundred and 'frventr-Five only) on c,6.71.2024, 08'11'2024 and 27.C,4.2C,21 for dual use infrastructure in non- processlng area Infrastructure dated 19.11.2o24 Government dated from State Specified officer has given NOC for Dual Use Net worth Certificate ntant for the Value of Developer certificd b has submitted the y Chartered Accou tertificate, the Chartered E,nglneer Status of refundof

ified officer has given NOC for Dual Use Net worth Certificate ntant for the Value of Developer certificd b has submitted the y Chartered Accou tertificate, the Chartered E,nglneer Status of refundof No Objection Certificate Turnover of the Existing { 39,406 lakhs {. (-) z,z49.oo l^akhs Business from State Government Non-Processing Area. 1.2.77.2024. No Objection Certificate from Specified Officer As per duties of t Developer has Paid their applicable tax / dutY benefits availed on the Dual in area proposed for Use lnfrastructure NoC obtained Mechanism for movement of Persons in the area proposed for Dual use Non-Processing Area. Access Control ensure & follow separate lane for entry and exit, appropriate access control & screening mechanisms in the Non-processing dual use zone' The developer has mentioned that they shall Page 10 of 27 'fou'er 4

Further, as regards payment of state duty exemptions or benefits, the Developer has stated that the land was registered in March zo16 with the payment of applicable stamp duty and Registration charges to state Government. Then the land was subsequently notified as an sEZ in March zot7. The Developer has provided an undertaking stating that no stamp duty / registration charges / charges for change of land use or any other benefits have been availed from the State Government for Dual Use purpose. The Developer obtained the No objection certificate (Noc) from the state Government dated z7.o4.zozr for Dual use Infrastructure in the Non-processing area and sEZ become operational from August zozr onwards.

oper obtained the No objection certificate (Noc) from the state Government dated z7.o4.zozr for Dual use Infrastructure in the Non-processing area and sEZ become operational from August zozr onwards. The Developer has stated that there have been no changes to the land area and the Developer has not availed any benefits since the issuance of the Noc from the state Government. Furthermore, the Developer has refunded the applicable tax / duty benefits availed for the proposed Dual use Infrastructure area and same has been certified by Specified Officer concerned. The following documents have been submitted by the Developer: - i. ii. iii. iv. NoC from the Specified officer NoC from the State Government Chartered Engineer's Certifi cate Undertaking by the developer for papnent of differential duties Copy of Challans Relevant provisions under the SEZ law Rule rr: Processing and non-processing area: - (t) The Deuelopment Commissioner shall demarcate the area and issue demarcation order under the prouision of section 6, specifying the suruey numbers and boundaries of area of the Special Economic Zone as specifi.ed in the notification issued under rule B. Rule uA: Bifurcation of non-processing area: - The non-processing area can be bifurcated into ttuo parts, namely: (r) Where the social or corll.rrz.ercial infr:astructure snd other .facilities are pennitted to be used bg both the Special Econotnic Zone and Domestic Tariff Area entities: No exemptiotts, concessions or drauback shall be admissible for creatiort of such infrastructure.

lities are pennitted to be used bg both the Special Econotnic Zone and Domestic Tariff Area entities: No exemptiotts, concessions or drauback shall be admissible for creatiort of such infrastructure. The Customs dutg, Centrol Excise duty, Central Goods and. Seruices Tax, Integrated Goods PaEe t! of 27

and Seruices Tox and Stote Goods and Seruices Tax and such other Central leuiesandtaxbenefitsalread.yauailedforcreationofsuchinfrtlstructureshall be refunded by the Deueloperin fttll, without interest' Howeuer' in coses of short paAment of the amount refundable to the Gouernment on account of dual use 'p"i*issioi, interest will haue to be paid at the rcrte of fifteen per cent per onnum fi'om the day the said. amount becomes payable to the date of actual paAment ' Lltilisahon of SEZ land shall be subject to following comlitions: (a) the tand is to be put to only such use which is os per the regulations of the concerned State Gouernment or local bodies; (b) if any exemption or refund has been laken from State or local taxes like stamp dufu State Goods and Seruices Tax' change of land uses' etc'' the same shall be refunded back to State Gouernment or local authorities and a certificate to this effect shall be produced fi'om the concernetl authorities ; (c) No Objection Certificate (NOC) ftom the concernetl State Gouernment 'shall be produced bifore the consideration of the request by Boartl of Approuai (BoA).

uced fi'om the concernetl authorities ; (c) No Objection Certificate (NOC) ftom the concernetl State Gouernment 'shall be produced bifore the consideration of the request by Boartl of Approuai (BoA). Staie Gouernment may issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) taking into consideration (a) and (b) aboue' (S') The Depattment of Commerce has prouided the following norms tuith ,irp"rt to aieas to be earmarked for residential, commercial and' other social facilities:' (a) The Deueloper or Co-deueloper shall submit cn applicaion in the format as specified by the Central Gouernment to the Deuelopment Commissioner inaiirting iherein the portion of the non-processing area where social or commercial infrastructure ond othet facilities are proposed to be used by both Special Economic Zone and Domestic 'Iariff Area entities and the said ipplication shall be accompanied u_tith a copy of the Infrastructure PIan and No Oii""tion Certificate fi'om the concerned State Gouernment and supporting documents. @) fhe Deuelopment Commissioner shall forward the said application to the Board of Approual (BoA) for approual. (c) The" aiea restrictions for dutg paid dual use non processing area in the Special Economic Zones shall be as follotus: (i) Housing - not more than tuentg-fiue per cent of non-ptocessing area; (ii) Commercial- not more than ten per cent of non-processing area: '(iii) Open area and circulation orea-not less than forty-fiue per cent of non-pro<'essing area: Page 12 of 27

n-ptocessing area; (ii) Commercial- not more than ten per cent of non-processing area: '(iii) Open area and circulation orea-not less than forty-fiue per cent of non-pro<'essing area: Page 12 of 27

(iu) Social and institutional infrastructure including schools, colleges, socio-cultural centtes, training inshtute.s, banks, post office, etc., in the remaining area. (d) Floor Area Ratio or Floor Space Index shall conform to the norms of the co ncerned I ocal authoritie s. (e) No sale shall be permitted of such duty paid dual use infrastructure in the non-processing area and only lease hold rights can deuolue upon the users or ffansferees of the said dual use duty paid infrastructure in Non -Process ing Area of Special Economic Zones; and (fl Any other conditions as may be specified by the Department of Commerce or Board of Approual. Recommendation by DC, MlilrZz The proposal of M/s. Perungudi Real Estates Private Limited, the Developer for Dual Use Infrastructure of 3,o8o Sq.mtr. built-up area in Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule rt A(r) of SEZ Rules 2006, is recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA. PaBe L3 of 27

per for Dual Use Infrastructure of 3,o8o Sq.mtr. built-up area in Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule rt A(r) of SEZ Rules 2006, is recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA. PaBe L3 of 27

Agenda Item No. rz6.l^4z Appeal [z cases - 126.14(i) & rz6.r+(ii)] Rule oosition: - In terms of the rule 55 of the SEZ Rules, 2006' any person mittee under section t5 or fi, may prefer an aPPeal to the Board in the liorm J. Further, in terms of rule 56, an nP'peal shall be prefened by the aggrieued person within a period of thirtY daYs fi'om the d,ate of receipt of the order of the Approual Committee under rule 18. Furthermore, if the Board is satisfed that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal uithin the aforesaid period, it may for reosons to be recorded in writinq, arlmit the appeal after the el.piry of the aforesaid period but before the etpiry of forty-fiue daYs fiom the date of communicatiotr to hint oJ'the tn'<ler of the A1t1troual Committee. 12o.14(i) Appeal filed b-v M/s. Nara Exim l't' Ltd' against the decision of UAC, Falta SEZ. Jurisdictional Slrz - l'alta SIiZ (FSEZ) Brief facts of the case: M/s. Nara Exim Prt. Ltd' u'as issued toA dated 18'rz'1996 for setting up a plastic recycling unit in Falta sEZ. The t oA of the unit was renen'ed from time to time and valid ,pio ,6in August, 2022. The request of the unit for further renewal of its LoA was last considered in the r8znd meeting of the UAc, FSEZ held on 27.C,8.2024.

was renen'ed from time to time and valid ,pio ,6in August, 2022. The request of the unit for further renewal of its LoA was last considered in the r8znd meeting of the UAc, FSEZ held on 27.C,8.2024. The uAc, after deliberations, decided not to renew the toA as the unit failed to meet the conditions as specified b1-.the BoA in its uzth meeting held on z9.lo.zozz.'lhe decision was convel'ed to the unit vide FSEZ's letter dated 23.09.2024. Being aggrieved u,ith the decision of the uAc, the unit has filed the instant appeal in for- .l dut"d o2.t7.2o24 before the BoA in terms of Rule 55 of the SEZ Rules' zoo6' Further, in terms of Rule 56, the unit has also filed an application to condone the delal' in filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit' aggrieued by an order passed by the Approual Com against cancellation of Letter of Approual under section Page L4 of 27

GROUNDS OTT THI] APPI.]AI,: a) For that the [d. Competent Authority has not considered further renewal of LOA on rvrong findings that they have not fulfilled the conditions as specified in the letter dated 14.r2.2022. b) For that the I-d. Competent Authority failed to understand that the Appellant was prevented to continue smooth production due to renewal of LOA for short period. The Appellant in hardship condition accepted the direction of BOA. The BOA also travelled beyond the scope of SEZ Act, 2oo5 R/W SEZ Rule, 2tl06. As per SEZ Act, 2oo5 R/W SEZ Rule, zoo6 the LOA has to be renewed for 5 years. Therefore, non-renewal of LOA is arbitrary and suffers from legal infirmity. c) For that the ld.

o5 R/W SEZ Rule, 2tl06. As per SEZ Act, 2oo5 R/W SEZ Rule, zoo6 the LOA has to be renewed for 5 years. Therefore, non-renewal of LOA is arbitrary and suffers from legal infirmity. c) For that the ld. Competent Authority failed to appreciate that the unit was in smooth operation up to joth November. zotq. sincc last twcntv vears and achieved lvc doi rC ular dex rts. Therefore, LOA was continued to be renewed for every five years. Thereafter, to force ma eure of Covid-rq [,ock down the Appellant was not able to continue production. In May, 2o2o due to force maieure Cyclone Amphan. the Aooellant faced substantial e in the facto shc ; hence the Appellant's unit rvas closed for a long period. During that situation the Appellant's LOA was extended for a short period of time (viz one year, six months, six months, one month etc.), in that situation the Appellant was not in position to convert shed in workable condition without securing the renewal of LOA for five years. d) Itor that the Ld. Competent Authority erred in holding that in absence of fir,e vears renewal of LOA, the Appellant is unable to obtain long term export order. PRAYF]R: a. In the circumstances, it is humbly prayed that Your kind self may graciously be pleased to expeditiously dispose of the captioned appeal based upon the documents and records annexed hereto and/or referred to and/or relied upon herein upon dispensing with all formalities; b.

y be pleased to expeditiously dispose of the captioned appeal based upon the documents and records annexed hereto and/or referred to and/or relied upon herein upon dispensing with all formalities; b. Pass such other order or orders and/or give such direction or directions as deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the given case. Page 15 of 27 e) For that the td. Competent Authority- failed to appreciate that in absence of valid LOA, the Appellant is incurring fixed expenditure like lease rent ofthe factory (updated), minimum electricity demand charges, staff salary, security charges etc.

c. Opportunity of Personal hearing may kindly be granted: And your appellant/petitioner, as in duty bound shall ever pray' INPUTS RECETVED FROM DC, FSEZ: Thesaidappealhasbeenexaminedin}-SEZ'Variousfactualinformationisasgir'en below: a. Earlier, M/s. Nara Exim Prt. Ltd., a Plastic Unit of Falta SEZ' holding LOA No' RIiPZILIC)IA-231961g847 dated 18'rz'1996, had requested to renew their LOA be)'ond z6.o8.zozz for a period of o5 (Five) years' b. Hou'ever. as per directions of the Board of APproval in its meeting held on 2g.7o.2o22, LOA of M/s. Nara Exim Pvt. Ltd. could otbee ende for a further period of 5 (Five) 1'ears as they failed to conform to BOA's guidelines. M/s. Nara Exim Prt. Ltd.

val in its meeting held on 2g.7o.2o22, LOA of M/s. Nara Exim Pvt. Ltd. could otbee ende for a further period of 5 (Five) 1'ears as they failed to conform to BOA's guidelines. M/s. Nara Exim Prt. Ltd. has made 'Nil' product ion and 'Nil' Exports during the prescribed r8 months period from 27.o7.2o27 upto z6'o7'zozz' This (non-renewal of their C LOA) was intimated to them vide this office letter dated r4'rz'zozz' Subsequently, with reference to an appeal filed by M/s' Plastic Process & nxporter P\t. Ltd before BOA on o5'o9'2o23, DOC vide letter dated 25'09'2023 requested the details of the units in KASEZ and Falta SEZ' which were operational and effecting exports prior to the stipulated period 18 months' but $€re not in operation during this stipulated r8-month period' FSEZ, based on FSEZ Customs ISN dated O2.7r.2o23, r'ide letter dated rl2.71..2ci23 forwarded the name of M/s' Nara Exim P't' Ltd' rvhich had done exports and DTA sale prior to 27 .or.2o2r ' but had not exported/ produced during the prescribed rB (eighteen) months period' puih"., vide letter dated o7.tr.zoz3, thc following reasons submitted vide their letter dated 22.77.2ci22 for non-operation of the unit were also forwarded to DOC: i. During C1'clone Amphan, their factory shed got damaged, which could not be repaired, as it n'as zo Years old. ii. Since full sheeting of the factory Shed was required to be changed' Investmentinrepairingwasalsosubstantial.Theunitalsofeltthatthereis alsoaneedforinvestmentinupgradationofmachinesfortechnological advancement. iii.

ting of the factory Shed was required to be changed' Investmentinrepairingwasalsosubstantial.Theunitalsofeltthatthereis alsoaneedforinvestmentinupgradationofmachinesfortechnological advancement. iii. As they got the LOA in May zozl upto August,2o 22 i'e' 14 (fourteen) months and estimated time required for repairing works was o6 (six) months, so they decided not to restart till they get LOA for o5 (five) 1'ears' iv. Further, r,r'ithout long term o5 (five) years LOA, they could not obtain export order to fulfil LOA conditions' v. The unit has also mentioned that since their major export country was China,duetohighcostoffreight,itwasnotfeasibletoexport'Also'dueto d e Page 15 of 27

Covid-tg, advisory international travel was difficult and no physical international exhibition r,r'as held to obtain export orders. f. The name and oerformance of M/s. Nara Exim [,td. before 27.01.2o2r was placed before trTth BOA held on r .7t.2023. DOC vidc their letter O.M. dated o8.rz. 2023 formed a committee includine DC. FSEZ to examine the aspects of M/s. Plastic Processors & Exporter Pr1. Ltd. and other similarlv o ed units, who are affected bv force maieure situation. h DOC vide their Office Memorandum dated zr.tz.zoz3 intimated the Record of discussiong {tle,Cqmnlittee held on 14.r2.2c.23 as given below: i. M/s. Plastic Processors & Exporter Prt. Ltd. appears to be the only SEZ unit rvhich claim to be affected b1. force majeure as there are no other similarly placed units as reported by DC/Kandla SEZ and DC/Falta SEZ. ii.

sors & Exporter Prt. Ltd. appears to be the only SEZ unit rvhich claim to be affected b1. force majeure as there are no other similarly placed units as reported by DC/Kandla SEZ and DC/Falta SEZ. ii. As such, a unit affected by accidental fire (force majeure) incident which curtailed their operations cannot be considered or placed on par with other SEZ recycling units. Keeping in view of the above obsen'ations, the committee decided to recommend that the unit, M/S. Plastic Processors & Exporter Pvt. Ltd. May be given an opportunity and renewal of LOA may be considered for a period of o5 (five) years. In response to M/S. Nara Exim's letter dated 17.or.2)24 to DC, FSEZ for renewal of LOA, it was intimated to the unit vide letter dated 19.01.2024, that the decision for non-renewal of LOA has already intimated to them I'ide letter dated 74.r2.2022. Then, an appeal dated 29.c2.2c24 was filed by M/S. Nara Exim Pvt. Ltd, against the decision communicated r,ide Falta SEZ letter dated r4.rz.zozz followed by letter dated rg.ot.2o24. DOC vide letter No. K-43org/g/zoz4-SEz-Part(1) dated 25.06.2C24 requested Falta SEZ to examine and consider the matter in the UAC, if required Accordingly, the matter was discussed in r8znd UAC meeting held on z7.o8.zoz4. Th n1 e concurrence to the osition of the o/o DC. F-alta SEz in the matter includinq conveva ofn newal of Letter of A roval of the unit as it failed to meet the BOA conditions. The decision of the 182nd UAC \a.as J k to DOC vide Falta SEZ letter No. I.' 2?.OA.2 024 PARA-WISE COMMENTS OF DC, F'SF],Z: l;.7.

etter of A roval of the unit as it failed to meet the BOA conditions. The decision of the 182nd UAC \a.as J k to DOC vide Falta SEZ letter No. I.' 2?.OA.2 024 PARA-WISE COMMENTS OF DC, F'SF],Z: l;.7. I,I A-2 s. No. Grounds ofAppeal C)hscrva tions/Com ments a) For that the Ld. Competent Authority has not considered The O/o the DC, Falta SEZ examined the records available, report of Specified Page L7 of 27

further renewal of LOA on wrong findings that theY have not fulfilled the conditions as specified in letter dated 74,t2.2022. Officer, FSEZ, data of NSDL and the documents submitted by the unit and found that the unit has not fulfilled the Terms & Conditions as specified by the BOA in it's meeting held on 2g.ro '2022 fot renewal of LOA of Plastic Recycling Units for a period of 5 (five) years u"e'f' 27.o8.2022 lo 26.C8.2027 on temporary basis. M/S. Nara Exim Prt. Ltd. has made 'Nil' production and 'Nil Exports during the prescribed 18 months Period from 27.or.2o27 ]uplo 26.o7.2022.

years u"e'f' 27.o8.2022 lo 26.C8.2027 on temporary basis. M/S. Nara Exim Prt. Ltd. has made 'Nil' production and 'Nil Exports during the prescribed 18 months Period from 27.or.2o27 ]uplo 26.o7.2022. Hence, as per BOA guidelines O/o the DC, FSEZ vide letter dated r4.r2.2o22 intimated the unit about the decision of non-renewal of l'OA' Hence, the contention of the appellant that he decision of the Competent Authority of ot renewing the LOA was based on wrong ndings is baseless' unit due to damage by cyclone Amphan (in May zozo) is lt'ithout any evidence, as no final claim was filed with insurance company, no formal assessment of damage was made. An SEZ cannot be made responsible for their non-up gradation/ renewal of machineries, which is their internal matter. Unfavourable Chinese market is also a ctor for which SEZ cannot be held responsible. Aiso, most of the Falta SEZ nits continued their production/ export uring/post Covid r9 lockdou'n. Its LOA was extended for 6 months (or.ot.zozr 30.06.2021) vide Falta SEZ LIC (AzSlg6lso33-3o35 be faced b1, the The hardshiP as statedto a Letter No. FSEZ/ For that the Ld. Competent uthority failed to understand that the APPellant was prevented to continue smooth production due to renewal of LOA for short Period. The Appellant in hardshiP condition accePted the direction of BOA. The BOA also travelled beYond the scoPe of SEZ Act, zoo5 SEZ Rule, 2006. As Per SEZ Act, 2oo5 SEZ Rule, 2006 the LOA has to be renen'ed for 5 Years erefore, non-renewal of LOA is arbitrary and suffers from legal infirmitY. ) Page 18 of 27

of SEZ Act, zoo5 SEZ Rule, 2006. As Per SEZ Act, 2oo5 SEZ Rule, 2006 the LOA has to be renen'ed for 5 Years erefore, non-renewal of LOA is arbitrary and suffers from legal infirmitY. ) Page 18 of 27

dated zz.ot.zozr, for r year (or.o7.zozr to 26.07.2022) vide Falta SEZ ktter No. FSEZILICIA-zgl961286 -2BB dated 05.06.2o27 and for r month (z7.o7.zozz - 26.08.2c22) vide Falta SEZ l€tter No. FSEZILTCIA z3/tgg6l7zz-724 dated 76.06.2022. It is not clear as to horv this worked against the smooth production of the unit. c) For that the Ld. Competent Authority failed to appreciate that the unit was in smooth operation up to 3ott] November, zor9, since last twenty years and achieved positive NFE, by doing regular production and exports. Therefore, LOA n'as continued to be renewed for every five years. Thereafter, due to F'orce- Majeure of Covid -t9 Lock down the Appellant was not able to continue production. In May, 2o2o due to Force Majeure Cyclone Amphan, the Appellant faced substantial damage in the factory shed; hence the Appellant's unit was closed for a long period. During that situation the Appellant's l,OA was extended for a short period of time (r,iz one year, six months, six months, one month etc.), in that situation the Appellant was not in position to convert shed ill workable condition without securing the renewal of LOA for five years. lThe said facts ere for vide FSEZ letter dated o7.l t.2o23 DOC vide their O.M. dated c8.12.2c23 formed a Committce including DC, I.SEZ to examine the aspects of M/s. Plastic Processors & Exporter P\4. Ltd.

d facts ere for vide FSEZ letter dated o7.l t.2o23 DOC vide their O.M. dated c8.12.2c23 formed a Committce including DC, I.SEZ to examine the aspects of M/s. Plastic Processors & Exporter P\4. Ltd. and other similarly placed units, who lvere affected by force majeure situation. From RoD of the said Committee meeting held on 74.72.2023, it was evident that the Committee has not considered the unit M/s. Nara Exim Prt. Ltd. at par r.r'ith the case of M/s Plastic Processors & Exporters Pr.t. Ltd. The contention that the appellant faced substantial damage in the factory shed due to Amphan Cyclone has not been corroborated, as no proof of final claim payment n'as filed by the company. Also, the contention that the appellant was not in position to convert condition shed in without workable securing renewal of LOA for five years is completely illogical conclusion. arded to the DoC PaEe 19 of 27

F'or that the Ld. Competent thoritl erred in holding that in absence of fir'e Years renewal of LoA, the APPellant is unable to obtain long term port order due to short renewal has been brought out The appeal is being placed before the Board for its consideration 1-2-year period is sufficient enough to restart and establish reputation u'ith a viern, to have continued export orders' Nothing substantial in support ofthe claim of not being able to secure export orders No comments For that the Ld.

h to restart and establish reputation u'ith a viern, to have continued export orders' Nothing substantial in support ofthe claim of not being able to secure export orders No comments For that the Ld. Competent hority failed to aPPreciate that in absence of valid LOA, e Appellant is incurring fixed expenditure like lease rent of the factory (updated), minimum electricitY demand charges, staff salary, securitY charges etc. ) Page 20 ol 27

126.r4(ii) Appeal filed by M/s. .Iiwanram Sheoduttrai Industries Limited under the provision of Section 16(4) of the SI.)Z Act, zoo5 against the Order- in-Original dated r7.ro.zoz4 passed by DC, FSEZ. Jurisdictional SEZ - F.alta SEZ (r-SFl,Z) Bricf facts of thc Case: M/s. Jiwanram Sheoduttrai Industries Limited (formerly M/s. Jiwanram sheoduttrai Industries Private Limited) was issued a LoA on october 71,2c12, for setting up a unit for manufacturing industrial garments, safety n'ear, and leather products in Falta sEZ. The unit commenced operations on July 20,2013, and the loA was initially valid until July r9, zoz6. IIowever, following a Show Cause Notice dated June 6, zoz4, the DC, FSEZ, issued an Order-in-Original on October 72, 2c,24, cancelling the toA under section 16 of the SEZ Act, 2oos.

il July r9, zoz6. IIowever, following a Show Cause Notice dated June 6, zoz4, the DC, FSEZ, issued an Order-in-Original on October 72, 2c,24, cancelling the toA under section 16 of the SEZ Act, 2oos. Aggrier.ed by this decision, the unit has filed the present appeal dated z5.rr.zoz4 in accordance with Rule 55 0f the SEZ Rules, zoo6. Further, in terms of Rule s6(z), the appellant has also filed one application for condonation of the delay of five days in filing the appeal. Rricf on the lrire incident in thc Falta SI.)Z: The appellant has submitted that on June 8, zo16, a massive fire broke out in the basement of the building occupied by another unit, M/s. Gupta Infotech, and rapidly spread to the appellant's premises on the first floor. The fire, which lasted five days, caused extensive damage to the appellant's factory, machinery, and goods, rcndering the premises unfit for occupation. Despite the fire being an irresistible force, the FSEZ Authority failed to promptly repair the damages or provide alternate arrangements, leaving the appellant's operations suspended for years. The prolonged delay and substandard repairs further aggravated the appellant's financial losses, with the total damages assessed at over {4.r crores by certified insurance surveyors. GROIINDS OF'THE APPIiAI,: The appellant has submitted the following grounds in the appeal: Failure to Fulfill Statutory Obligations The Falta SEZ Authority failed to fulfill its statutory duties under the SEZ Act, SEZ Rules, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1872.

ng grounds in the appeal: Failure to Fulfill Statutory Obligations The Falta SEZ Authority failed to fulfill its statutory duties under the SEZ Act, SEZ Rules, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1872. Despite the fire rendering the premises unfit for use in.lune 2016, the authority did not promptly carry out repairs, leat,ing the appellant's factory inoperable for over four years. I Page 2l of 27

4 2. Non-Repair of Premises Post-F'ire The dam-age caused bv the fire in June zo16 was extensive' The appellant's repeated requests for repairs, alternate safe storage' and restoration of the p...i.". weie ignored or inadequately addressed until zozo' Even then' the repai.. *"re incomplete, leaving the premises unfit for full-fledged operations. 3. Coercion for Pal,ment of Rent During Non-Operational Period l)espite the premises being unfit for use due to fire damage' the F'alta SEZ Authoritl' colrc"d the appellant into submitting undertakings to pay rent for thc non-tperational period (zot'6'zozt)"fhis is contrary to the principle that rent is not payable for periods when the premises are uninhabitablc due to no fault of the lessee. Economic Duress and Unconscionable Demands The appellant was forced to submit various undertakings under severe economic duress to secure the renewal of the LoA' The authority' demanded payment of back rent for the period the factory remained non-operational' despite this being legally untenable' Unlawfirl Rejection of Requests for Rent Waiver 'fhe appellani's legitimate requests for n'aiving- back rent' given the

iod the factory remained non-operational' despite this being legally untenable' Unlawfirl Rejection of Requests for Rent Waiver 'fhe appellani's legitimate requests for n'aiving- back rent' given the extraordinary circumstances oi fire damage and subsequent economic ia.dstrip, rrlere arbitrarill' rejected b1' the Falta SEZ Authoriq" This exacerbated the appellant's fi nancial diffi culties' Persistent DelaYs in l,oA Renewal The renewal of the appellant's toA was delayed multiple times' causing additionalfinancialstrainandoperationalsetbacks..Iheauthorityfailedto act promptl."- and demanded compliance with onerous terms before processing renewals. Bias and Non-Acceptance of Submissions During Personal Ilearings or.ing it" personal hearing on June tg, 2024, the Zonal Development Comm"issioner acted in a biased manner, refusing to consider the appellant's submissions or acknou'ledge the statutory breaches and economic distress faced by thc aPPellant. 5 6 7 8. Cancellation of LoA Without Justification Page 22 of 27

refusing to consider the appellant's submissions or acknou'ledge the statutory breaches and economic distress faced by thc aPPellant. 5 6 7 8. Cancellation of LoA Without Justification Page 22 of 27

The Development Commissioner cancelled the appellant's [,oA on October r7, zoz4, arbitrarily and without addressing the appellant's valid concerns about statutory breaches and coercive practices. This action further violated the principles of natural justice and fair play. 9. Violation of Provisions of 'fransfer of ProperB, Act, tB72 As per Section roS(e) of the Transfer of Propertl'Act, the lease becomes r,oid at the lessee's option if the property is rendered permanently unfit for the intended purpose due to events like fire. The authoriW's demand for rent despite this legal provision is unsustainable. to. Continued Damage to Property Due to Incomplete Repairs Even after partial repairs, ongoing issues such as water leakage and lack of adequate roofing caused additional damage to the appellant's goods and raw materials. The authority failed to address these issues adequately, further hindering the appellant's ability to resume operations. lt. F'inancial Loss and Impact on Export Obligations The appellant suffered significant financial losses due to the fire, delays in repair, and inability to fulfill export obligations. This situation was further exacerbated by the Falta SEZ Authority's inaction and coercive demands. rz. Conditional LoA Renewal and Alleged Non-Compliance The appellant's LoA renewal on March tS,2c24, was conditional on clearing outstanding lease rentals.

Authority's inaction and coercive demands. rz. Conditional LoA Renewal and Alleged Non-Compliance The appellant's LoA renewal on March tS,2c24, was conditional on clearing outstanding lease rentals. Despite submitting an undertaking on April zz, zoz4, it was rejected, and the appellant was summoned for a hearing. A show- cause notice dated June 6, zoz4, alleged lease rent obligations regardless of premises functionality, contrary to SEZ laws. At the hearing on June 79,2cl24, the authority acted with bias, disregarding the appellant's valid submissions. 13. Non-Consideration of Insurance Litigation Outcome 'fhe appellant had proposed pay'ing outstanding rent once its insurance claim was settled. This reasonable request was ignored by the authority, demonstrating an arbitrary and unreasonable approach. REA,SONS AS TO WIIY TIII], DI]CISION NI.],EDS RI.]VIHW: . The appellant submitted the following rcasons to review the decision: Order Not Tenable in Facts and t aw The Impugned Order is not tenable in law and lacks a proper basis in facts. I Page 23 of 27

The appellant submitted the following rcasons to review the decision: Order Not Tenable in Facts and t aw The Impugned Order is not tenable in law and lacks a proper basis in facts. I Page 23 of 27

2 3 4 Failure to Consider Fire Incident 'lhe Development Commissioner failed to acknowledge that a massive fire on June 8, zo16, caused extensive damage to the appellant's premises' rendering' them unfit for occuPation or use. Delay in RePair and Restoration tt was the statutory and contractual duty of the Development Commissioner to repair and restore the premises promptly' However' repairs rvere delayed for more than four years, leaving the premises unfit for use' Delay in LoA Renewal L,ven after the premises rvere repaired and the appellant applied for renewal ofthe l-oA, the renewal process was delayed by more than a year' Inability to Operate From June S, 2olO, until the issuance of the renewal letter on October 6' 2021, the appellant could not operate due to no fault on its part' Reciprocal Obligations Under Lease Alea.sedeedinr,olvesreciprocalobligations.Withoutfulfillingtheobligation to pror,ide premises fit for occupation and use, the lessor cannot demand lease rent from the lessee. 7. F-ailure of Consideration The appellant cannot be held liable for lease rent from June 8' 2016' to octobei 6, zozt, due to the failure of consideration and unavailability of the premises for use during this period' 8.

eration The appellant cannot be held liable for lease rent from June 8' 2016' to octobei 6, zozt, due to the failure of consideration and unavailability of the premises for use during this period' 8. Undertakings Obtained Under Duress 'fhe undertakings for payment of lease rent for the period of June B' 20-16' to October 6, zoz1,*"." obtained under extreme duress and coercion' rendering them null and void' Post-Renewal Damages Even after the renewal on October 6,2c/21, the appellant suffered significant losses due to inadequate repairs, including lack of a proper roof, water suppll" and sanitation. 5 6 9 1tl. Violation of 'l'ransfcr of Property Act Page 24 of 27

The Impugned Order violates Section ro8(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, t87z, which absolves a lessee of liability when tfe premises are unfit for the intended usc due to irresistible forces like fire 11. Violation of SEZ Act and Rules The Impugned Order contravenes prorisions of the SEZ Act, 2oo5, and SEZ Rules, zoo6. 12. Arbitrary and Unreasoned Order The Impugned Order is arbitrary, irrational, and lacks reasoning, making it unsustainable in law. 13. Excess of Jurisdiction The Authoritl' exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the Impugned Order. 14. Misinterpretation of Facts The findings in the Impugned Order are misconceived and based on a misinterpretation of the material facts. 16. Final Consideration The Impugned Order, in any view, is untenable and must be set aside. COMME,NTS RIICEIVI'D F-ROM DC, ITSEZ: - DC, Falta SEZ has submitted the following comments/inputs on the appeal: t.

Consideration The Impugned Order, in any view, is untenable and must be set aside. COMME,NTS RIICEIVI'D F-ROM DC, ITSEZ: - DC, Falta SEZ has submitted the following comments/inputs on the appeal: t. Establishment and Initial Operations of the unit The appellant was issued LoA dated October t1,2or2 for setting up a unit. The premises were handed over on January 18, 2013, following an Allotment Letter dated January g, 2ot1. The unit commenced operations on July zo, 2013, as per records, though the appellant claims it started in zor4 after completing its capital investments. 2. Fire Incident and Damages A massive fire broke out on June 8, 2016, causing severe damage to the appellant's premises on the first floor of the SDF General Building. The fire rendered the premises unfit for use, with damage to materials and facilities Page 25 of 27 15. Perversity in the Order The Impugned Order is pen'erse in lau', erroneous, and liable to be set aside.

5. Undertakings for Renewal " ifr" upp"ttunt submitted an undertaking in zozr to clear dues to renew the f-oe, as required by SEZ rules' The renewal process was delayed due to non- compliance with these requirements'

6. Personal Hearing and Show Cause Notice In a hearing on June 79,2o24,the appellant's submissions were rejected due to their failure to comply u'ith LoA renewal conditions and pay outstanding dues.

7. Personal Hearing and Show Cause Notice In a hearing on June 79,2o24,the appellant's submissions were rejected due to their failure to comply u'ith LoA renewal conditions and pay outstanding dues. A show cause notice dated June 6, zoz4 issued to the appellant stating their obligation to pay rent irrespective of premises functionality' Cancellation of LoA The l-oA was cancelled vide Order-in-Original dated October 77' 2024' -he decision followed the rBznd UAC's resolution, citing non-payment of dues and failure to fulfil statutory obligations' B. Rejections of Waiver Requests Uuttipt" requests for waivinl old lease dues, citing fire damage and financial du.es., *"." rejected. The appellant's proposal to defer dues until the settlement of an insurance claim was also denied' g. Allegations Against SEZ Authority .) Claims of coercion and duress for undertakings were dismissed as unfounded. recorded. However, lease rent was outstanding for the period before the fire incident, as communicated in January zol6' 7 Page 26 ot 27

8. Repair DelaYs The- repairing work was assigned to M/s' WAPCOS Limited on December 3t' 2o2o. Completion was ."poi"d on November 29,2cl22. During this period' the premises remained unfit fot use' The appellant did not request alternate storage for materials during repairs'

9. Lease Rent and Waiver Requests o Rent was assessed for periods before the fire, during the inoperable period, and post-repair completion' o ihe period from June B, zo16, to November 29' 2c,22' was considered eligible for rent waiver due to the premises' unfitness for use' .

ire, during the inoperable period, and post-repair completion' o ihe period from June B, zo16, to November 29' 2c,22' was considered eligible for rent waiver due to the premises' unfitness for use' . Th; SEZ Authority has no power to waive rental dues before June zo16 or after November zozz'

Allegations of negligence in repair were countered with records of WAPCOS completing the repair work' FSEZ Authority acted within the provisions of the SEZ Act, SEZ Rules, and the lease agreement. 10. Justification for Impugrred Order The cancellation order was in compliance with SEZ rules, justified, and based onrationalconsiderations.Allegationsofarbitrarinessandviolationsof statutory provisions u'ere deemed unsubstantiated' Relevant provisions under the SI1Z law: o o Section 16. Cancellation of letter ofapproval to entrepreneur - Q) The Approual Committee may, at any time, if it has anA reoson or cause to belieue that the entrepreneur has persistentlA contrauened any of the terms and conditions or its obligations subject to which the letter of approual was granted to the entrepreneur, cancel the letter of approual: Prouided that no such letter of approual shall be cancelled unless the entrepreneur has been afforded a reasonable opportunitA of being heard' (z) Where the letter of approual has been cancelled under sub -section (t)' the IJnitshallnot,fl,omthedateofsuchcancellation,beentitledtoany exemption, concession, benefit or deduction auailable to it' being a tlnit' under this Act. $) Without prejudice to the prouisions of this Act, the entrepreneur uthose letter

ellation,beentitledtoany exemption, concession, benefit or deduction auailable to it' being a tlnit' under this Act. $) Without prejudice to the prouisions of this Act, the entrepreneur uthose letter of approual has been cancelled under sub -section (t)' shall remit' the i*n^ptior, concession, drawback and any other benefit auailed by him in respict of the capital goods, finished goods lying in stock and unutilised raw miterials relatable to his lJnit' in such manner as mag be prescribed' {4) Any person aggrieued by an order of the Approual Committee made under sub--section (t), may prefer an appeal to the Board uithin such time as mau be prescribed. The appeal is being placed before the Board for its consideration' Page 27 ot 27