IN FORCE SEZ / EOU / FTWZ

Supplementary Agenda for the 127th meeting of the BoA for SEZs

Reliability

In force — no superseding record on file.

Document text

No. K-43022/26/2025-SEZ Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry Department of Commerce (SEZ Section) VanijyaDated thea’March,Bhawan, New Delhi2025

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: 2" meeting (2025 Series) of the Board of Approval for Export Oriented Units and 127" Meeting of the Board of Approval (BoA) for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) scheduled to be held on 4 April, 2025 (Tentative)- Reg.

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. of even numbers dated 24" February, 2025 and 3 March, 2025 on the subject cited above and to inform that the 2°° meeting (2025 Series) of the Board of Approval for Export Onented Units and 127" meeting of the BoA for SEZs which was earlier scheduled to be held on 7" March, 2025 is re-scheduled for 4" April, 2025 (Tentative) under the Chairmanship of Commerce Secretary, Department of Commerce in Hybrid Mode.

ra The Supplementary Agenda for the 127 meeting of the BoA for SEZs is enclosed herewith. The same has also been hosted on the website: www .sezindia.gov.in.

All the addresses are requested to kindly make it convenient to attend the meeting.

4 The venue and meeting link of the aforesaid meeting will be shared shortly in due course.

so\3% (Sumit Kumar Sachan) Under Secretary to the Government of India Tel: 23039829 Email: sumit.sachan@nic.in

Central Board of Excise and Customs, Member (Customs), Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi, (Fax: 23092628)
Central Board of Direct Taxes, Member (IT), Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. (Telefax: 23092107)
Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Departmentof Financial Services, Banking Division, Jeevan Deep Building, New Delhi (Fax: 23344462/23366797).

, North Block, New Delhi. (Telefax: 23092107)

Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Departmentof Financial Services, Banking Division, Jeevan Deep Building, New Delhi (Fax: 23344462/23366797).

4, Shri Sanjiv, Joint Secretary, Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi.
5, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Transport Bhawan, New Delhi. 6. Joint Secretary (E), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
1. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Plant Protection, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
1. Ministry of Science and Technology, Sc 'G' & Head (TDT), Technology Bhavan, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi. (Telefax: 26862512)
1. Joint Secretary, Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, 7" Floor, Block 2, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
1. Additional Secretary and Development Commissioner (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Scale Industry), Room No. 701, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi (Fax: 23062315).
1. Secretary, Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, New Delhi. (Fax: 24363101)
1. Joint Secretary (IS-l), Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi (Fax: 23092569)

Joint Secretary (C&W), Ministry of Defence, Fax: 23015444, South Block, New Delhi
Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Pariyavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, New Delhi — 110003 (Fax: 24363577)

ary (C&W), Ministry of Defence, Fax: 23015444, South Block, New Delhi

Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Pariyavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, New Delhi — 110003 (Fax: 24363577)
Joint Secretary & Legislative Counsel, Legislative Department, M/o Law & Justice, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. (Tel: 23387095).
Department of Legal Affairs (Shri Hemant Kumar, Assistant Legal Adviser), Mio Law & Justice, New Delhi.
Secretary, Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi

18, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. (Fax: 24674140)

Chief Planner, Department of Urban Affairs, Town Country Planning Organisation, Vikas Bhavan (E-Block), LP. Estate, New Delhi. (Fax 23073678/23379197)

90.Director General, Director General of Foreign Trade, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.

?1.Director General, Export Promotion Council for EQUs/SEZs, BG, 8" Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi — 110 001 (Fax 2233297 70)

22.Dr. Rupa Chanda, Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, Bennerghata Road, Bangalore, Karnataka

oor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi — 110 001 (Fax 2233297 70)

22.Dr. Rupa Chanda, Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, Bennerghata Road, Bangalore, Karnataka

Development Commissioner, Noida Special Economic Zone, Noida. 24. Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone, Gandhidham. 25, Development Commissioner, Falta Special Economic Zone, Kolkata. 26, Development Commissioner, SEEPZ Special Economic Zone, Mumbai. 27. Development Commissioner, Madras Special Economic Zone, Chennai 28.Development Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Special Economic Zone, Visakhapatnam
Development Commissioner, Cochin Special Economic Zone, Cochin. 30. Development Commissioner, Indore Special Economic Zone, Indore.

31.Development Commissioner, Mundra Special Economic Zone, 4" Floor. C 32. Wing, Port Users Building, Mundra (Kutch) Gujarat. Development Commissioner, Dahej Special Economic Zone, Fadia Chambers. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
33.Development Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Special Economic Zone, SEEPZ 34. Service Center, Central Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai — 400 096 Development Commissioner. Sterling Special Economic Zone, Sandesara
1. Estate, Atladra Padra Road, Vadodara - 390012 Development Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Special Economic Zone, Udyog Bhawan, 9" Floor, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam — 3
36.Development Commissioner, Reliance Jamnagar Special Economic Zone, Jamnagar, Gujarat

Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Special Economic Zone, Udyog Bhawan, 9" Floor, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam — 3

36.Development Commissioner, Reliance Jamnagar Special Economic Zone, Jamnagar, Gujarat
37.Development Commissioner, Surat Special Economic Zone, Surat, Gujarat 38.Development Commissioner, Mihan Special Economic Zone, Nagpur, Maharashtra
1. Development Commissioner, Sricity Special Economic Zone, Andhra Pradesh. 40. Development Commissioner, Mangalore Special Economic Zone, Mangalore. 41, Development Commissioner, GIFT SEZ, Gujarat 42. Commerce Department, A.P. Secretariat. Hyderabad — 500022. (Fax: 04023452895).

Government of Telangana, Special Chief Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Telangana Secretariat Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana.

44.Government of Karnataka, Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industry Department, Vikas Saudha, Bangalore — 560001. (Fax: 080-22259870)

45.Government of Maharashtra, Principal Secretary (Industries), Energy and Labour Department, Mumbai — 400 032.

Government of Gujarat, Principal Secretary, Industries and Mines Department Sardar Pate! Bhawan, Block No. 5, 3rd Floor, Gandhinagar — 382010 (Fax: 079-23250844).,

47.Government of West Bengal, Principal Secretary, (Commerce and Industry), IP Branch (4" Floor), SEZ Section, 4, Abanindranath Tagore Sarani (Camac Street) Kolkata — 700 016

48.Government of Tamil Nadu, Principal Secretary (Industries), Fort St. George, Chennai — 600009 (Fax: 044-25370822).

SEZ Section, 4, Abanindranath Tagore Sarani (Camac Street) Kolkata — 700 016

48.Government of Tamil Nadu, Principal Secretary (Industries), Fort St. George, Chennai — 600009 (Fax: 044-25370822).

49.Government of Kerala, Principal Secretary (industries), Government Secretariat, Trivandrum — 695001 (Fax: 047 1-2333017).

90.Government of Haryana, Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary), Department of Industries, Haryana Civil Secretariat. Chandigarh (Fax: 0172-2740526).

91.Government of Rajasthan, Principal Secretary (Industries), Secretariat Campus, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur — 302005 (0141-2227788).

52.Government of Uttar Pradesh. Principal Secretary, (Industries), Lal Bahadur Shastri Bhawan, Lucknow — 226001 (Fax: 0522-2238255).

93,.Government of Punjab, Principal Secretary Department of Industry & Commerce Udyog Bhawan), Sector -17, Chandigarh- 160017

54.Government of Puducherry, Secretary, Department of Industries, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry

95.Government of Odisha, Principal Secretary (Industries), Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneshwar— 751001 (Fax: 0671-53681 9/2406299).

Government of Madhya Pradesh, Chief Secretary, (Commerce and Industry), Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (Fax: 0755-2559974)

57.Government of Uttarakhand, Principal Secretary, (Industries), No. 4, Subhash
Road, Secretariat, Dehradun, Uttarakhand
58 Government of Jnarkhand (Secretary). Department of Industries Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi — 834002.

ipal Secretary, (Industries), No. 4, Subhash

Road, Secretariat, Dehradun, Uttarakhand
58 Government of Jnarkhand (Secretary). Department of Industries Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi — 834002.
59 Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Dadra Nagar Haveli, Secretary (Industries), Department of Industries, Secretariat, Moti Daman — 396220 (Fax: 0260-2230775).
60.Government of Nagaland, Principal Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce), Kohima, Nagaland.
61.Government of Chattishgarh, Commissioner-cum-Secretary Industries, Directorate of Industries, LIC Building Campus, 2 Floor, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Fax: 0771-25836591),

Copy to: PPS to CS/ PPS to AS (LSS) / PPS to JS (VA)/ PPS to Dir (GP).

Supplementary Agenda for the 127" meeting of the Board of Approval for SpecialEconZ o nesmic(SEZs)

Agenda item no. 127.9:

Request for extension of LoA ofSEZ Unit [2 proposals — 127.9(i)-127.9(ii)]

Relevant Rule position:

As per Rule 18(1) of the SEZ Rules, the Approval Committee may approve or reject a proposalfor setting up of Unit in a Special Economic Zone.
- Cases for consideration of extension of Letter of Approval i.r.o. units in SEZs are governed by Rule 19(4) of SEZ Rules.
e Rule 19(4) states that LoA shall be valid for one year. First Proviso grants power to DCs for extending the LoA for a period not exceeding 2 years. Second Proviso grants further power to DCs for extending the LoA for on more year subject to the condition that two-thirds of activities including construction, relating to the setting up of the Unit is complete and 2 Chartered Engineer's certificate to this effect is submitted by th entrepreneur.
« Extensions beyond 3™ year (or beyond 2" year in cases where two-thire activities are not complete) and onwards are granted by BoA.
BoA can extend the validity for a period of one year at a time.
- There is no time limit up to which the Board can extend the validity.

Page 1 of 95

127.9(i) Request of M/s. Nutana Aviation Capital IFSC Pvt. Ltd. in the GIFT-SEZ for extension of Letter of Approval beyond 3 years i.e. upto 10.08.2025.

Jurisdictional SEZ — GIFT SEZ / GM, IFSCA

Facts of the case:

LoA issued on (date) Wee Nature of business of the ircraft Leasing activities as per Circular F’.No. nit 172/1FSCA/Finance Company Regulations/202223/01 dtd. 18.05.2022 Number of extensions 1 (total extension given for 2 years) 1 extension upto 10.08.2024 by DC, GIFT SEZ LOA valid up [: fioo8.2024 Request. ~~~| : |For further extension for 1 year i.e. upto 10.08.2025}

Present Progress:

a. Details of Business plan:

==> picture [431 x 111] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- S.No] Type of Cost Proposed Total investment made so Far Investment (Rs. In (Rs. In Crores) Crores) Cost of project 200 Crores 18 crores (Investment Amoun includes the Security Deposit amt, Inspection charges of Aircraft, Due Diligence Charges, etc. in respect of ngoing Hawker aircrafts) ----- End of picture text -----

b. Incremental Investment made so far and incremental investment since the last extension:

==> picture [426 x 110] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- S. No Tvpe of Cost Total investment Incremental made so Far investment since the (In Rs.) last extension (In Rs.) Incorporation expenses and} = 40,00,000/- 15,00,000/- rent and consultancy fees. Fees/stamp duty of increase i Authorized Capital ----- End of picture text -----

Page 2 of 95

¢. Details of physical progress till date:

==> picture [424 x 169] intentionally omitted <==

d. Details of operational progress under IFSCA Regulations till date:

==> picture [414 x 366] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- Sl. Activity % ’o Completion|Deadline — fo No Completion |during last onecompletion of ear balance work Identification of aircraft to A be acquired 2 Execution of agreement A for acquisition of aircraft 3 Execution of agreement i) NA (or) LOI for leasing-out the acquired aircraft 4 |Sourcing of credit/ finance NA for acquisition of aircraft 5 | Security Deposit Paid for 100 100 31.12.2025 the Aircraft (Already paid 1 Lakhs USD, in respect purchase of aircrafts) 5 | Details of appointment of [The Unit has informed that. Mr. Sanjay Principal Officer and —_|Natvarlal Mandavia, Director of the Com pany Designated Director inthe jis acting as the Principal Officer and IFSC unit Designated Director of the Unit.

Mr. Sanjay Principal Officer and —_|Natvarlal Mandavia, Director of the Com pany Designated Director inthe jis acting as the Principal Officer and IFSC unit Designated Director of the Unit. Howeve as per the IFSCA guidelines, th Jesignated Directorand the Principal Dfficer has to be a different person ----- End of picture text -----

Page 3 0f 95

Reasons for the delay as per the Unit:

The Unit has submitted that they have made significant progress towards commencing their business operations and that they have already signed the agreement for acquiring the necessary aircrafts and paid the security deposit money to them for such agreed aircrafts.

). Furthermore, they were in the process of starting operations by leasing a propeller blade to Big Charter Private Limited. However, there was some confusion regarding the transaction and whether it should be considered under the commencement of operations. As a result, they decided to reverse the transaction to avoid any potential issues.

3 From the facts on records, it can be seen that the Unit has made statutory compliances (as narrated in the para 4 above) mandated for a IFSCA Unit.

Further the unit has submitted, they have already made an investment of Rs. 18 Crores (Investment Amount includes the Security Deposit amt, Inspection charges of Aircraft, Due Diligence charges, etc. in respect of ongoing Hawker aircrafts.) in their project till now. They have also invested Rs. 40 lacs towards incorporation expenses and rent and consultancy fees and USD1 lac as security deposit towards purchase of Aircraft.

Findings Noted in the Unit:

Some non-compliances also observed on the part of the Unit are as below:

The Unit has not executed the lease deed for the premises on which they were issued the initial Letter of Approval by the DC, GIFT SEZ.

. The Co-Developer therefore has cancelled the PLOA of the premises issued to the Unit at the time of application for setting up of the Unit. The Co-developer has informed that the said premises has been re-allotted to another Unit. Thus, at present, the Unit has no allotted space to operate in the SEZ.

3 The Unit has also not made the payment of IFSCA fees for the year 2024-25. The annual fees for the year 2024-25 alongwith late payment charges and interest, is outstanding from the Unit.

Mr. Sanjay Natvarlal Mandavia, Director of the Company is acting as the Principal Officer and Designated Director of the Unit. But as per the IFSCA guidelines, the Designated Director and the Prineipal Officer has to be different persons.

Recommendation by DC, GIFT SEZ:

DC, GIFT SEZ has proposed that the request for extension of LOA for the period upto 10.08.2025 may be placed for the consideration of the BOA taking all the facts into account.

Page 40f95

127.9(ii) |Request of M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. Unit 2, located at Plot No. 6 A, in| Wockhardt Infrastructure Development _Ltd.-SEZ, Shendre, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, for extension of Letter of Permission (LoP) dated 25.02.2013, beyond 11th year, for the period of one year, from 01.03.2025 up to 28.02.2026.

Jurisdictional SEZ — SEEPZ SEZ

Facts of the case:

Natureof business ofthe<br>unit<br>No. ofExtensions ___-	Manufacturingof Nasaland Inhaler Dosage<br>Form forHumanusage, Human Insulin and<br>Insulin Glargine.<br> hia extensions granted — 3 byDCand8 byBoA
Request	For further extension for one year, up to<br>28.02.2026

Present Progress:

A. Details of Business plan:

|Sr.<br>No.<br>[1<br>[Peart|Proposed Investment (Rs. in<br>Cr.)<br>[aso|
|---|---|
|[TotalCapitalInvestment||88.90.|

B. Position of capital investment byWockhardt Ltd.

==> picture [422 x 136] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- Sr. Particulars. Total investment made so No. far (Rs. in Crores) Up to December 2023 (i.e. upto Last extension Atter January 2024(till 31° December NIL (Increment) 2024) Total capital investment (till 31" 88.90 [4 | December% wise increase 2024 | J ----- End of picture text -----

Page 5 of 95

C. Details of physical progress till date:

| The Unit has submitted that there is no change with regards to physical progress as the construction activities of the Unit have already been completed and the plant and machinery has been fully installed to its capacity.
ii The Unit has not commenced operation as they are awaiting approval from a regulatoryHowever, M/s.bodies. Wockhardt Ltd is committed to make the unit operational and therefore they had taken broad banding permission for including additional products ice Human ‘nsulin and Insulin Glarine in their LOA with the approval of UAC. completion of work
FeNo. TL Approved area | 3900.90 Sq. Mtrs. | The construction —Tiirea constructed so far_|3900.90 Sq. Mtrs.[petivity of project 1s extension extension

Detailed reasons for delay:

i. ‘The Specified Officer vide inspection report dated 30.01.2025, reported that the construction activities along with ‘nstallation of necessary plant and machineries required for smooth operation has been completed by the Unit and the progress of the work done by the unit is found satisfactory.
| Sinee the unit will be manufacturing Nasal and Inhaler Dosage only for export for which approvals from the regulatory authorities of countries to which the products will be exported has to be obtained, they have been regularly applying to USFDA for inspection and paying fee for the same.
ii, ‘They have applied to USFDA for product approval for the current year also valid iv. upto‘They have31.12.2025. further stated that as a substantial step in order to make their unit operational, they had taken broad banding permission tor additional product ie Human Insulin in their LOA.
y.‘The unit has submitted an installation certificate dated 30.12.2024 issued by Mrs. Swapna Khandekar, Chartered Engineer along with Asset verification, annexure showing the list of equipments certifying that the machinery and equipments have been installed in the said unit.
vi. The unit has stated that the broad banding of Insulin line is in process and they are hopeful that post transferring of line and obtaining statutory and regulatory approval they shall be able to make their unit operational within 16 to 18 months.

Page 6 of 95

Details from CE’s Certificate:

The Unit has submitted Chartered Engineer's Certificate (Mrs. Swapna Khandekar, registration No. CA/2001/28101) dated 30.12.2024. The details mentioned in the CE's Certificate are as follows:

Approved area as per approved plan: 3900.90 sq. mtrs.
« Constructed area so far: 3900.90 sq. mtrs. ¢ Incremental area since last LOA approval: NIL « Area of difference in % - NIL (Construction completed in last extension of LOA)
¢ Material used are of approved quality e All structural work including brick walls, roofing, plastering, etc. are being implemented to satisfaction.
« Capital Equipments, Instrument, Machineries & Utilities are installed in the unit If (OSD) facility.

Recommendation by DC, SEEPZ SEZ:

of DC SEEPZ-SEZ has recommended the request for extension of LoP for a period one year up to 28.02.2026 as per Rule 19(4) of SEZ Rules, 2006 to BoA for its consideration,

Page 7 of 95

Agenda Item No. 127.10:

Request for Co-Developer status | 3 proposals- 127.10(1) - 127.10(iii) |

Relevant provision: In terms of sub-section (11) under Section 3 of the SEZ Act 2005, Any person who or a State Government which, intends to provide anti infrastructure facilities in the identified area or undertake any authorize speration after entering into an agreement with the Developer, make a proposalfor he same to the Board for its approval.

Page 8 of 95

127.10({i) Request of M/s. FocusR Consultancy and Technologies (P) Ltd., Co-Developer status in M/s. ELCOT, Salem-Tamil Nadu-MEPZ

Jurisdictional SEZ — MEPZ SEZ

Facts of the case:

==> picture [453 x 463] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|1.||Name of the|Developer& Location|[Electronics|Corporation|of Tamil|Nadu|
|Limited,|Jagirammapalayam,|(IT-SEZ)|
|||2.|[Date of LoA to Developer|F.alem,1/57/2007-SEZ Tamil Nadu-636 dated 302. 26 July,2007|
|ector of the SEZ|Specific Sector-IT/ITES|
|||5|||otal|notified area|(in|Hectares)|{21.5819 (Hectares)|
|ether|the|SEZ|is|operational|orlOperational|
|not|
|(i).|If|operational,|date|—|off1|April,|2019|
|operationalization|
|imal|ii). No.|of Units|Nineteen (19 Numbers)|
|(iii).|Total|Exports &|Imports|for thefTotal|Exports:|INR|359.69|
|ast 3 years|(Rs.|in|Cr.)|otal Imports:|INR 45.51|
|7.|JName of the|proposed Co-developer|[M/s.|FocusR|Consultancy|and|
|rechnologies|(P)|Limited,|ELCOT,|
|Salem.|
|Details|of|Infrastructure|facilities|/[To|build|office space|
|authorized|operations|to|iFor|setting|up|Services|including|
|undertaken|by the co-developer|afeteria,|recreation|area.|
|otal|area|(in|Hectares)|on|whichlo.40|(Hectares)|
|activities|will|be performed|by the co|
|developer|
|10.||Proposed|investment|by|the|Co-[NR|15.00|Cr.|
|et|worth|of the Co-developer (Rs.|in|TNR|21|Cr.|
|Ra|eveloperr.)|(Rs. in Cr.)|

----- End of picture text -----

Recommendation by DC, MEP7:

The proposal of M/s. FocusR Consultancy and Technologies (P) Ltd, Plot No. 13, Electronies Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, Jagirammapalayam, Salem-636 302, for grant of Co-Developer status in M/s. ELCOT-SEZ, Salem has been recommended by the Development Commissioner, MEPZ SEZ for consideration in the BOA meeting.

Page 9 of 95

127.10(ii) Request of M/s. Clothesline and Colours Apparels Private Limited., Co-Developer status in M/s. Mahindra World City Developers Limited, Plot 7, Anjur Village, Chengalpet District

Jurisdictional SEZ — MEPZ SEZ

Facts of the case:

|Facts of the case:the case:case:|Facts of the case:the case:case:|
|---|---|
|Nameofthe Developer& Location<br>MahindraWorldCity Developers<br>Limited,||
||17/18, MahindraTowers,<br>Pattullous Road, Chennai,|
||lamilnadu, India - 600 002|
|| % peteofLoAtoDeveloper<br>2(5)/2004-EPZ-08/09/2024||
|ra pateotNoniietion «TORO||
|-E|feteteSEZ operationalovata!<br>(i).<br>If<br>operational,<br>date<br>{ operationalization|
||(iii). Total Exports & Imports for thelExports (In Cr.) - Imports(InCr.) -<br>last 5vears (Rs. in Cr.)|
|>.|\NameoftheproposedCo-developer<br>M/s.<br>Clothesline and<br>Colours<br>Apparels Private Limited|
||Details of Infrastructure facilities //The Co-Developer seeks approval<br>t<br>authorized<br>operations<br>to<br>be evelop a FreeTrade Warehousing Zone<br>indertakenbytheco-developer<br>FTWZ)within Mahindra<br>World City SEZ, Chengalpattu, on a land<br>area of 1.01171 hectares (2.50 acres)., in<br>accordance<br>with<br>the<br>No<br>Objectior<br>tificate<br>(NOC)<br>issued — by<br>the|
||Developer.|
|g.|[Yotal area (in Hectares) on whic<br>activities willbeperformedbythe Co-j1.01171 Ha|
|Developer<br>10. [Proposed<br>investment<br>by<br>th<br>‘*odeveloper (Rs. inCr.)<br>< 18.43Crore||
||Tr.)|

Page 10 of 95

Recommendation by DC, MEPZ:

No. The proposal of M/s. Clothesline and Colours Apparels Private Limited, Plot in AP 6, Anjur Village, Chengalpet Taluk - 603002 for grant of Co-Developer status Mahindra World City SEZ has been recommended by the Development Commissioner, MEPZ SEZ for consideration in the BOA meeting.

Page 11 of 95

127.10(iii) Request of M/s. Intimex Fashions Private Limited, CoDeveloper status in M/s. Mahindra World City Developers Limited, Plot 7, Anjur Village, Chengalpet District

Jurisdictional SEZ — MEPZ SEZ

Facts of the case:

|Facts of theof thethe case:|||
|---|---|---|
|NameoftheDeveloper&Location|Mahindra<br>World<br>City<br>Developers<br>Limited,||
||17/18, MahindraTowers,<br>Pattullous Road, Chennai,||
||amilnadu, India—600 002||
|Papeoraniesez——sorser|||
|> | Thether the SEZ is operational orjOperational<br>not<br>(i).<br>If<br>operational,<br>date|||
|of operationalization|||
|iii).Total Exports& Imports forthe|Exports|the|Exports(InCr.) - Imports(In Cr.) -||
|ast 5 years (Rs. inCr.)|||
|aieoftheproposedCo-developer |M/s.Intimex FashionsPrivateLimited<br>Details of Infrastructure facilities /[The Co-Developer seeks approval<br>to<br>authorized<br>operations<br>to<br>bedevelop a Free Trade Warehousing Zon<br>ndertakenbytheco-developer<br>FTWZ) withinMahindra<br>orld City SEZ, Chengalpattu, ona lan<br>area of 1.01171 hectares (2.50 acres)., in<br>accordance<br>with<br>the<br>No<br>Objection<br>ertificate<br>(NOC)<br>issued<br>by_ the|||
||Developer.||
|otal area (in Hectares) on whichj1.01171 Ha<br>activities<br>will<br>be<br>performed<br>by|||
|he Co-Developer|||
|Proposed<br>investment — by<br>‘odeveloper(Rs. in Cr.)|the||
|r.|||

Page 12 of 95

Recommendation by DC, MEPZ SEZ:

The proposal of M/S. Intimex Fashions Private Limited, Plot No. AP 6, Anjur Village, Chengalpet Taluk - 603002 for grant of Co-Developer status in Mahindra World City SEZ has been recommended by the Development Commissioner, MEPZ SEZ for consideration in the BOA meeting.

Page 13 of 95

Agenda Item No, 127.11:

Request for Cancellation of Co- Developer status [ 1 proposal-127. 11(i)) 127.11(1) Request for Cancellation of Co-Developer status of M/s. Berggruen Properties (Nagpur) private Limited for M/s. KGISL SEZ.

Jurisdictional SEZ — MEPZ SEZ

Facts of the Case:

M/s. Berggruen Properties (Nagpur) Private Limited (KGISL) was allotted 30.42 acres (0.91.0 Ha) of land Vide Ministry letter No.F.2/110/2005-EP4 dated 07.10.2008 and subsequently decreased the area to 2.25 acres vide Ministry letter dated 27.12.2011.
M/s. Berggruen Properties (Nagpur) Private Limited has now requested for cancellation of their Co-Developer Status.

Reasons for cancellation of Co-Developer status:

The Co-developer has stated that since they did not have business opportunities, followed by slowdown in real estate sector and hence they have been forced to Exit from the Co-Developer status.

NOC from the Developer:

The Developer M/S. KGISL Infrastructures Private Ltd., has submitted the Consent for cancellation of Co-developer status vide letter dated 05.02.2025

Any other information:

In accordance with the request of the Developer (KGISL-SEZ) has confirmed the Lease agreement shall stand cancelled Vide document No. 1050 of 2025 in the registered Office of the Sub-Registrar, Peiyanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore District, ‘Tamil Nadu.

Authorised officer from the respective SEZ had submitteda letter dated 25.02.2025 through countersigned by DCC stating there is no dues pending's since all the taxes and duties have been collected from the Co-Developer (M/S. Berggruen Properties (Nagpur) Private Limited).

Rule Position:

« Section 2 (g) of the SEZ Act 2005, defines Developer as, “a person who, or a State Government which, has been granted by the Central Government a letter of approval under sub-section(10) of section 3 and includes an Authority and a Codeveloper”;
~ Section 10 of the said Act provides for Suspension of Letter of Approval and subsection (3) stipulates that no letter of approval shall be suspended under subsection (1) unless the Board has given to the Developer not less than three months’

Page 14 of 95

notice, in writing, stating the grounds on which it proposes to suspend the letter of approval, and has considered any cause shown by the Developer within the period of that notice, against the proposed suspension.

Since the Co-Developer is covered under the definition of Developer, the suspension of LoA of Co-Developer shall also be governed by Section 10 of the SEZ Act. There is no specific provision for cancellation of LoA, however, on the recommendation of the Development Commissioner for such cancellation on the ground of Co-Developer not fulfilling the necessary requirements/ obligations in terms of SEZ Act/ Rules or on the request by the Co-Developer, such cancellation has been considered by the BoA in the earlier cases.

Recommendation hy DC, MEPZ:

The Development Commissioner has recommended the request of the Developer (KGISL SEZ) for cancellation of Co-Developer status of M/s. Berggruen Properties (Nagpur) Private Limited for consideration by Board of Approval.

Page 15 of 95

Agenda Item No. 127-12: Request for conversion of Processing Area into Non-Processing Area under Rule 11(B) | 5 proposals — 127. 12(i)-127.12(v) |

Rule position: . Interms of the Rule 5(2) regarding requirements of minimum area of land for an I'l/1TES SEZ: - (b) There shall be no minimum land area requirement for setting up a Special Economic Zone for Information ‘Technology or Information Technology enabled Services, Biotech or Health (other than hospital) service, but a minimum built up processing area requirement shall be applicable, based on the category of cities, as specified in the following Table, namely: —

==> picture [454 x 141] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|TABLESl. No.|‘ategories of cities as per Annexure|inimum|built-up|processing|
|IvV-A|Area|
|(4)|(2)|(3)|
|2|‘ategory ‘B’|25,000|square meters|
|Category ‘C’|15,000|square meters|15,000 square|meters|—_|
|3.|
|(c) The minimum|processing|area|in any Special|Economic Zone cannot be|less|than|
|fifty per cent.|of the total area of|the Special Economic Zone.|

----- End of picture text -----


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


. Interms ofthe Rule 11 B regarding Non-processing arcas for Il /TTES SEZ: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules, 5,11,114 or any other rule, the Board of Approval, on request of a Developer of an Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zones, may, permit demarcation ofa portion of the built-up area of an Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone as a non-processing area of the Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone to be called a non-processing area. (2) A Non-processing area may be used for setting up and operation of businesses engaged in Information ‘Technology or [Information ‘technology Enabled services, and at such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Board of Approval under subrule(3) A(4), Non-processing area shall consist of complete floor and part of a floor shall not be demarcated as a non-processing area. (4) There shall be appropriate access control mechanisms for Special Economic Zone Unit and businesses engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services in non-processing areas of Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zones, to ensure adequate screening of movement of persons as well as goods in and out of their premises.

areas of Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zones, to ensure adequate screening of movement of persons as well as goods in and out of their premises. 

Page 16 of 95 

(5) Board of Approval shall permit demarcation ofa non-processing area for a business engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone, only after repayment, without interest, by the Developer, — 

(i) tax benefits attributable to the non-processing area, calculated as the benefits provided for the processing area of the Special Economic Zone, in proportion of the built up area of the non-processing area to the total built up area of the processing area of the Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economie Zone, as specified by the Central Government. 

(ii) tax benefits already availed for creation of social or commercial infrastructure and other facilities if proposed to be used by both the Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone Units and business engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services in non-processing area. 

(6) The amount to be repaid by Developer under sub-rule (5) shall be based on a certificate issued by a Chartered Engineer, (7) Demarcation of a non-processing area shall not be allowed if it results in decreasing the processing area to less than fifty per cent of the total area or less than the area specified in column (4) of the table below:

-processing area shall not be allowed if it results in decreasing the processing area to less than fifty per cent of the total area or less than the area specified in column (4) of the table below: 

**==> picture [382 x 103] intentionally omitted <==**

**----- Start of picture text -----**<br>
```text
||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|TABLE|
|].|No.|ategories|of|cities|as|per|Annexure/Minimum|built-up|
|(1)|IV-A|processing Area|
||__1.|[Category(2)|“A"|50,000|square|meters|_ [50,0003)|square|meters ||
|| __3.|__|Category ‘C"15,000|square|meters|_ [15,000|square|meters|||

----- End of picture text -----

(8) The businesses engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone in a non-processing area shall not avail any rights or facilities available to Special Economic Zone Units. (9) No tax benefits shall be available on operation and maintenance of common infrastructure and facilities of such an Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone. (10) The businesses engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone in a non-processing area shall be subject to provisions of all Central Acts and rules and orders made thereunder, as are applicable to any other entity operating in domestic tariff area.

nomic Zone in a non-processing area shall be subject to provisions of all Central Acts and rules and orders made thereunder, as are applicable to any other entity operating in domestic tariff area.

- Consequent upon insertion of Rule 11 B in the SEZ Rules, 2006, Department of Commerce in consultation with Department of Revenue has issued Instruction No, 115 dated 09.04.2024 clarifying concerns/queries raised from stakeholders regarding Rule 11B.
- Further, as per the directions of the BoA in its 120 meeting held on 18.06.2024, there shall be a clear certification of Specified Office and the Development Commissioner that the Developer has refunded the duty as per the provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated

Page 17 of 95

og» April, 2024 issued by DoC. Accordingly, DoC vide letter dated 27.06.2024 has issued one such Certificate to be provided by Specified Officer and Countersigned by Development Commissioner.

. Moreover, inthe 122" meeting of the BoA held on 30'" August, 2024, the Board directed all DCs to ensure the implementation of the checklist (formulated by DoeC and DoR) for all the cases including the past cases.

Page 18 of 95

127.12(1) Request of M/s Gateway Office Parks Pvt, Ltd., Developer, for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built-up area (8278 sq.mtr. including Ground Floor Lobby) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ, (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2023

Jurisdictional SEZ — MEPZ SEZ

Fact of the Case:

==> picture [455 x 560] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- Name of Developer __|M/s. Gateway Office Parks Put. ad ——SSCSSY Address of SEZ amilnadu SectorFormalsees Approval |F.2/92/2006-EPZT/ITES,SSC—~—SCSCSCSCSCSSSFee datedme 16.06.2006 SY (in Hectares) Processing Area (in Square meters), as informed by the developer. ele Wa) _—SS~«ia bas8542 4(Ba) BB +Geos 050-08 15.420.16 as(Aa) «iB Gea __hB.7923 9.44.07 po fPotal ft22,793.26 —(86,777.96 (eeeee nt eT Building constructed in processing area otal area to 10th Floor and 11' Floor of Building 26 (Aq) as below along demarcated as Non-with Ground floor lobby area: Processing Area (NPA) ee (in Square meter) ; ———=iéeas in Floor Ground Floor lobby 680 BB Foal ----- End of picture text -----

Page 19 of 95

Balance Built-upl2,78,499.96 sq. Mtrs Processing Area afte emarcation. ‘hether minimum built-up processing are norms fulfilled afte demarcation? List of common, 1. DG set Utilities, Infrastructure 2. Chillers Facilities which will] 3. HVAC Equipments remain common afte 4. Elevators/ Lifts emarcation 5. Parking Area 6. Ground floor Lobby 7. Canteen, ATM area g. Other common peripheral area Whether any SEZ Unit{The Developer has confirmed that the building proposed fo perating on the area jJemarcation as a non-processing area is vacant and no SE: roposed to belunit is operational as on date in the said proposed non demarcated as Non-jprocessing area.

g proposed fo perating on the area jJemarcation as a non-processing area is vacant and no SE: roposed to belunit is operational as on date in the said proposed non demarcated as Non-jprocessing area. Processing Area unde Rule 11B. If yes, what 1 he future plan for suc SEZtatusunits?of refund offAs per Chartered Engineer Certificate and financial pplicable tax / duty atements Minus the financial cost, the Developer has nefits availed on thejrefunded duties/tax liability of Rs. 22,52,18,870/ area proposed ~—_fortowards Built up NPA area of8278Sq Mtrs as wellas demarcation as Non-jcommon infrastructure/ facilities of par Processing Area. admeasuring to 70,223.90 Sq. mtrs. No Objection Certifieate has been issued by Specified Office dated: 15.02.2025. Checklist and Certificate for refund o duty as per Rule 11B signed by Specified officer and ountersigned by Development Commissioner. Access Controlffhe developer has mentioned that they shall follow Mechanism forjappropriate access control mechanisms for SEZ Unit an movement offbusiness in Information Technology or Informatio mplovees & good forjfechnology Enabled Services in non-processing area 0 IT/ITES Business to information Technology or Information ‘Technology Enable mngaged in the areajServices in special Economic Zones, to ensure adequat proposed to belscreening of movement of persons as well as goods in and out demarcated Non-jof their premises. Processing Area.

Page 20 of 95

The following requisite documents have been submitted:

i. Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into NonProcessing Area and recommendation of DC, MEPZ SEZ.
ii Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 14.02.2025 issued by Shri Vijay Dattatray Khamkar, Chartered Engineer, Reg. No. F25651, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the developer.
ii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide letter F.No. MEPZMSMo03(3)/1/2025-SEZ Chennai dated 15.02.2025.
iv. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 duly countersignature of DC, MEPZ SEZ.
v. Checklist for demarcation of NPA, in the format prescribed vide DoC letter dated 09.09.2024 duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, MEPZ SEZ.
vi An Undertaking from the Developer to the effect that they shall pay the differential short paid / unpaid duty / tax benefits if any so determined at the later date on being demanded by the department or any statutory authority without any demur or protest w.e.t, repayment of taxes and benefits availed in respect of 8,278 sq. mtr. of built-up area proposed to be demarcated as per Rule 11B of SEZ Rule (fifth Amendment), 2023.

Recommendation by DC, MEPZ SEZ:

The proposal of M/s. Gateway Office Parks Pvt. Ltd, the Developer for demarcation of 8278 sq. mtr. including Ground Floor Lobby as well as common infrastructure/ facilities of park admeasuring to 70,223.90 Sq. mtrs as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ (Fifth Amendment) Rules 2023, is recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA.

Page 21 of 95

127.12(ii) Request of M/s DLF Info City Chennai Limited, Developer, for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built-up area (18527.18 sq.mtr.) as NonProcessing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules, amended in 2023.

Jurisdictional SEZ — MEPZ SEZ

Fact of the Case:

==> picture [428 x 581] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|-|_|i|1}|
|Particulars|Details|;|
|‘Name of Developer|'DLF|Info City Chennai Limited|||
|‘Addressof SEZ|1/1|24, Shivaji Gardens,|Ramapuram, Chennai—|
|1600089, Tamil|Nadu|||
|Sector|IT/ITES|7:|7|||
|Formal‘Total|Notified Approval land|area__F.2/124/2005-EPZ/|15.6508|I|la|DATED 22.06.2006.|||
|(in|Hectares)|||
|Total Built-up|area|inj9,08,740|Sq.mtr|i|
|Processing|Area|(inj|
|Square|meters),|as,|
|informed|by|the|
|Total|Built-up area|Building/Tower|||INo.of|‘Total built-up|
|iad|Plot No.|floors|area ins .mt.|
|Block-IA|=||~ga.55202|
|Block-I|B|—|3 1786.86|
|BlockIC|4043.13|||
|Basements|-|_§01525.62|||
|LT|Panel|Rm|an|1732.80|_||
|Block-7|||;|41|299.12|
|Block-5|||57 916.31|
|Block-IO__|||66,299.78|
|Block-9|ft.|05 643.87|__||
|Block-4|a|||_|24 858.07|||
|Block-3||||1|0222344|||
|Block-8Basements|_|_|||3499193_|{177,413.79|_||
|||BlockBasements|-|||CC||38t826.89OTFOG.27|||
|Basements|||16 498.80|||
|Sub|-st|Block|||1989.45|
||B|642.63|
|Blocks|_|
|||‘Block-12|||26|116.31|||
|Block|12|Basement|12,996.00|
|—_|-|Boas -GKS_|||1308.00|a|

----- End of picture text -----

Page 22 of 95

|Sub|-st|Block|||1989.45| ||B|642.63| |Blocks|| |||‘Block-12|||26|116.31||| |Block|12|Basement|12,996.00| |—|-|Boas -GKS_|||1308.00|a|


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


Page 22 of 95 

[ ‘Total BUAof Building [Towerthe SEZ | _peeee | Plot / Block/No. of floors'Total —_ No. | area otal area to beBlock-ICee 2 Flooree fe845.10 Sq-mt.)— demarcated as Non— : . | ee Process Area (NPA) Block-I C 3° Floor pa out of Built-up area (inBiock- 9A & 9B — o im 8795.82 Square meter) i Floor OTAL 18527.18 a { Sel) ERG: eben Balance Built-up Processing Area after8,56,312 Sq.mtrs, demarcation. Whether minimum)tes built-up —_—processing area norms fulfilled after demarcation? oe | Details of social or'The Developer has informed, that the common and commercial commercial infrastructure in the proposed building / infrastructure andjblocks, includes car parking, Atrium, ATM, Net IT/ITESproposedto be used byjservices control rooms, food court, security access other facilitiesWorking services, Lifts, stairs, basement, co engaged in proposedbusinesscontrol mechanisms ete., NPA. _ _ _ —— ‘hether any SEZ Unit'The Developer has confirmed that the buildin operating on the areaproposed for demarcation as a non-processing area is proposed to vacant and no SEZ unit is operational as on date in the demarcated as Non-said proposed non-processing area. Processing Area unde Rule 11B.

sed for demarcation as a non-processing area is proposed to vacant and no SEZ unit is operational as on date in the demarcated as Non-said proposed non-processing area. Processing Area unde Rule 11B. If ves, what is the future plan for such eri a peg : \s per Chartered Engineer Certificate, the Develope opener a og a has paid their duties Rs.5,52,01,251 /- on 06.12.2024 & enefits av ante i “left over dues along with appropriate interest paid Rs. |Saaeiee Non, 45:75:437/~. No Due Certificate has been issued by : Specified Officer on 22.02.2025, [Processing Area, _—[PPectliedOlMieeron22.022035 sid 

Page 23 of 95 

**==> picture [423 x 144] intentionally omitted <==**

**----- Start of picture text -----**<br>
lAccess 7 poten Developer / Co-developer has mentioned that they<br>Mechanism forwill maintain the appropriate access aia<br>movement ofmechanisms to ensure adequate screening of<br>employees & good formovement of persons as well as goods in SEZ premises<br>IT/ITES Business to belfor the SEZ units and business engaged IT/ITES<br>eceeiee in. the arealservices in the proposed Non processing area. |<br>[proposed to be |<br>demarcatedpeomtatis Area.as Non-| sa ae een eee a |<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br>

## ‘The following requisite documents have been submitted: 

- i. Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. 415 dated 09.04.2024, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into NonProcessing Area and recommendation of DC, MEPZ SEZ. 

- i. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 04.12.2024 issued by Shri Chaitanya Jee Srivastava, Chartered Engineer, Id: M-163947-6, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the developer. 

- ii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide letter F.No. MEPZMSMo21/65/2024-SEZ Chennai dated 22.02.2025. 

- iv. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 duly countersignature of DC, MEPZ SEZ. 

- vy. Checklist for demarcation of NPA, in the format prescribed vide DoC letter dated 09.09.2024 duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, MEPZ SEZ. 

- vi. An Undertaking from the Developer to the effect that they shall pay the differential short paid / unpaid duty / tax benefits if any so determined at the later date on being demanded by the department or any statutory authority without any demur or protest w.e.t. repayment of taxes and benefits availed in respect of 8,278 sq. mtr. of built-up area proposed to be demarcated as per Rule 11B of SEZ Rule (fifth Amendment), 2023.

## Recommendation by DC, MEPZ: 

The proposal of M/S DLF Info City Chennai Limited, the Developer for demarcation of processing area of 18,527.18 sq.mtr, built-up area as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules.2006 (amended), is recommended by the Development Commissioner and forwarded for consideration of BOA. 

Page 24 of 95 

127.12(iii) Application of M/s, Gigaplex Estate Pvt. Ltd. for Demarcation of Built up Floors as Non Processing Area ofa notified IT/ITES SEZ.

## Jurisdictional SEZ — SEEPZ SEZ,

## Fact of the Case: 

**==> picture [453 x 578] intentionally omitted <==**

**----- Start of picture text -----**<br>
' 1 |Name & Address of theM /s, Gigaplex Estate Private Limited, Plot No. IT-5,<br>SEZ PTC MIDC Industrial Area, Airoli Knowledge Park,<br>iroli (W), Navi Mumbai-400708<br>2 Letter of Approval No. and/F.1/5/2011-SEZ dated 06.01.2012<br>3 [Dateof Notification= jiath June 2013 |<br>4 Name of the Sector of SEZ/IT/ITES<br>for which approval has'<br>__been given<br>5 [Total Notified Area of SEZ/8.04 Hectare Area<br>a ee ss oie a<br>6 Total Area of notified by<br>MoC&l-<br>| 1. Processing Area- 8.04 Hectare Area<br>ii. Non Processing<br>7 Details of Built-upSr. [Bldg No. — No, ofBUA as per<br>Area: o. ‘Tower Nos. floors pproved<br>i plan<br>| i. No. of towers with —— __ Sq mtrs |<br>built-up area of 1 2 Basement + Stilt88,156.74<br>each tower (in sq + 2 Parking + 11<br>mtrs)- Total No. of | = : office floors _ —<br>Tower 5(five)in 2 (8 Basement + Stilt}93,152.83<br>the SEZ, BUA as +2 Parking + 1<br>per following table Office floors _ |<br>3 4 Basement + Stilt1,06,301.25<br>+2 Parking + 13)<br>| Office floors f ;<br>4 5 Basement + Stiltig7,352.16<br>Is 6 +Basement 8 Office floors+ Stiltiq42,382.52<br>| [+Office8 floors =<br>‘Total 367,345.50<br>Details of Built up Area already demarcated as<br>NPA is as below:<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br>


Page 25 of 95.

oors+ Stiltiq42,382.52<br>| [+Office8 floors =<br>‘Total 367,345.50<br>Details of Built up Area already demarcated as<br>NPA is as below:<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br>


Page 25 of 95. 

| | @ Bldg No.o2- total built up area - 9,121.10 sq mtrs) | | demarcated in the 120'" meeting of the Board of | |Approval held on 18.06.2024. | (i) Bldg No. 04- total Built up area - 24,883.94 sq) | Imtrs demarcated in the 120" and 122" meetings of | | Ithe Board of Approval held on 18.06.2024 & | 20.08.2024 respectively. | || csq mtrs Bldg No. & 7,527.02 03 & 06- sq mtrs ‘Total demarcated Built up areain - 21,415.85 the 1228 | imeeting(iv) Bldg of No.the 05-total Board of builtApproval up area held - 37,352.16 sq on 30,08.2024., mirs | demarcated in the 118" meeting of Board of Approval on 06.02.2024 —_______- = La| 8 ‘Total Built uppea Area _hheldi Processing Area = 2,63,912.66 sq mtrs of total | | | 367,345.50 sq mtrs | | ii. Non Processing Area = 1,00,300.07 sq mitrs | | 9 Total number of floors inSr. No. Bldg No. and Area “| | ie egian .i A iBidg No. 6 — 6' Office Floor (Total BUA oft area of 7,527-02 sq. mtrs. had already been’ i a al | |Bldg No. 6 is 42,382.52 sq mtrs wherein the| |_| = approved for NPA demarcation by BOA ) si | 10 Total|proposednumber for demarcationof floorsSr. ss ic No. No.| of floors | | if NPA for setting up oft IBldg No. 06 ier Office floor 3,132.77 sal | ie Non SEZ IT/ITES units. [ | mtrs) _| Total Built up areaSr. No. Building No. “laws (in sq mtrs) | [proposed for demarcation | | | of NPA for setting up ofa [Bldg No.

ier Office floor 3,132.77 sal | ie Non SEZ IT/ITES units. [ | mtrs) _| Total Built up areaSr. No. Building No. “laws (in sq mtrs) | [proposed for demarcation | | | of NPA for setting up ofa [Bldg No. 06 3132.77 square meters | Non-SEZ I'r/ITES units i i2 [fotal Built up area already Bldg No.o2 (2 office floors) = 9,121.10 sq mtrs applied / approved oe rile wn the 120!" meeting of the Board of demarcation of NPA forApproval held on 18.06.2024. signe up of Non sez Bite No. si (6 :ffice oe = 24,683.94 se oya ic ocean “Board of Approval held on 18.06.2024 & 30.08.2024 | **IT/ITES** SEZUnits in Fs respectivemarcat **e** ly.d 1n t e 120" and 122" meetings of t ‘ | | ‘Bldgmtrs No.& 037,527. & **0** 26 (5 +sq mirs 2 Officedemarcated floors) = 21,415.85in the 1224) sq. | | Imeeti ng ofthe Board of Approval held on 30.08.2024. | Bldg No. 05 (full building) = 37,352.16 sq mtrs | demarcated in the 118 meeting of Board of Approval | held on 06.02.2024 | otal area demarcated as NPA- 1, 00,300.07 __feqemtrs, 13 total duty benefits and tax|Rs. 27,68,602.17 /- | exemy oe? availed on the builtup area proposedtol _ 

Page 26 of 95 

**==> picture [453 x 392] intentionally omitted <==**

00,300.07 __feqemtrs, 13 total duty benefits and tax|Rs. 27,68,602.17 /- | exemy oe? availed on the builtup area proposedtol _ 

Page 26 of 95 

**==> picture [453 x 392] intentionally omitted <==**

**----- Start of picture text -----**<br>
be demarcated asNPA,as| i -<br>per Chartered Engineers<br>Certificate (in INR)<br>14 Whether duty benefits and'Yes, as per NDC received from SO, Gigaplex, total<br>tax exemptions availed@xemptions and benefits availed and refunded is<br>has ~ been refundedTha Onanif,.jlisand/Rs-attac 52; ——-or reference. Annexure received along with NDC,<br>pe on Ene Sparinedes Bldg No. 6 total exemption and benefit availed is |<br>Officer has been obtained? |p. 52, 06,465.95/-<br>(Please enclose NOC from)<br>The Specified Officer)<br>15 Reasons for demarcation/The Office Floor under consideration is vacant due to<br>of NPA the decreased demand for SEZ spaces. Given there is<br>demand for Built up Spaces from Non SEZ IT/ITES<br>| Clients, NPA demarcation shall help leasing these<br>16 Total remaining built upSr. No. Building No. |Area (in sq mtrs)<br>|| pa 21 BldgBldg  No.No. 2: 71,736.9879,035.64<br>3 Bldg No. 4 81,417.31 _ |<br>4 _ |Bldg No. 5 [Fully demarcatedas NPA<br>5 Bldg No. 6 (31,722.73 |<br>17 |‘Whether total remaining/Yes— [Total 2,63,912.66 |<br>built up area fulfils the<br>minimum built up area<br>requirement as per rule 5<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br>


of SEZ Rules 2006? 18 Purpose and usage of such|For leasing to Non-SEZ IT/ ITES Clients | demarcation of NPA

## The following requisite documents have been submitted: 

- i Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into NonProcessing Area and recommendation of DC, SEEPZ SEZ. 

- i, Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 25.11.2024 issued by Shri S.K. Singh & Aassociates, Chartered Engineer, Reg. No. M/118968/3, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the developer. 

- iii, ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide letter F.No, SEZ115/7/2024-CUSTOM-SEEPZ-MUMBAI/00467 dated 09.01.2025. 

- iv. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 duly countersignature of DC, SEEPZ SEZ. 

- v. Checklist for demarcation of NPA, in the format prescribed vide DoC letter dated 09.09.2024 duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, SEEPZ SEZ. 

- vi. An Undertaking from the Developer to the effect that they shall pay the differential short paid / unpaid duty / tax benefits if any so determined at the 

Page 27 of 95 

later date on being demanded by the department or any statutory authority without any demur or protest w.e.t, repayment of taxes and benefits availed in respect of 3132.77 sqmtr. of built-up area proposed to be demarcated as per Rule 11B of SEZ Rule (fifth Amendment), 2023.

## Key Findings: 

- i. The Developer has repaid Rs. 27,68,605.00/- for Built up Area (i.e. 3132.77 5q Mtrs) proposed for demarcation as NPA. Rs. 9,251.00/- was refunded as IGST for the period from 01.04.2024 to 31.08.2024. 

- i, Rs. 24,28,613.00/- has been paid for the fit outs (capital goods & consumables) obtained from the SEZ unit i.e. M /s. Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd. However, Developer had paid this duty amount on fit outs (Capital Goods & Consumables) obtained from the SEZ-Unit i.e. M /s. Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd. on depreciated value. Accordingly, a letter had been issued by the Specified Officer, Gigaplex-SEZ to the Developer to pay the duty of the consumables on un-depreciated value. In this respect, the Developer vide mail dated 12.03.2025 replied to SO that they are in process of calculating the differential duty to be paid and undertake to pay the same within couple of days. 

- «i Also, the Developer has refunded Rs. 2,93,14,289.23/- for common built up area like parking, podium garden, food courts, refuge area, staircases, lift lobbies, ete including capital goods like elevators, HVAC System, chillers power back up systems ete. at the time of earlier NPA proposal of office floors i.e. 7th & 8th of Building No. 06. Further, the Developer has also refunded Rs. 10,31,11,421.82/- for General Development- Boundary wall, Roads, Footpath, Street Light, Storm Water Drainage, Cable Trenches, Gardens, Power Distribution Systems and Network, Gates, Water Supply ete. Hence, the total amount of Rs. 12,64,25,711.05 (Rs. 2,33,14,289.23 + Rs.

Street Light, Storm Water Drainage, Cable Trenches, Gardens, Power Distribution Systems and Network, Gates, Water Supply ete. Hence, the total amount of Rs. 12,64,25,711.05 (Rs. 2,33,14,289.23 + Rs. 10,31,11,421.82) has been refunded for Common BUA of Bldg No. 06 and General Development of SEZ.

## Recommendation by DC, SEEPZ SEZ: 

The Development Commissioner, SEEPZ SEZ has recommended the proposal of M/s. Gigaplex Estate Private Limited for demarcation of Built up Floors of Building No. 06- 6!" Office Floor as Non Processing Area of a notified IT/ITES SEZ in terms of Notifieation No. CG-DL-E-07122023-250457 No. 698 dated 06.12.2023 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 of Ministry of Commerce & Industry to the Board of Approval for consideration. 

Page 28 of 95 

127.12(iv) M/s. Golden Tower Infratech Private Limited, Developer of IT/ITES SEZ at Plot No. 8, Sector-144, Noida (Uttar Pradesh) — Proposal for demarcation of built-up Processing Area admeasuring ‘17921.485 Sqmt. at 3", 7) & 8th floor, Building No. B-2’ into Non-Processing Area under Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024.

## Jurisdictional SEZ — Noida SEZ, Fact of the Case: 

```text
|S.No.| ____Particulars<br>Nameandaddressofthe<br>Developer|S.No.| ____Particulars<br>Nameandaddressofthe<br>Developer|[|<br>S—Setalls<br>M/s.GoldenTower Infratech Private<br>Limited|[|<br>S—Setalls<br>M/s.GoldenTower Infratech Private<br>Limited|[|<br>S—Setalls<br>M/s.GoldenTower Infratech Private<br>Limited|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Plot No. 8, Sector-144, Noida (Uttar<br>Pradesh)<br>2.<br>LetterofApproval No.and<br>{LOA No. F.1/237/2007-SEZ, dated<br>oe<br>EL<br>||||||
|4.||Name ofthesectorofSEZfor |IT/ITES<br>vhich approval has been||||
|5.|[Potal Notified land area (in||lio hectare||
|Hectares)<br>6.<br>[Total land area of SEZ:<br>1). Processing Area<br>3.13 Hectare<br>"reiterate<br>7.<br>|DetailsofBuilt-up area in<br>Building /<br>ProcessingArea:<br>Tower/<br>BlockNo.<br>(i).<br>No.oftowerswithbuilt-<br>BuildingNo. <br>up area in each tower(in<br>B-1<br>Square meter)||||Total built-<br>uparea<br>(in<br>Sgmt.)<br> [Groundto8%<br>66099.0<br>oor,upper&<br>ower|
|||||asement|
|||||area, Meter &|
|||||Panel Room,|
|||||Jommon Area|
||||Building<br>No.B-2|Ground to 8th<br>94669,2<br>loor, upper&|
|||||lower B2|
|||||basement|
|||||area, Service|
|||||rea|
||||J<br>oe|otal: |160768.34<br>_<br>=]|

Page 29 of 95

mmon Area| ||||Building No.B-2|Ground to 8th 94669,2 loor, upper&| |||||lower B2| |||||basement| |||||area, Service| |||||rea| ||||J oe|otal: |160768.34 _ =]|




Page 29 of 95 

```text
||iii)Areaalreadydemarcated|17921.485Sqmt.|17921.485Sqmt.|
|---|---|---|---|
||as NPA:|||
||iv) Remaining Built-up area:||1,42.846.855<br>Sqmt.||
|||Non-ProcessingArea:17921.485Sqmt.(as||
||||jemarcated under Rule 11B)|
|9|ffotalnumberoffloors inthe||jround +8Floors&2 Basements|
||uildingwherein|||
||emarcation ofNPAis|||
||proposed:<br>fotal Built-upareaproposed<br>obe demarcation ofNPA for<br>settingupofNonSEZ<br>IT/TTESUnits:|||17921.485Sqmt.<br>ommon Built-up Arearelated toabove<br>nentionedarea proposedfordemarcation:|
||||«<br>Lower Basement-|
||||Partial<br>7677.470 Sqmt.<br>-<br>Areaproposed forexpansion|
||||ofCafeteria<br>827.030|
||||Sqmt.|
||||«<br>CafeteriaWashrooms<br>68.460|
||||Sqm.<br>+<br>Cafeteria EntranceCorridor<br>46.720|
||||Sqmt.<br>«<br>Service Lift Lobby (4)<br>19.210Sqmt.<br>»<br>Shuttle LiftLobby (1)<br>24.840|
||||Sqmt.<br>e<br>Shuttle Lift Lobby (2)<br>24.840|
||||Sqmt.|
||||8688.570<br>Sqmt.|
||proposed fordemarcationof<br>—<br>SEZI'T/ITES Units:|||2),as perdetails given below:<br>‘Tower /<br>be<br>uparea<br>Block No.<br>\demarcated | (inSqmt.)|
||||asNPA<br>BuildingNo. "floor<br>(| —_6126.853 ||
||||Ss floor |_6126.853|<br>[—Total:<br>|<br>—i|:s«17921.485 ||
|12.<br>WhethercopyofChartered<br>Yes.Chartered EngineerCertificatedated<br>Engineer Certificatehas been [31.01.2025 of ShriChaitanyaJeeSrivastava,<br>Eo<br>eee<br>163947-6.||||

|:s«17921.485 || |12. WhethercopyofChartered Yes.Chartered EngineerCertificatedated Engineer Certificatehas been [31.01.2025 of ShriChaitanyaJeeSrivastava, Eo eee 163947-6.||||




Page 30 of 95 

```text
|13.|[Totaldutybenefitsandtax<br>exemption availedon the<br>built-uparea proposed tobe<br>demarcated asNPA,as per<br>hartered Engineer|Rs.8,50,58,671/- (Rupees eightcrore fifty<br>akhs fiftyeightthousand sixhundred<br>[seventyoneonly)|
|---|---|---|
||rtificate:||
|14.||Whetherduty benefitsand<br>axexemption availed have<br>been refundedandNOCfrom <br>Specified Officerhasbeen —_[Developer<br>obtained?|es, Specified Officervide letter No. GTIPL-<br>|SEZ/CUS/Non-Processing Area/o1/114<br> |dated04.03.2025 has issued certificatethat<br>[Developerhasrefundedthedutyaspethe<br>provision ofRule 11 (B) ofSEZ Rules,2006.<br>Authorized Officer has also issued ‘No Dues|
|||‘ertificate’ C.No.GTIPL-SEZ/Non-|
|||Processing Area/01/111 dated 04.03.2025.<br>he Authorized Officer hasmentioned that<br>heDeveloper haspaidtotalduty/tax<br>amounting to Rs.8,50,58,671/- throughTR-<br>6 Challan/ DRC-o03.|
|15.||Reasons fordemarcation of<br>PA|[logiveNon-ProcessingAreaon lease to<br>domestic IT/ITES unitswhodoes not wish|
|||o setup asSEZ unit.|
||hether anySEZ Unit||
||operatingon thearea||
||proposed to bedemarcated as||
||von-ProcessingArea under||
||Rule 11B.||
|17.<br>|Remaining Built-up<br>‘iProcessingAreaafterinstant<br>proposed demarcation:||1,24,925.37Sqmtrs.|
||hether remaining built-up<br>area fulfilsthe minimum||
||built-up area requirementas||

B.||
|17.<br>|Remaining Built-up<br>‘iProcessingAreaafterinstant<br>proposed demarcation:||1,24,925.37Sqmtrs.|
||hether remaining built-up<br>area fulfilsthe minimum||
||built-up area requirementas||
||per Rule5 ofSEZ Rules,||
||2006.||
||hetherapplication inthe|es.|
||ormat prescribed vide||
||Instruction No. 115dated||
||09.04.2024, hasbeen||
||submitted.||
|20.|etherCertificate of|es|
||Specified Officerin||
||prescribed format, confirming||
||refund ofdutyas per||
||provisionsofRule 11B ofSEZ||
||Rules, 2006 and Instruction||
||No. 115dated 09.04.2024,||
||as been submitted?||
|21.<br>||[Whether Checklist for<br>RemareatonstNparininefo||

Page 31 of 95

==> picture [424 x 249] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|format|prescribed|vide DoC|
|etter dated|09.09.2024,|duly|
|singed by|Specified|Officer,|
|as|been|received.|
|22,|Whether|required|‘es|
|Undertaking|has been|
|ubmitted:|
|33.|Access Control|Mechanism|{In checklist,|the Specified Officer has|
|for movement of employees &|mentioned|that the|Developer|has already|
|leood|for IT/ITES|Business to|\deployed security|personnel for round the|
|be|engaged in the area|lock security with digital smart check|
|proposed to be demarcated as|acility at SEZ main gate and at each|tower|
|Non-Processing Area.|evel.|Further,|the|Developer|has undertaken|
|o|issue|different|colour gate|passes and|car|
|sticker for both|Processing Area|and|Non-|
|Processing|Area.|
|demarcation|of NPA.|IT/ITES|Units|

----- End of picture text -----

The following requisite documents have been submitted:

i. Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into NonProcessing Area and recommendation of DC, Noida SEZ.
i. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 31.01.2025 of Shri Chaitanya Jee Srivastava, Chartered Engineer Membership No. M-163947-6, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer.
ii ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide C. No. GTIPLSEZ/CUS/Non-Processing Area/01/10 dated 04.03.2025.
iv. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No, 115 dated 09.04.2024 duly countersignature of DC, NSEZ.
v_ Checklist for demarcation of NPA, in the format prescribed vide DoC letter dated 09.09.2024 duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, Noida SEZ.
vi An Undertaking from the Developer to the effect that they shall pay the differential short paid / unpaid duty / tax benefits if any so determined at the later date on being demanded by the department or any statutory authority without any demur or protest w.r.t. repayment of taxes and benefits availed in respect of built-up area at (3%, 7h & St floor, - Area 17921.485 Sqmt.) of Building No. B-2 of their IT/ITES SEZ at Plot No.8, Sector-144, Noida (U.P.) proposed to be demarcated as per Rule 11B of SEZ Rule (fifth Amendment), 2023.

Recommendation by DC, NSEZ:

The Development Commissioner, Noida SEZ has recommended the proposal of M/s. Golden Tower Infratech Private Limited, Developer for demarcation of 17921.485 Sqmt. at 3, 7th & 8th floor, Building No. B-2’of the I'T/ITES SEZ at Plot No.8, Sector144, Noida (Uttar Pradesh), into Non-Processing Area, for consideration by the Board of Approval, in terms of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006, read with Instruction No. 1 15 dated 09.04.2024.

Page 32 of 95

127.12(v) Proposal of M/s APIIC Limited, IT/ITES SEZ at Hill No. 3, Madhurwada, Visakhapatnam for demarcation of the built-up area as Non-processing area under Rule — 11(B) of SEZ, Rule 2006 Jurisdictional SEZ — Visakhapatnam SEZ (VSEZ)

Fact of the Case:

|——|——|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Nameand address|M/s. Andhra Pradesh Infrastructure <br>fthe Developer:<br>|)||Corporation|Limited (APIIC||
|||Millennium Towers, IT HillNo. 3, ITSEZ, Madhurwada, Visakha||||
|||patnam||||
||LetterofApproval <br>No. and date||Formal Approval No. F.2/61/2006-SEZ Dated07.04.2006||||
|3||DateofNotificatio|Dated 28.12.2006 —36.00Ha (notifiedarea)|||||
|||Dated 16.12.2015-29.63 ha(6.37 Ha de-notified)||||
|||Dated 20.06.2018-32.25 Ha (1,62 Ha additional area)||||
|4||Name of thesecto||ITSector||||
||rofSEZ for which|||||
||approval has been|||||
||given|||||
|5|[Total Notified Are||36 Hectares||||
||a ofSpecialEcono|||||
||vic Zone(in Hecta|||||
||re)|||||
||otal Area of|||||
||i. Processing Area||i. 31.25 Ha||||
||ii. Non processing||ii.

||
||given|||||
|5|[Total Notified Are||36 Hectares||||
||a ofSpecialEcono|||||
||vic Zone(in Hecta|||||
||re)|||||
||otal Area of|||||
||i. Processing Area||i. 31.25 Ha||||
||ii. Non processing||ii. 0||||
||rea|||||
|7||DetailsofBuiltup|enosoftTechnologies India PrivateLimited||]14818.84||
||i. No. oftowers wi! 3 |Precistat ITSolutions Pvt. Ltd.<br>h built-upareaof[4 [InfiniteComputersSolutions<br>achtower(insqu<br>orldtechSoftwareSolutions Pvt. Ltd.<br>aremeter)<br>| 6<br>|ECentricSolutions Pvt. Ltd.|||958.71<br>|<br>7713.93||
|||<br>imal<br>az||ICTechnologies Pvt.Ltd.<br>|8<br>[TrigeoTechnologies Pvt.Ltd.<br>4120.12<br>9 [MillinneumTower<br>_—————S—ian<br>0.75<br>10[MillinneumTowerB<br>«(1650.06_|||||

Page 33 of 95

|8|lYotal Builtup areal|i.<br>—119250.04sq. mts.|
|---|---|---|
||i. Processing Area ||ii,<br>©|
||-sq. mtrs<br>ii. Non-Processing||
||area<br>—<br>sq. mtrs||
|9|[Total No. ofFloor|[Tower —A-G+7floors|
||sin the Buildingwsian<br>herein demarcatio|sianC47floors|
||nof NPA is propo||
||id||
||Proposed fordem||
||r SEZ IT/TTES un<br>=|Nemarcatio<br>B-2 |<br>6960.07}{romPAto|
|||NPA<br>a woe<br>5331.61|from PA to<br>NPA<br>=<br>Demarcation<br>Demarcatio|
|||NPA<br>NPA<br>Slee<br>| fT<br>4<br>2509.24\from PAto<br>1460.56jfrom PA to<br>NPA<br>NPA|
|||BE we<br>5<br>2509.24\/from PAto<br>1511.62ifrom PA to<br>NPA<br>NPA<br>D**e**marcation<br>Demarcatio<br>Be<br>oa<br>NPA<br>NPA<br>Be wee<br>7<br>2099.97}{rom PA to<br>atrom PAto<br>NPA<br>NPA<br>oe ee<br>=<br>5<br>1511.<br>rom<br>to<br>otal 3<br>NPA<br>D**e**marcattor<br>PL<br>eNPA|

emarcatio Be oa NPA NPA Be wee 7 2099.97}{rom PA to atrom PAto NPA NPA oe ee = 5 1511. rom to otal 3 NPA Demarcattor PL eNPA|




Page 34 of 95 

Demareation 7 1243.27}trom PA to NPA rand rand rotal otal ower|24220-26 Siecais ‘ How many floors [fower-A-B-1,2,G. F ,4"" to 7 floors are proposed for d marcation of NP |/ower-B-G. F to 7 floors A for setting up of NON SEZ IT/ITE Units Total Duty benefi |Rs.7,79,61,171/(Rupees Seven Crore Seventy Nine Lakh Sixty On and Tax exempt|e Thousand One Hundred and Seventy One only) ion availed on the built area propose to be demarcate as NPA, as per C arted Engineers ‘ertificate(In Rup s Crore) 

hether duty ben efits and tax exem ptions availed has en refunded an NOC from speci ied officer has bee obtained 

14|Reasons for dema 1. Due to non-achievement of positive Net Foreign Exchange tion of NPA (NFE) 2. Due to vacant since construction of building it is propose d to demarcate for further allotment to IT/ITES 3. The Government of AP have allotted 2,08,280/- SFT of bui ltof Area at Millennium Towers A&B to TCS for creatio n of more employment in IT Sector 

‘otal remaining b | 83379.38 sq mts 15 uilt up area ..... (in St]. mt.) hether remainin ig built up area fulf 167). the minimum b tilt up area requir ment as per Rule 

Yes 

Page 35 of 95 

||ofSEZ Rules, 20|
|---|---|
||06|
||Purpose andusag|
||» ofsuch demarca|
||“tion of NPA|
|7||

## The following requisite documents have been submitted: 

- i Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into NonProcessing Area and recommendation of DC, Visakhapatnam SEZ. 

- i. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 03.02.2025 issued by Shri Mythri Raviteja, Chartered Engineer, Reg. No. AM181420-9, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the developer. 

- ii ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide letter F.No. 16(6)/2024SEZ dated 11.02.2025 

- iv. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 duly countersignature of DC, VSEZ. 

- v. Checklist for demarcation of NPA, in the format prescribed vide DoC letter dated 09.09.2024 duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, VSEZ. 

- vi. An Undertaking from the Developer to the effect that they shall pay the differential short paid / unpaid duty / tax benefits if any so determined at the later date on being demanded by the department or any statutory authority without any demur or protest w.e.t. repayment of taxes and benefits availed in respect of 35,870.26 sq. mtr. of built-up area proposed to be demarcated as per Rule 1B of SEZ Rule (fifth Amendment), 2023.

## Recommendation by DC, VSEZ: 

The Development Commissioner has recom mended the proposal of M/s. APLIC Limited, I'l'/ITES SEZ, Hill No. 3, Madhurwada, Visakhapatnam for demarcation of an area of 35,870.26 sq. mts. (2422.20 sq. mtrs. in tower A and 11,650.06 sq. mtrs. in tower-B) as non-processing area for placing the same before the BoA for consideration. 

Page 36 of 95

## Agenda Item No, 127.13: 

Request for approval of Restricted/Prohibited items [2 proposals127.13(i)-127.13(ii)] 

127.13(i) Proposal of M/s. HCL Technologies Limited, Developer for approval of ‘Restricted’ item to carry on authorized operations in the IT/ITES SEZ at Plot No. 3A, 3B & 2C, Sector-126, Noida (Uttar Pradesh)

## Jurisdictional SEZ — Noida SEZ, 

M/S. HCL Technologies Limited, Developer vide its letter dated 16.01.2025 has submitted a proposal for approval of duty free procurement of ‘Refrigerant HFC236FA (Clean Agent Gas)’ from DTA under the following authorized operation in the IT/TITES SEZ at Plot No. 3A, 3B & 2C, Sectori26, Noida (Uttar Pradesh): 

**==> picture [438 x 112] intentionally omitted <==**

**----- Start of picture text -----**<br>
5. No. Authorized operation /item SI. No. at default | Estimated Cost<br>description list of Autho. Opr. | (Rs. in lakhs)<br>as per Inst, No, 50<br>Fire & 54<br>Fire andProtectionsmoke systemDetectors. with sprinklers, 2.50<br>i. Refrigerant-HFC236FA (Clea<br>gent Gas).<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br>


The developer has informed that they need to procure this refrigerant HFC236FA (Clean Agent Gas) from DTA supplier for refilling of Clean Agent Fire Extinguishers, which can be used eventually to extinguish the fire without leaving any residual products thus protecting the critical components of Data Centers/Server Rooms and various critical equipment across different Units of their SEZ Campus, in case any fire breaks outs.

## Relevant Provisions: 

- As per Notification No.62/2015-2020 dated 23.03.2022 issued by DGFT, HS Codes 29034600 is ‘Restricted’ for Export. 

- * As per Section 2(m)(ii) of the SEZs Act, 2005, supplying goods, or providing services, from the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to a Unit or Developer shall be treated as ‘Export’. 

- + Further, as per proviso to Rule 27(1) of SEZ Rules, 2006, ‘Supply of Restricted items by a Domestic Tariff Area Unit to Special Economic Zone Developer or Unit, the Domestic Tariff Area Unit may supply such items to a Special Economic Zone Developer or Unit for setting up infrastructure| setting facility or for Zone up of a Unit and it may also supply raw materials to Special Economic Unit for undertaking a manufacturing operation except refrigeration, 

- cutting, polishing and blending, subject to the prior approval of Board of Approval." 

- « Further, maintenance is included in "infrastructure" vide Rule2(1)(s) of SEZ Rules, 2006. 

Page 37 of 95

## Recommendation by DC, NSEZ: 

In view of above, the proposal of M/s. HCL ‘Technologies Limited, Developer for duty free procurement of ‘Restricted’ items- Refrigerant-HFC236FA (Clean Agent Gas) under HS Codes '29034600' from DTA, to carry on authorized operation in the IT/ITES SEZ at Plot No. 34, aB & 2C, Sector-126, Noida (U.P.) is duly recommended by DC, NSEZ to BoA for ‘ts consideration, in terms of proviso to Rule 27(1) of SEZ Rules, 2006. 

Page 38 of 95 

127.13(ii) Request of M/s Anjum Aromatics, Indore SEZ for import of Raw (unprocessed) Sandalwood (logs/roots) and export of Processed Sandalwood products i.e. Sandalwood Heartwood logs, Sandalwood Heartwood roots, Sandalwood Sapwood and Sandalwood spent dust (deoiled/refused powder).

## Jurisdictional SEZ — Indore SEZ (ISEZ)

## Vacts of the case: 

export M/s Anjum Aromatics is holding LoA dated 05.02.2016 for manufacturing and chillan of sandalwood products viz., Sandalwood oil, Sandalwood powder, gully chips, savings, Essential oils, Perfume Compounds, Bakhoor etc. The unit is operational at plot No. F-16, Indore SEZ Phase I and the LoA ofthe unit is valid up to 31.05.2028. Proposal of the Unit: |. Import of Restricted item: The unit has requested for approval to import the following product as per second proviso to Rule 26 of SEZ Rules (if any Permission is required for import under any other law, the same shall be allowed with the approval of Board of Approval): - 

```text
||Permission is required for import under any other law, the same shall be<br>allowed with the approval of BoardBoard of Approval):Approval): -|Permission is required for import under any other law, the same shall be<br>allowed with the approval of BoardBoard of Approval):Approval): -|
|---|---|---|
||Item<br>HSCode<br>Annual<br>Import<br>Natureof<br>No.

required for import under any other law, the same shall be<br>allowed with the approval of BoardBoard of Approval):Approval): -|
|---|---|---|
||Item<br>HSCode<br>Annual<br>Import<br>Natureof<br>No. | description<br>Requirement<br>restriction||
||Raw<br>44039922 | <br>(unprocessed)<br>Sandalwood<br>(logs/roots)|750Tons<br>|Restricted|Import subject<br>te<br>Import<br>Policy<br>off<br>ITC(HS),<br>policy<br>Condition No.2 o|
|||he Chapter 44 0|
|||FTP|
|ii.|Export<br>of Prohibited item:The unithas requested forexport offollowing<br>productswhich areProhibited / Restricted in Nature(Approval ofBoA is<br>required under fifthproviso<br>to Rule 26of SEZRules): -||
||S.<br>Item<br>Annual<br>No.|amcraton |depecty| <br>Processed<br>150Tons | <br>Sandalwood<br>Heartwood<br>logs|HSCode | Export<br>Natureof<br> Oe[EP | Meee<br> 44039922<br>|Prohibited|Not<br>permitted<br>t<br>be<br>exported<br>(Notification<br>No.<br>37/2015-20<br>dated|
||zi<br>Processed<br>100Tons | <br>Sandalwood<br>Heartwood<br>roots<br>et|27.01.2017)<br> 44039922<br>|Prohibited|Not<br>permitted<br>t<br>b<br>exported<br>(Notification<br>No.<br>7/2015-20<br>dated<br>27.01.2017)|

Page 39 of 95

dalwood Heartwood roots et|27.01.2017) 44039922 |Prohibited|Not permitted t b exported (Notification No. 7/2015-20 dated 27.01.2017)|




Page 39 of 95 

```text
|3.||Sandalwood| 350Tons<br>Sapwood<br>Productsviz.<br>Sticks,<br>Shavings,|12119051||Prohibited|Not permitted<br>to<br>be<br>exported<br>(Notification<br>No<br>47/2015-20 dated<br>27.01.2017)|
|---|---|---|---|
||Chips,Powder|||
||etc.<br>Sandalwood | 140Tons | 12119051<br>spentdust(de-<br>oiled)||Restricted|Export<br>permitte<br>under<br>licenc<br>subject<br>t<br>nditionalities<br>a|
||||may be notified by<br>the<br>DGFT<br>from|
||||ime<br>to<br>time|
||||(Notification<br>No.<br>7/2015-20<br>dated|
||||27.01.2017). As pe|
||||DoC<br>Instruction|
||||No.<br>47<br>dated|
||||04.03.2010 expo|
||||f restricted items|
||||is<br>permitted<br>fo|
||||SEZunits.|

Rule18[-] Consideration of proposals of Unit in an SEZ:-

(3) The proposal shall also fulfil the following sector specific requirements, namely: -

(a) export ofthe goodsfrom Special Economic Zones shall be subject to export policy in force, as provided in Schedule 2 to the Indian Trade Classification (Harmonised System) of Export and Import Items, 2017;

Rule26 - General conditions of Import and Export:-

A Unit may export goods and services, including agro-products, partly processed goods, sub-assemblies, components, by-products, rejects, waste or scrap except prohibited items ofexports indicated in the Import Trade Control (Harmonized System) Classifications ofExport and Import items:

for import under any other Providedfurther that ifany permission ts required law, the same shall be allowed with the approval of the Board ofApproval:

Provided also that Special Economic Zone Units shall be permitted to export prohibited items, ifthey import raw-materialfor the same, but each such case shall be placed before Board ofApproval for approval:

Page 40 of 95

Provided also that items which are prohibited Jor import, Special Economic Zone Units shall be permitted to import the same if they export goods made out of the same but each such case shall beplaced before Board of Approval of Approvalfor approval.

Rule 45 — Exports:-

(1) A Unit may export goods or services as per the terms and conditions of Letter of Approval ineluding agro-products, partly processed goods, subassemblies and components except prohibited items under the Import Trade Control (Harmonized System) Classification af Export and Import Items and the Unit may also export byproducts, rejects, waste scrap arising out of the manufacturing process. priorProvided that a unit may export prohibited items toa place outside India with items approval ofBoard ofApproval: Provided further that such prohibited cannot be procuredfrom Domestic Tariff Area.

In view ofthe above stated SEZ Rule provisions:

) For import of Raw (unprocessed) Sandalwood (which is under restricted category), permission of Board of Approval is required in terms of second proviso to Rule 26 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, as per details in Table above.

“If any permission is required for import under any other law, the same shall be allowed with the approval of the Board ofApproval”.

- As import of Sandalwood is restricted as per Import Policy of ITC (HS) Code No. 4403 9922, and import of Sandalwood (santalum album) is subject to PolicyBOA Condition 2 ofthe said Chapter, import proposal shall be placed before for approval.

ii) For Export of Processed Sandalwood heartwood logs, Sandalwood heartwood roots, Sandalwood sapwood and Sandalwood spent dust (de-oiled) (which is under prohibited / restricted category), permission of Board of Approval is required in terms of 5" Proviso to Rule 26 of SEZ Rules, as per details mentioned in Table -2 above.

“Provided also that Special Economic Zone Units shall be permitted to export prohibited items, if they import raw materialfor the same, but each such case shall be placed before the Board ofApprovalfor approval”

As export of Processed Sandalwood heartwood logs Sandalwood heartwood roots, Sandalwood sapwood and Sandalwood spent dust (de-oiled) is under prohibited category, and export may be permitted, if they import raw material for the same, but each such case shall be placed before the Board of Approval for approval.

Page 41 of 95

Recommendation by DC, Indore SEZ:-

. In view of the above, the request of M/s Anjum Aromatics may be considered by the BoA for:
i. Import of Raw (unprocessed) Sandalwood (logs and roots) falling under HSN cade 44039922 which is restricted as per policy Condition No. 2 of Chapter 44
i ofExport FTP; andof Processed Sandalwood heartwood logs Sandalwood heartwood roots, Sandalwood sapwood and Sandalwood spent dust (de-oiled) which is prohibited / restricted in terms of Rule 26 and 45 of SEZ Rules, 2006
- Board of Approval in its 116th meeting held on 05.09.2023, 122" meeting held on 30.08.2024 and 123 meeting held on 04.10.2024 has already allowed import of restricted items and export of prohibited items in the matter of M/s Global Export House, Noida SEZ, M/s Aurascent Essence Pvt. Ltd., Khed City Industrial Park SEZ, Pune and M/s V.M. Maniyar Exports, Surat SEZ, respectively.

Accordingly, the proposal of the unit is duly recommended by DC, Indore SEZ to the BoA for its consideration.

Page 42 of 95

Agenda item no. 127.14:

Proposal for co-developer additional activities [1 proposal - 127.14(i)]

127.14(i) Request of M/s Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Limited, Co-Developer in Mangalore SEZ for inclusion of additional activities in the existing Letter of Approval under broad-banding

Jurisdictional SEZ — Cochin SEZ (CSEZ)

Facts of the case:

==> picture [451 x 511] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Name|of|the Developer &|Locatio|M/s|Mangalore|Special|Economic|Zone|Lim|
|n|ited,|Baikampady,|Near|Mangalore, Dakshin|
|Kannada|District,|Karnataka|State|
|Date of LOA|to Developer|No.F.2/120/2006-EPZ dated 30%|July|200°|
|||3.|[Sector of the SEZ|Multi-product|SEZ|
|||pe of Notification|06.-20|1|4,1.2007,13.11.2017 28.06.201 &|09.02.20221,|18.08.2011, 08.09|
|Whether the SEZ|is operational|olOperational|
|r|not|
|(i)|If operational,|date|of operatij13.01.2014|
|nalization|
|(ii)|No. of Units|(||
|(iii)Total|Exports &|Imports|for|
|ne|last|5 years|in|crore)|-|
|)|i244.0|[3820.2a|Le]|1507.7||6066.3||242.41|6817.7|[2371.41|a4|
|7.|| Name of the|Co-Developer|sou||M/s.|Indian|Strategic|Petroleum|Reserves|I|
|ght|approval|for|Co-Develope||imited,|Mangalore|Site|
|r|status|(Existing)|
|Details of Infrastructure|facilities||Existing:|
|/|authorized|operations|to be|un||Underground|strategic|crude|oil|storage|in|
|ertaken|by the co-developer|unlined|rock|caverns|(involving|creation|of|
|.|underground|rock|caverns and|setting|up|of|
|above ground|process|facilities)|
|Proposed|additions:|
|Development of FTWZ,|
|perations & Management|of FTW.|

----- End of picture text -----

Page 43 of 95


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


Page 43 of 95 

```text
|g.||Total area (in Hectares) on whi<br>h activities will be performed by<br>the Co-Developer<br>(Existing|100,02Acres|
|---|---|---|
|10.||Proposed/carriedout investme <br>tbytheCo-developer<br>(Rs.ing|1205.78|
||rores)<br>NetworthoftheCo-Developer (R]|3069.67(ason31.03.2024)|
|12.|s. in crore)<br>[DateoftheCo-Developeragreem|18"" November2009||
||nt||

Proposal Highlights:

M/s. Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Limited is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) created by Government of India under Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas to secure energy needs of the country.
M/s ISPRL was granted Co-Developer status in Mangalore SEZ vide approval No. F.2/120/2006-SEZ dated 12.08.2010.

3, M/sISPRL submitted the application for inclusion of additional activities in the existing LoA under broad-banding.

In this connection, the Co-Developer submits that Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide letter No.1-22011/7/2018 IC-II dated 14th July 2021 has conveyed that the Cabinet Secretariat in its meeting held on 8th July 2021 has approved the following;

. Commercialization of ISPRL by allowing ISPRL to undertake following commercial activities with the crude stored in caverns under Phase | of SPR programme L.e.,
- i. Leasing /Renting of 30% of overall oil storage capacity of caverns to Indian or foreign companies with the condition that in case of any exigency, the GOI will have the first right on the entire crude oil stored in the Caverns
- ii. Sale/ purchase of 200% of overall oil storage capacity of caverns to Indian companies.

Based on the approval of the Gol, M/s ISPRL intends to lease/rent the Caverns set up in Mangalore SEZ to Indian and foreign companies.
The present approved authorized activities of the co-Developer do not permit them to undertake the leasing/renting of the caverns to the companies as envisaged in the Cabinet Secretariat decision as given above.

proved authorized activities of the co-Developer do not permit them to undertake the leasing/renting of the caverns to the companies as envisaged in the Cabinet Secretariat decision as given above.

7 Hence, the Co- Developer submitted application for inclusion of additional activities of "Development of FTWZ, operations & Management of FTWZ" in the existing Letter of Approval under broad-banding.

‘The Co-Developer has proposed an additional investment of Rs. 1205.78 crore. The networth of the company is Rs 3069.67 crore.

Page 44 of 95

Rule Provision;

As per Rule 5(2)(a) of SEZ Rules, A Special Economic Zone or Free Trade Warehousing Zone other than a Special Economic Zone for Information Technology or Information Technology enabled Services, Biotech or Health (other than hospital) service, shall have a contiguous land area of fifty hectares or more.

Recommendation by DC, CSEZ:

M/s The Development Commissioner, Cochin SEZ has recommended the request of Indian Strategic Petroleum Reserves Limited (ISPRL), Co-Developer of Mangalore Special Economie Zone for inclusion of additional activities of “Development of FT WZ, operations & Management of FTWZ.” in the existing Letter of Approval under broad-banding and forwarded for consideration of the BoA.

Page 45 of 95

Agenda Item No, 127.15:

Request for notification or partial/full de-notification [3 proposals — 127.15(i)-127.15(iii) |

Procedural guidelines on de-notification of SEZ:

. In terms of first proviso to rule 8 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, the Centra Government may, on the recommendation of the Board (Board ofAppr wal on the application made by the Developer, if it is satisfied, m¢ ify, withdraw or rescind the notification ofa SEZ issued under this rule.
- In the 60" meeting of the Board of Approval held on 08.11.2013, while considering a proposal of de-notification, the Board after deliberation 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 certifying inter-alia that; 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.
. there are either no units in the SEZ or the same have been de-bonded. (b) The State Govt. has no objection to the de-notification proposal and (c) Subject to stipulations communicated vide DoC’s letter No. D,12/ 45/2009-SEZ dated 13.09.2013.

Procedural guidelines on additional area notification ofSEZs:

- Interms of section 4 of the SEZ Act, 2005, the Central Government may, afte satisfying that the requirements, under sub-section (8) of section 3 and othe requirements, as may be prescribed, are fulfilled, notify the specifically identified area in the State as a Special Economic Zone.
- Interms of the second proviso to section 4, the Central Government may, afte notifying the Special Economic Zone, if it considers it appropriate, notify subsequently any additional area to be included as a part of that Special Economic Zone.[the][ Board][ directed][that]
- Inthe 4oth meeting of[the][ BoA][ held][ on][ 08.06.2010,] the proposals for an increase in area up to 10% of the notified area of the SEZneednot be brought before the Board(refer[to][ the][ minutes).] Consequently, the proposals for an increase in the area up to 10% to the existin notified area are being processed on file and the proposals beyond 10% to the existing notified area are placed before the BoA for its approval and subsequently, processed on file for notification.
« The powers of Hon'ble CIM with regard to proposals for an increase in area (u to and beyond 10%) were delegated to CS on 28. 12.2018 and the same was late reaffirmed by Hon'ble CIM on 27.08.2019.

Page 46 of 95

127.15(i) Proposal of M/s. Dahej SEZ Limited (DSL) for partial denotification of 529-45-86 Ha out of 1682-40-31 Ha of their multi product SEZ at Dahej, Gujarat

to them on_ thelcorrect. It is to be noted that. the investigation carried out by DRI .theljurisdictional Customs Authority is the jurisdiction to deal with such issuelcompetent authority to conduct. th squarely lies with the customs and thelproceedings arising out of the notified development commissioner is notloffences. authorised to conduct parallel proceedings by citing the|In the subject case, it is seen in terms 0 aforementioned notifications issued|Bond cum _ legal undertaking, th vith a specific purpose to notify alAppellant has undertaken to abide by single enforcement agency for dealing}the Act and Rules. As per Rule 18 (5) of ith certain specified offences and if[SEZ Rules read with instruction no 60 he said proceedings are permitted to\dated 6/7/2010, the Appellant unit e approved then it would amount tolholder has to hold goods only on behalf double jeopardy attracting the bar asjof the importer or buyer,Whereas in th provided under Art. 20 [2] of thejsubject case, the buyer(importer) h ‘onstitution of India categorically stated that the goods we not imported by them, and hence th ppellant has clearly violated Rule 18 (5) of the said Rules and the said ircular. Therefore, it is clear that th ‘jolations under FTDR Act, Custom ct and rules made thereunder hav resulted in the violation of provisions of SEZ Act and Rules made thereunder, and hence the action was taken b he Development commissione against the Appellant in view of iolations committed under SE. Act/Rules and the same is well ithin the law.

Act and Rules made thereunder, and hence the action was taken b he Development commissione against the Appellant in view of iolations committed under SE. Act/Rules and the same is well ithin the law. 14 he learned respondent also ought tolIn the subject case, the Appellant ha ave appreciated and accepted thatlbeen found to be the habitual offende vhen only a show cause notice hadjwho has involved in the various been issued to them bythe Customs itjirregularities in respect of various only «remained as allegations yet to befimport transactions effected in Chennai proved as per law and yet to attain{Customs Jurisdiction for which the nality he ought not to have initiated|Appellant/their Directors/Employees he proceedings against themlhave been imposed penalties unde resulting in the draconian punishmentiCustoms Act. Having coming to know

Page 71 of 95

of losing their entire business whereas|the Appellant's antecedents, it was he ought to have awaited the final considered very much necessary to put sutcome of the notice even if had thejan end to unethical business practices 0 legal authority to proceed againstithe Appellant as the same cannot be them instead of rushing to hold thelallowed to be perpetuated. Hence the ppellant guilty which is highlyaction taken by the Developmen improper and arbitrary and which ommissioner in recommending fo only expose not only his bias and|LoA cancellation and UAC’s decision in prejudice but also predetermination |cancelling the LoA is legal and proper .

bitrary and which ommissioner in recommending fo only expose not only his bias and|LoA cancellation and UAC’s decision in prejudice but also predetermination |cancelling the LoA is legal and proper . 15 he learned respondent's furtherThe DRI investigation clearly reveale nding recorded in para 20 as if thefthat the Appellant has used the IEC holder during the course of theredentials of actual importer and investigation stated that he had notlhappens to be the beneficial owner of imported the goods and no KY he imported goods and the same has wuthorisation has been .given by himlbeen confirmed by the Adjudicating o the appellant herein to file the BEjauthority. Further it was proved that the d to handle his goods is denied asjactual owner of M/s Samyga otally incorrect and untrue not borne nternational (importer) has lent thei ut of the .records and in any casel[EC for the monetary consideration ta sven if it were so the IEC holder ought}be used by the Appellant. © have filed necessary complain ither with the police or with the|Hencth e findings by the Development DGFT authorities whichis not the case(Commissioner wrt role played by th Appellant in the import transaction is} ased the results of DRI investigations mniy.

|Hencth e findings by the Development DGFT authorities whichis not the case(Commissioner wrt role played by th Appellant in the import transaction is} ased the results of DRI investigations mniy. 16 he learned respondent exposed hisIt is stated that the goods imported in ighhandedness and bias by recordingithis case are “Used Parts and he finding in para 21 of the impugned\Accessories of Multi- Functiona order as if the used parts and|Device” as against declared “Printe accessories of Multi-function devicesiaccessories” fall under the restricted invoking para 2.31 of the FTP evenjcategory under Para 2.31 of Foreig vithout considering their plea that thefI'rade Policy 2015-20 and these policy wen used MED machines itself are notjrestrictions will apply for these goods at} restricted in terms of the judgments offthe time of DTA clearance. the Supreme Court/ High Court and ribunal when the subject import is|Irrespective of restrictive or free nature dmitted to be only parts and thejof goods, it is a fact that the Appellan machines which render his orderlhas committed violations under SEZ otally bad and unsustainable ct/Rules 17 “he finding recorded by the learned|From 17 - 21 respondent in para 15 of the impugned order that the investigation}As already discussed in above paras, the ad brought out the fact that thejcharges against the Appellant wrt FTWZ unit has imported the goods|misuse of IEC by the Appellant (in hi ithout knowledge or consent of thelcapacity as FI'WZ Unit) has been lactual [EC holder is totally untrue andjclearly proved.

wrt FTWZ unit has imported the goods|misuse of IEC by the Appellant (in hi ithout knowledge or consent of thelcapacity as FI'WZ Unit) has been lactual [EC holder is totally untrue andjclearly proved. Further the irregularities in correct as they only actedas the CBlcommitted by the Appellant (in his or the said importer and IEC holderjapacity as Customs Broker) len¢ for -the act of which only they werelcredence to his bad antecedents and th

Page 72 of 95

proposed for the imposition of thejsame necessitated the Development penalties under the Customs Act andjcommissioner to take pro-active action heir CB license suspended a factlagainst the Appellant in line with DoC’ relied in support in the impugnedlinstructions to streamline the working! order f FTWZ and preserve the integrity of e reliance placed by the learnedithe SEZ eco System. sspondent on the fact of their CB license being kept under continued|Hence the order passed by the suspension by the licensing authority|Development commissioner is legal an inder the customs no more survives injproper new of the recent orders passed by he Hon’ ble Customs Excise Servic ax Tribunal Chennai vacating th id order vindicates their stand he learned respondent in any cas ought to have known that the CE icense held by them being governed Vv a totally separate legislation amely Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 question of invoking the alleged contravention fo ‘ancellation of their LOA issued in erms of the SEZ Act and the rules made thereunder is highly imprope and incorrect more particularly whe he Hon'ble Madras High C

voking the alleged contravention fo ‘ancellation of their LOA issued in erms of the SEZ Act and the rules made thereunder is highly imprope and incorrect more particularly whe he Hon'ble Madras High Court had ategorically held that the violation i any by a customs broker in terms of he regulation cannot result in invocation of any penal provision inder the Customs Act The appellant submits that the recent ‘ircular issued by the CBIC instructing officers not to indiscriminately proceed against any Customs Broke nless there is an allegation of abetment against them made in the show cause notice issued under th ustoms Act also squarely support th se of the appellant he findings recorded by the learned respondent in para 24 of the impugned order clearly evidence to he fact that he was acting in terms of he suggestions issued by the Ministrn f Commerce purely concerning the erification of antecedents fo approving new units and monitoring existing units and that too for th reason of the recent growing trend o

Page 73 of 95

he Ministrn f Commerce purely concerning the erification of antecedents fo approving new units and monitoring existing units and that too for th reason of the recent growing trend o

Page 73 of 95

DTA supplies and inereased in the import of risky consignments involving mis-declaration of description and value by unscrupulous CHa's and their client hus only sounding a caution to carry out proper antecedent verification vhereas the , learned respondent had yond the said suggestion to rely pon . certain cases registered agains heir clients leading to issue of the show cause notice to the said client nd to them in their capacity as thei ‘ustoms Broker even when th proceedings initiated against them nder the CBLR relied upon i support of the issue of the impugnec rder _ stood set aside making th said order totally devoid of any merits 2 ‘he appellant further for the sake of [Further it is stated that all the grounds brevity craves leave of the Board of |have suitably countered in the order in pproval New Delhi to treat the joriginal Passed by the Development rounds of the memorandum filed by commissioner. hem against cancellation of their LOA granted to them for operating at |In view of the above, the appeal filed by he NDR FTW% Nandhiyambakkam |the VJP Unit against cancellation off illage Minjur Panchayat Ponneri |LOA and rejection of application fo raluk Tiruvallur District in the state [setting up FTWZ Unit may be set aside. of Tamil Nadu

Page 74 of 95

st cancellation off illage Minjur Panchayat Ponneri |LOA and rejection of application fo raluk Tiruvallur District in the state [setting up FTWZ Unit may be set aside. of Tamil Nadu

Page 74 of 95

127.16(iii) Appeal filed by M/s. Shivansh Terminals LIP under the provision of Section 16(4) of the SEZ Act, 2005 against the Order-inOriginal dated 02.01.2025 passed by DC, APSEZ, Mundra. Jurisdictional SEZ — APSEZ, Mundra

Brief facts of the Case:

1, The Appellant is a Warehousing Services Provider unit located in APSEZ, Mundra and is engaged in the authorized operations as approved vide LOA dated 05.072021. The Appellant has been carrying out its activities in full compliance with the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and the Rules made thereunder, the terms & conditions of the LOA as well as other applicable laws.
1. Vide Show Cause Notice F. No. APSEZ/o8 /STL/2021-22/58 dated 28.04.2023 (hereinafter "the SCN"), the Development Commissioner proposed to cancel the LOA and impose penalty under Section 11(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 on the ground that certain goods (Areca Nuts) were alleged to have been illegally imported and removed by M/S Omkar International through the Appellant, and that the Appellant transported the containers(Areca outside the SEZ with an intent to de-stuffthe actual imported cargo

ly imported and removed by M/S Omkar International through the Appellant, and that the Appellant transported the containers(Areca outside the SEZ with an intent to de-stuffthe actual imported cargo

1. Nuts) and replace it with the declared cargo (LDPE Regrind). The Appellant filed a detailed reply dated 17.09.2024 to the SCN rebutting each of the allegations with substantive submissions on facts and law. It was inter alia submitted that: ¢ The Appellant is only a Warehousing Service Provider and not the importer of the goods. It was not aware of and had no role in the alleged illegal import of Areca Nuts.
¢ Gujarat Police has no authority to intercept import consignments. Their findings cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration.
¢ The Appellant handled the receipt of containers strictly as per laid down procedures, Customs’ own Panchnama proves that the container seals were intact and contents matched the import documents.
¢« Mere movement of containers outside SEZ gate for a few hours cannot be grounds to allege illegal de-stuffing, especially when there is no evidence of tampering of seals or change of goods,
e SCN was issued without any tangible evidence and is based on surmises and conjectures.
- e Penalty under Section 11(3) can be imposed only when a person knowingly submits a false/ forged document to authorities. No such act is alleged against the Appellant.

Further, during the personal hearing held on 07.10.2024, written submissions dated 07.10.2024 were filed highlighting the following points:

ities. No such act is alleged against the Appellant.

Further, during the personal hearing held on 07.10.2024, written submissions dated 07.10.2024 were filed highlighting the following points:
- « The Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 13 of FTDR Act which empowers the adjudicating authority only to impose penalty or confiscation, and not to cancel the LOA,

Page 75 of 95

© There is no clarity in the SCN as to what specific contravention is alleged against the Appellant to invoke penal action. Simply being a custodian of goods does not make the Appellant liable for any act of the importer.
¢ Gujarat Police investigations, which form the basis of the SCN, did not find any involvement of or file any charges against the Appellant, which shows that the Appellant had no role in the alleged offences.
s. However, without considering any of the aforesaid submissions and evidence presented by the Appellant, the Development Commissioner has proceeded to pass the Impugned Order in a mechanical manner, cancelling the LOA of the Appellant.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

Before addressing the substantive grounds of appeal, the Appellant raises the following preliminary objections that go to the root of the matter:

A. Show Cause Notice issued without jurisdiction

».1 The Show Cause Notice dated 28.04.2023 was issued under Section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 ("FTDR Act"). Section 13 states: "Any penalty may be imposed or any confiscation may be adjudged under this Act by the Director General or, subject to such limits as may be specified, by such other officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf. “

»,2 \ bare reading of Section 13 makes it clear that it only empowers:

a. Imposition of penalty b. Adjudication of confiscation

2.3 The provision does not grant any power to cancel a Letter of Approval issued under the SEZ Act. This power vests exclusively with the Approval Committee under Section 16(1) of the SEZ Act.

2.4 It is a settled principle that statutory authorities must act strictly within the four corners of their empowering statute. In The Consumer Action Group & Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors [(AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 30601, the Supreme Court held:

" Whenever any statute confers any power on any statutory authority including a delegatee under a valid statute, howsoever wide the discretion may be, the same has to be exercised reasonably within the sphere that statute confers and such exercise ofpower must stand the test to judicial scrutiny. This judicial scrutiny is one of the basicfeatures ofour Constitution.”

ercised reasonably within the sphere that statute confers and such exercise ofpower must stand the test to judicial scrutiny. This judicial scrutiny is one of the basicfeatures ofour Constitution.”

"When such a wide power is vested in the Government it has to be exercised with greater circumspection. Greater is the power, greater should be the caution. No pourer is absolute, it is hedged by the checks in the statute itself. Existence of power does not mean to give one on his mere asking. The entrustment of such power is neither to act in benevolence nor in the extra statutory field, Entrustment of such a power is only for

Page 76 of 95

the public good and for the public cause. While exercising such a power the authority has to keep in mind the purpose and the policy of the Act and while granting relief has to equate the resultant effect of such a grant on both viz., the public and the individual.”

2.5 Similarly, in Sri. Sudarshan V Biradar vs State of Karnataka on 17 April, 2023 [WRIT PETITION No.15800 OF 20221, it was observed:

of such a grant on both viz., the public and the individual.”

2.5 Similarly, in Sri. Sudarshan V Biradar vs State of Karnataka on 17 April, 2023 [WRIT PETITION No.15800 OF 20221, it was observed:

“Whenever any person or body of persons exercising statutory authority acts beyond the powers conferred upon it by the statute such acts become ultra vires and resultantly void. Therefore, substantive ultra vires would mean delegated legislation goes beyond the scope of the authority conferred on it by the parent statute. It ts the fundamental principle of law that a public authority cannot act outside the powers that is conferred upon it.” 2.6 The principle that when a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court:

a. Opto Circuit India Ltd. vs Axis Bank [AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 7531 "15. This Court has time and again emphasised that ifa statute providesfor a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner.

b, Chandra Kishor Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 266

"Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. "

2.7 Therefore, the Development Commissioner could not have cancelled the LOA while exercising powers under Section 13 of FTDR Act. The entire proceedings being without jurisdiction are void ab initio,

B. Violation of Section 16(1) Requirements

2.8 Even assuming the Development Commissioner could exercise powers under Section 16(1) of SEZ Act (though not invoked in SCN), the requirements thereof have not been met.

2.9 Section 16(1) states: “The Approval Committee may, at any time, if it has any reason or cause to believe that the entrepreneur has persistently contravened any of the terms and conditions or its obligations subject to which the letter of approval was granted to the entrepreneur, cancel the letter of approval.» 2.10 Two essential prerequisites emerge:

a. There must be persistent contravention b. The Approval Committee must cancel the LOA

Page 77 of 95

2.11 Neither requirement is satisfied in the present case:

The entire case is based on a single alleged incident of 23.02.2023. No pattern of repeated violations has been shown.

b. ‘The Impugned Order has been passed by the Development Commissioner, not the Approval Committee as required by statute.

2.12 On “persistent contravention”, courts have consistently held that isolated incidents do not qualify:
- a. M/S GUPTA BROTHERS v. EAST DELI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR [W.P.(C) 2641/2015; Delhi High Court]:
- The word ‘persistent ‘otherwise means "continuing firmly or obstinately in an opinion or course of action in spite of difficulty or opposition”
- b. ‘The word “Persistent” has been discussed in the following judgments: [1] Vijay Amba Das Diware & others Vs. Balkrishna Waman Dande & another [(2000) 4 SCC 126].

Backgroundand proposition:

This judgment pertains to persistent default in payment of rent. The date to pay rent occurs periodicity on a day fixed for payment in each month. In every month, there is a need to follow the promise to pay the rent.

Failure to perform the duty over a long spell of repetitive acts of omissions proves habit and makes the behaviour persistent in the form.

[2] Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar & others [(1984) 3 SCC

Backgroundand proposition:

This case pertains to preventive detention. The acts of detenu, as defined in the law concerned, have to be persistent, To be persistent, the acts have to be committed with repetitiveness and habitualness in those abhorred and antisocial acts.

Page 78 of 95

Grounds of Appeal:

A. The Impugned Order suffers from total non-application of mind and has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice:
i. Tt ts settled law that the order of a quasi-judicial authority must be a reasoned and speaking one. The authority is duty bound to analyse the material before it and disclose the reasons which lead to the conclusion arrived at, An order which
i does not give reasons is not an order in the eves of law, In the present case, the Development Commissioner has passed the Impugned Order in a highly arbitrary and mechanical manner without even a whisper about the detailed submissions made by the Appellant in its replies dated 17.09.2024 and 07.10.2024. There is not even a single line in the order
iii. discussing the Appellant's defence and giving reasons for rejecting the same. It was incumbent upon the Development Commissioner to have dealt with each of the contentions and evidence put forth by the Appellant and given a pointwise rebuttal in the Impugned Order if he wished to reject them. Failure to do so vitiates the order and makes it unsustainable in law.
iv. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 held that:

ilure to do so vitiates the order and makes it unsustainable in law.

iv. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 held that:

“Public orders, publicly made, in exercise ofa statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or What he intended to do, Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.”

The Development Commissioner's order is in teeth of this ratio as it contains no reasons or findings having nexus to the Appellant's submissions.

v. In M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., v. STO, Rourkela-I Circle & Ors. reported in 2008 (5) Supreme 281, the Hon'ble Supreme Court testing the correctness of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax against the assessment, at Paragraph 10, held as follows:
"10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces elarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless.
vi. In Kranti Associates Private Limited and another vs Masood Ahamed Khan and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered a catena of decisions and summarised its finding as under: -

Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered a catena of decisions and summarised its finding as under: -

Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in b. administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially, A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions,

Page 79 of 95

c.__Imsistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
e Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
f Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi judicial and even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of[judicial][review][ by][ superior][ Courts.] h. ‘The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

onal governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered, This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
k. Ifa Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
| Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinet. A pretence of reasons or rubber stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader serutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-737).

y makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader serutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-737).

n. Sinee the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EINCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions”.
©. Inall common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process”.

Page 80 of 95

The Impugned Order woefully falls short of this standard as it does not discuss the evidence or contentions at all.

vii. Thus, the Impugned Order is a non-speaking, unreasoned and perverse one liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
B. No case for cancellation of LOA is made out under Section 16(1) of SEZ Act:

us, the Impugned Order is a non-speaking, unreasoned and perverse one liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

B. No case for cancellation of LOA is made out under Section 16(1) of SEZ Act:
- i. Cancellation of LOA is a drastic measure having serious civil consequences for a unit. Section 16(1) of the SEZ Act provides that LOA can be cancelled by the Approval Committee only when it has reason to believe that the unit has persistently contravened any of the terms & conditions or its obligations under the LOA.
- i. The Impugned Order does not disclose any persistent or repeated contraventions committed by the Appellant warranting cancellation of LOA. The very basis of the action is an isolated incident of certain goods allegedly imported by a third party through the Appellant's premises.
- ii. There is no finding in the order that the Appellant was involved in or aware of the alleged illegal import. At best there are wild inferences drawn merely because the Appellant acted as a custodian of the goods. But there is not an iota of evidence to show abetment or collusion on part of the Appellant.
- iv. It is pertinent to note that the detailed investigations conducted by Gujarat Police in the matter did not find any involvement of the Appellant in the alleged illegal import of Areca Nuts. The charge-sheet filed by them does not implicate the Appellant in any manner whatsoever. This crucial fact has been totally ignored by the Development Commissioner.

d illegal import of Areca Nuts. The charge-sheet filed by them does not implicate the Appellant in any manner whatsoever. This crucial fact has been totally ignored by the Development Commissioner.

v. Customs’ own Panchnama categorically states that when the containers were opened at the Appellant's premises in presence of Customs officers, the seals were intact and the goods were found to be granules matching the import documents. This clinching evidence demolishes the allegation that goods were changed by de-stuffing containers while in transit.
vi. The movement of containers outside SEZ gates for a few hours by the transporters cannot ipso facto lead to a presumption of tampering or replacement of goods without any corroborative evidence, especially when the same is satisfactorily explained by the vehicle drivers.
vii. ‘The Impugned Order without any cogent basis makes bald allegations of “unauthorized and illegal movement of containers” by the Appellant ‘tin gross violation of Customs Act and SEZ Act”. The order does not specify which particular provisions were violated and how.
vii. Thus, the Impugned Order does not even remotely make out a case of persistent contravention by the Appellant so as to attract Section 16(1) of SEZ Act for cancellation of LOA. The Appellant cannot be vicariously held liable for any alleged acts of the importer, if any, without any evidence of knowledge or involvement.

Page 81 of 95

c. The SCN issued under Section 13 of FTDR Act does not empower the adjudicating authority to cancel LOA:

i, As pointed out in the written submissions dated 17.09.2024 and 07.10.2024, the SCN has been issued under Section 13 of FTDR Act, 1992 which empowers the adjudicating authority only to impose penalty or order confiscation. It does not provide for cancellation of LOA.
i. ‘The SCN does not even refer to or allege any contravention under Section 16(1) of SEZ Act which is the only provision dealing with cancellation of LOA on account of persistent contraventions.
ai. ‘It is trite law that a show cause notice is the foundation of any quasijudicial proceedings and the adjudicating authority cannot travel beyond it. When the SCN does not invoke the correct legal provision (Section 16(1) of SEZ Act) or make out grounds for cancellation of LOA, the impugned Order passed on this basis is without authority of law.
iv. The Honble Supreme Court in J.S.Yadav vs State Of U.P & Anr on 18 April, 2011 (2011 AIR SCW 3078) held that: It is a settled principle of law that no one can be condemned unheard and no order can be passed behind the back of a party and if any order is so passed, the same being in violation of principles of natural justice, is void ab initio.

This legal proposition was reiterated by Supreme Court in Ranjan Kumar vs State of Bihar & Ors on 16 April, 2014 (2014) 16 SCC 187 it was held by that:

ples of natural justice, is void ab initio.

This legal proposition was reiterated by Supreme Court in Ranjan Kumar vs State of Bihar & Ors on 16 April, 2014 (2014) 16 SCC 187 it was held by that:

  - “g. In J.S. Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2011) 6 SCC 5701 it has been held that no order can be passed behind the back of a person adversely affecting him and such an order, if passed, is liable to be ignored being not binding on such a party as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.”

Vv. Viewed thus, the Impugned Order is wholly without jurisdiction, besides being in violation of principles of natural justice. The Development Commissioner could not have passed an order for cancellation of LOAin the absence of any such grounds in the SCN.
pb. Impugned Order is based on mere conjectures and assumptions without any credible evidence on record:
- i. Abare perusal of the Impugned Order shows that it has been passed in a casual and perfunctory manner solely relying upon the investigation report of Gujarat Police, without any independent application of mind by the Development Commissioner.
- i. ‘The entire case in the SCN is projected on the basis of the purported detection of illegal import of Areca Nuts by Gujarat Police. However, it is beyond doubt that Gujarat Police has no authority or jurisdiction under the Customs Act to investigate into import offences. Their findings have no statutory backing.

Gujarat Police. However, it is beyond doubt that Gujarat Police has no authority or jurisdiction under the Customs Act to investigate into import offences. Their findings have no statutory backing.

iii, Curiously, although the Impugned Order heavily relies on Gujarat Police investigation to allege illegal imports through the Appellant's premises, it conveniently glosses over the fact that the charge-sheet filed by Gujarat Police does not implicate or level any allegations against the Appellant. This clearly

Page 82 of 95

demonstrates the pick and choose approach adopted by the Development Commissioner to artificially rope in the Appellant.
iv. The Impugned Order alleges "unauthorized and illegal movement of containers” by the Appellant with "active involvement" and "motive to destuff the actual imported cargo i.e. Areca Nuts from the containers and replace it with declared cargo i.e. LDPE Regrind". These are nothing but bald allegations without an iota of evidence in support thereof.
v. There is not even a whisper, leave alone any cogent evidence, to show that the Appellant was in any way involved in or aware of the alleged illegal import of Areca Nuts by M/S Omkar International. No statement of M/ s Omkar International or any other entity has been referred to in the Impugned Order to implicate the Appellant or prove its involvement.

f Areca Nuts by M/S Omkar International. No statement of M/ s Omkar International or any other entity has been referred to in the Impugned Order to implicate the Appellant or prove its involvement.

vi. The entire case of alleged tampering and replacement of goods is demolished by the Appellant's own Panchnama which shows that when the containers were opened and examined at the Appellant's premises in presence of the Customs officers, the container seals were found intact and the goods were granules matching the import documents. This vital evidence has been simply brushed aside by the Development Commissioner without giving any reasons.
vii. Pertinently, although the SCN alleges that the "long duration of time spent by vehicles between exit and re-entry from Rangoli gate testifies” the illegal destuffing of Areca Nuts and replacement with LDPE granules, no evidence whatsoever has been brought on record to substantiate this bald allegation.
vii. ‘The movement of containers outside the SEZ gate for 4-5 hours cannot by itself lead to any conclusion of tampering of goods, The plausible explanation given by the vehicle drivers that being late hours they had gone out to have food and rest has not been controverted by any evidence and that the drivers were compelled by the security personnels to park the trucks outside when they were going for food. For that purpose only, the ectv footage was demanded.

verted by any evidence and that the drivers were compelled by the security personnels to park the trucks outside when they were going for food. For that purpose only, the ectv footage was demanded.

ix. Thus, the Impugned Order is based on mere surmises, conjectures and uncorroborated assumptions without any credible evidence on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr (1974 AIR 555) held that:

“Secondly, we must not also overlook that the burden ofestablishing mala fides in very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof ofa high order of credibility.”

In Samudabhai Punjabhai Sangada vs State of Gujarat (CRIMINAL. APPEAL NO, 1591 of 2013), it has been stated by Gujarat High Court that: "It is required to be stated that in this very judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjan Kumar Sarma (supra), the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has also been referred to which is in the case of Jahnrlal Das v. State of Orissa, reported in AIR SC 1991 SC 1388 —- (199 1) 3 SCC 2711, and it has been observed : “It is no more res integra that suspicion cannot take the place oflegal prooffor sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. Al times it can be a case of ‘may be true’. But there is

Page 83 of 95

a long mental distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ and the same divides conjecture from sure conclusions.

of. Al times it can be a case of ‘may be true’. But there is

Page 83 of 95

a long mental distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ and the same divides conjecture from sure conclusions.

Similarly, in Assistant Collector of Central Excise vs V.P. Sayed Mohammed [1983 AIR 168]it was held that:

"Hence a mere whim or a surmise or suspicion furnishes an insufficient foundation upon which to raise a reasonable doubt, and so a vague conjecture, whimsical or vague doubt, a capricious and speculative doubt, an arbitrary, imaginary, fanciful, uncertain chimerical, trivial, indefinite or a mere possible doubt is not a reasonable doubt. Neither is a desirefor more evidence of guilt, a capricious doubt or misgiving suggested by an ingenious counsel or arising from a merciful disposition or kindly feeling towards a prisoner, or from sympathyfor him or his family" (See Woodroffe &Ameer Ali's Law of Evidence, 13th Edn. Vol. pp. 203-204)."

« The Impugned Order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution being arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory:

amily" (See Woodroffe &Ameer Ali's Law of Evidence, 13th Edn. Vol. pp. 203-204)."

« The Impugned Order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution being arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory:
- | It is well settled that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness and_ prohibits unreasonable discrimination. The scope of article 14 was drastically increased by the Supreme Court by including the executive discretion under its ambit. In the case of E.P. Royappa v. State ofTamil Nadu, 1974, the court said that Article 14 gives a guarantee against the arbitrary actions of the State. The Right to Equality is against arbitrariness, They both are enemies to each other. So, it is important to protect the laws from the arbitrary actions of the Executive.
- i. In S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, Supreme Court, for the first time held “absence of arbitrary power” as sine qua non to rule of law with confined and defined discretion, both of which are essential facets of Article 14. Justice Subba Rao elaborating on the wide expanse of Article 14, vide para 14 held thus: “In this context it is important to emphasize that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits."

law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits."

In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, it was held that Natural Justice (natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem)) is an integral part of Article 14. The court held that "the Principle of Natural Justice helps in the prevention of miscarriage of Justice, These Principles also check the arbitrary power of the State.”

ii) In the present case, the actions of the Development Commissioner reek of arbitrariness, unfairness and discrimination against the Appellant inasmuch

a. The Impugned Order has been passed in a cavalier and casual manner without properly appreciating the evidence on record and the detailed submissions made by the Appellant. This shows total non-application of mind and dereliction of duty on part of the authority.
b. The Appellant's LOA has been cancelled solely relying on uncorroborated investigation by Gujarat Police, an agency having no authority to investigate

Page 84 of 95

customs offences. On the other hand, the evidence Authorised of Customs’ own Panchnama which exonerates the Appellant has been simply brushed aside. This cherry-picking of evidence is grossly unfair.

stoms offences. On the other hand, the evidence Authorised of Customs’ own Panchnama which exonerates the Appellant has been simply brushed aside. This cherry-picking of evidence is grossly unfair.

c. No reasons whatsoever have been given to reject the Appellant's defence and evidence showing lack of involvement in the alleged offence, Failure to consider a party's submissions and passing cryptic; unreasoned orders is the hallmark of arbitrariness and bias.
d. The SCN does not even allege persistent contraventions under Section 16(1) of SEZ Act, yet the Appellant's LOA has been cancelled on this ground. Imposition of such a disproportionate and harsh penalty de hors the SCN is ex-facie arbitrary and unfair.
e. The Appellant cannot be condemned unheard by-passing orders on grounds which were never put to it in the SCN. This is an affront to the cardinal principles of natural justice enshrined in Article 14.
f. There is no evidence that any other co-noticee such as the importer M/S Omkar International had been penalized in a similar fashion for the alleged offences. Singularly picking on the Appellant without any incriminating evidence
ii. demonstrates the bias and discrimination in decision making, The Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of Article India (1978) I SCC 248 held that 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state action and ensures fairness and

bias and discrimination in decision making, The Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of Article India (1978) I SCC 248 held that 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state action and ensures fairness and

equality of treatment. It requires that state action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which is nondiscriminatory: it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations, because that would be denial of equality.
iv. The Court further held that: "The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14.
v. Article 14 thus embodies a guarantee against arbitrariness and unreasonableness in state action. Every action of the state or its instrumentalities must pass the test of reasonableness and non-discrimination, Actions which are arbitrary and unreasonable per se fall foul of Article 14.
vi. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles, the Impugned Order is patently arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory and suffers from the vice of nonapplication of mind, bias and non-consideration of the Appellant's submissions and evidence. No reasonable person would have passed such a drastic order in the given facts and circumstances.

of nonapplication of mind, bias and non-consideration of the Appellant's submissions and evidence. No reasonable person would have passed such a drastic order in the given facts and circumstances.

vii, Accordingly, the Impugned Order deserves to be set aside being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on the grounds of arbitrariness, unfairness, unreasonableness and discrimination.

G. The Impugned Order cancelling LOA is violative of right to livelihood, embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution. The object of any Government is to promote the trade and not to curtail the same, specially units functioning under SEZ as they promote exports. The method which is adopted by the Development Commissioner in cancelling LOA is like strangulating the neck of the Appellant. The cancellation of LOA certainly amounts to a capital punishment so for as the Appellant is concerned. His entire business

Page 85 of 95

has come to standstill. He cannot do any business activities and without business, he cannot pay salaries to his employees, pay bills to the loans and ultimately, all his developments over a long period of time could be ruined in few months and it is also very difficult to regain the business in this competitive world. This ultimately affects his right to livelihood, embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution.

ruined in few months and it is also very difficult to regain the business in this competitive world. This ultimately affects his right to livelihood, embodied under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Madras High Court's judgment in Abdul Samad Mohamed Inayathullah v. The Superintendent of CGST and C. Excise (WP(MD)No.8016 of 2023, WMP(MD) No.7445 of 2023) addresses the intersection of taxation law and constitutional rights, specifically examining how GST registration cancellation impacts smallscale entrepreneurs’ fundamental rights to trade and livelihood. This judgment builds upon significant precedents and establishes comprehensive guidelines for balancing tax compliance with business continuity.

The Bombay High Court's decision in Rohit Enterprises Vs Commissioner State GST Bhavan (WP.No.11833 of 2022) further developed this framework by recognizing that GST provisions cannot be interpreted to deny fundamental rights to trade and commerce, particularly in the context of post-pandemic recovery. The court emphasized that constitutional guarantees are unconditional and must be enforced regardless of administrative challenges. Relevant excerpts are quoted below:

xt of post-pandemic recovery. The court emphasized that constitutional guarantees are unconditional and must be enforced regardless of administrative challenges. Relevant excerpts are quoted below:

"9. In our view, the provisions of GST enactment cannot be interpreted so as to deny right to carry on Trade and Commerce to any citizen and subjects. The constitutional guarantee is unconditional and unequivocal and must be enforced regardless ofshortcomings in the scheme ofGST enactment. The right to carry on trade or profession cannot be curtailed contrary to the constitutional guarantee under Art. 19(I)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the person like petitioner is not allowed to revive the registration, the state would suffer loss of revenue and the ultimate goal under GST regime will stand defeated, The petitioner deserves a chance to come back into GSTfold and carry on his business in legitimate manner.

in S A Traders vs Commissioner State Goods And Services [Writ Petition (M/S) No. 113 of 20231, Uttarakhand High Court discussed the violation of Fundamental Right of livelihood in the context of cancellation of GST Registration. Hon'ble HC held that:

es [Writ Petition (M/S) No. 113 of 20231, Uttarakhand High Court discussed the violation of Fundamental Right of livelihood in the context of cancellation of GST Registration. Hon'ble HC held that:

"Such denial of registration of GST number, therefore, affects his right to livelihood. If he is denied his right to livelihood because of thefact that his GST Registration number has been cancelled, and that he has no remedy to appeal, then it shall be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution as right to livelihood springs from the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution ofIndia. In this case, if we allow the situation so preva iling to continue, then it will amount to violation ofArticle 21 of the Constitution, and right to life of a citizen of this country"

HH. ‘The impugned order has been issued in utter disregard to the Order dated 13.08.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court ofGujarat in SCA No.16621 of 2023 filed by the appellant

Page 86 of 95

Appellant submits that the impugned order has been issued with prejudice and malice as the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA No.16621 of 2023 has specifically ordered vide its order dated 13.08.2024 that the show cause notice should be decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court.

cally ordered vide its order dated 13.08.2024 that the show cause notice should be decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court.

The appellant had fully co-operated with the adjudicating authority and filed its written submissions on 17.09.2024 and attended personal hearing on 07.10.2024. However, the order was not issued within two months from the receipt of the Hon'ble High Court's order and the adjudicating authority waited for the meeting of the Approval Committee so as to place the show cause notice before the committee and get the LOA cancelled. It was only when the meeting was held on 26.12.2024, the notice was placed before the UAC and the LOA was got cancelled and in the impugned order it was mentioned that since a unanimous decision has been taken by the UAC to cancel the LOA, she had to follow the same. Thesequence of events clearly shows the prejudice of the learned adjudicating authority and her disrespect towards the order of the Hon'ble High Court.

Prayer:

In view of the aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Board may be pleased to:

A. Set aside and quash the Impugned Order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the Development Commissioner, APSEZ:
B. Hold and declare that the SCN dated 28.04.2023 is without jurisdiction and not sustainable, and drop all proceedings pursuant thereto;
c. Direct reinstatement of the Appellant's LOA No. APSEZ/o8/STL/ 2021-22 dated 05.07.2021 with continuity;
D. Grant an ad-interim stay on the Impugned Order pending final disposal of the appeal;
E. Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM DC, APSEZ, Mundra::

Comments/Grounds/Observation:

M/s. Shivansh Terminal LLP, APSEZ Mundra in their Annexure-A attached with Form of Appeal has mentioned that appeal is being filed under Section 16(2) of the SEZ Act, 2005. However, Section 16(4) of the SEZ Act, 2005 is the provision to file appeal before Board. Therefore, the appeal may be disposed of.

Show Cause Notice clearly mentioned (i) time period to file reply which was 15 days from the receipt of the Show Cause Notice and (ii) date of personal hearing. However, the reply was filed by M/s. Shivansh Terminal LLP on 17.09.2024 i.e. after lapse of 20 months. Also, no one appeared for personal hearing too on the date mentioned in SCN.

Copy of FIR (Exhibit-1) clearly mentioned that 04 containers of M/s. Shivansh Terminal LLP reached at Adinath Cargogodown, Mundra, outside SEZ area. These 04 containers were loaded with areca nuts (restricted / prohibited item) were dumped

Page 87 of 95

there and other material named PVC Regrind — raw material which was already in the godown (which was declared in the concerned bill of entry Exhibit-3) was loaded into o4 containers.

A. Show Cause Notice without Jurisdiction:

It is to mention that the matter in the present appeal is Order-In-Original, not the Show Cause Notice. M/s. Shivansh Terminal LLP even approached the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat for quashing of Show Cause Notice. However, the court ordered for adjudication of the Show Cause Notice and not questioned the issuance of Show Cause Notice. Even the subject Order-In-Original has been passed as per the direction of the Gujarat High Court.

The appellant has also relied upon some judgment in their favor. Since the matter which is being appealed for in about the Show Cause Notice. It appears that they all are not required to be taken into consideration. Also, we have already a judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat which belongs to this case, as mentioned above (Exhibit-o2)

B. Violation of Section 16(4) requirements:

The appellant has stressed on two key points which are required for cancellation of Letter of Approval. The first one is there should be persistent contravention and second one is the approval committee must cancel the LoA. i. With regard to persistent contravention, it is to submit that in the present case, M/s. Shivansh Terminal LLP jointly filed a Bill of Entry for import ofgoods with 04 containers. Transshipment permission was given to M/s. Shivansh Terminal LLP for movement of containers from port terminal to SEZ unit. One-by-One all the containers were gone out of the SEZ are and as alleged in the FIR Copy, the said containers were emptied at Adinath Godown Shed-1 (which is about 10 km away from the port exit gate). So, not only one containers, they persistently moved out four containers in contravening provision of SEZ Rules, 2006. Also, ‘f movements of all the 04 containers counted as single contravention, there are several judgments where it Is established by the Courts that it is not necessary to wait for further contravention if not in the public interest. Some of these are:
Bombay High Court decision 2004, in case of SEBI vs Cabot International Capital Corporation, upheld the order of SAT where penalty were imposed upon M/s. Cabot International under SEBI Act, M/s, Cabot contested that “there was no occurrence of default or repetition of the alleged violation by the respondents”. However, Bombay High Court decided the matter in favor of SEBI.

r SEBI Act, M/s, Cabot contested that “there was no occurrence of default or repetition of the alleged violation by the respondents”. However, Bombay High Court decided the matter in favor of SEBI.

ii. With regard to cancellation by approval committee, it is to share that the whole matter along with their written submission and records of personal hearing, was placed in the approval committee in its 12nd meeting held on 26.12.2024. The approval committee unanimously decided to cancel the Letter of Approval after considering the seriousness of the case and to mitigate the unauthorized

Page 88 of 95

activities of warehousing units. Also, as per Section 13(7) of the SEZ Act, 2005 which states as:

“(7) All orders and decisions of the Approval Committee and ail other communications issued by it shall be authenticated by the signature of the Chairperson or any other member as may be authorised by the Approval Committee in this behalf.”

In view of the above provision, it is the function of the Development Commissioner of the SEZ, in the capacity of Chairperson of the Approval Committee, to authenticate and convey the decision of Approval Committee.

Thus, the Development Commissioner has not cancelled the LoA. The subject OrderIn-Original is merely a communication and is being authenticated by the DC in terms of above provision. And in the present case, Approval Committee only has decided to cancel the LoA not the Development Commissioner (Exhibit-4).

cation and is being authenticated by the DC in terms of above provision. And in the present case, Approval Committee only has decided to cancel the LoA not the Development Commissioner (Exhibit-4).

It is also important to note that appellant chose to challenge the order passed by the Development Commissioner when their LoA got cancelled. However, their Letter of Approval was also signed by the Development Commissioner. This shows their ill presentation of the provisions of Law.

In view of the above facts on record, the contentions raised by the appellant are baseless,

Comments on Grounds of Appeal:

|S.No.|[Grounds ofthe Appeal _|Commentsofthe<br>Zone<br>e Impugned Order suffers/The impugned Order suffers from total|[Grounds ofthe Appeal _|Commentsofthe<br>Zone<br>e Impugned Order suffers/The impugned Order suffers from total|[Grounds ofthe Appeal _|Commentsofthe<br>Zone<br>e Impugned Order suffers/The impugned Order suffers from total|[Grounds ofthe Appeal _|Commentsofthe<br>Zone<br>e Impugned Order suffers/The impugned Order suffers from total|
|---|---|---|---|---|
||om total non-application|||ofjmon-compliance of mind and has been|
||ind and has been||passed|in|passed<br>in<br>gross<br>violation<br>of<br>th|
||gross|violation|of — thejprinciples ofnaturaljustice:||
||principles ofnaturaljustice:||justice:||
|||||The<br>appellant<br>is<br>saying<br>that<br>thei|
|||||submission has not been discussed an|
|||||the<br>development<br>commissioner<br>has|
|||||without application ofmind passed th|
|||||order without anydiscussion. It is to re|
|||||iterate the fact that the said Order-In|
|||||Original<br>is<br>merely<br>a_<br>form<br>off|
|||||communication.<br>It was the Approval|
|||||Committeewhocancelled their Letter of|
|||||Approval. Approval committee in thei|
|||||minutes clearly<br>mentioned that they|
|||||have<br>gone<br>through<br>their<br>written|
|||||submission<br>and<br>records of personal|
|||||hearing. Even though, this office wants|
|||||to emphasize the fact that when the|
|||||are enough facts available on records,|
|||||which<br>proves<br>that<br>contravention<br>is|

Page 89 of 95

ing. Even though, this office wants| |||||to emphasize the fact that when the| |||||are enough facts available on records,| |||||which proves that contravention is|




Page 89 of 95 

there, not each and every point i uired to be discussed. No case for cancellation of} i, With regard to persistent LOA is made out under contravention, it is to submit tha Section 16(1) of SEZ Act: in the present case, M/s. Shivansh Terminal LLP jointly filed a Bill of Entry for import o goods with 04 containers. Transshipment permission wa given to M/s. Shivansh Terminal LLP for movement of containe from port terminal to SEZ unit. One-by-One all the containers were gone out of the SEZ are and as alleged in the FIR Copy, the said containers were emptied at Adinath Godown Shed-1 (which is about 10 km away from th port exit gate), So, not only one containers, they persistently moved out four containers in contravening provision of SE% Rules, 2006. Also, for such serious violations on their behalf, persistent contraventions shoulc not be waited for to be happened. | ppears that although law says fo consistent contravention, but the natur of consistent contravention — is contextual. In the present context, wait for further contraventions might have lead to much more heinous act. i. The appellant is pleading that they were not involved in o awareof the illegal import. It ist submit that the said case of illegal import of areca nut is still) pending with SIIB, Custom House, Mundra. And it is important to mention that SIIB Mundra had withdrawn the NOC) which was earlier given to M/s.

the said case of illegal import of areca nut is still) pending with SIIB, Custom House, Mundra. And it is important to mention that SIIB Mundra had withdrawn the NOC) which was earlier given to M/s. Shivansh Terminal LLP. Also, th investigation is still pending with them. However, it shows that SIIB might have some proof: against M/s. Shivansh Terminal LLY. 

Page90 of 95 

ii. The appellant submitted tha they were only custodian of th goods. Having been custodia was not a mere. It is to submi that being a SEZ / warehousing unit, it was their responsibility t place the goods in their unit afte getting transshipment approval from the authorized officers of the SEZ, However, the containers went out from the SEZ area taking benefit of being transporter also (these facts wer mentioned in show cause notic also). It was also admitted during the course of personal hearing! that the drivers of the o4 containers were hungry so they went outside which was very lame excuse as the inside SEZ area, there are such facilities. N one is above the law. It was thei responsibility to get th containers inside the SE

Verbatim extracted text (OCR/PDF). Older scans and tables may show extraction artifacts — verify against the original for anything you act on.

Analysis

No analysis generated for this document yet (analysis runs over brief docs + on-demand). Run build_analysis.py --ids 205 --apply.