Agenda for the 128th meeting of the BoA for SEZs

No. K-430 I 3/7/2025-SEZ Govemment of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry Department of Commerce (SEZ Section) Vaniiva Bhawan. New Delhi oatea the 3s$hpril,2025 2. The Agenda for the l28th meeting of the BoA for SEZs is enclosed herewith. The same has also been hosted on the website: www.sezindia.sov.in. All the addresses are requested to kindly make it convenient to attend the meeting. The venue and meeting link ofthe aforesaid meeting will be shared in due course. To ( 1^ ) (Sumit Kumar Under Secretary to the Govemm€1i:r;i1; Emai 1: sumit.sachan@nic.in

1. Central Board of Excise and Customs, Member (Customs), Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. (Fax:23092628).
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Member (IT), Department of Revenue, North Block. New Delhi. (Telefax: 23092107)
3. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of 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
7. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Plant Protection, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
8. Ministry of Science and Technology, Sc 'G' & Head (TDT), Technology Bhavan, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi. (Telefax: 26862512)

y, Ministry of Agriculture, Plant Protection, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. 8. Ministry of Science and Technology, Sc 'G' & Head (TDT), Technology Bhavan, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi. (Telefax: 26862512) 9. Joint Secretary, Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, 7th Floor, Block 2, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003. OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: 3'd meeting (2025 Series) of the Board of Approval for Export Oriented Units and

l28rh Meeting of the Board of Approval (BoA) for Special Economic Zones (SEZs)

• Reg. The undersigned is directed to refer to the subject cited above and to inform that the 3'd meeting (2025 Series) of the Board of Approval for Export Oriented Units and 128s meeting of the BoA for SEZs is scheduled to be held on 9th May, 2025 at Ahmedabad under the Chairmanship of Commerce Secretary, Department of Commerce in Hybrid Mode. b J.

5. Additional Secretary and Development Commissioner (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Scale Industry), Room No. 701, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi (Fax: 2306231s). I 1 . Secretary, Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, New Delhi. (Fax: 24363101)

6. Joint Secretary [S-l), Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi (Fax:23092569)

7. Joint Secretary (C&VO, Ministry of Defence, Fax'. 23015444, South Block, New Delhi.

8. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Pariyavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, New Delhi - I 10003 (Fax: 24363577)

9. Joint Secretary & Legislative Counsel, Legislative Department, IWo Law & Justice, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. (Tel: 23387095).

10. Department of Legal Affairs (Shri Hemant Kumar, Assistant Legal Adviser), IWo Law & Justice, New Delhi.

11. Secretary, Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi

12. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. (F u<: 2467 4140)

. Secretary, Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 18. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. (F u<: 2467 4140) 19. Chief Planner, Department of Urban Affairs, Town Country Planning Organisation, Vikas Bhavan (E-Block), LP. Estate, New Delhi. (Fax: 23073678/23379197) 20. Director General, Director General of Foreign Trade, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhavan. New Delhi. 21 . Diiector General, Export Promotion Council for EOUs/SEZs, 8G, 86 Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110 001 (Fax:223329770) 22. Dr. Rupa Chanda, Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, Bennerghata Road, Bangalore, Kamataka 23. 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 29. Development Commissioner, Cochin Special Economic Zone, Cochin. 30. Development Commissioner, Indore Special Economic Zone, Indore. 31. Development Commissioner, Mundra Special Economic Zone,46 Floor, C Wing, Port Users Building, Mundra (Kutch) Gujarat. 32. Development Commissioner, Dahej Special Economic Zone, Fadia Chambers, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 33.

dra Special Economic Zone,46 Floor, C Wing, Port Users Building, Mundra (Kutch) Gujarat. 32. Development Commissioner, Dahej Special Economic Zone, Fadia Chambers, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 33. Development Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Special Economic Zone, SEEPZ Service Center, Central Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 096 34. Development Commissioner, Sterling Special Economic Zone, Sandesara Estate, Atladra Padra Road, Vadodara - 390012 35. Development Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Special Economic Zone, Udyog Bhawan, 9s Floor, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam - 3 36. Development Commissioner, Reliance Jamnagar Speoial Economic Zone' Jamnagar, Gujarat 37. Development Commissioner, Surat Special Economic Zone, Surat, Gujarat 38. Development Commissioner, Mihan Special Economic Zone, Nagpur, Maharashtra 39. Development Commissioner, Sricity Special Economic Zone, Andhra Pradesh. 40. Development Commissioner, Mangalore Special Economic Zor,e, Mangalore. 41. Development Commissioner, GIFT SEZ, Gujarat 42. Commerce Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500022' (Fax: 040'23452895).

lopment Commissioner, Mangalore Special Economic Zor,e, Mangalore. 41. Development Commissioner, GIFT SEZ, Gujarat 42. Commerce Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500022' (Fax: 040'23452895).

43. Govemment of Telangana, Special Chief Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Telangana Secretariat Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana.
44. Govemment of Kamataka, Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industry Department, Vikas Saudha, Bangalore - 560001. (Fax: 080-22259&70)
45. Govemment of Maharashtra, Principal Secretary (lndustries), Energy and Labour Department, Mumbai - 400 032.
46. Govemment of Gujarat, Principal Secretary, Industries and Mines Department Sardar Patel Bhawan, Block No. 5, 3rd Floor, Gandhinagar - 382010 (Fax: 079-23250844).
47. Govemment of West Bengal, Principal Secretary, (Commerce and Industry), IP Branch (4th Floor), SEZ Section, 4, Abanindranath Tagore Sarani (Camac Street) Kolkata - 700 016
48. Govemment of Tamil Nadu, Principal Secretary (Industries), Fort St. George, Chennai - 600009 (Fax: 044-25370822).
49. Govemment of Kerala, Principal Secretary (Industries), Govemment Secretariat, Trivandrum - 695001 (Fax: 0471-2333017).
50. Govemment of Haryana, Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary), Department of Industries, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh (Fax: 0172-2740526).
51. Govemment of Rajasthan, Principal Secretary (Industries), Secretariat Campus, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur - 3 02005 (0 I 41 -2227 7 88).

aryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh (Fax: 0172-2740526). 51. Govemment of Rajasthan, Principal Secretary (Industries), Secretariat Campus, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur - 3 02005 (0 I 41 -2227 7 88). 52. Govemment of Uttar Pradesh, Principal Secretary, (Industries), Lal Bahadur Shastri Bhawan, Lucknow - 226001 (Fax: 0522-2238255). 53. Govemment of Punjab, Principal Secretary Department of Industry & Commerce Udyog Bhawan), Sector -17, Chandigarh- 160017. 54. Govemment of Puducherry, Secretary, Department of Industries, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry. 55. Govemment of Odisha, Principal Secretary (Industries), Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneshwar - 75 1 00 1 (Fax : 067 | -53 681 9 I 2406299). 56. Govemment of Madhya Pradesh, Chief Secretary, (Commerce and Industry), Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (Fax: 07 55-255997 4) 57. Govemment of Uttarakhand, Principal Secretary, (Industries), No. 4, Subhash Road, Secretariat, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 58. Govemment of Jharkhand (Secretary), Department of Industries Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi - 834002. 59. Union Tenitory of Daman and Diu and Dadra Nagar Haveli, Secretary (Industries), Department of Industries, Secretariat, Moti Daman - 3 96220 (Fax: 0260-223077 5). 60. Govemment of Nagaland, Principal Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce), Kohima, Nagaland. 61. Govemment of chattishgarh, commissioner-cum-Secretary Industries, Directorate of Industries, LIC Building Campus, 2nd Floor, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Fax: 0771- 2s836s 1). Copy to: PPS to CS / PPS to SS (LSS) / PPS to iS (VA)/ PPS to Dir (GP)

tary Industries, Directorate of Industries, LIC Building Campus, 2nd Floor, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Fax: 0771- 2s836s 1). Copy to: PPS to CS / PPS to SS (LSS) / PPS to iS (VA)/ PPS to Dir (GP)

Page 1 of 156

Agenda for the 128th meeting of the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) to be held on 09th May 2025

Agenda Item No. 128.1:

Ratification of the minutes of the 127th meeting of the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) held on 8th April, 2025.

Page 2 of 156

Agenda Item No. 128.2:

Request for extension of LoA [3 proposal – 128.2(i) – 128.2(iii)]

Rule position: Rule 6 (2) of the SEZ Rules, 2006: -

a. The letter of approval of a Developer granted under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) (Formal Approval) shall be valid for a period of three years within which time at least one unit has commenced production, and the Special Economic Zone become operational from the date of commencement of such production.

Provided that the Board may, on an application by the Developer or Co- Developer, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing extend the validity period.

Provided further that the Developer or Co-developer as the case may be, shall submit the application in Form C1 to the concerned Development Commissioner as specified in Annexure III, who, within a period of fifteen days, shall forwarded it to the Board with his recommendations.

b.

application in Form C1 to the concerned Development Commissioner as specified in Annexure III, who, within a period of fifteen days, shall forwarded it to the Board with his recommendations.

b. The letter of approval of a Developer granted under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) (In-principle approval) shall be valid for a period of one year within which time, the Developer shall submit suitable proposal for formal approval in Form A as prescribed under the provisions of rule 3:

Provided that the Board may, on an application by the Developer, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the validity period:

Provided further that the Developer shall submit the application in Form C2 to the concerned Development Commissioner, as specified in Annexure III, who, within a period of fifteen days, shall forward it to the Board with his recommendations.

Page 3 of 156

128.2(i) Request of M/s. Phoenix Spaces Pvt. Limited for further extension of the validity period of formal approval, granted for setting up of IT/ITES SEZ at Sy. No. 285, Puppalguda Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana beyond 30.3.2025

Jurisdictional SEZ – Visakhapatnam SEZ (VSEZ)

Facts of the case:

Name of the Developer M/s. Phoenix Spaces Pvt. Ltd Sector IT/ITES Location Sy. No. 285, Puppalguda Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana
Extension Formal approval to the developer was granted on 31.03.2017. The Developer has been granted 5 extensions upto 30.03.2025. The SEZ stands notified as on date.

Reddy District, Telangana
Extension Formal approval to the developer was granted on 31.03.2017. The Developer has been granted 5 extensions upto 30.03.2025. The SEZ stands notified as on date.
Request Extension of validity of LoA for a further period from 31.03.2025 to 30.03.2026

Present Progress:

a. Details of Business plan:

Sl. No. Type of Cost Proposed Investment (Rs. in crore) 1 Project Cost After de-notification for a single tower in an area of 1.40 Ha

Total 475

Sl. No. Type of Cost Proposed Investment (Rs. in crore) 1 Project Cost 475

A Land/JDA Cost 10

B Development/Constructio n Cost 405

C Finance cost 60

D Taxes

Total 475

Page 4 of 156

b. Incremental Investment made so far and incremental investment since last extension: S. No.
Type of Cost Investment made upto 31.12.2023 (Rs. in crore) Incremental Investment since last extension
(in Rs crore) Total investment made so far (In Rs crore) upto 31.12.2024 1 Development cost 311.00 54.24 365.24 ** The above details on investment proposed and investment made are excluding Co-Developer’s investment as the Co-Developer’s area has been de-notified

c. Details of physical progress till date: - S. No.

details on investment proposed and investment made are excluding Co-Developer’s investment as the Co-Developer’s area has been de-notified

c. Details of physical progress till date: - S. No. Activity

% completion % completion during last one year Deadline for completion of balance work 1 Development cost Tower- 2 77 11 31.3.2026

Detailed reasons for delay: Due to the present market condition of reduced demand for office spaces and sunset on income tax benefits to the new units, there are no takers for IT/ITES SEZ space. Yet, they are confident that with the proposed new SEZ amendments, the demand for SEZs will expand in future and they will be able to lease out the space and make the SEZ operational

Recommendation by DC, VSEZ:

Considering the above, the request of the Developer for an extension of the validity of the Letter of Approval for a further period of one year from 31.03.2025 to 30.03.2026 (6th extension) is recommended and forwarded for consideration of the BoA.

or an extension of the validity of the Letter of Approval for a further period of one year from 31.03.2025 to 30.03.2026 (6th extension) is recommended and forwarded for consideration of the BoA.

Page 5 of 156

128.2(ii) Request of M/s. Phoenix Spaces Pvt. Limited for further extension of the validity period of formal approval, granted for setting up of IT/ITES SEZ at Sy. No. 286 & 287, Puppalguda Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana beyond 30.3.2025

Jurisdictional SEZ – Visakhapatnam SEZ (VSEZ)

Facts of the case:

Name of the Developer M/s. Phoenix Spaces Pvt. Ltd Sector IT/ITES Location Sy. No. 286 & 287, Puppalguda Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana
Extension Formal approval to the developer was granted on 31.03.2017. The Developer has been granted 5 extensions upto 30.03.2025. The SEZ stands notified as on date.
Request Extension of validity of LoA for a further period from 31.03.2025 to 30.03.2026

Present Progress:

d. Details of Business plan:

S. No. Type of cost Proposed Investment (Rs. in Crores) 1 Project Cost After de-notification for a single tower in an area of 0.62 ha)

Total
180

S. No. Type of cost Proposed Investment (Rs. in Crores)

After de-notification
1 Project Cost 180 Break- up A Land/ JDA Cost NA
B Development / Construction Cost 180 C Finance cost NA D Taxes

Total
180

a. Incremental investment since last extension: S. No. Type of cost Total Investment made so far (Rs.

Development / Construction Cost 180 C Finance cost NA D Taxes

Total
180

a. Incremental investment since last extension: S. No. Type of cost Total Investment made so far (Rs. in Crores) upto 31.12.2023 Incremental investment (Rs. in Crores) since last extension Total investment made so far (Rs. in Crores) upto 31.12.2024 1 Development 105.23 7.03 112.26

Page 6 of 156

cost

(c) Details of physical progress till date: S. No. Authorized activity % Completion % Completion during last one year Deadline for completion of balance work 1. Project Development 62.37 3.91 31st March, 2026 Detailed reasons for delay: They have stated that they are facing it challenging to lease out the space to IT/ITES SEZ units. Yet, they are confident that with the proposed new SEZ amendments, the demand for IT/ITES SEZ will increase in future and they will be able to lease out the space to make the SEZ operational.

Recommendation by DC, VSEZ:

Considering the above, the request of the Developer for an extension of the validity of the Letter of Approval for a further period of one year from 31.03.2025 to 30.03.2026 (6th extension) is recommended and forwarded for consideration of the BoA.

or an extension of the validity of the Letter of Approval for a further period of one year from 31.03.2025 to 30.03.2026 (6th extension) is recommended and forwarded for consideration of the BoA.

Page 7 of 156

128.2(iii) Request of M/s. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) for further extension of the validity period of LoA in respect of multi sector SEZ for granite processing at Bargur, Uthangari & Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu beyond 31.3.2025

Jurisdictional SEZ – MEPZ SEZ

Facts of the case:

Name of the Developer M/s. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT) Sector Granite Processing Location Bargur, Uthangari & Pochampalli Taluk, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu Extension Formal approval to the developer was granted on 10.03.2010. The Developer has been granted 8 extensions upto 33.03.2025. The SEZ stands notified as on date.
Request Extension of validity of LoA for a further period from 31.03.2025 to 31.03.2030

Present Progress:

a) Details of Business Plan: Sl.No. Type of Cost Proposed Investment (Rs.in Lakh) 1. Land Cost 294.98 2. Development work cost (As per Execution) 2569.07 3. Layout approval 23.28 4. Providing sign boards 15.30

Total Cost 2902.63

b. Incremental investment since last extension: Sl.No Type of Cost Total Investment made so far (R in Lakh) Incremental Investment since last extension 1. Land Cost 294.98

Development work cost (As per Execution) 2569.07

l.No Type of Cost Total Investment made so far (R in Lakh) Incremental Investment since last extension 1. Land Cost 294.98

Development work cost (As per Execution) 2569.07

Layout approval 23.28

Providing sign boards 15.30

Page 8 of 156

Total Cost 2902.63

c. Details of Physical progress till date: Sl.No Authorised Activity % of Completion % of completion on during last one year Deadline of completion of balance work 1. Development work Cost (As per final bill) 95% 100%

Layout approval 100% 100%

Providing sign boards 100% 100%

any other, specify

Reason and justification:

The Developer has also informed that they have developed all infrastructures like internal roads, water supply system, street lights and compound wall at a cost of Rs. 26.07 crore along with TNEB sub-station. The Developer has allotted land to nine companies within the SEZ, and the UAC, during its meetings held in 2024-25, has issued Letters of Approval (LOAs) to these manufacturing Units. All nine Units have initiated physical construction activities; however, additional time is required for them to complete their manufacturing facilities and commence DCP.

Notably, one of these Unit is an existing operational Unit in IG3 SEZ, Uthukulli and it intends to relocate its production operations from IG3 SEZ, Uthukulli to SIPCOT SEZ, Bargur. This Unit is expected to commence its DCP within the next six months.

Unit in IG3 SEZ, Uthukulli and it intends to relocate its production operations from IG3 SEZ, Uthukulli to SIPCOT SEZ, Bargur. This Unit is expected to commence its DCP within the next six months. Upon initiating DCP, the zone will become operational within Six months.

Therefore, an extension of the SEZ's validity is crucial to enable the timely completion of the ongoing construction work across all units. Such an extension will facilitate the early commencement of production and enable the Zone to become operational.

Recommendation by DC, MEPZ:

In view of the justification and supporting documents submitted by the Developer, the request for extension of formal approval of LOA for further period of five years w.e.f. 01.04.2025 to 31.03.2030 is recommended for consideration of BOA.

Page 9 of 156

Agenda Item No. 128.3:

Request for extension of LoA of SEZ Unit [2 proposals – 128.3(i) - 128.3(ii)]

Relevant Rule position:

• As per Rule 18(1) of the SEZ Rules, the Approval Committee may approve or reject a proposal for 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. • 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.

SEZs are governed by Rule 19(4) of SEZ Rules. • 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 one more year subject to the condition that two-thirds of activities including construction, relating to the setting up of the Unit is complete and a Chartered Engineer’s certificate to this effect is submitted by the entrepreneur. • Extensions beyond 3rd year (or beyond 2nd year in cases where two-third activities are not complete) and onwards are granted by BoA. • BoA can extend the validity for a period of one year at a time. • There is no time limit up to which the Board can extend the validity.

Page 10 of 156

128.3(i) Request of M/s Bliss Aerospace Components Private Limited, a unit in KIADB Aerospace SEZ, Bangalore, for extension of validity of Letter of Approval No.KA:38:11:KIADB(Aero)2F dated 06.07.2015

Jurisdictional SEZ – Cochin SEZ (CSEZ)

Facts of the case:

LoA issued 6th July 2015 LoA valid upto 6th July 2017 Nature of Business of the Unit Manufacture and export of Aerospace components No. of extensions 1 extension (upto 05.07.2017 by DC) Request Extension of validity of LoA upto 30.09.2025 (11th year, 10th extension)

Total proposed investment: Not Available

Progress of project since last LoA extension:-

• Progress in terms of completion of work:-

Sl. No.

30.09.2025 (11th year, 10th extension)

Total proposed investment: Not Available

Progress of project since last LoA extension:-

• Progress in terms of completion of work:-

Sl. No. Description Current status % of work completed % of work yet to complete 1 Land Acquisition 100 NIL 2 Building construction 40 60 3 Machinery NIL 100

Overall 46.67 53.33

• Progress in terms of investment made:- Sl. No. Description Investment made upto 05.07.2016 by (Rs. in crore) Incremental investment since last extension by (Rs. in crore) Total Investment made upto 31.12.2024 (Rs. in crore) 1 Land & Building 1.28

1.28 2 Capital work in progress 1.83 1.56 3.39 3 Machinery 0.95

0.95

Total 4.06 1.56 5.62

Reason for delay in implementation of the project:
• The company started as a small unit intending to supply parts to Aerospace Industry units like HAL, etc. When the unit first invested in the SEZ they

r delay in implementation of the project:
• The company started as a small unit intending to supply parts to Aerospace Industry units like HAL, etc. When the unit first invested in the SEZ they

Page 11 of 156

were under the impression that the supplies made to Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSU) will be treated as deemed exports from SEZs.
However, DPSUs like HAL didn’t locate itself in SEZ which was their main Customer. • The unit had limited market exposure and low volume of orders. As suggested by their clients, they established SEZ unit to enhance connectivity with global players. However, the SEZ units setup by their clients are yet to commence operation in the SEZ. • As a new entrant to the SEZ scheme, the company was unfamiliar with compliance requirements and personnel managing the compliance process left the company during Covid pandemic. Believing all compliance matters were addressed, the company prioritized expanding its market presence.

Reasons for seeking extension: -

The company’s unit functioning in the DTA is a recognized player in the Aerospace industry with a turnover exceeding Rs.30.00 crore and have clients viz., Boeing, Moog Inc., Rafael Advanced Defence Systems Limited, Collins Aerospace. Hence, the company has taken steps to implement their SEZ project to serve their clients.

crore and have clients viz., Boeing, Moog Inc., Rafael Advanced Defence Systems Limited, Collins Aerospace. Hence, the company has taken steps to implement their SEZ project to serve their clients.

Recommendation by DC, CSEZ:-

Considering the investment made and that the unit is under revival stage, the request for extension of the validity of LoA No.KA:38:11:KIADB(Aero)2F dated 6th July 2015 of M/s Bliss Aerospace Components Private Limited, upto 30.09.2025 (11th year, 10th extension) after regularizing the gap of non-extension period of LoA from 06.07.2017 is recommended and forwarded for consideration of the BoA.

Page 12 of 156

128.3(ii) Request of M/s. Envopap Private Limited in the JNPA-SEZ for extension of LOA beyond 13.10.2024 for 3rd extension up to 12.10.2025.

Jurisdictional SEZ – SEEPZ SEZ

Facts of the case:

Name of the Unit : M/s. Envopap Private Limited LoA issued on (date) : 13.10.2021 Nature of business of the unit : Manufacturing and export items Envopap/ Copy paper, Envo offset/ Map litho paper, writing Printing paper, Kraft Ecomm/Kraft Paper Bleached & Kraft White/ Kraft White paper Bleached, Kraft Natural/Bold/Kraft paper unbleached. No. of extensions granted : 2nd extension (approved for a period till 12.10.2024), 1st Extension (approved, vide letter dated 14.03.2023) valid until 12.10.2023 LoA valid upto (date) : 12.10.2024 Request for : For further extension of one year up to 12.10.2025

Present Progress:

a. Details of Business Plan S. No.

3.2023) valid until 12.10.2023 LoA valid upto (date) : 12.10.2024 Request for : For further extension of one year up to 12.10.2025

Present Progress:

a. Details of Business Plan S. No. Type of cost Proposed Investment (Rs. In Lakhs) 1. Land Cost 272.80 2. Construction Cost (Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, Structural, ETP, Fire, etc.) 92.35 3. Plant and Machinery 500.00 4. Computers, Software’s, Licenses etc. 4.50 5. Office capital goods includes AV Equipments, PA Systems, Access Control systems, etc 6.71 6. Office Furniture, chairs, Workstation and other fit out related items such as carpets etc 10.07

Total 886.06

b. Incremental investment since last extension: -

S. No. Type of Cost Investment made so far (Rs. In Lakhs) Investment made during last 1 year (Rs. In Lakhs) 1 Land cost 272.80 0

Page 13 of 156

Land Development Reports, legal & Scrutiny Charges, Development Charges, etc 42.88 5.5 3. Construction cost (Civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, ETP, Fire etc) – 100% indigenous) 135.00 (advance) 135.00 4. Plant and equipment including material handling equipment – (60% indigenous and 40% indigenous) 0.00 0.00 5. Computer, software, licenses, trademarks & patents (100% indigenous) 11.00 0.00 6. Office capital goods includes AV Equipment, PA Systems, Access Control systems, etc (80% indigenous & 20% imported) 0.00 0.00 7. Office furniture, chairs, workstation and other fit out related items such as carpets etc.

Equipment, PA Systems, Access Control systems, etc (80% indigenous & 20% imported) 0.00 0.00 7. Office furniture, chairs, workstation and other fit out related items such as carpets etc. (80% indigenous % 20% imported) 0.00 0.00 Total
461.68 140.50

c. Details of physical progress till date: -

S. No. Authorized Activity % Completion as on current date % Completion during last one year Deadline for completion of balance work 1 Generator Room/Electric Substation/ FO Generators (To augment MSEB Power)/ UPS Room/ Distribution substation/HSD Yard 0% 0% 30.09.2025 2 Internal Roads with street lighting and signage’s 0% 0% 30.09.2025 3 Boundary walls/gates/fencing/security office/security posts 10% 30% 30.09.2025 4 All civil and Interior work/Electrical work/BMS/Air Conditioning/Fire Protection System 0% 0% 30.09.2025 5 Development of Landscaping/Garden space & Soil testing 0% 2% 30.09.2025

All civil and Interior work/Electrical work/BMS/Air Conditioning/Fire Protection System 0% 0% 30.09.2025 5 Development of Landscaping/Garden space & Soil testing 0% 2% 30.09.2025

Page 14 of 156

6 Recruitment of Employees 0% 20% 30.09.2025 7 Building Completion certificate and occupancy certificate 0% 0% 30.09.2025

Detailed reason for delay: -

Major Reasons for Delay in Starting SEZ Operations

The commencement of their SEZ operations has been delayed due to several significant challenges encountered during the initial phases of construction. A detailed account of the primary causes is as follows:

• Unexpected Depth of Hand Rock for Foundation Work

After receiving the building plan approval in August 2023, they initiated construction activities as planned. However, during the excavation, they discovered that the hard rock base was located approximately 20meters deep from the surface level. This was a significant deviation from initial estimates, the posed substantial challenges for their foundation work.

• Increased costs for pile footing :

To proceed with the deep foundation required for stability, their pile footing expenses increased by Rs. 6 Crore be yond the originally projected budget. This unexpected cost escalation required us to secure additional funding, which took approximately 6-7 months to arrange. The funding adjustment was crucial to ensure that the construction could continue without compromising structural integrity and safety.

nal funding, which took approximately 6-7 months to arrange. The funding adjustment was crucial to ensure that the construction could continue without compromising structural integrity and safety.

• Seasonal Delays Due to Monsoon: After arranging the necessary funds, the onset of the monsoon season in the region further delayed their construction activities. Heavy rains disrupted the excavation and foundation work, marking it unsafe and impractical to continue operations during this period. The monsoon added delay to their timeline, as they had to wait for suitable weather conditions to resume work safely and efficiently.

• Delays in licensing and documentation: Parallel to the construction challenges, they also faced delays in obtaining critical regulatory approvals and completing necessary documentation. The outstanding requirements included;

-Fire No Objection Certificate (NOC): Obtaining the fir NOC involved several rounds of inspections and approvals, which took longer than anticipated.

-Registration and compliance procedures: Additional delays were encountered in securing the final building plan approval and completing various registration processes necessary for compliance with SEZ regulations.

pliance procedures: Additional delays were encountered in securing the final building plan approval and completing various registration processes necessary for compliance with SEZ regulations.

Page 15 of 156

• Local Issues

Construction start and completion dates

They intend to commence the construction phase promptly after receiving the extended LOA, with preparations set to begin in December 2024. The construction will involve foundational work, building erection, and infrastructure installation. They aim to complete construction activities, including interior setup and compliance with safety regulations, by JUNE 2025. This timeline has been planned to accommodate any unforeseen delays, ensuring that they stay on track to meet their operational deadlines.

Machinery and operational work start date

Following the completion of construction, they expect to initiate the installation and testing of machinery, with the operational setup targeted to begin in August 2025. After all equipment is installed, calibrated, and inspected to meet industry standards, they will begin preliminary operations. Full-scale production is anticipated by September 2025. This phased approach allows time for staff training and equipment trials, which are essential to maintaining quality and operational, efficiency.

• Comments from Developer (CEO/JNPA)

1. JNPA has been consistently following up with all unit holders to ensure the implementation of the SEZ Project at JNPA SEZ M/s.

ational, efficiency.

• Comments from Developer (CEO/JNPA)

1. JNPA has been consistently following up with all unit holders to ensure the implementation of the SEZ Project at JNPA SEZ M/s. Envopap Private Limited has assured JNPA that they will complete the construction activities and commence operations of their unit within one year.

2. Furthermore, JNPA has no objection to grant an extension of the Letter of Approval (LOA) to M/s. Envopap Private Limited as per extant of SEZ Act provisions so as to facilitate M/s. Envopap to proceed further for setting up of their unit and to operationalize the same.

Recommendation by DC, VSEZ:

The proposal is recommended on the request of the unit for granting 3rd extension of LOA w.e.f. 13.10.2024 to 12.10.2025 in terms of Rule 19 (4) of SEZ Rule, 2006 and the Development Commissioner agrees with comments received from CEO, JNPA vide letter dated 13.03.2025.

Page 16 of 156

Agenda Item No. 128.4:

Request for Co-Developer status [ 1 proposal – 128.4(i)]

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 any infrastructure facilities in the identified area or undertake any authorized operation after entering into an agreement with the Developer, make a proposal for the same to the Board for its approval.

rastructure facilities in the identified area or undertake any authorized operation after entering into an agreement with the Developer, make a proposal for the same to the Board for its approval.

Page 17 of 156

128.4(i) Request of M/s. WTC Trades and Projects Private Limited, Bengaluru for approval as Co-Developer within processing Area in GIFT- Multi Services SEZ at Ratanpur, District Gandhinagar, Gujarat, developed by M/s. GIFT City Company Limited (formerly M/s. GIFT SEZ Limited).

Jurisdictional SEZ – GIFT SEZ

Facts of the case:

1. Name of the Developer & Location M/s. GIFT SEZ Limited, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
2. Date of LoA to Developer 07-01-2008
3. Sector of the SEZ Multi-services-SEZ
4. Date of Notification 18-08-2011
5. Total notified area (in Hectares) 105.4386 Hectares
6. Whether the SEZ is operational or not SEZ operational (i)
   If
   operational,
   date of 21-04-2012 operationalization

(ii) No. of Units 673

(iii) Total Exports & Imports for the last 5 years (Rs. in Cr.) Exports – 42649.00 Imports - 36786.00 (iv) Total Employment (In Nos.) 5935 7. Name of the proposed Co- developer M/s. WTC Trades and Projects Private Limited, Bengaluru. 8. Details of Infrastructure facilities / authorized operations to
be undertaken by the co- developer Facility operations and maintenance of office building located at Plot No. 14A of Brigade (Gujarat) Projects Private Limited, GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar. 9.

be undertaken by the co- developer Facility operations and maintenance of office building located at Plot No. 14A of Brigade (Gujarat) Projects Private Limited, GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar. 9. Total area on which activities will be performed by the co-developer 3,15,000 square feet. 10. Proposed investment by the
Co- developer (Rs. in Cr.) Rs. 40.00 crores. 11. Net worth of the Co-developer (Rs. in Cr.) Rs. 59.13 crores for f. y. 2022-23 (as on 31-03-2023)

Page 18 of 156

12. Date of the Co-developer agreement Supplemental agreement-3 to co- development agreement dated 02- 01-2025.

Recommendation by DC, GIFT SEZ:

DC, GIFT SEZ has recommended the proposal of M/s. WTC Trades and Projects Private Limited, Bengaluru to undertake facility management services at Plot No. 14A (Brigade International Financial Centre-BIFC), already developed by M/s. Brigade (Gujarat) Projects Private Limited, in the processing area of GIFT- SEZ, Gandhinagar in accordance with the Agreement dated 20-06-2023, and supplemental agreement-3 to co-development agreement dated 02-01-2025 for consideration of BOA.

he processing area of GIFT- SEZ, Gandhinagar in accordance with the Agreement dated 20-06-2023, and supplemental agreement-3 to co-development agreement dated 02-01-2025 for consideration of BOA.

Page 19 of 156

Agenda Item No. 128.5:

Request for increase/decrease in area by Co-developer [6 proposals- 128.5(i)- 128.5(vi)]

Rule position: 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 any infrastructure facilities in the identified area or undertake any authorized operation after entering into an agreement with the Developer, make a proposal for the same to the Board for its approval.

Page 20 of 156

128.5(i)
Request of approved Co-Developer M/s. Artesania Infraprojects LLP, GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar, Gujarat for approval of additional built-up area

Jurisdictional SEZ – GIFT SEZ

1. Name of the Developer & Location M/s. GIFT SEZ Limited, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
2. Date of LoA to Developer 07-01-2008
3. Sector of the SEZ Multi-services-SEZ
4. Date of Notification 18-08-2011
5. Total notified area (in Hectares) 105.4386 Hectares
6. Whether the SEZ is operational or not SEZ operational (i) If operational, date of operationalization 21-04-2012 (ii) No. of Units 673 (iii) Total Exports & Imports for the last 5 years (Rs. in Cr.) Exports – 48450.00 Imports - 36786.00 (iv) Total Employment (In Nos.) 5935
7. Name of the Co-developer (already approved) M/s. Artesania Infraprojects LLP, GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar.

in Cr.) Exports – 48450.00 Imports - 36786.00 (iv) Total Employment (In Nos.) 5935 7. Name of the Co-developer (already approved) M/s. Artesania Infraprojects LLP, GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar. 8. Details of Infrastructure facilities/authorized operations to be undertaken by the co-developer Development, construction, maintenance, and operation of commercial building in Block-15 Plot No. 15-D) in the processing area. 9. Total area (in Hectares) on which activities will be performed by the co- developer 5008 square meters. (approved)

1656 square meters (additional sought)

Revise building extent from 2854 sq. mtr. to 4056 sq. mtr.

Additional Development Rights of 1,65,335 sq. ft. 10. Proposed investment by the Co- developer (Rs. in Cr.) 200.00 11. Net Worth of the Co-developer (Rs. in Cr.) 1007.27 (combined net worth of promoters) 12. Date of the Co-developer agreement Supplemental agreement-1 to co- developer agreement dated 23- 10-2024

Page 21 of 156

Recommendation by DC, GIFT SEZ:

In view of the increase in economic activity and other developments at GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar, the O/o DC has recommended the proposal of M/s. Artesania Infraprojects LLP, for approval of additional area building in Block-15 within the processing area in GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar for consideration of BOA.

has recommended the proposal of M/s. Artesania Infraprojects LLP, for approval of additional area building in Block-15 within the processing area in GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar for consideration of BOA.

Page 22 of 156

128.5(ii) Request of approved Co-Developer M/s. Savvy Realty Creators LLP, GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar, Gujarat for approval of additional built-up area – Reg.

Jurisdictional SEZ – GIFT SEZ

Facts of the Case:

1. Name of the Developer & Location M/s. GIFT SEZ Limited, Gandhinagar, Gujarat
2. Date of LoA to Developer 07-01-2008
3. Sector of the SEZ Multi-services-SEZ
4. Date of Notification 18-08-2011
5. Total notified area (in Hectares) 105.4386 Hectares
6. Whether the SEZ is operational or not SEZ operational i. If operational, date of
   operationalization 21-04-2012 (ii) No. of Units 673

(iii) Total Exports & Imports for the last 5 years (Rs. in Cr.) Exports – 48450.00 Imports - 36786.00 (iv) Total Employment (In Nos.) 5935 7. Name of the Co-developer (already approved) M/s. Savvy Realty Creators LLP, GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar. 8. Details of Infrastructure facilities / authorized operations to be undertaken by the co-developer Development, construction, maintenance, and operation of commercial building in Block-15 in the processing area. 9. Total area (in Hectares) on which activities will be performed by the co- developer 4461 square meters. (approved- 1) 2385 square meters. (approved- 2) 1355 square meters.

processing area. 9. Total area (in Hectares) on which activities will be performed by the co- developer 4461 square meters. (approved- 1) 2385 square meters. (approved- 2) 1355 square meters. (approved- 3) 2478 square meters (additional sought) Total development rights of 1,45,650 square feet

Page 23 of 156

10. Date of the Co-developer agreement Supplemental agreement-1 to co- developer agreement dated 22- 11-2024

Recommendation by DC, GIFT SEZ:

In view of the increase in economic activity and other developments at GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar, DC, GIFT SEZ has recommended the proposal of M/s. Savvy Realty Creators LLP, for approval of additional area with additional development rights in Block-15 within the processing area in GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar for consideration of BOA.

Page 24 of 156

128.5(iii) Request of approved Co-Developer M/s. Shivalik SEZ Projects LLP, GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar, Gujarat for approval of additional built-up area.

Jurisdictional SEZ – GIFT SEZ

Facts of the case:

1. Name of the Developer & Location M/s. GIFT SEZ Limited,
   Gandhinagar, Gujarat
2. Date of LoA to Developer 07-01-2008
3. Sector of the SEZ Multi-services-SEZ
4. Date of Notification 18-08-2011
5. Total notified area (in Hectares) 105.4386 Hectares
6. Whether the SEZ is operational or not SEZ operational (i) If operational, date of operationalization 21-04-2012 (ii) No. of Units 673

(iii) Total Exports & Imports for the last 5 years (Rs.

ether the SEZ is operational or not SEZ operational (i) If operational, date of operationalization 21-04-2012 (ii) No. of Units 673

(iii) Total Exports & Imports for the last 5 years (Rs. in Cr.) Exports – 48450.00 Imports - 36786.00 (iv) Total Employment (In Nos.) 5935 7. Name of the Co-developer (already approved) M/s. Shivalik SEZ Projects LLP, GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar. 8. Details of Infrastructure facilities / authorized operations to be undertaken by the co- developer Development, construction, maintenance, and operation of commercial building in Block-13 (Plot No. 13-C) in the processing area. 9. Total area on which activities will be performed by the co-developer 47379.54 square meters. (approved)

4738 square meters (additional sought)

Total development rights for 5,61,000 square feet. 10. Proposed investment by the Co- developer (Rs. in Cr.) 405.00

Page 25 of 156

11. Net Worth of the Co-developer (Rs. in Cr.) 147.46
12. Date of the Co-developer agreement Supplemental agreement-2 to co- developer agreement dated 29- 10-2024

Recommendation by DC, GIFT SEZ:

In view of the increase in economic activity and other developments at GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar, DC, KASEZ has recommended the proposal of M/s. Shivalik SEZ Projects LLP, for approval of additional area building in Block-13 within the processing area in GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar for consideration of BOA.

Z has recommended the proposal of M/s. Shivalik SEZ Projects LLP, for approval of additional area building in Block-13 within the processing area in GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar for consideration of BOA.

Page 26 of 156

128.5(iv) Request of approved Co-Developer M/s. SYB Shilp LLP, GIFT- SEZ, Gandhinagar, Gujarat for approval of additional built-up area

Jurisdictional SEZ – GIFT SEZ

Facts of the case:

1. Name of the Developer & Location M/s. GIFT SEZ Limited, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
2. Date of LoA to Developer 07-01-2008
3. Sector of the SEZ Multi-services-SEZ
4. Date of Notification 18-08-2011
5. Total notified area (in Hectares) 105.4386 Hectares
6. Whether the SEZ is operational or not SEZ operational (i) If operational, date of operationalization 21-04-2012 (ii) No. of Units 673

(iii) Total Exports & Imports for the last 5 years (Rs. in Cr.) Exports – 48450.00 Imports - 36786.00 (iv) Total Employment (In Nos.) 5935 7. Name of the Co-developer (already approved) M/s. SYB Shilp LLP, GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar. 8. Details of Infrastructure facilities / authorized operations to be undertaken by the co- developer Development, construction, maintenance, and operation of commercial building in Block-15 (Plot No. 15-E) in the processing area.

d operations to be undertaken by the co- developer Development, construction, maintenance, and operation of commercial building in Block-15 (Plot No. 15-E) in the processing area.

Page 27 of 156

9. Total area (in Hectares) on which activities will be performed by the co- developer 5028 square meters. (approved) 1463 square meters (additional basement extent sought) 1,45,519 sq. ft. (additional development rights sought) 6491 square meters (total) Total development rights for 6,45,519 square feet (59,970 square meters).
10. Proposed investment by the Co- developer (Rs. in Cr.) 200.00
11. Net Worth of the Co- developer 1007.27 (combined net worth of (Rs. in Cr.) promoters)
12. Date of the Co-developer agreement Supplemental agreement-1 to co- development agreement dated 09-12-2024

Recommendation by DC, GIFT SEZ:

In view of the increase in economic activity and other developments at GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar, DC, GIFT SEZ has recommended the proposal of M/s. SYB Shilp LLP, for approval of additional area building in Block-15 within the processing area in GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar for consideration of BOA.

DC, GIFT SEZ has recommended the proposal of M/s. SYB Shilp LLP, for approval of additional area building in Block-15 within the processing area in GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar for consideration of BOA.

Page 28 of 156

128.5(v) Proposal of M/s. Adhisthan Investments India Pvt. Limited, co-developer for surrender of land measuring an area of 4.822 Ha (11.916 acres) out of the allotted area of 94.76 Ha (234.157 acres) to M/s. Brandix India Apparel City Limited, Developer at Pudimadaka Road, Atchuthapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam– reg.

Jurisdictional SEZ – Visakhapatnam SEZ (VSEZ)

Facts of the case:

M/s. Adhisthan Investments India Private Limited, co-developer in M/s. Brandix India Apparel City Pvt. Limited has informed that they intend to surrender a portion of land measuring an area of 4.822 Ha (11.916 acres) out of an area of94.76 Ha (234.157 acres) as M/s. Brandix India Apparel City Pvt. Limited, developer propose to allot the surrendered land by bringing in new co-developer to invest for development of social infrastructure.

The co-developer has submitted the following documents:

1. Co-developer agreement dated 09th July 2009 between Brandix and Adhisthan
2. Sub-lease agreement dated 13.03.2010
3. Copy of the Addendum agreement with revised land to an extent of 222.241 acres
4. Copy of the Authorisation agreement

Recommendation by DC, VSEZ:-

In view of the above, the proposal along with the above documents are forwarded herewith for information and consideration of the request of M/s. Adhisthan Investment India Pvt.

n by DC, VSEZ:-

In view of the above, the proposal along with the above documents are forwarded herewith for information and consideration of the request of M/s. Adhisthan Investment India Pvt. Limited, co-developer for surrender of a portion of the land measuring an area of 4.822 ha (11.916 acres) out of an area of 94.76 Ha (235.157 acres). The proposal is duly recommended by DC.

Page 29 of 156

128.5(vi) Request of M/s ANSR Global Corporation Private Limited, Co-Developer in Embassy Property Developments Private Limited SEZ, at Outer Ring Road, Rachenahalli Village, Bangalore, Karnataka for expansion of built-up area

Jurisdictional SEZ – Cochin SEZ (CSEZ)

Facts of the case:

Area (Hectares) : 2.5906 Date of Notification : 03.05.2017 Date operationalized : 01.04.2024 No. of Units : 5 Export (2024-2025 from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025) : Rs.2771.60 crore Total built-up area : 148644.86 sq.mtr. Name of the Co- Developer
: M/s ANSR Global Corporation Private Limited LoA No. & Date of Co- Developer : F.1/1/2017-SEZ dated 14.11.2023 for infrastructure development, conversion of bare shell building into warm shell building, leasing out the built-up space, facility management service in 2,04,198 sq.ft. built-up area at Block B Building (17th Floor: 62,737 sq.ft., 18th Floor: 70,699 sq.ft. & 19th Floor: 70,762 sq.ft.) in the Embassy Property Developments Private Limited SEZ, Bangalore. Present Request of Co- Developer : Inclusion of additional built-up area admeasuring 69,674 sq.ft.

19th Floor: 70,762 sq.ft.) in the Embassy Property Developments Private Limited SEZ, Bangalore. Present Request of Co- Developer : Inclusion of additional built-up area admeasuring 69,674 sq.ft. in Parcel 2 Acacia (9th Floor) in Embassy Property Development Private Limited to undertake the authorized operation of conversion of bare shell buildings into warm shell buildings, lease the built-up space and to provide facility management services to IT/ITES.
At present the Co-Developer is having the following build-up area in the Embassy Property Developments Private Limited SEZ, Bangalore for infrastructure development, conversion of bare shell building into warm shell building, leasing out the built-up space, facility management service.

Building Floor Area in sq.ft. Parcel 2 Acacia 17 62737 Parcel 2 Acacia 18 70699 Parcel 2 Acacia 19 70762

Page 30 of 156

Parcel 2 Acacia 12 68835 Parcel 2 Acacia 11 69737 Total

342770

On approval of the proposal for addition of 69,674 sq.ft. area in Parcel 2 Acacia (9th Floor), the net built-up area of the Co-Developer shall be 4,12,444 sq.ft. Observation
The Co-Developer has also submitted the following: • “No Objection Certificate” issued by M/s Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, the Developer for allotment of additional space to the co-developer. • Copy of Co-Developer agreement dated 9th April 2025 for the entire area.
• Copy of Networth certificate.

d, the Developer for allotment of additional space to the co-developer. • Copy of Co-Developer agreement dated 9th April 2025 for the entire area.
• Copy of Networth certificate.

Recommendation by DC, CSEZ:

The request of M/s ANSR Global Corporation Private Limited, Co-Developer for inclusion of additional built-up area admeasuring 69,674 sq.ft. to carry out the activities of Co-Developer in Embassy Property Development Private Limited SEZ, Bangalore is recommended and forwarded for consideration of the BoA.

Page 31 of 156

Agenda Item No. 128.6:

Request for conversion of Processing Area into Non-Processing Area under Rule 11(B) [5 proposals – 128.6(i) - 128.6(v)] Rule position:

In terms of the Rule 5(2) regarding requirements of minimum area of land for an IT/ITES 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: –

TABLE Sl. No.

(1) Categories of cities as per Annexure IV-A (2) Minimum built-up processing Area (3) 1. Category ‘A’
50,000 square meters 2. Category ‘B’
25,000 square meters 3. Category ‘C’
15,000 square meters

(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.

e meters 3. Category ‘C’
15,000 square meters

(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.

In terms of the Rule 11 B regarding Non-processing areas for IT/ITES SEZ:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules, 5,11,11A 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 of a 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 sub-rule (1),
(3) A Non-processing area shall consist of complete floor and part of a floor shall not be demarcated as a non-processing area.

ns as may be specified by the Board of Approval under sub-rule (1),
(3) A 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.

Page 32 of 156

(5) Board of Approval shall permit demarcation of a 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 Economic Zone, as specified by the Central Government.

essing area to the total built up area of the processing area of the Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic 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 (3) of the table below:

TABLE Sl. No.

(1) Categories of cities as per Annexure IV-A (2) Minimum built-up processing Area (3) 1. Category ‘A’
50,000 square meters 2. Category ‘B’
25,000 square meters 3. Category ‘C’
15,000 square meters

(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.

n 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.

• 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 120th meeting held on 18.06.2024, there shall be a clear certification of Specified Office and the

sed from stakeholders regarding Rule 11B.

• Further, as per the directions of the BoA in its 120th meeting held on 18.06.2024, there shall be a clear certification of Specified Office and the

Page 33 of 156

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 09th 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, in the 122nd meeting of the BoA held on 30th August, 2024, the Board directed all DCs to ensure the implementation of the checklist (formulated by DoC and DoR) for all the cases including the past cases.

Page 34 of 156

128.6(i) Request of M/s Embassy Commercial Projects (Whitefield) Private Limited, Co-Developer in Vikas Telecom Private Limited SEZ, at Devarabeesanahalli and Kariyammana Villages, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru District, Karnataka for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built- up area (40811 sq.mtr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No.115 dated 09.04.2024.

ru District, Karnataka for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built- up area (40811 sq.mtr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No.115 dated 09.04.2024.

Jurisdictional SEZ –Cochin SEZ (CSEZ)

Brief facts of the case:

Particulars Details Name of Developer M/s Vikas Telecom Private Limited Address of SEZ Devarabeesanahalli and Kariyammana Villages, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru District, Karnataka State Sector IT/ITES Formal Approval F.2/33/2006-EPZ dated 7th April 2006 Total Notified land area (in Hectares) 21.7468 Total Built-up area in Processing Area (in M2), in the SEZ 705639 Name of the Co- Developer M/s Embassy Commercial Projects (Whitefield) Private Limited Total Built-up area of Co-Developer (in M2) 237744

Details of processing (Built- up) area in the SEZ Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No. of floors Total built- up area (in M2) 3A, North Tower (Wing A) G+10+Terrace 40531 Car Parking and Basement specific to North Tower (Wing A) LB+3 30415 3A, South Tower (Wing B) G+10+Terrace 47734 Car Parking and Basement specific to South Tower (Wing B) UB+G+1st ,4th &5th Floors 34812 3B 3B+G+10+Terrace 84252 Total

237744 Total area to be demarcated as Non-Processing Area (NPA) out of Built-up area Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No. of floors Total built- up area (in M2)

+Terrace 84252 Total

237744 Total area to be demarcated as Non-Processing Area (NPA) out of Built-up area Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No. of floors Total built- up area (in M2)

Page 35 of 156

(in Square meter)

3A, South Tower (Wing B) G+8th, 9th & 10th Floors + Terrace 19700 Car Parking and Basement specific to South Tower (Wing B) UB+G 21111

Total 40811
Balance Built-up Processing Area after demarcation with Co- Developer (in M2) 196933 Balance Built-up Processing Area after demarcation in SEZ (in M2) 664828 Whether tax/duty calculated has been made as per SEZ Rule 11 (B)(5)? Yes Whether the calculation sheet has mentioned the tax or duty benefit originally availed for the built-up space to be demarcated as Non- Processing Area (NPA)? Yes If yes, above then whether repayment has been made? Please mention the amount repaid? The Co-Developer has paid an amount of ₹25,47,41,613/- (Rupees Twenty five crore forty seven lakh forty one thousand six hundred thirteen only) towards tax/duty exemptions availed for the proposed area to be demarcated as NPA alongwith common facilities. (₹17,07,24,339/- for built-up space & ₹8,40,17,275/- for common infrastructure) (Copy of challans enclosed).

d for the proposed area to be demarcated as NPA alongwith common facilities. (₹17,07,24,339/- for built-up space & ₹8,40,17,275/- for common infrastructure) (Copy of challans enclosed). Whether the calculation sheet has included the original duty or tax benefit availed for creation of social or commercial infrastructure and other facility in the SEZ to be used by both SEZ processing and non-processing area? Yes

Does the common infrastructure mentioned above inter-alia include internal roads, common parking facilities sewerage, drainage, food courts/hubs cafeteria, restaurants, canteen, gymnasium, catering area, health center, community center, club,

Yes. The Developer has considered the duty/tax exemptions availed attributable to the common infrastructure facilities while calculating the amount paid

Page 36 of 156

sports complex compressor room, hospitals, landscapes, gardens, pedestrian walk way, foot over bridge, utilities like generation and distribution of power, including power back up, HVAC facilities, ETP, WTP, solar panel installed, compressor room, air conditioning and chiller plant, etc. If yes, then whether repayment has been made of all tax/duty benefits availed on developing all these facilities? Please mention amount re- paid.

om, air conditioning and chiller plant, etc. If yes, then whether repayment has been made of all tax/duty benefits availed on developing all these facilities? Please mention amount re- paid. Yes ₹8,40,17,275/- The Co-Developer has paid ₹8,40,17,275/-
towards the duty/tax exemptions availed for the common infrastructure for the proposed area (Challan copy enclosed) Whether the area to be demarcated as NPA is included to be strictly used for IT/ITES Units, any in terms of SEZ Rules 11 (B)(2)? Yes Whether the demarcation is proposed for complete floor as per SEZ Rule 11(B)(3)? Yes Whether compliance to SEZ Rule 11 (B)(9) has been made regarding “no tax benefits” shall be available for operation and maintenance of common infrastructure? Yes Whether appropriate access control mechanism is in place of screen movement of goods or persons between processing area and non processing area in order to rule out any probable diversion of duty free goods from processing area and non- processing area? The Co-Developer has mentioned that they will maintain the appropriate access control mechanisms to ensure adequate screening of movement of persons as well as goods in SEZ premise for the SEZ unit and the businesses engaged in IT/ITES services in the proposed non processing areas. Whether as a result of the proposed demarcation, the condition of maintaining minimum built-up area requirement in compliance to SEZ Rule 11(B)(7) is adhered to Yes.

d non processing areas. Whether as a result of the proposed demarcation, the condition of maintaining minimum built-up area requirement in compliance to SEZ Rule 11(B)(7) is adhered to Yes. The SEZ is coming under Category ‘A’ City and the minimum built-up area required for Category ‘A’ is 50,000 sq.mtr.
After demarcation of the proposed built-up area, the remaining built-up area in the SEZ shall be 664828 sq.mtr., and hence fulfills the condition.
Reason for demarcation of built-up area as NPA The Co-Developer states that due to Sunset Clause for Income Tax benefit to the units, change in the SEZ development plans to

Page 37 of 156

reduce SEZ area, uncertainty surrounding the IT industry and terminal decline in the revenue streams resulted in less demand for IT/ITeS SEZ space. Hence the management decided to demarcate the vacant built-up area as Non-Processing Area.
Purpose and usage of such demarcation To allot the same to non-SEZ units

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 Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, Cochin SEZ. ii. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 15.11.2024 issued by Shri Deepak N, Chartered Engineer, Reg. No. AM162085-4, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the developer. iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide letter F.No.

ri Deepak N, Chartered Engineer, Reg. No. AM162085-4, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the developer. iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide letter F.No. SO/06/ETV SEZ/MISC/2025 dated 19.03.2025. 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, CSEZ. v. Checklist for demarcation of NPA, in the format prescribed vide DoC letter dated 09.09.2024 duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, CSEZ. 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 40811 sq. mtr. of built-up area proposed to be demarcated as per Rule 11B of SEZ Rule (fifth Amendment), 2023.

Recommendation by DC, CSEZ:-

The proposal of M/s Embassy Commercial Projects (Whitefield) Private Limited, the Co-Developer for demarcation of 40811 sq.mtr. processing (built-up) area as Non- Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules.2006 read with Instruction No.115 dated 9th April 2024, is recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA.

processing (built-up) area as Non- Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules.2006 read with Instruction No.115 dated 9th April 2024, is recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA.

Page 38 of 156

128.6(ii) Request of M/s Manyata Promoters Private Limited, Developer, at Villages Rachenahalli, Nagavara and Tanisandra, Bangalore District, Karnataka for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built- up area (11567 sq.mtr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No.115 dated 09.04.2024.

Jurisdictional SEZ –Cochin SEZ (CSEZ)

Brief facts of the case:

Particulars Details Name of Developer M/s Manyata Promoters Private Limited Address of SEZ Villages Rachenahalli, Nagavara and Tanisandra, Bangalore District, Karnataka State Sector IT/ITES Formal Approval F.2/96/2005-EPZ dated 16th June 2006 Total Notified land area (in Hectares) 19.1991 Total Built-up area in Processing Area (in M2), as informed by the developer. 761970.14

Details of processing (Built-up) area in the SEZ Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No.

Total Built-up area in Processing Area (in M2), as informed by the developer. 761970.14

Details of processing (Built-up) area in the SEZ Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No. of floors Total built-up area (in M2) Block C2 B+G+8 52156.14 Block C3-MLCP B+G+12 31982.72 Block C4
(Annexure building A) B+S+1st floor 11621.12 Block C4
(Annexure Building B) B+S+1st, 3rd & 4th Floors 19675.38 Block D4 B+G+10 49528.00 Block F3 2B+G+10 98894.00 Block G2 2B+G+8 50703.00 Block G3 2B+G+10 71994.00 Block G4 2B+G+1st to 5th Floors 38133.45 Block G6 MLCP 2B+G+12 32668.00 Block H1 B+G+6 45620.00 Block H2 ( Annexure Building A) 2B+G+1st to 6th & 10th Floors 33664.66

Bock H2 (Annexure 2B+G+1st to 6th & 9th to 10th Floors 35917.00

Page 39 of 156

Building B) Block L1 2B+G+10 59705.00 Block L2 2B+G+10 65875.00 Block L3 2B+5th to 10th Floors 55765.67 Block L MLCP G+3 8067.00 Total

761970.14 Total area to be demarcated as Non- Processing Area (NPA) out of Built- up area (in Square meter)

Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No.

55765.67 Block L MLCP G+3 8067.00 Total

761970.14 Total area to be demarcated as Non- Processing Area (NPA) out of Built- up area (in Square meter)

Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No. of floors Total built-up area (in M2) Building H2 (Annexure Building B) 9th
Floor 3241.00 Building H2 (Annexure Building B) 10th
Floor 3196.00 Block L3 6th Floor 5130.00

Total 11567.00
Balance Built-up Processing Area after demarcation (in M2) 750403.14 Whether tax/duty calculated has been made as per SEZ Rule 11 (B)(5)? Yes Whether the calculation sheet has mentioned the tax or duty benefit originally availed for the built-up space to be demarcated as Non- Processing Area (NPA)? Yes If yes, above then whether repayment has been made? Please mention the amount repaid? The Developer has paid an amount of ₹1,04,78,733/- (Rupees One crore four lakh seventy eight thousand seven hundred thirty three only) towards tax/duty exemptions availed for the proposed area to be demarcated as NPA alongwith common facilities. (Rs.92,01,145/- for built-up space & Rs.12,77,588/- for common area) (Copy of challan enclosed). Whether the calculation sheet has included the original duty or tax benefit availed for creation of social or commercial infrastructure and other facility in the SEZ to be used by both SEZ processing and non- Yes Rs.12,77,588/-
The Developer has paid Rs.12,77,588/- towards the duty/tax exemptions availed for the common assets (Electrical installations, Fire fighting systems, HV AC Systems,

non- Yes Rs.12,77,588/-
The Developer has paid Rs.12,77,588/- towards the duty/tax exemptions availed for the common assets (Electrical installations, Fire fighting systems, HV AC Systems,

Page 40 of 156

processing area? Window Grills) for the proposed area.

Earlier, on request of the Developer, the 121st BoA held on 31st July 2024, was granted approval for demarcation of 108681 sq.mtr. built-up area as Non-Processing area, which was conveyed by DoC vide letter dated 9th September 2024. At that time, the Developer has refunded an amount of ₹5,26,39,623/- vide challan No.NPA01 dated 06.07.2024 (Challan copy enclosed) towards the entire duty/tax exemptions availed for the common amenities viz.Internal road, common parking facilities, sewage, drainage, compressor room, landscapes, gardens, utilities like generation and distribution of power including power back up, HVAC facilities, ETP, ETP. Since the Developer refunded the entire duty/tax exemptions availed for creating the common amenities, the present proposal does not involve payment of the same.

, HVAC facilities, ETP, ETP. Since the Developer refunded the entire duty/tax exemptions availed for creating the common amenities, the present proposal does not involve payment of the same. Does the common infrastructure mentioned above inter-alia include internal roads, common parking facilities sewerage, drainage, food courts/hubs cafeteria, restaurants, canteen, gymnasium, catering area, health center, community center, club, sports complex compressor room, hospitals, landscapes, gardens, pedestrian walk way, foot over bridge, utilities like generation and distribution of power, including power back up, HVAC facilities, ETP, WTP, solar panel installed, compressor room, air conditioning and chiller plant, etc.

Yes. The Developer has considered the duty/tax exemptions availed attributable to the common infrastructure facilities while calculating the amount paid If yes, then whether repayment has been made of all tax/duty benefits availed on developing all these facilities? Please mention amount re- paid. Yes During the earlier proposal approved by BoA, the Developer has already been refunded an amount of ₹5,26,39,623/- towards the entire duty/tax exemptions availed for the common facilities in the said building vide challan No.NPA01 dated 06.07.2024 (Challan copy enclosed) Whether the area to be demarcated as NPA is included to be strictly used Yes

ailed for the common facilities in the said building vide challan No.NPA01 dated 06.07.2024 (Challan copy enclosed) Whether the area to be demarcated as NPA is included to be strictly used Yes

Page 41 of 156

for IT/ITES Units, any in terms of SEZ Rules 11 (B)(2)? Whether the demarcation is proposed for complete floor as per SEZ Rule 11(B)(3)? Yes Whether compliance to SEZ Rule 11 (B)(9) has been made regarding “no tax benefits” shall be available for operation and maintenance of common infrastructure? Yes Whether appropriate access control mechanism is in place of screen movement of goods or persons between processing area and non- processing area in order to rule out any probable diversion of duty free goods from processing area and non- processing area? The developer has mentioned that they will maintain the appropriate access control mechanisms to ensure adequate screening of movement of persons as well as goods in SEZ premise for the SEZ unit and the businesses engaged in IT/ITES services in the proposed non processing areas. Whether as a result of the proposed demarcation, the condition of maintaining minimum built-up area requirement in compliance to SEZ Rule 11(B)(7) is adhered to Yes. The SEZ is coming under Category ‘A’ City and the minimum built-up area required for Category ‘A’ is 50,000 sq. mtr. After demarcation of the proposed built-up area, the remaining built-up area in the SEZ shall be 750403.14 sq. mtr., and hence fulfills the condition.

quired for Category ‘A’ is 50,000 sq. mtr. After demarcation of the proposed built-up area, the remaining built-up area in the SEZ shall be 750403.14 sq. mtr., and hence fulfills the condition.
Reason for demarcation of built-up area as NPA The Developer states that the proposed built- up area is lying vacant in the SEZ since long, due to multiple factors like Sunset Clause for Income Tax benefit, Covid 19 pandemic and consequent work from home facility available to the SEZ units, resulted in less demand for space from SEZ units.
Hence, their management decided to demarcate the said built-up area as Non-Processing Area.
Purpose and usage of such demarcation To allot the same to non-SEZ units

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 Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, Cochin SEZ. ii. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 08.03.2025 issued by Shri R Arunkumar Chartered Engineer, Reg. No. F-111508-8, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the developer.

SEZ. ii. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 08.03.2025 issued by Shri R Arunkumar Chartered Engineer, Reg. No. F-111508-8, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the developer.

Page 42 of 156

iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide letter KA:10:06:MEBP:SEZ:1A(VOL IV)/839/2024-25 dated 14.03.2025. 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, CSEZ. v. Checklist for demarcation of NPA, in the format prescribed vide DoC letter dated 09.09.2024 duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, CSEZ. 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 11567 sq. mtr. of built-up area proposed to be demarcated as per Rule 11B of SEZ Rule (fifth Amendment), 2023.

Recommendation by DC, CSEZ:-

The proposal of M/s Manyata Promoters Private Limited, the Developer for demarcation of 11567 sq.mtr. processing (built-up) area as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules.2006 read with Instruction No.115 dated 9th April 2024, is recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA.

processing (built-up) area as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules.2006 read with Instruction No.115 dated 9th April 2024, is recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA.

Page 43 of 156

128.6(iii) M/s. Oxygen Business Park Private Limited, Developer – Proposal for demarcation of ‘23013 Square Meter at Ground floor, Podium floor & 1st to 6th floor, Tower-2’ into Non-Processing area of IT/ITES SEZ at Plot No. 7, Sector-144, Noida (Uttar Pradesh), under Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006.

Jurisdictional SEZ –Noida SEZ (NSEZ)

Brief facts of the case:

S.No. Particulars Details 1.
Name and address of the Developer M/s. Oxygen Business Park Private Limited 2.
Letter of Approval No. and date. No. F.2/719/2006-SEZ dated 07.02.2008 3.
Date of Notification 15.05.2008 4.
Name of the sector of SEZ for which approval has been given. IT/ITES 5.
Total Notified land area (in Hectares) 10.0498 hectare 6.
Total land area of SEZ: (i). Processing Area (ii). Non-Processing Area

Land area 10.0498 hectare. NIL 7.
Details of Built-up area in Processing Area:

(i). No. of towers with built- up area in each tower (in Square meter) (as per records)

Building / Tower / Block No. Total built-up area
(in Sqmt.) Tower-A 18764.00 Tower-B 17253.00 Tower-C 17298.00 Tower-D 15314.00 Tower-E 19075.00 Tower-F 16601.00 Tower-1 88325.00 Tower-2 42625.00 Tower-3 44430.00 Food Court 2532.00 Total: 282217.00

(ii). Total Built up area :

282217.00 Sqmt.

101950.50 Sqmt.

-E 19075.00 Tower-F 16601.00 Tower-1 88325.00 Tower-2 42625.00 Tower-3 44430.00 Food Court 2532.00 Total: 282217.00

(ii). Total Built up area :

282217.00 Sqmt.

101950.50 Sqmt. (88325.50 + 10154.00 + 3471.00)

180266.50 Sqmt. (iii) Area already demarcated as NPA: (iv) Remaining Built-up Processing area:

Page 44 of 156

Total Built-up area in:
Processing Area: 180266.50 Sqmt. Non-Processing Area: 101950.50 Sqmt. 9.
Total number of floors in the building wherein demarcation of NPA is proposed: 12 floors (Ground+Podium) 10.
Total Built-up area proposed to be demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES Units: 23013.00 Sqmt. 11.
How many floors area proposed for demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES Units: 8 floors (Ground floor, Podium floor & 1st to 6th floor, Tower-2) 12.
Remaining Built-up Processing Area after instant proposed demarcation: 157253.50 Sqmt. 13.
Whether duty benefits and tax exemption availed have been refunded and NOC from Specified Officer has been obtained? Yes, Refunded and ‘No Dues Certificate’ of Specified Officer has been obtained. 14.
Reasons for demarcation of NPA The Developer has mentioned that due to multiple factors including Sunset clause for Income Tax Benefits, Covid 19 Pandemic and Work From Home facility etc. 15.
Whether remaining built- up area fulfils the minimum built-up area requirement as per Rule 5 of SEZ Rules, 2006. Yes. 16.

ax Benefits, Covid 19 Pandemic and Work From Home facility etc. 15.
Whether remaining built- up area fulfils the minimum built-up area requirement as per Rule 5 of SEZ Rules, 2006. Yes. 16.
Whether application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, has been submitted. Yes. 17.
Whether copy of Chartered Engineer Certificate has been submitted? Yes. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 21.02.2025 of Shri R. Arunkumar, Chartered Registration No. F-111508-8. 18.
Total duty benefits and tax exemption availed on the built-up area proposed to be demarcated as NPA, as per Chartered Engineers Certificate. Rs.23,81,72,914/- (Rs.23.82 Crores)

Page 45 of 156

Whether ‘No Dues Certificate’ of Specified Officer has been submitted? Yes. The Developer has submitted copy of ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Authorised Officer on 13.03.2025. 20.
Whether 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, has been submitted? Yes. The same has been signed by the Specified Officer and countersigned by DC, NSEZ. 21.
Whether Checklist for demarcation of NPA, in the format prescribed vide DoC letter dated 09.09.2024, has been received? Yes. The same has been signed by the Specified Officer and DC, NSEZ. 22.
Whether required Undertaking has been submitted: Yes.

bed vide DoC letter dated 09.09.2024, has been received? Yes. The same has been signed by the Specified Officer and DC, NSEZ. 22.
Whether required Undertaking has been submitted: Yes. The Developer has submitted an undertaking 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 total NPA area @23013 Sqmt. [including 3413 Sqmt. at Ground floor (400 Stack Parking G+1)] located at Tower-2 (Ground, Podium, 1st to 6th floor) of built-up area proposed to be demarcated as NPA of Ground floor for
usage as per Rule 11B of SEZ Rule (fifth Amendment), 2023. 23.
Access Control Mechanism for movement of employees & good for IT/ITES Business to be engaged in the area proposed to be demarcated as Non- Processing Area. The Developer has mentioned that they will ensure adequate control of the movement of employees as well as goods pertaining to SEZ units and Non-Processing Area units. Also, the company will maintain registers at gate, install CCTV’s, and issue ID cards to NPA unit employees to ensure adequate controls. Separate colour gate pass or identity cards for both PA & NPA unit’s employees. Separate car sticker for different colour for both PA & NPA unit’s employees. Round- the-clock security measures are already in place. Separate security for each building and block with scanning. 24.

rate car sticker for different colour for both PA & NPA unit’s employees. Round- the-clock security measures are already in place. Separate security for each building and block with scanning. 24.
Purpose and usage of such Renting the space to IT-ITES Clients (as

Page 46 of 156

demarcation of NPA. mentioned by the Developer)

Recommendation by DC, NSEZ:

        In view of above, the proposal of M/s. Oxygen Business Park Private Limited, 

Developer for demarcation of built-up Processing Area of ‘23013 Square Meter at Ground floor, Podium floor & 1st to 6th floor, Tower-2’ into the Non- Processing Area, in terms of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 & DoC letter dated 27.06.2024 & 09.09.2024, along with following documents, are forwarded herewith for consideration by the Board of Approval:-

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 Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, NSEZ. ii. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 21.02.2025 issued by Shri R. Arunkumar, Chartered Registration No. F-111508-8, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the developer. iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Authorised Officer vide letter F.No. SEZ/Oxygen/Dev.01 /2023 dated 13.03.2025.
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.

EZ/Oxygen/Dev.01 /2023 dated 13.03.2025.
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, NSEZ. 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 total NPA area @23013 Sqmt. [including 3413 Sqmt. at Ground floor (400 Stack Parking G+1)] located at Tower-2 (Ground, Podium, 1st to 6th floor) of built-up area proposed to be demarcated as NPA of Ground floor for
usage as per Rule 11B of SEZ Rule (fifth Amendment), 2023.

arking G+1)] located at Tower-2 (Ground, Podium, 1st to 6th floor) of built-up area proposed to be demarcated as NPA of Ground floor for
usage as per Rule 11B of SEZ Rule (fifth Amendment), 2023.

Page 47 of 156

128.6(iv) Proposal of M/s. ACE Urban Hitech City Limited at Sy.No.53/1, Kesarapalli Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh for demarcation of the built-up area as Non-processing area under Rule-11(B) of SEZ Rules, 2006

Jurisdictional SEZ – Visakhapatnam SEZ (VSEZ)

Brief facts of the case:

Sl.No. Particulars Details 1 Name and address of the Developer ACE URBAN HITECH CITY LIMITED

Sy.No.53/1, Kesarapalli Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh- PIN:521102 2 Letter of Approval No. and date LOA No. No.F.2/63/2006-EPZ Dt.22.06.2006. 3 Date of Notification S.O. 2257(E) Dt. 23.05.2018

4 Name of the sector of SEZ for which approval has been given Sector specific SEZ for IT/ITES

5 Total Notified Area of Special Economic Zone (in hectares) 2.60 Ha.

6 Total area of: i. Processing Area (in hectare)
ii. Non-Processing Area (in hectares)

2.60 Ha NIL
7 Details of Built up area: i. No. of towers with built-up area of each tower (in square meter)
ii. Total Built-up area (in square meter).

2 Buildings i. Medha-I Tower – 17,631 sq.mtrs. ii. Medha- II Tower-49,284 sq.mtrs

66,915 sq.mtrs 8 Total Built up area in: i. Processing Area – (in square meter. ii. Non - Processing Area - Square meter.

66,915 sq.

31 sq.mtrs. ii. Medha- II Tower-49,284 sq.mtrs

66,915 sq.mtrs 8 Total Built up area in: i. Processing Area – (in square meter. ii. Non - Processing Area - Square meter.

66,915 sq. mtrs

NIL
9 Total numbers of floors in the building wherein demarcation of NPA is proposed 5 Floors (Ground + 4 Upper Floors)
10 Total Built up area proposed for demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES units. 3,609 sq.mtrs

Page 48 of 156

11 How many floors are proposed for demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES units One Floor in Medha-I Tower (4th Floor) Built-up Area of 4th Floor- 3,609 Sq.Mtrs. 12 Total Duty benefits and tax exemption availed on the built- up area proposed to be demarcated as NPA, as per Chartered Engineers certificate (in Rupees Crore) Rs.0.99 Crores

13 Whether duty benefits and tax exemptions availed has been refunded and NOC from specified officer has been obtained (please enclose NOC from specified officer) Yes

NOC from Specified Officer has been obtained and the same has been enclosed. 14 Reasons for demarcation of NPA: Due to “Work From Home” Facility, facilitated to the IT Companies after COVID-19 pandemic and also non- availability of Income Tax incentives for SEZ Units, the demand for SEZ IT/ITES space has been reduced and most of the SEZ office space is lying vacant.

We are not able to get SEZ clients despite our sincere efforts.

x incentives for SEZ Units, the demand for SEZ IT/ITES space has been reduced and most of the SEZ office space is lying vacant.

We are not able to get SEZ clients despite our sincere efforts. Hence our management has decided to demarcate 4th Floor of the Medha-I Tower as Non-Processing area for IT/ITES Units under Rule 11B of the SEZ Rules, so that we can lease the same to Non-SEZ IT/ITES Units which do not wish to operate under SEZ scheme. 15 Total remaining built up area (in sq. mt) Balance built-up area after demarcation of Non-Processing Area for Non-SEZ IT/ITES Units is 63,306 Sq.Mtrs.
16 Whether remaining built up area fulfils the minimum built up area requirement as per Rule 5 of SEZ Rules, 2006 Yes 17 Purpose and usage of such demarcation of NPA Our management has decided to demarcate 4th Floor of the Medha-I Tower as Non-Processing area for IT/ITES Units under Rule 11B of the SEZ Rules, so that the space can be leased to Non-SEZ IT/ITES Units which do not wish to operate under SEZ scheme.

e Medha-I Tower as Non-Processing area for IT/ITES Units under Rule 11B of the SEZ Rules, so that the space can be leased to Non-SEZ IT/ITES Units which do not wish to operate under SEZ scheme.

Page 49 of 156

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 Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, VSEZ. ii. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 04.03.2025 issued by Dr. S. Chandrsekharan, Chartered Engineer, Reg. No.043478 towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the developer. iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide letter dated 21.03.2025. 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, 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 3,609 sq.mtrs of built-up area proposed to be demarcated as per Rule 11B of SEZ Rule (fifth Amendment), 2023.

thout any demur or protest w.e.t. repayment of taxes and benefits availed in respect of 3,609 sq.mtrs of built-up area proposed to be demarcated as per Rule 11B of SEZ Rule (fifth Amendment), 2023.

Recommendation by DC, VSEZ:

DC, VSEZ has recommended the proposal.

Page 50 of 156

128.6(v) Request of M/s Vikas Telecom Private Limited, Developer, at Devarabeesanahalli and Kariyammana Villages, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru District, Karnataka for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built- up area (68543 sq.mtr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No.115 dated 09.04.2024

Jurisdictional SEZ – Cochin SEZ (CSEZ)

Facts of the case:

Particulars Details Name of Developer M/s Vikas Telecom Private Limited Address of SEZ Devarabeesanahalli and Kariyammana Villages, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru District, Karnataka State Sector IT/ITES Formal Approval F.2/33/2006-EPZ dated 7th April 2006 Total Notified land area (in Hectares) 21.7468 Total Built-up area in Processing Area (in M2), in the SEZ 664828 Total Built-up area of Developer (in M2) 467895

Details of processing (Built-up) area in the SEZ Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No.

n Processing Area (in M2), in the SEZ 664828 Total Built-up area of Developer (in M2) 467895

Details of processing (Built-up) area in the SEZ Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No. of floors Total built-up area (in M2) Parcel 1A Tower1 2B+G+10 57886 Parcel 1A Tower 2 2B+G+10 57128 Parcel 1A G+1 3852 Parcel 2A East Wing 2B+LG+UG+6 56266 Parcel 2A West Wing 2B+LG+UG+6 56266 Parcel 2B Tower 1 1B+G+7 17999 Parcel 2B Tower 2 1B+G+7 17999 Parcel 2B Tower 3 1B+G+7 17999 Parcel 2 C Multi Used building 2B+G+1+4 floors of MLCP 8109 Parcel 2D 1B+G+6 21967 Block 7B Office 2B+G+10 99920

Page 51 of 156

Block Block 7B MLCP 2B+G+11 49888 Parcel 6 (DG Block) G+1+Terrace 2614 Total

467895 Total area to be demarcated as Non-Processing Area (NPA) out of Built-up area (in Square meter)

Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No. of floors Total built-up
area (in M2) Parcel 2A East Wing 2B+G+1st & 2nd Floors

23226 Parcel 2A West Wing 2B 17739 Parcel 2B Tower 1 B+G+1st to 3rd Floors 8548 Parcel 2B Tower 2 B+2nd & 3rd Floors 4933 Parcel 2B Tower 3 B+3rd Floor 2604 Parcel 2 C Multi Used building 2B+G+1+4 Floors of MLCP 8109 Parcel 2D B 770 Parcel 6 (DG Block) G+1+Terrace 2614

Total 68543
Balance Built-up Processing Area after demarcation with Developer (in M2) 399352 Balance Built-up Processing Area after demarcation in SEZ (in M2) 596285 Whether tax/duty calculated has been made as per SEZ Rule 11 (B)(5)? Yes Whether the calculation sheet has

M2) 399352 Balance Built-up Processing Area after demarcation in SEZ (in M2) 596285 Whether tax/duty calculated has been made as per SEZ Rule 11 (B)(5)? Yes Whether the calculation sheet has mentioned the tax or duty benefit originally availed for the built-up space to be demarcated as Non-Processing Area (NPA)? Yes If yes, above then whether repayment has been made? Please mention the amount repaid? The Developer has paid an amount of ₹16,02,48,466/- (Rupees Sixteen crore two lakh forty eight thousand four hundred sixty six only) towards tax/duty exemptions availed for the proposed area to be demarcated as NPA alongwith common facilities. (₹4,58,11,909/- for built-up space & ₹₹11,44,36,557/- for common infrastructure) (Copy of challans enclosed). Whether the calculation sheet has included the original duty or tax benefit availed for creation of social or commercial infrastructure and other Yes

Page 52 of 156

facility in the SEZ to be used by both SEZ processing and non-processing area? Does the common infrastructure mentioned above inter-alia include internal roads, common parking facilities sewerage, drainage, food courts/hubs cafeteria, restaurants, canteen, gymnasium, catering area, health center, community center, club, sports complex compressor room, hospitals, landscapes, gardens, pedestrian walk way, foot over bridge, utilities like generation and distribution of power, including power back up, HVAC facilities, ETP, WTP, solar panel installed, compressor room,

rdens, pedestrian walk way, foot over bridge, utilities like generation and distribution of power, including power back up, HVAC facilities, ETP, WTP, solar panel installed, compressor room, air conditioning and chiller plant, etc.

Yes. The Developer has considered the duty/tax exemptions availed attributable to the common infrastructure facilities while calculating the amount paid If yes, then whether repayment has been made of all tax/duty benefits availed on developing all these facilities? Please mention amount re- paid. Yes ₹11,44,36,557/- The Developer has paid ₹11,44,36,557/- (Rupees Eleven crore forty four lakh thirty six thousand five hundred fifty seven only) towards the duty/tax exemptions availed for the common infrastructure for the proposed area (Challan copy enclosed) Whether the area to be demarcated as NPA is included to be strictly used for IT/ITES Units only, in terms of SEZ Rules 11 (B)(2)? Yes Whether the demarcation is proposed for complete floor as per SEZ Rule 11(B)(3)? Yes Whether compliance to SEZ Rule 11 (B)(9) has been made regarding “no tax benefits” shall be available for operation and maintenance of common infrastructure? Yes Whether appropriate access control mechanism is in place of screen movement of goods or persons between processing area and non processing area in order to rule out any probable diversion of duty free goods from processing area and non-processing area? The Developer has mentioned that they will maintain the appropriate access control

a in order to rule out any probable diversion of duty free goods from processing area and non-processing area? The Developer has mentioned that they will maintain the appropriate access control mechanisms to ensure adequate screening of movement of persons as well as goods in SEZ premise for the SEZ unit and the businesses engaged in IT/ITES services in the proposed non processing areas.

Page 53 of 156

Whether as a result of the proposed demarcation, the condition of maintaining minimum built-up area requirement in compliance to SEZ Rule 11(B)(7) is adhered to Yes. The SEZ is coming under Category ‘A’ City and the minimum built-up area required for Category ‘A’ is 50,000 sq.mtr. After demarcation of the proposed built-up area, the remaining built-up area in the SEZ shall be 596285 sq.mtr., and hence fulfills the condition.
Reason for demarcation of built-up area as NPA The Developer states that due to Sunset Clause for Income Tax benefit to the units, work from home facilities to the unit after Covid 19 pandemic, resulted in less demand for IT/ITeS SEZ space and the proposed built-up area is lying since long. Hence the management decided to demarcate the vacant built-up area as Non-Processing Area.
Purpose and usage of such demarcation To allot the same to non-SEZ units

The following requisite documents have been submitted:

i. Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No.

usage of such demarcation To allot the same to non-SEZ units

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 Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, Cochin SEZ. ii. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 26.03.2025 issued by Shri R. Arunkumar, Chartered Engineer, Reg. No. F-111508-8, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the developer. iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide letter No. KA:04:06:VTV: 1 (VOL(ll)/466 dated 07.04.2025. 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, CSEZ. v. Checklist for demarcation of NPA, in the format prescribed vide DoC letter dated 09.09.2024 duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, CSEZ. 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 68543 sq. mtr. of built-up area proposed to be demarcated as per Rule 11B of SEZ Rule (fifth Amendment), 2023.

Recommendation by DC, CSEZ:-

The proposal of M/s Vikas Telecom Private Limited, Developer for demarcation of 68543 sq.mtr.

be demarcated as per Rule 11B of SEZ Rule (fifth Amendment), 2023.

Recommendation by DC, CSEZ:-

The proposal of M/s Vikas Telecom Private Limited, Developer for demarcation of 68543 sq.mtr. processing (built-up) area as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules.2006 read with Instruction No.115 dated 9th April 2024, is recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA.

Page 54 of 156

Agenda Item No. 128.7:

Request for notification or partial/full de-notification [4 proposals 128.7(i) – 128.7(iv)]

  Procedural guidelines on de-notification of SEZ: 

• In terms of first proviso to rule 8 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, the Central Government may, on the recommendation of the Board (Board of Approval) on the application made by the Developer, if it is satisfied, modify, withdraw or rescind the notification of a SEZ issued under this rule. • In the 60th meeting of the Board of Approval held on 08.11.2013, while considering a proposal of de-notification, the Board after deliberations decided that henceforth all cases of partial or complete de-notification of SEZs will be processed on file by DoC, subject to the conditions that: (a) DC to furnish a certificate in the prescribed format certifying inter-alia that; o the Developer has either not availed or has refunded all the tax/duty benefits availed under SEZ Act/Rules in respect of the area to be de-notified. o there are either no units in the SEZ or the same have been de-bonded. (b) The State Govt.

refunded all the tax/duty benefits availed under SEZ Act/Rules in respect of the area to be de-notified. o there are either no units in the SEZ or the same have been de-bonded. (b) The State 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.

Page 55 of 156

128.7(i) Proposal of M/s. Tata Steel SEZ Limited (formerly M/s. Gopalpur SEZ Limited) for partial de-notification of 282.7351 Ha out of 588.6514 Ha of their multi product SEZ at Gopalpur, Ganjam, Odisha

Jurisdictional SEZ – Falta SEZ (FSEZ)

Facts of the case:

M/s Tata Steel SEZ Limited has requested for decrease in the SEZ area by de- notifying the area.

Name of Developer
: M/s. Tata Steel SEZ Limited (formerly M/s. Gopalpur SEZ Limited) Location
: Gopalpur, Ganjam, Odisha LoA issued on (date)
: 18.06.2007 (Formal Approval)
Sector
: Multi Product Operational or not
operational
: Operational Notified Area (in Hectares) : 588.6514 Ha.
Area proposed for de- notification (in Hectares)
: 282.7351 Ha.

Reasons for de-notification proposal:

• Investments coming to DTA area

Requisite documents for considering de-notification proposal:

As per DoC’s O.M. dated 14.07.2016 regarding required documents for partial de- notification and the status thereof is as below:

S.
No.

ocuments for considering de-notification proposal:

As per DoC’s O.M. dated 14.07.2016 regarding required documents for partial de- notification and the status thereof is as below:

S.
No.
Documents/Details Required
Status
(i) Form-C5 for decrease in area along with DC’s
recommendation
Yes, provided
(ii) DC’s certificate in prescribed format
Yes (iii) Developer’s Certificate countersigned by DC
Yes, provided
(iv) Land details of the area to be de-notified countersigned by DC Yes, provided
(v) Colored Map of the SEZ clearly indicating area to be de- notified and left-over area duly countersigned by DC
Yes, provided
(vi) “No Objection Certificate” from the State Government w.r.t. instructions issued by DoC vide its instruction No. Yes, Provided

Page 56 of 156

D.12/45/2009-SEZ dated 13.09.2013 for partial de- notification shall be complied with
(vii) ‘No Dues Certificate’ from specified officer
Yes, provided

Key Findings in the Proposal:

1. DC, FSEZ Certification:

a. There are no unit in the SEZ b. The developer has not availed any tax/duty benefits, under the SEZ Act/rules, in r/o the land being de-notified. c. The SEZ shall remain contiguous even after de-notification of the area of 282.7351 Ha and shall meet the minimum land requirement prescribed for the multi product sector which is 50 Ha. d. The State Government has given its ‘No objection’ regarding de-notification of the above state area of the SEZ.

m land requirement prescribed for the multi product sector which is 50 Ha. d. The State Government has given its ‘No objection’ regarding de-notification of the above state area of the SEZ.

2. NOC for De-notification: With regard to NOC from the State Government for de-notification, it has been stated that M/s. TSSEZL for de-notification of a land area of 704.073 acres (284.928 Ha) from SEZ to DTA being developed by Tata Steel Special Economic Zone Limited (TSSEZL) for partial de- notification by Govt. of India. The entire land parcel has been transferred in the name of Tata Steel Special Economic Zone Limited and as a developer, Tata Steel Special Economic Zone Limited has irrevocable rights to develop the said area as SEZ. The area is required to be de-notified from SEZ to sub- lease the land from Tata Steel Special Economic Zone Limited to various industries for setting up their units in the DTA

3. Inspection of Partial De-notification Area: M/s Tata Steel SEZ Limited for partial de-notification of 282.7351 hectares area from their total SEZ area of 588.6514 hectares, and in terms of SEZ Rules, 2006, a committee from O/o Zonal Development Commissioner, Falta Special Economic Zone comprising 2 ADCs, Authorized Officer and Head of Corporate Services of said SEZ visited the subject SEZ on 08.04.2025 and conducted the site inspection. A team from M/s Tata Steel SEZ Limited, headed by Shri Rakesh Patro, Head Corporate Services accompanied during the site inspection.

the subject SEZ on 08.04.2025 and conducted the site inspection. A team from M/s Tata Steel SEZ Limited, headed by Shri Rakesh Patro, Head Corporate Services accompanied during the site inspection. M/s Tata Steel SEZ Limited team briefed about the development activities made in the SEZ

The site inspection report is placed below:

1. Presently two Units namely M/s East Coast oversea Private Limited & M/s Odimet Resources Private Limited are operating in the SEZ and occupying 02 Ac of land each. Further, Four Units namely M/s Avaada GreenH2 Private Limited, M/s Ocior Energy Gopalpur One Private Limited, M/s ACME Clean Energy Private Limited and M/s HHP Five Private Limited have been issued with Letters of Approval for manufacturing of Green Ammonia/ Anhydrous ammonia. Two Units M/s Avaada

Page 57 of 156

GreenH2 Private Limited & M/s ACME Clean Energy Private Limited have been subleased area admeasuring 120 Ac & 130 Ac respectively by the TATA Steel SEZ. The other two Units M/s Ocior Energy Gopalpur One Private Limited & M/s HHP Five Private Limited are in the process of getting subleased areas of 50 Acres & 100 Acres respectively. Rest of the SEZ land is lying vacant since inception and presently in demand as DTA land.

2. There are no Units in the proposed area for partial de-notification.

3. After the proposed partial de-notification, the SEZ land area will be reduced to 305.9163 hectares, and this has been clearly earmarked in the coloured map.

or partial de-notification.

3. After the proposed partial de-notification, the SEZ land area will be reduced to 305.9163 hectares, and this has been clearly earmarked in the coloured map.

4. The said 305.9163 hectares SEZ land remains contiguous and shall meet the minimum land requirement prescribed for the Multi-Product SEZ which is 50 Ha.

Recommendation by DC, FSEZ:

The Development Commissioner, Falta SEZ has recommended the proposal of M/s. Tata Steel SEZ Limited, Gopalpur, Odisha for partial de-notification of land admeasuring 282.7351 hectares, out of 588.6514 hectares for multi-product SEZ at Gopalpur, Dist. Ganjam in the State of Odisha

Page 58 of 156

128.7(ii) M/s. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT) Limited for decrease in area of 36.07 Hectare (89.15 acres i.e. above 10%) and additional increase in area of 7.50 Hectare (18.54 acres i.e. upto 10%) to their existing Multi-product SEZ at Panapakkam Village, Ranipet District, Tamil Nadu, notified area of 81.35 Hectares (201.03 acres).

Jurisdictional SEZ – MEPZ SEZ (MEPZ)

Facts of the case:

Brief background of the SEZ: M/s. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited was granted formal approval on 04.07.2023 for setting up of a Multi-Sector SEZ at Panapakkam Village, Ranipet District, Tamil Nadu. The SEZ was notified vide Gazette notification dated 21.12.2023 over an area of 52.2065 Ha (129 acres).

23 for setting up of a Multi-Sector SEZ at Panapakkam Village, Ranipet District, Tamil Nadu. The SEZ was notified vide Gazette notification dated 21.12.2023 over an area of 52.2065 Ha (129 acres). Later, after the approval of BoA, an additional area of 29.14 Ha was notified and added to the then existing area of the SEZ vide Gazette notification dated 20.02.2024. Now, the total area of SIPCOT SEZ, Panapakkam amount to 81.35 Ha (201.03 acres).

Additional Area/ Partial de-notification proposal: DC, MEPZ SEZ vide the instant proposal has forwarded the following request of the Developer:

i. The increase in area of 7.50 Ha/ 18.54 acres (upto 10%) which is adjacent to their existing notified area of 81.35 Ha (201.03 acres). As regards reasons, during the time of initial notification, the requested additional land was named as Meichal al & Mandeveli (Poromboke land) which was not under possession of SIPCOT, now, the land is free from any encroachment, litigations and is in possession of SIPCOT. ii. The partial de-notification of 36.07 Ha/ 89.15 acres (beyond 10%) out of 81.35 Ha. As regards reasons, SIPCOT has issued in-principle allotment to the extent of 80.93 Ha/200 acres of land under SEZ format to M/s Grand Atlantica Panapakkam SEZ Developers Pvt. Ltd. Now, the company has requested to amend the allotment as 52.602 Ha/ 130 acres of land in SEZ format and remaining 28.32 Ha/ 70 acres as DTA format for setting up of industrial units in both DTA and SEZ for non-leather footwear manufacturing.

llotment as 52.602 Ha/ 130 acres of land in SEZ format and remaining 28.32 Ha/ 70 acres as DTA format for setting up of industrial units in both DTA and SEZ for non-leather footwear manufacturing.

It is also informed that the proposed additional land of 52.78 Ha, after the proposed additional notification and partial denotification, shall bring a substantial FDI in the Non-Leather footwear manufacturing sector and generate additional FDI Investment of ₹ 1000 Crores and will create an employment of 17250 persons which will boost the economic development of the region.

As per DoC’s O.M. dated 14.07.2016, the documents required for additional area notification and partial denotification, the status thereof in the instant case are as below: -

Page 59 of 156

A. Additional area notification

Table A

Note 1:

S. No. Clarification Sought Comments form MEPZ (a) A certificate from the concerned State Government or its authorized agency confirming that the developer possesses irrevocable right to the specified area as an SEZ The concerned State Government has submitted a certificate stating that M/s. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu (SIPCOT), Government of Tamil Nadu, holds "Irrevocable rights" to develop the land area of 52.78 hectares. This certification was issued by the Project Officer of SIPCOT, Panapakkam, and counter signed by Tahsildar of Nemili Taluk, Ranipet District, State Revenue Department.

nd area of 52.78 hectares. This certification was issued by the Project Officer of SIPCOT, Panapakkam, and counter signed by Tahsildar of Nemili Taluk, Ranipet District, State Revenue Department. The land area admeasuring 52.78 Ha with survey no's are free from any encroachment, Litigations and in possession of SIPCOT and the same was certified by Tahsildar, Nemil Taluk, Ranipet District. (b) A copy of the registered lease deed or sale deed for the additional area The additional area of 7.50 hectare is Poromboku land which means the land belongs to Government. Now, the land acquired by M/s. S. No. Documents/Details Required Status (i) Certificate from concerned State Government or its authorized agency stating that the developer has irrevocable rights to the said area as SEZ. Yes, provided, comments of Zone may be seen at Note 1 (a) (ii) Form-C4 along with DC’s recommendation Yes, provided (iii) Inspection Report in prescribed format Yes, provided (iv) Developer’s Certificate Countersigned by DC Yes, provided (v) Legal Possession Certificate from Revenue Authorities Yes, provided
(vi) Non-Encumbrance Certificate from Revenue Authorities Yes, provided (vii) Land details of the area (with clearly specified survey numbers) to be notified duly certified by revenue authorities Yes, provided
(ix) Colored Map clearly indicating Survey numbers and duly certified by revenue authorities Yes, provided (comments of Zone may be seen at Note 2 (a))
(x) Copy of Registered Lease/Sale deed Not provided, comments

ly indicating Survey numbers and duly certified by revenue authorities Yes, provided (comments of Zone may be seen at Note 2 (a))
(x) Copy of Registered Lease/Sale deed Not provided, comments from Zone may be seen at Note 1 (b)

Page 60 of 156

SIPCOT, owned by Government of Tamil Nadu and the Patta for the same land has been transferred in the name of SIPCOT. The particular land details with survey no's has dully signed by Project officer, SIPCOT Panapakkam and Land Tahsildar (State Revenue Department) Nemili Taluk, Ranipet district. Hence, Registered lease deed or sale deed for the additional area is not applicable.

B. Partial denotification

Table B

Note 2: S. No. Clarification Sought Comments form MEPZ (a) Clarification on the area marked in "Blue" on the enclosed coloured map of the SEZ, specifying whether this area is officially part of the SEZ or remains classified as government property. The blue colour is used to mark the water body officially included within the SEZ. This designation is due to the specific survey number, which is intended solely for the purpose of establishing and supplying water to the units within the SEZ. The particular survey no's has exclusively part of the SEZ. The Developer (SIPCOT) has clarified that this particular land parcel is not allocated to any other units for commercial or industrial purposes. As a result, it is marked with a S. No. Documents/Details Required Status (i) Form-C5 for decrease in area along with DC’s recommendation.

units for commercial or industrial purposes. As a result, it is marked with a S. No. Documents/Details Required Status (i) Form-C5 for decrease in area along with DC’s recommendation. Yes, provided (ii) DC certificate in prescribed format Yes, provided (iii) Developer’s Certificate countersigned by DC Yes, provided (iv) Land details of the area to be de-notified countersigned by DC Yes, provided (v) Colored Map of the SEZ clearly indicating area to be de- notified and left over area duly countersigned by DC. Yes, provided (comments of Zone may be seen at Note 2 (a))
(vi) “No-Objection Certificate” from state government w.r.t. instructions issued vide by DoC vide its instruction No. D.12/45/2009-SEZ dated 13.09.2013 for partial de- notification shall be complied with. Yes, provided (vii) ‘No Dues Certificate’ from specified officer. Yes, provided

Page 61 of 156

distinct colour within the SEZ boundaries.

In compliance of DoC’s Instruction No.102 dated 18.11.2019 regarding physical inspection and contiguity condition; physical inspection was conducted on 05.02.2025 by DDC, MEPZ SEZ in the presence of Tahsildar, Nemli Taluk; Revenue Inspector, Panapakkam; VAO, Agavalam Village; VAO, Panapakkam and Nedumbuli Village; and Project Officer, Panapakkam. As per the report, the Developer fulfills the Contiguity condition stipulated under Rule 5 (Read with Rule 7) of the SEZ Rules, 2006.

Recommendation by DC, MEPZ.

DC, MEPZ has recommended the proposals

eport, the Developer fulfills the Contiguity condition stipulated under Rule 5 (Read with Rule 7) of the SEZ Rules, 2006.

Recommendation by DC, MEPZ.

DC, MEPZ has recommended the proposals

Page 62 of 156

128.7(iii) Proposal of M/s. ELCOT Limited for partial de-notification of 2.3997 Ha out of 80.8810 Ha of their IT/ITES SEZ at Gangaikondan Village, Tirunelveli Taluk & District, Tamil Nadu

Jurisdictional SEZ – MPEZ SEZ

Facts of the case:

M/s. ELCOT Limited has requested for decrease in the SEZ area by de-notifying the area.

Name of Developer
: M/s. ELCOT Limited Location
: Gangaikondan Village, Tirunelveli Taluk & District, Tamil Nadu LoA issued on (date)
: 26.07.2007 (Formal Approval)
Sector
: IT/ITES
Operational or not
operational
: Operational Notified Area (in Hectares) : 80.8810 Ha.
Area proposed for de- notification (in Hectares)
: 2.3997 Ha.

Reasons for de-notification proposal: ELCOT have informed that, currently there are requirements arising from reputed companies for allotment of land for Non IT and Non SEZ purposes. Hence, ELCOT have proposed to de-notify a partial land for allotment to Non SEZ category companies. Also, ELCOT have undertaken to pay the applicable taxes and duties if availed in respect of the above said land proposed for denotification. ELCOT have also submitted that post denotification, the land will not be utilized for any other use.

Requisite documents for considering de-notification proposal:

As per DoC’s O.M.

fication. ELCOT have also submitted that post denotification, the land will not be utilized for any other use.

Requisite documents for considering de-notification proposal:

As per DoC’s O.M. dated 14.07.2016 regarding required documents for partial de- notification and the status thereof is as below:

S.
No.
Documents/Details Required
Status
(i) Form-C5 for decrease in area along with DC’s
recommendation
Yes, provided
(ii) DC’s certificate in prescribed format
Yes (iii) Developer’s Certificate countersigned by DC
Yes, provided
(iv) Land details of the area to be de-notified countersigned by DC Yes, provided
(v) Colored Map of the SEZ clearly indicating area to be de- notified and left-over area duly countersigned by DC
Yes, provided
(vi) “No Objection Certificate” from the State Government Yes, Provided

Page 63 of 156

w.r.t. instructions issued by DoC vide its instruction No. D.12/45/2009-SEZ dated 13.09.2013 for partial de- notification shall be complied with
(vii) ‘No Dues Certificate’ from specified officer
Yes, provided

Key Findings in the Proposal:

1. DC, MEPZ Certification:

e. There are no unit in the area proposed to be de-notified in the SEZ f. The developer has not availed any tax/duty benefits, under the SEZ Act/rules, in r/o the land being de-notified. g. The SEZ shall remain contiguous even after de-notification of the area of 2.3997 Ha and shall meet the minimum land requirement prescribed for the SEZ. h.

, in r/o the land being de-notified. g. The SEZ shall remain contiguous even after de-notification of the area of 2.3997 Ha and shall meet the minimum land requirement prescribed for the SEZ. h. The land details with survey no’s for the partial de-notification and a coloured map of the SEZ showing the area to be de-notified has duly countersigned by DC. i. The State Government has given its ‘No objection’ regarding de-notification of the above stated area of the SEZ. 2. Inspection of Partial De-notification Area:

In compliance of Instruction No 102 dated on 18-11-2019, issued by Department of Commerce, New Delhi, the proposed SEZ area of M/s. ELCOT Limited, Developer of the SEZ located at Gangaikondan Village, Tirunelveli Taluk and District, Tamil Nadu, was inspected on 25.02.2025 by DDC, MEPZ in presence of

S. No. Name of the Official Shri/Smt. Position 1 Shri R. Manickavasagam Tahsildar 2 Smt. S. Jeyanthi Revenue Inspector 3 Smt. S. Nishana Firka Surveyor 4 Shri C. Ponnumuthu Village Administrative Officer

The area notified in SEZ on 08.09.2022 is 80.8810 Hectare (199.86 acres) out of which the area proposed for denotification is 2.3997 Hectare (5.93 acres). After de- notification, the total area of ELCOT SEZ, Gangaikondan, Tirunelveli, Multisector SEZ, amounts to 78.4813 Hectare (193.93 acres) and ELCOT Limited (Developer) of the SEZ fulfils the Contiguity conditions stipulated under Rule 7of SEZ Rules, 2006.

kondan, Tirunelveli, Multisector SEZ, amounts to 78.4813 Hectare (193.93 acres) and ELCOT Limited (Developer) of the SEZ fulfils the Contiguity conditions stipulated under Rule 7of SEZ Rules, 2006.

In view of the above foregone, DC, MEPZ satisfied that, the Developer of the SEZ meets the parameter required as per SEZ Rules, 2006, after inspecting, the total area of 78.4813 Hectare for setting up of "ELCOT Multisector SEZ "at Gangaikondan Village, Tirunelveli Taluk and District, Tamil Nadu 627352.

Page 64 of 156

Recommendation by DC, MEPZ:

The proposal for de-notification of 2.3997 hectares is recommended by DC, MEPZ SEZ.

Page 65 of 156

128.7(iv) Proposal of M/s. Infosys Limited IT SEZ for partial de- notification of 20.234 Ha out of 52.643 Ha of their IT/ITES SEZ at Scheme No. 151 & 169B, Village Tigariya Badshah and Bada Bangarda, near Super Corridor, Tehsil Hatod, Indore (M.P.)

Jurisdictional SEZ – Indore SEZ (ISEZ)

Facts of the case:

M/s. Infosys Limited has requested for decrease in the SEZ area by de-notifying the area.

Name of Developer
: M/s. Infosys Limited Location
: Scheme No. 151 & 169B, Village Tigariya Badshah and Bada Bangarda, near Super Corridor, Tehsil Hatod, Indore (M.P.) LoA issued on (date)
: 27.03.2012 (Formal Approval)
Sector
: IT/ITES
Operational or not
operational
: Operational Notified Area (in Hectares) : 52.643 Ha.
Area proposed for de- notification (in Hectares)
: 20.234 Ha.

al Approval)
Sector
: IT/ITES
Operational or not
operational
: Operational Notified Area (in Hectares) : 52.643 Ha.
Area proposed for de- notification (in Hectares)
: 20.234 Ha.

Reasons for de-notification proposal: They have completed Phase 1 milestone and due to various challenges including un-precedented pandemic situation and lockdowns, resulted in uncertainty regarding Phase 2 and Phase 3 development/completion in terms of Principal Lease Deed. Further the said situation also led to Hybrid Operating model as a norm for IT industry and consequently we are contemplating optimization of allotted land to us to create conducive IT eco-system for other prospective companies. Hence, we have surrendered the portion of unutilized land.

Requisite documents for considering de-notification proposal:

As per DoC’s O.M. dated 14.07.2016 regarding required documents for partial de- notification and the status thereof is as below:

S.
No.
Documents/Details Required
Status
(i) Form-C5 for decrease in area along with DC’s
recommendation
Yes, provided
(ii) DC’s certificate in prescribed format
Yes, provided (iii) Developer’s Certificate countersigned by DC
Yes, provided

ase in area along with DC’s
recommendation
Yes, provided
(ii) DC’s certificate in prescribed format
Yes, provided (iii) Developer’s Certificate countersigned by DC
Yes, provided

Page 66 of 156

(iv) Land details of the area to be de-notified countersigned by DC Yes, provided
(v) Colored Map of the SEZ clearly indicating area to be de- notified and left-over area duly countersigned by DC
Yes, provided
(vi) “No Objection Certificate” from the State Government w.r.t. instructions issued by DoC vide its instruction No. D.12/45/2009-SEZ dated 13.09.2013 for partial de- notification shall be complied with
Yes, Provided (vii) ‘No Dues Certificate’ from specified officer
Yes, provided

Key Findings in the Proposal:

DC, Indore Certification:

j. There are no unit in the land being de-notified
k. The developer had availed the tax/duty benefits amounting to Rs. 40.01.242/- towards 1322 meters of boundary wall constructed on the land which has been demolished, under the SEZ Act/Rules, and has deposited the said duty amount vide TR-6 challan dated 11.03.2024. l. The SEZ shall remain contiguous even after de-notification of the area of 20.234 Ha
m. The land details for de-notification and a coloured map of the SEZ showing the area being de-notified, duly countersigned by DC. n. Note applicable o. All conditions subject to which the BoA has granted the approval for de- notification of the above area of the SEZ have been fulfilled to DC satisfaction p.

ntersigned by DC. n. Note applicable o. All conditions subject to which the BoA has granted the approval for de- notification of the above area of the SEZ have been fulfilled to DC satisfaction p. The State Government has given its “No Objection” regarding, de-notification of the above stated area of the SEZ.

NOC for De-notification: Government of Madhya Pradesh has recommended the proposal

Inspection of Partial De-notification Area:

In compliance of Instruction No 102 dated on 18-11-2019, issued by Department of Commerce, New Delhi, the proposed SEZ area of M/s. Infosys Limited, Developer of the SEZ located at Scheme No. 151 & 169B, Village Tigariya Badshah and Bada Bangarda, near Super Corridor, Tehsil Hatod, Indore (M.P.), was inspected on 25.03.2025 by the Revenue Authorities viz Ms. Nidhi Verma, SDM (Revenue), Sh. Shewal Singh, Tehsildar and Sh. Mayank Chaturvedi, Patwari, Sh. D.K. Saraf, General Manager, Madhya Pradesh State Electronic Development Corporation (MPSEDC) Ltd. and Sh. Santosh Kumar, Specified Officer and Sh. Ravi Chhangani, ADC, Indore SEZ along with representatives of the Developer Sh. Santosh Kamath and Sh. Yogendra Parmar. A land area statement duly certified by the SDM, Tehsildar, MPSEDC Ltd. and Developer representatives with a copy of panchnama is

tives of the Developer Sh. Santosh Kamath and Sh. Yogendra Parmar. A land area statement duly certified by the SDM, Tehsildar, MPSEDC Ltd. and Developer representatives with a copy of panchnama is

Page 67 of 156

enclosed. The State Government has also issued NOC for partial de-notification of the land and the de-notified land would be utilized to sub-serve the objective of the SEZ and Master Plan of the State Government

Recommendation by DC, Indore SEZ

DC, Indore SEZ has recommended the proposal.

Page 68 of 156

Agenda item no. 128.8:

Request for setting up of new SEZ [1 proposal 128.8(i)]

Relevant provisions under the SEZ law: -

• Rule 5. Requirements for establishment of a Special Economic Zone. –
(1) The Board may approve as such or modify and approve a proposal for establishment of a Special Economic Zone, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (8) of section 3, subject to the requirements of minimum area of land and other terms and conditions indicated in sub-rule (2).

ecial Economic Zone, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (8) of section 3, subject to the requirements of minimum area of land and other terms and conditions indicated in sub-rule (2).

(2) The requirements of minimum area of land for a class or classes of Special Economic Zone in terms of subsection (8) of section 3 shall be the following, namely:

(a)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:
Provided that in case a Special Economic Zone is proposed to be set up in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, Tripura, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Goa or in a Union territory, the area shall be twenty-five hectares or more.

(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: SL.No.1 Categoryof cities as perAnnexure IV A Minimumbuilt up area requirement (1) (2) (3) 1. Category'A' 1,00,000sq mts 2. Category'B' 50,000sq mts 3. Category'C' 25,000sq mts

(c)The minimum processing area in any Special Economic Zone cannot be less than fifty per cent.

(3) 1. Category'A' 1,00,000sq mts 2. Category'B' 50,000sq mts 3. Category'C' 25,000sq mts

(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.

(d)All existing notified Special Economic Zone shall be deemed to be a multi-sector Special Economic Zone.

Explanation. For the purpose of this clause, a "multi-sector Special Economic Zone"

Page 69 of 156

means a Special Economic Zone for more than one sector where Units may be setup for manufacture of goods falling in two or more sectors or rendering of services falling in two or more sectors or any combination thereof including trading and warehousing.

• Rule 7. Details to be furnished for issue of notification for declaration of an area as Special Economic Zone. –

(1) The Developer shall furnish to the Central Government, particulars required under sub-section (1) of section 4 with regard to the area referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) of section 3 (hereinafter referred to as identified area), with a certificate from the concerned State Government or its authorized agency stating that the Developer(s) have legal possession and irrevocable rights to develop the said area as SEZ and that the said area is free from all encumbrances: Provided that where the Developer has leasehold rights over the identified area, the lease shall be for a period not less than twenty years.

and that the said area is free from all encumbrances: Provided that where the Developer has leasehold rights over the identified area, the lease shall be for a period not less than twenty years.

Page 70 of 156

128.8(i) Proposal of M/s. Rackbank Datacenters Pvt Limited for setting up of a SEZ for IT/ITES for Al Data Center at Plot No.CF7, Sector- 22, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh over an area of 2.70 Hectares

Jurisdictional SEZ – Visakhapatnam SEZ (VSEZ)

Brief facts of the case:

The status of documents required for setting up of a new SEZ for consideration of the BoA and grant of LoA are as follows: -

S. No. Conditions / Documents required Status A. Documents required for setting up of SEZ in terms of Rule 3 of SEZ Rules, 2006:

(i) Completed Form-A (with enclosures)

A. Total Proposed investment : Rs. 1754.41 lakhs B. FDI (in US $) : Nil C. Proposed Exports (5 years) : 1169.88
lakhs D. Employment (in Nos.) : 91 (both Direct/ Indirect)

Yes, provided (ii) DC’s Inspection Report
Yes, provided (iii) State Government’s Recommendation Secretary, Deptt. of Commerce & Industries, Govt. of Chhattisgarh has recommended the proposal. (iv) Recommendation for National Security Clearance (NSC) from Ministry of Home Affairs as per Rule 3 of SEZ Rules, 2006.

rce & Industries, Govt. of Chhattisgarh has recommended the proposal. (iv) Recommendation for National Security Clearance (NSC) from Ministry of Home Affairs as per Rule 3 of SEZ Rules, 2006. A self-declaration certificate from the Developer confirming that the proposed SEZ is neither located in the vicinity of 50 Kms from LoC/LAC/International Border nor in proximity of nuclear, space, defence installations etc. The developer is not in receipt of any foreign investment from any tax haven for the proposed SEZ. B. Minimum area requirement in terms of Rule 5 of SEZ Rules, 2006. There is no minimum area stipulated for IT/ITES SEZ C. Details to be furnished in terms of Rule 7 of SEZ Rules, 2006:

(i) Certificate from the concerned State Government or its authorised agency stating Possession Certificate dated 15.04.2025.

Page 71 of 156

that the Developer has: • Legal Possession, and • Irrevocable rights to develop the said area as SEZ, and • That the said area is free from all encumbrance. (ii) Whether the Developer has leasehold right over the identified area. The lease shall be for a period not less than twenty years. (iii) The identified area shall be Contiguous, Vacant and No thoroughfare. In the Inspection Report, JDC has stated that the lands are Vacant, Contiguous and there is no public throughfare.

In terms of DoC’s Instruction No. 102 dated 18.11.2019, a Joint Physical Inspection of the site was carried out on 16.04.2025 by JDC and ADCs VSEZ alongwith Smt. Sangeeta Agarwal, Dy.

oughfare.

In terms of DoC’s Instruction No. 102 dated 18.11.2019, a Joint Physical Inspection of the site was carried out on 16.04.2025 by JDC and ADCs VSEZ alongwith Smt. Sangeeta Agarwal, Dy. Collector, Shri Arvind Sharma, Dy. Collector, Smt. Priyanka Dhiwar, Tehsildar. The following are as under: -

It is observed that the lands measuring an area of 2.70 Hectares have been proposed for setting up Of Special Economic Zone at Plot No, CFL Sector-22, Nava Raipur, Ata; Nagar - 492002, Chhattisgarh for IT/ITES for Development of Al Data Center including development of infrastructure such as ready to use buildings other service units, utilities. roads etc and other allied infrastructure development by M/s. Rackbank Datacenters private Limited, 37 Shanti Nagan Manoramaganj, Indore, Madhya Pradesh-452001.

The records/documents and coloured maps submitted during the inspection have been verified and observed that the land proposed for setting up Of SEZ measuring an area of 2.70 Hectares is owned by Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran (Special Area Development Authority Established by Government of Chhattisgarh) and the same were allotted to Ws. Rackbank Datacenters private Limited by way of Notice of Award,

As per the Registered Lease cum Development Agreement dated: 20.03.2025, the land has been allotted to M/s. Rackbank Datacenters Private Limited on lease basis for a period of 90 years. An area measuring 13.37 Acres has been allotted on lease basis and out of which an area of 2.70 Hectares has been proposed for Setting up of SEZ.

e Limited on lease basis for a period of 90 years. An area measuring 13.37 Acres has been allotted on lease basis and out of which an area of 2.70 Hectares has been proposed for Setting up of SEZ. The lands proposed for SEZ are in the possession of the Developer and are free from encumbrance, the lands measuring an area of 2.70 Hectares proposed for SEZ are vacant without any public through fare.

As per the possession certificate dated: 15.04.2025 issued by Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran the lands measuring an area of 2.70 Hectares which are proposed for setting up of IT/ITES SEZ for Development of Al Data Center SEZ are in the possession of the Developer.

Page 72 of 156

The lands proposed for setting up of IT/ITES SEZ for Development of Al Data Center are free from encumbrance and the entire land of 2.70 Hectares is vacant and there is no public through fare passing through the lands proposed for SEZ. The lands are contiguous.

Recommendation by DC, VSEZ:

        DC, VSEZ has recommended the proposal for its consideration by the BoA.

gh fare passing through the lands proposed for SEZ. The lands are contiguous.

Recommendation by DC, VSEZ:

        DC, VSEZ has recommended the proposal for its consideration by the BoA.

Page 73 of 156

Agenda Item No.128.9:

Appeal [5 cases: 128.9(i) to 128.9(v)]

Rule position: - In terms of the rule 55 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Approval Committee under section 15 or against cancellation of Letter of Approval under section 16, may prefer an appeal to the Board in the Form J.

Further, in terms of rule 56, an appeal shall be preferred by the aggrieved person within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of the Approval Committee under rule 18. Furthermore, if the Board is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the aforesaid period, it may for reasons to be recorded in writing, admit the appeal after the expiry of the aforesaid period but before the expiry of forty-five days from the date of communication to him of the order of the Approval Committee.

128.9(i) Appeal filed by M/s. VJP Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. against the Order-in-Original dated 18.11.2024 passed by DC, MEPZ SEZ regarding cancellation of license to operate the FTWZ at NDR Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.

128.9(ii) Appeal filed by M/s. VJP Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. against the Order-in-Original dated 18.11.2024 passed by DC, MEPZ SEZ regarding cancellation of request to set up a SEZ unit in New Chennai Township Pvt. Ltd.

support the case of the appellant
20. The findings recorded by the learned respondent in para 24 of the impugned order clearly evidence to the fact that he was acting in terms of the suggestions

Page 79 of 156

issued by the Ministry of Commerce purely concerning the verification of antecedents for approving new units and monitoring existing units and that too for the reason of the recent growing trend of DTA supplies and increased in the import of risky consignments involving mis-declaration of description and value by unscrupulous CHA's and their clients thus only sounding a caution to carry out proper antecedent verification whereas the learned respondent had beyond the said suggestion to rely upon certain cases registered against their clients leading to issue of the show cause notice to the said clients and to them in their capacity as their Customs Broker even when the proceedings initiated against them under the CBLR relied upon in support of the issue of the impugned order _ stood set aside making the said order totally devoid of any merits

PRAYER:

The appellant prayed for the following:

1. The learned appellate authorities may be pleased to consider their submissions judiciously and sympathetically.
2. The learned appellate authorities may be pleased to set aside the impugned order and restore their license to operate the FTWZ at NDR Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.

udiciously and sympathetically. 2. The learned appellate authorities may be pleased to set aside the impugned order and restore their license to operate the FTWZ at NDR Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. 3. The learned appellate authorities may also direct the respondent to grant them the permission to run the FTWZ unit at New Chennai Township Pvt Ltd., IT- ITES as per their application dated 13,96.2024 and render justice

INPUTS RECEIVED FROM DC, MEPZ SEZ:

1. M/s VJP Shipping India Pvt Ltd operates as an FTWZ unit in the NDR Free Trade Warehouse Zone (FTWZ) in Tamil Nadu, with a Letter of Approval (LoA) dated 03.05.2021 from the Development Commissioner, MEPZ-SEZ, for trading and warehousing services.
2. A consignment from M/s Samyga International, Chennai, declared as "Printer Accessories," was investigated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in 2022.
3. The investigation revealed violations of the Customs Act, including misdeclaration and misuse of the Importer Exporter Code (IEC), resulting in the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) to M/s VJP Shipping, its employees, and directors.
4. Further, M/s VJP Shipping’s Customs Broker License was suspended due to irregularities in various import transactions, with the suspension continued by an order dated 21.05.2024.
5. Meanwhile on 13.06.2024, M/s VJP Shipping applied for approval to set up a new FTWZ unit at New Chennai Townships Pvt Ltd SEZ in Kancheepuram. The said proposal was placed before the Unit Approval Committee (UAC) on 08.07.2024. UAC had found that M/s VJP Shipping had

a new FTWZ unit at New Chennai Townships Pvt Ltd SEZ in Kancheepuram. The said proposal was placed before the Unit Approval Committee (UAC) on 08.07.2024. UAC had found that M/s VJP Shipping had

Page 80 of 156

submitted false information regarding their antecedents and issued SCNs. As a result, the UAC rejected the proposal on 08.07.2024. 6. Later on 08.08.2024, M/s VJP Shipping was issued a Show Cause Notice regarding the cancellation of their LoA, of their unit in the NDR Free Trade Warehouse Zone (FTWZ) in Tamil Nadu, due to violations of SEZ Act provisions. M/s VJP Shipping responded, denying any contraventions and reiterated their position in written submissions on 24.10.2024. 7. Subsequently, the Development Commissioner issued an order on 11.11.2024, finding that M/s VJP Shipping violated LoA conditions and Bond cum Legal Undertaking (BLUT). Accordingly, a penalty of ₹10,000 was imposed, and the cancellation of the LoA was recommended to the UAC. Based on the recommendation of Development commissioner, the UAC approved the cancellation of the LoA of their unit in the NDR Free Trade Warehouse Zone (FTWZ) on 18.11.2024 and also rejected the proposal for a new FTWZ unit at New Chennai Townships Pvt Ltd SEZ. 8. M/s VJP Shipping has filed an instant appeal before the Board of Approval (BOA) against the Development Commissioner’s decision to cancel the LoA issued to their NDR SEZ unit. The appellant prays for the restoration of the license to operate their FTWZ at NDR SEZ.

roval (BOA) against the Development Commissioner’s decision to cancel the LoA issued to their NDR SEZ unit. The appellant prays for the restoration of the license to operate their FTWZ at NDR SEZ. The appellant also seeks the reversal of the UAC’s decision to reject the proposal to set up the FTWZ unit at New Chennai Township Pvt Ltd SEZ.
9. M/s VJP Shipping is claiming that they did not contravene any conditions or obligations under the SEZ Act and asserts that the Show Cause Notice and the subsequent orders are unwarranted. They also argue that the false information regarding antecedents was unintentional or had no material impact on the application process.

Para-wise comments:

Para No. Ground of the Appeal Comments of the zone 1 The impugned order passed by the learned respondent herein and as approved by the UAC is totally unjust, unfair, unreasonable, weight of evidence contrary to law and therefore ex-facie illegal besides being violative of the principles of natural justice and hence not sustainable and liable to be vacated in the interest of justice The impugned order passed by the Development commissioner is based on the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the law.

sustainable and liable to be vacated in the interest of justice The impugned order passed by the Development commissioner is based on the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the law.

2 The impugned order passed by the learned respondent and approved by the UAC suffers from gross violations to the principles of natural justice as the said respondent did not at all consider any of the subtle grounds The appellant was issued with a show cause notice and given sufficient time and opportunity to reply to the SCN and was offered with an opportunity to contest his case before the adjudicating authority through personal hearing.

Page 81 of 156

canvassed by them both in their reply and in the written submission filed by them which warrant his order to be vacated in limini Further all their contention raised in their written as well as oral submissions are discussed and negated in the facts and evidence of the case and the impugned order is a speaking order.

imini Further all their contention raised in their written as well as oral submissions are discussed and negated in the facts and evidence of the case and the impugned order is a speaking order.

3 The learned respondent further ought to have considered that when the notice issued to them had only alleged that they had contravened the provisions of invoked rule 18 [51 of te SEZ Rules and the instructions issued in the year 2010 which provisions only authorised and permitted them to hold the goods in their licensed unit on account of the foreign or the DTA suppliers for dispatches as per the owner's instructions and for trading, making- its invocation possible read with the LOA and the Bond cum undertaking if they had unreasonably refused to hold the goods on behalf of any foreign or D TA suppliers, or undertook any unauthorised operations relating to the said goods in their warehouse or not achieving the norms prescribed which alone could be said to be contrary to the LOA or the bond cum undertaking furnished by them whereas the impugned order finding no answer to the said ground and in fact admitting to the said position of law in para 18 of the impugned order unreasonably and as an afterthought had citing violation of condition no.

finding no answer to the said ground and in fact admitting to the said position of law in para 18 of the impugned order unreasonably and as an afterthought had citing violation of condition no. 1 of the bond cum legal undertaking and condition x of the LOA without even being aware that the stipulation therein is a general clause binding them to observe the SEZ Act and the rules framed thereunder in respect of the goods for the authorised operation and which by no stretch of imagination could attract the facts relied in support of the notice namely the so-called investigation carried out Rule 18(5) of SEZ Rules read with Instruction 60/2010 clearly provides for holding goods by the Unit holder, on behalf of Foreign supplier & buyer and DTA supplier & buyer. Whereas, the appellant in respect of subject goods, did not do so. The said goods were disowned by M/s. Samyga International who is shown as importer of the goods as per the Tokha No. No. 1003244 dated 11.10.2022 filed by the appellant. Further it is observed from statement recorded from the actual IEC holder Shri Mydeen Gane during the investigation by DRI that he has not imported any of those consignment, and that no payment to any of the supplier had been made from the account of the IEC holder and the IEC holder has also not given the KYC or authorisation to the noticee to act as his agent and to hold his goods in the unit. Further this fact has not at all been denied by the appellant either before the adjudicating authority or in the present appeal.

he noticee to act as his agent and to hold his goods in the unit. Further this fact has not at all been denied by the appellant either before the adjudicating authority or in the present appeal. Hence, the fact of holding of goods, which was not pertaining to the alleged importer/buyer - viz., M/s. Samygya, by the appellant is undisputed. Thereby they have clearly violated Rule 18(5) of SEZ Rules read with Instruction 60/2010.

Page 82 of 156

by the DRI that too concerning their performance as a customs broker as the sole reason for the draconian action against them depriving them and their employees of their livelihood believing the version of the DRI as gospel truth for the sole reason of which alone the impugned order merits to be set aside in limini 4 The learned respondent also erred in not correctly appreciating the express provisions contained in Sec. 16 of the SEZ Act invoked by him which uses the terms persistently contravened any of the terms and conditions or its obligations subject to which the letter of approval was granted making it amply and unambiguously, clear that his power to cancel the LOA could be exercised only when it is shown that they have not fulfilled the obligation undertaken in terms of the LOA namely achievement of the value addition and that too repeatedly and not for a single violation and therefore also the impugned order passed by the respondent being beyond the statutory mandate as provided under Sec.

value addition and that too repeatedly and not for a single violation and therefore also the impugned order passed by the respondent being beyond the statutory mandate as provided under Sec. 16 of the SEZ Act cannot be sustained on account of total abuse of powers conferred on the said authority under the Act and exceeding his authority, for the reason of which also the impugned order merit to be set aside The appellant has been a habitual violator of law as seen from the facts given in table A of para 11 of the impugned Order No in F.No. 8/208/2021/NDR FTWZ dated 11.11.2024. Further, even in respect of M/s. Samyga International, Chennai, the appellant had handled two consignments, one on 25.07.2024 and another on 30.09.2024. Hence it is obvious that the appellant persistently held and cleared goods in the name of M/s. Samyga International without their (IEC holder’s) involvement, consent and ownership. The appellant, using an unconnected/ unauthorised IEC operated, imported and cleared their (appellant’s) own goods and thus supply of the goods to the Domestic Tariff Area have been made in violation of the provisions of the Instruction 60 dated 06.07.2010 read with Rule 18(5) of SEZ Rules. 5 The learned respondent also failed to recognize that the various provisions of the SEZ Act and the rules made thereunder invoked by him namely Sec.

07.2010 read with Rule 18(5) of SEZ Rules. 5 The learned respondent also failed to recognize that the various provisions of the SEZ Act and the rules made thereunder invoked by him namely Sec. 16, 21, or 25 of the SEZ Act and rules 18 [5] or 54 [21 of the SEZ Rules which only concerned either certain general provision for administration of the Act, more particularly for monitoring. and enforcing the obligation to achieve value addition undertaken by a unit in the SEZ [refer Section 16, 21 and 25 of SEZ Act and Rule 18(5) of SEZ Rules are not just administrative provisions; they are enforceable provisions. Any provision of law is for compliance and violation of them obviously warrants action by the authority. If it is not done so then the law becomes infructuous. Further it is stated that SEZ Act and Rules not only aims at monitoring and enforcing the obligations to achieve value addition but also provides to check for violations

law becomes infructuous. Further it is stated that SEZ Act and Rules not only aims at monitoring and enforcing the obligations to achieve value addition but also provides to check for violations

Page 83 of 156

rule 54] and never provided for any violations with regard to either the customs Act or the FTDR Act the order passed based on facts not relating to the said obligation to achieve specified value addition undertaken by them renders the impugned proceedings void ab-initio and redundant for want of jurisdiction under ‘’ notified offences” in terms of Rule 21 of SEZ Rules. As seen from Notification issued by the Department of Commerce vide S.O. No.77 (E) dated 13.01.2010 and S.O.No.2665(E) dated 05.08.2016, it is clear that the offences punishable/ covered under FT (DR) Act, 1992 and Customs Act 1962 are notified as offenses under SEZ Act, 2005 and violation committed under customs Act and FT(D&R) Act are very much sustainable under SEZ Act. Hence commission of notified offences is also inextricably linked to violation of terms of conditions under which LOA is issued. Thus it can be said that the order passed for violation of notified offense is legally tenable. 6 The learned respondent further Committed total injustice to them by passing the impugned order depriving the appellant and their employees of their livelihood resulting gross violation to their fundamental right guaranteed under Art.

otal injustice to them by passing the impugned order depriving the appellant and their employees of their livelihood resulting gross violation to their fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19 [1] [g] of the Constitution of India to carry on any trade or profession in as much as the reasons recorded in the impugned order and approved by the UAC is totally improper unreasonable biased and therefore unjustified Article 19(1)(g) states: "All citizens of India have the right to practice
any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business."

However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) is not unfettered and must be exercised in a lawful manner. In other words, the right to carry on business cannot be used to justify or cover up unlawful activities, such as tax evasion, money laundering, or other illegal practices. To sum up, the right to carry on business cannot be used to justify an unlawful act and hence SEZ Unit’s contention is not tenable.

As already stated, it is clearly established by the investigation that the appellant had handled their own goods in the name of M/s. Samyga International, who (M/s. Samyga) had categorically stated under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 that they have not imported subject goods and also not

own goods in the name of M/s. Samyga International, who (M/s. Samyga) had categorically stated under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 that they have not imported subject goods and also not

Page 84 of 156

authorised the appellant to use their IEC. Further the appellant has manipulated and forged the signature of Shri. Gane, the proprietor of M/s. Samyga International. It is well settled law that fraudsters cannot claim rights under law. 7 The learned respondent before invoking notification no. S.O. 77 [E] dated 13.01.2010 and notification S.O. No. 2665 [E} dated 05.08.2016 which are notifications issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec 21 of the SEZ for notifying single enforcement officer or agency for taking action against notified offences and that too by observing that their contention that violations committed under the rules are not sustainable under the SEZ Act which was never their contention whereas their contention was that the offences alleged against them invoking the customs provisions for which the notice has been issued to them by the customs authority in respect of the goods imported by their customer Samyga International cannot result in making the specific allegation of violation of rule 18 [5] of the SEZ rules read with the instruction issued in 2010 and which by no stretch of imagination could be got over by citing the above notifications issued for the purpose of notifying the specified offences and the single enforcing agency only and not as assumed and recorded by the learned

uld be got over by citing the above notifications issued for the purpose of notifying the specified offences and the single enforcing agency only and not as assumed and recorded by the learned respondent in the impugned order Once the goods are attempted to be cleared into DTA, all the provisions of Customs Act are applicable to the goods and to the Unit holder and the violations committed in the subject case by the Unit Holder falls under the notified offences of SEZ Act and hence violation committed under FT(D&R) Act and Customs Act is punishable (sustainable) under SEZ Act. 8 The learned respondent further committed gross judicial improprietory in traversing beyond the show cause notice issued to them so as to record certain self-serving incorrect and extraneous findings to sustain the impugned order against them which per-se renders the order This is a general ground devoid of any specific instance and evidences and hence warrants no comments.

aneous findings to sustain the impugned order against them which per-se renders the order This is a general ground devoid of any specific instance and evidences and hence warrants no comments.

Page 85 of 156

totally devoid of merits and unsustainable 9 The fact that the learned respondent and his committee have now given up their objection on non-furnishing of the correct information with regard to their KYC and have only placed reliance on -the fact of cancellation of their LOA granted to them for operating at the NDR FTWZ Nandhiyambakkam Village Minjur Panchayat Ponneri Taluk Tiruvallur District in the state of Tamil Nadu as the reason for rejecting their application to set up the new FTWZ unit at the New Chennai Township Pvt Ltd., IT-ITES is also not proper or sustainable more so because the cancellation of the LOA is not proper or correct As discussed above, the cancellation of LOA granted to M/s VJP shipping at NDR is legal and proper and there is nothing wrong to reject the application of VJP Shipping to set up the FTWZ Unit at New Chennai Township Pvt ltd on the ground of cancellation of LOA at NDR- SEZ.

When a Letter of Approval (LoA) of an SEZ unit is cancelled, it typically nullifies the unit's privileges and benefits under the SEZ scheme. As a consequence, the cancellation of the LoA would also impact the unit's ability to set up another unit in a different SEZ.

llifies the unit's privileges and benefits under the SEZ scheme. As a consequence, the cancellation of the LoA would also impact the unit's ability to set up another unit in a different SEZ.

It is pertinent to note that the Ministry of Commerce has taken various initiatives to streamline the functioning FTWZs and has suggested the field formations to exercise due diligence and caution while approving new Units and monitoring existing warehousing units in SEZs. The Ministry has suggested various measures which inter-alia includes verification of applicant credentials (CHAs, clients, etc.) jointly with UAC members from Customs, GST, and Income Tax, conducting thorough examinations of track records, Monitoring goods movement from FTWZ units to prevent irregularities and strengthening the internal controls and streamline FTWZ functioning.

In the light of the above, the decision taken in rejecting the application of VJP unit to set up a new Unit on the ground of LOA cancellation at NDR SEZ is legal and proper. 10 The action of the learned respondent in accepting the bond cum When additional BLUT was executed by VJP Shipping, the same was accepted

LOA cancellation at NDR SEZ is legal and proper. 10 The action of the learned respondent in accepting the bond cum When additional BLUT was executed by VJP Shipping, the same was accepted

Page 86 of 156

undertaking from them executed on 08.07.2024 and accepting it on 02.08.2024 by which time he was well aware of the rejection of their application for setting up the FTWZ unit at New Chennai Township Pvt Ltd., IT-ITES, the issue of the notice to them within 6 days when no new facts have emerged exposed the total bias and prejudice of the learned Development commissioner which require the impugned order passed by him and approved by the UAC to be set aside in the interest of justice and fair play on 02.08.2024 in view of the fact that the FTWZ unit at NDR Zone was operational on that date. The contention of the Appellant that the issuance of SCN is borne out of prejudice lacks any basis as the SCN has been issued in view of the violations committed by the FTWZ Unit (Appellant).

contention of the Appellant that the issuance of SCN is borne out of prejudice lacks any basis as the SCN has been issued in view of the violations committed by the FTWZ Unit (Appellant).

Page 87 of 156

11 The impugned order passed placing reliance on the only fact of alleged misuse of the IEC provision, even without invoking or showing the- specific provision under the FTDR or the rules providing for any contravention relating to the use of others IEC and by totally overlooking the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court by recording the frivolous and extraneous finding on a totally assumed basis that the IEC was misused by the appellant who is supposed to hold the imported goods on behalf of his client even when the true fact is that they only acted as the CB for the IEC Samyga International with his consent and approval and never were concerned with the subject goods in any manner which render his finding totally incorrect and therefore unsustainable The subject LoA cancellation order stems from the irregularities in the import transactions of the importer M/s Samyga International by way of misdeclation of description/ value and various acts of omission and commissions by the FTWZ unit M/s VJP Shipping India Pvt Ltd by way of misuse of IEC of the importer. It is observed from statement recorded from the actual IEC holder Shri Mydeen Gane (Prop.

commissions by the FTWZ unit M/s VJP Shipping India Pvt Ltd by way of misuse of IEC of the importer. It is observed from statement recorded from the actual IEC holder Shri Mydeen Gane (Prop. Of M/s Samyga international) during the investigation by DRI that he has not imported any of those consignment, and that no payment to any of the supplier had gone from the account of the IEC holder and the IEC holder has also not given the KYC or authorisation to the Appellant to act as his agent and to hold his goods in the unit. From the DRI investigations , it was clear that Smt R Jothi (w/o KY Prasad) of M/s VJP Shipping India Pvt Ltd (as per the instructions of Shri KY Prasad) obtained IEC in the name of M/s Samyga International using the credentials of Shri Sardar Mydeen Gane and that Shri KY Prasad and M/s VJP Shipping India Pvt Ltd mis-used the IEC of M/s Samyga International for various imports in their name for which monetary consideration was paid to Shri Sardar Mydeen Gane. Further it was revealed in the investigations of DRI that Shri Sardar Mydeen Gane
lent his IEC and banking credentials to Shri KY Prasad and Smt Jothi and allowed his bank account to be used for making money transactions with regard to the imports made in the name of M/s Samyga International, for monetary consideration;

Further it is pertinent to observe that as per rule 18(5) of SEZ Rules read with instruction 60 / 2010 dated 6/7/2010,

e in the name of M/s Samyga International, for monetary consideration;

Further it is pertinent to observe that as per rule 18(5) of SEZ Rules read with instruction 60 / 2010 dated 6/7/2010,

Page 88 of 156

a unit holder shall hold goods on behalf of supplier or buyer or DTA supplier or buyer However, it is seen from the DRI investigation that the Appellant , instead of merely holding the goods on behalf of the importer, he has stepped into the shoes of the importer by way of misusing third party IEC for import of restricted goods viz., used parts and accessories of multi- functional device, MFD) under concealment in the name of M/s Samyga International , without the consent/ authorisation signature of actual importer and KYC. Further it was evident from the statement of actual IEC holder Shri Mydeen Gane, the actual IEC holder of M/s Samyga International that the goods were not purchased or imported by M/s Samyga International .Therefore, it is clear that the Appellant had actually acted in a malafide way to clear the undervalued and restricted goods and the same is corroborated by the statements of actual IEC holder Shri Mydeen Gane of Samyga International,

Thus misuse of IEC by the FTWZ Unit has been clearly proved in the investigation and charges against the Appellant have been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide order no 110493 dated 27.11.2024 wherein the imported goods have been held to be liable for confiscation and penalties have been imposed on Appellant M/S VJP Shipping as well as the

y vide order no 110493 dated 27.11.2024 wherein the imported goods have been held to be liable for confiscation and penalties have been imposed on Appellant M/S VJP Shipping as well as the employees/Directors of the Appellant.

Hence the contention of the Appellant that he has not misused the IEC is not correct. Further the case law cited by the Noticee is not applicable to the mis- use of IEC code by the FTWZ unit, who is supposed to hold the imported goods on behalf of his clients. 12 The learned respondent without The Development Commissioner has

Page 89 of 156

prejudice to any of the foregoing submissions also committed gross improprietory in traversing beyond the show cause notice to record the findings in paras 15 to 19 of the impugned order which are not only excessive but also contrary to the true facts as the observations made therein against the appellant as if they had imported the goods into India which is totally denied as false and, untrue on account of which the impugned order passed by the learned respondent and approved by the UAC require to be vacated in the interest of justice passed the order taking into consideration the findings of the DRI investigation.

assed by the learned respondent and approved by the UAC require to be vacated in the interest of justice passed the order taking into consideration the findings of the DRI investigation. Further it is stated that the charges against the Appellant about the misuse have been confirmed by the Adjudicating authority vide order no 110493 dated 27.11.2024 wherein it is interalia held that Shri KY Prasad of M/s VJP Shipping is the beneficial owner of the impugned imported goods vide bill of entry number 1003244 dated 11.10.2022 under Section 2(3A) of the Customs Act 1962.

Hence the contention of the Appellant is not sustainable. 13 The learned Development Commissioner ought to have been oblivious of the fact that when the notice under customs Act had already been issued to them on the investigation carried out by DRI the jurisdiction to deal with such issue squarely lies with the customs and the development commissioner is not authorised to conduct parallel proceedings by citing the aforementioned notifications issued with a specific purpose to notify a single enforcement agency for dealing with certain specified offences and if the said proceedings are permitted to be approved then it would amount to double jeopardy attracting the bar as provided under Art 20 [2] of the Constitution of India The contention of the Appellant that the Development commissioner is conducting the parallel proceedings in respect of the notified offences is not correct.

[2] of the Constitution of India The contention of the Appellant that the Development commissioner is conducting the parallel proceedings in respect of the notified offences is not correct. It is to be noted that the jurisdictional Customs Authority is the competent authority to conduct the proceedings arising out of the notified offences.

In the subject case, it is seen in terms of Bond cum legal undertaking, the Appellant has undertaken to abide by the Act and Rules. As per Rule 18 (5) of SEZ Rules read with instruction no 60 dated 6/7/2010, the Appellant unit holder has to hold goods only on behalf of the importer or buyer,Whereas in the subject case, the buyer(importer) has categorically stated that the goods were not imported by them, and hence the Appellant has clearly violated Rule 18 (5) of the said Rules and the said circular. Therefore, it is clear that the violations under FTDR Act, Customs Act and rules made thereunder have resulted in the violation of provisions of SEZ Act and Rules made thereunder, and hence the action was taken by the Development commissioner against the Appellant in view of

ade thereunder have resulted in the violation of provisions of SEZ Act and Rules made thereunder, and hence the action was taken by the Development commissioner against the Appellant in view of

Page 90 of 156

violations committed under SEZ Act/Rules and the same is well within the law. 14 The learned respondent also ought to have appreciated and accepted that when only a show cause notice had been issued to them by the Customs it only •remained as allegations yet to be proved as per law and yet to attain finality he ought not to have initiated the proceedings against them resulting in the draconian punishment of losing their entire business whereas he ought to have awaited the final outcome of the notice even if had the legal authority to proceed against them instead of rushing to hold the appellant guilty which is highly improper and arbitrary and which only expose not only his bias and prejudice but also predetermination In the subject case, the Appellant has been found to be the habitual offender who has involved in the various irregularities in respect of various import transactions effected in Chennai Customs Jurisdiction for which the Appellant/their Directors/Employees have been imposed penalties under Customs Act. Having coming to know the Appellant’s antecedents, it was considered very much necessary to put an end to unethical business practices of the Appellant as the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated.

coming to know the Appellant’s antecedents, it was considered very much necessary to put an end to unethical business practices of the Appellant as the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. Hence the action taken by the Development commissioner in recommending for LoA cancellation and UAC’s decision in cancelling the LoA is legal and proper . 15 The learned respondent's further finding recorded in para 20 as if the IEC holder during the course of the investigation stated that he had not imported the goods and no KYC authorisation has been given by him to the appellant herein to file the BE and to handle his goods is denied as totally incorrect and untrue not borne out of the records and in any case even if it were so the IEC holder ought to have filed necessary complaint either with the police or with the DGFT authorities which is not the case The DRI investigation clearly revealed that the Appellant has used the credentials of actual importer and happens to be the beneficial owner of the imported goods and the same has been confirmed by the Adjudicating authority. Further it was proved that the actual owner of M/s Samyga International (importer) has lent their IEC for the monetary consideration to be used by the Appellant.

Hence the findings
by the Development Commissioner wrt role played by the Appellant in the import transaction is based the results of DRI investigations only.

be used by the Appellant.

Hence the findings
by the Development Commissioner wrt role played by the Appellant in the import transaction is based the results of DRI investigations only. 16 The learned respondent exposed his highhandedness and bias by recording the finding in para 21 of the impugned order as if the used parts and accessories of Multi-function devices invoking para 2.31 of the FTP even without considering their plea that the even used MFD machines itself are not restricted in terms of the It is stated that the goods imported in this case are “Used Parts and Accessories of Multi- Functional Device’’ as against declared ‘’Printer accessories’’ fall under the restricted category under Para 2.31 of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 and these policy restrictions will apply for these goods at the time of DTA clearance.

Page 91 of 156

judgments of the Supreme Court/ High Court and Tribunal when the subject import is admitted to be only parts and the machines which render his order totally bad and unsustainable

Irrespective of restrictive or free nature of goods, it is a fact that the Appellant has committed violations under SEZ Act/Rules 17 The finding recorded by the learned respondent in para 15 of the impugned order that the investigation had brought out the fact that the FTWZ unit has imported the goods without knowledge or consent of the actual IEC holder is totally untrue and in correct as they only acted as the CB for the said importer and IEC holder for the act of which only they were

oods without knowledge or consent of the actual IEC holder is totally untrue and in correct as they only acted as the CB for the said importer and IEC holder for the act of which only they were proposed for the imposition of the penalties under the Customs Act and their CB license suspended a fact relied in support in the impugned order From 17 - 21

As already discussed in above paras, the charges against the Appellant wrt misuse of IEC by the Appellant (in his capacity as FTWZ Unit) has been clearly proved. Further the irregularities committed by the Appellant (in his capacity as Customs Broker) lend credence to his bad antecedents and the same necessitated the Development commissioner to take pro-active action against the Appellant in line with DoC’s instructions to streamline the working of FTWZ and preserve the integrity of the SEZ eco System.

Hence the order passed by the Development commissioner is legal and proper 18 The reliance placed by the learned respondent on the fact of their CB license being kept under continued suspension by the licensing authority under the customs no more survives in view of the recent orders passed by the Hon' ble Customs Excise Service Tax Tribunal Chennai vacating the said order vindicates their stand 19 The learned respondent in any case ought to have known that the CB license held by them being governed by a totally separate legislation namely Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 question of invoking the alleged contravention for

wn that the CB license held by them being governed by a totally separate legislation namely Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 question of invoking the alleged contravention for cancellation of their LOA issued in terms of the SEZ Act and the rules made thereunder is highly improper and incorrect more particularly when the Hon'ble Madras High Court had categorically held that the violation if any by a customs broker in terms of the regulation cannot result in invocation of any penal provisions under the Customs Act

Page 92 of 156

20 The appellant submits that the recent circular issued by the CBIC instructing officers not to indiscriminately proceed against any Customs Broker unless there is an allegation of abetment against them made in the show cause notice issued under the Customs Act also squarely support the case of the appellant 21 The findings recorded by the learned respondent in para 24 of the impugned order clearly evidence to the fact that he was acting in terms of the suggestions issued by the Ministry of Commerce purely concerning the verification of antecedents for approving new units and monitoring existing units and that too for the reason of the recent growing trend of DTA supplies and increased in the import of risky consignments involving mis-declaration of description and value by unscrupulous CHA's and their clients thus only sounding a caution to carry out proper antecedent verification whereas the learned respondent had beyond the said suggestion to rely

d value by unscrupulous CHA's and their clients thus only sounding a caution to carry out proper antecedent verification whereas the learned respondent had beyond the said suggestion to rely upon certain cases registered against their clients leading to issue of the show cause notice to the said clients and to them in their capacity as their Customs Broker even when the proceedings initiated against them under the CBLR relied upon in support of the issue of the impugned order _ stood set aside making the said order totally devoid of any merits 22 The appellant further for the sake of brevity craves leave of the Board of Approval New Delhi to treat the grounds of the memorandum filed by them against cancellation of their LOA granted to them for operating at the NDR FTWZ Nandhiyambakkam Village Minjur Panchayat Ponneri Taluk Tiruvallur District in the state Further it is stated that all the grounds have suitably countered in the order in original Passed by the Development commissioner.

In view of the above, the appeal filed by the VJP Unit against cancellation of LOA and rejection of application for setting up FTWZ Unit may be set aside.

ed by the Development commissioner.

In view of the above, the appeal filed by the VJP Unit against cancellation of LOA and rejection of application for setting up FTWZ Unit may be set aside.

Page 93 of 156

of Tamil Nadu

The above appeals were deferred in the 127th BOA meeting held on 8th April, 2025 the Board heard the appellant. The appellant requested to submitted the additional written submissions, the request was approved by the Board. The Board deferred the case for next meeting of BOA.

The appellant has submitted the following.

        The appellant above named submits that they had filed two appeals in terms 

of rule 55 of the SEZ Rules against order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the learned Development Commissioner MEPZ Chennai one involving revocation of their FTWZ license and the other against refusal to grant them a fresh FTWZ warehouse license at the Chennai covered by the supplementary agenda points 128.9 [i] and 128.9 [ii] respectively

2.     The appellant submits that they are filing this written argument as permitted 
   

by the Hon’ble BoA on noticing that the system did not enable the hearing of their counsel’s argument

3.     The appellant submits that they are a private limited company engaged in the 
   

business of running the FTWZ warehousing services at the NDR FTWZ Tamil Nadu after having been approved by the BoA on 26.04.2021 having been issued with the LOP dated 03.05.2021 and have been carrying on their services promptly since then fully meeting with the conditions imposed under the LOP.

roved by the BoA on 26.04.2021 having been issued with the LOP dated 03.05.2021 and have been carrying on their services promptly since then fully meeting with the conditions imposed under the LOP. The appellant submits that prior to the said date they obtained a license from the Principal Commissioner of Customs Chennai and licensing authority under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation [CBLR] and were carrying on the work as a Custom Broker [CB] also fully meeting the requirements of the CBLR

4.     In the above factual position, the officers attached to the DRI instituted 
   

certain investigation against the importers for whom they acted as the CB, which investigation never involved their working as an FTWZ SEZ unit

5.     The appellant submits that various show cause notices were issued to them by 
   

the Customs in respect of their functioning as a CB firm including against their directors and employees in respect of which notices they filed their replies contesting the said notices and wherever orders came to be passed they also filed the statutory appeals as provided under the Customs Act and thus the above issues raised by the DRI have not attained finality

d notices and wherever orders came to be passed they also filed the statutory appeals as provided under the Customs Act and thus the above issues raised by the DRI have not attained finality

6.     The appellant submits that based on the recommendations of the DRI their 
   

CB license was also suspended by the licensing customs authority besides passing the orders for continuing the suspension and on the appellant preferring an appeal in terms of the customs Act the said order of continued suspension came to be quashed by the Hon’ble Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal vide its order

Page 94 of 156

dated 18.12.2024 vide copy enclosed at page 62 of the type set. Thus, no reliance could be placed against them on the fact of suspension of their CB license

7.     The appellant submits that one of the case registered by the DRI related to the 
   

import of printer accessories by one Samyga International which upon reference to them by their CB firm they filed the Thoka Bill of Entry based on the documents provided to them and while the goods remained in their warehouse with no bill filed for its clearance in the DTA the said goods were seized under the pretext that its description and value were mis-declared and that the import was made by misusing the IEC to cause the issue of a common notice dated 16.10.2023 enclosed with additional documents sent through email [page 22] wherein their CB firm was only implicated as could be seen from para 39 of page 60.

use the issue of a common notice dated 16.10.2023 enclosed with additional documents sent through email [page 22] wherein their CB firm was only implicated as could be seen from para 39 of page 60. The notice eventhough recorded the statement of the IEC reproduced at para 10 informing that he had taken the IEC and filed the Bill at the behest of one Safeel a Srilankan national residing at Dubai the notice for reasons best known implicated one of their directors of CB Mr. K.Y. Prasad in his individual capacity as the beneficial owner without in any manner establishing that he had ordered for the subject goods and had full over the goods as required under Sec. 2 [3A] of the Customs Act. In any case, since the notice only implicated Mr. K.Y. Prasad in his individual capacity the appellant is advised to submit that the said allegation could in no way result in implicating their company must less the FTWZ SEZ unit the appellant herein. The appellant further submits that each one of the noticees named in the said common show cause notice are contesting the allegations and would avail the statutory appellate remedy available under the customs Act

8.    The appellant submits that in the above factual position, they with a view to 
   

expand their commercial activities made an application dated 13.06.2024 with the DC MEPZ Chennai for grant of another FTWZ SEZ unit for operating their services at M/S New Chennai Township Pvt Ltd., [Light Engineering].

l activities made an application dated 13.06.2024 with the DC MEPZ Chennai for grant of another FTWZ SEZ unit for operating their services at M/S New Chennai Township Pvt Ltd., [Light Engineering]. The appellant entertaining the bonafide belief that the antecedent verification in the form of questions put in the subject application relating to issue of show cause notice against them or against their director related to their SEZ unit in operation answered it as Not Applicable. The appellant deems it necessary to place on record that on 12.07.2024, the appellant’s existing SEZ unit license was renewed and on their executing the fresh bond cum letter of undertaking [LUT] the same was accepted by the DC MEPZ on 02.08.2024. However, the BoA communicated to them their decision to reject their application for the grant of the new SEZ unit license at the New Chennai Township Pvt ltd., and consequent to their sending their representation they were asked to give their antecedents for considering their application they also filed the same on 10.11.2024

8.     The appellant submits that in the above factual position just six days prior to 
   

accepting the renewal of their existing SEZ unit and accepting the bond cum legal undertaking on 08.08.2024 they were issued with the impugned show cause notice asking them to show cause as to why the LOA should not be cancelled under Sec. 16 of the SEZ Act, 2005 and action should not be taken under Sec. 25 ibid. The notice in

e impugned show cause notice asking them to show cause as to why the LOA should not be cancelled under Sec. 16 of the SEZ Act, 2005 and action should not be taken under Sec. 25 ibid. The notice in

Page 95 of 156

support of the proposals made the following averments/allegations based on the report said to have been received from the DRI namely

[i] the thoka bill no. 1003244 dated 11.10.2022 filed by them for the importer Samyga International was taken up for investigation to find that the goods were declared as PRINTER ACCESSORIES whereas used parts and accessories of MFD printers were noticed which they called as not declared goods which attracted the restriction under para 2.31 of the FTP and the prohibition under CRO. The value for the goods was alleged to be under-declared

[ii] the show cause notice dated 16.10.2023 issued it was admitted that while filing the subject bill on behalf of Samyga International they have not correctly declared the goods rendering the goods liable for confiscation and they become liable for penalties

[iii] K.Y Prasad one of their directors misused the IEC of Samyga International with the admission that monetary consideration was paid to the IEC holder which allegation was relied in support to render the goods liable for confiscation. The other director K.

ga International with the admission that monetary consideration was paid to the IEC holder which allegation was relied in support to render the goods liable for confiscation. The other director K. Vallaraj was charged as having supported the misuse with the claim that it rendered the goods liable for confiscation

[iv] the crux of the above allegation is contained in para 9 of the Show cause notice namely that they mis-declared the goods and misused the IEC

[v] in para 10 of the notice the fact of suspension of their CB license by the principal Commissioner and licensing authority was referred to

[vi] based on the said fact and merely invoking rule 18 [5] of the SEZ Rules and referring to instructions 60 dated 08/07/2010 it was alleged that they had persistently contravened the provisions of the SEZ Act and failed in its obligation stipulated in rule 18 [5] ibid and terms and conditions of the Bond cum letter of undertaking the proposal as indicated above was made

9.     The appellant submits that they filed their detailed reply 16.08.2024 followed 
   

by a written submission dated 21.10.2023 stoutly contested the above proposal on the ground that the provisions invoked in the light of the admitted facts are not legally sustainable and in any case the proposal made by the DRI for action under the Customs Act which is only at the stage of allegation cannot be a ground for revoking their SEZ warehouse license and in any case there is no merits in the proposal made by furnishing subtle facts and legal grounds.

at the stage of allegation cannot be a ground for revoking their SEZ warehouse license and in any case there is no merits in the proposal made by furnishing subtle facts and legal grounds.

10.   The learned DC passed the impugned order under challenge to be approved 
    

by the BoA traversing beyond the show cause notice [1] to rely upon Sec. 21 read with the notification claiming that offences under the Customs Act are notified offences even when he had not invoked the said provision in the impugned notice and more so when the said provision only provided for single enforcement officer or agency with the DRI not dealing with violation of any of the provisions of the SEZ

Page 96 of 156

Act or rules made thereunder and in fact having not proceeded against their SEZ unit but only against their CB company rendering his above finding suffer from excesses apart from being not supported by the said provisions invoked besides being totally devoid of any merits

11.    In para 14 of the order the omission to refer to the appropriate clause in the 
    

LUT was filled up by claiming clause 1 which is an undertaking to follow abide by the SEZ Act and the rules was cited which on the face of the record expose the demerits of the said finding and its unacceptability

ming clause 1 which is an undertaking to follow abide by the SEZ Act and the rules was cited which on the face of the record expose the demerits of the said finding and its unacceptability

12.   In para 15 the respondent traversed beyond the scope of the notice to observe 
    

that the investigation has brought out that the FTWZ unit has imported the goods without the knowledge of the IEC which for this sole reason as well as for the reason of self-contradiction in as much as in the notice it was admitted that the thoka BE was filed by them on behalf of Samyga International and consideration was paid by one of their director to the IEC holder for using his IEC. Again, the fact that only their director Prasad in his individual capacity was charged as the beneficial owner without any evidence being brought on record the DC MEPZ Chennai recording the finding as if they had imported the goods is totally untrue false and beyond the record

13.  Similarly, the entire findings recorded in para 16 of the order apart from being 
    

beyond the scope of the notice are also extraneous false and unproved and therefore are not admissible

14.   As regards the order in para 17 it has nothing to do with the proceedings 
    

initiated in the impugned notice and are therefore are irrelevant and extraneous
15. The findings recorded in para 18 & 19 of the impugned order are totally untrue and incorrect and in any case being finding recorded beyond the scope of the notice issued to them cannot be sustained.

he findings recorded in para 18 & 19 of the impugned order are totally untrue and incorrect and in any case being finding recorded beyond the scope of the notice issued to them cannot be sustained. The learned DC MEPZ Chennai had introduced certain new facts not alleged in the notice and the accusation that they had imported the goods misusing the IEC of Samyga Internation even the DRI had not alleged so is highly arbitrary and totally uncalled for. In any case these unfounded and unreliable and untrue accusations have no relevance to the allegation that they had violated rule 18 [5] of the SEZ Rules which provision merely stipulates as for what purpose the unit could be licensed and nothing beyond

16.   The appellant without prejudice to their contention that they had not 
    

imported the subject goods or misused the IEC of a third part and which in any case is not the charge made by the DRI respectfully submits that the above allegation referred to by the respondent in para 20 of his order is also not legally tenable in view of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Proprietor Carmel Exports and Imports enclosed along with the appeal papers [para 15 refers]

17.   As regards the finding recorded in para 21 of the order the appellant submits 
    

that the import of restricted goods by an importer which are warehoused by them cannot be a ground for revocation of their license. In any case the DC MEPZ Chennai

the order the appellant submits that the import of restricted goods by an importer which are warehoused by them cannot be a ground for revocation of their license. In any case the DC MEPZ Chennai

Page 97 of 156

failed to appreciate that they had filed the subject Thoka BE only and not any DTA BE to allege any attempted improper clearance by them. Above all as regards used MFDs the Supreme Court and High Court of Madras were allowing the clearance of these goods by recording the finding that the MeiTy notification will have no application to these goods and is a matter for adjudication by the customs department against the importer with they being only an SEZ unit have nothing to do with the said import

18 The authority below even without being aware as to whether the cases listed in Table A pertained to the SEZ unit or their CB company and more had placed reliance on the said facts at their back without putting them to notice by referring to the said cases in the impugned notice issued to them had committed total judicial improprietory on account of which the said finding recorded by him in the impugned order is not legally maintainable

19.   The show cause notice eventhough referred to the order of suspension issued 
    

to their CB company and thus was well aware of the existence of the said company however did not rely upon the allegations based on the said suspension order which in any case was unreliable in the light of the vacation of the said order by the higher appellate authority namely CESTAT Chennai

on the allegations based on the said suspension order which in any case was unreliable in the light of the vacation of the said order by the higher appellate authority namely CESTAT Chennai

20.  The appellant submits that the learned DC MEPZ based on the cancellation of 
    

their existing SEZ unit upon a improper consideration of the fact and law by violating the principles of natural justice by not taking into consideration any of their submissions exposing bias prejudice and pre-determination also rejected their application for setting upon of the new SEZ unit for the only reason of his revoking their existing license which is not fair or reasonable

21 The appellant is constraint to record that even in the impugned order issued by the DC MEPZ Chennai it is stated that an appeal lies against the said order under Sec. 15 of the FTDR Act assuming it to be an order passed under the said Act omitting to take note of the fact that the impugned orders passed only attracted rule 55 of the SEZ Rules which on the face of it expose the non-application and prejudicial attitude of the learned respondent

22.   The appellant submits that consequent to their raising the subtle grounds in 
    

their appeal memorandum the DC has offered his para wise comments duly communicated to this appellant a perusal of which show that except for his reiterating his above finding he had also further introduced new facts not permissible in law which in any case are not relevant to their case

t a perusal of which show that except for his reiterating his above finding he had also further introduced new facts not permissible in law which in any case are not relevant to their case

23.   The appellant submits that the revocation of their FTWZ unit license had put 
    

them out of business resulting in not only their whole family deprived of their livelihood but also more than 20 others who have been employed by them

24.   The appellant therefore submits that they have not committed any violation 
    

of the provisions of the SEZ Act or the rules is concerned so far as the services

Page 98 of 156

provided by them as a licensed SEZ warehouse unit and that the allegations as made out by the DRI in their show cause notice pertained to their CB company which if at all punishable is under the provisions of the Customs Act and the CBLR and certainly not under the SEZ Act or rules and the allegations made in the notice are only merely allegations finally to be proved and concluded in the manner known to law, and in any case the allegation that they violated rule 18 [5] of the SEZ Rules is totally unfounded and not maintainable and consequently Sec.

to be proved and concluded in the manner known to law, and in any case the allegation that they violated rule 18 [5] of the SEZ Rules is totally unfounded and not maintainable and consequently Sec. 16 of the SEZ could not have been invoked especially in the absence of showing any clause in the LoA being violated by them whereas the respondent had only held them to have violated the Bond cum LUT that too the general undertaking to strictly observe the provisions of the SEZ Act and rules and as such there is absolutely no merit in the order passed by the DC MEPZ Chennai in either cancelling their existing SEZ unit license or refusing to grant them a fresh license

24.   It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Board of Approval may be 
    

pleased to consider their submissions judiciously and in the proper Perspective and may be pleased to allow both their appeals by setting aside the impugned orders passed against them and thus render justice

Dated at Chennai this the 8th day of April 2025

ive and may be pleased to allow both their appeals by setting aside the impugned orders passed against them and thus render justice

Dated at Chennai this the 8th day of April 2025

Page 99 of 156

128.9(iii) Appeal filed by M/s. Shivansh Terminals LLP at Mundra SEZ under the provision of Section 16(4) of the SEZ Act, 2005 against the Order-in-Original 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.
2. Vide Show Cause Notice F. No. APSEZ/08/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 outside the SEZ with an intent to de-stuff the actual imported cargo (Areca Nuts) and replace it with the declared cargo (LDPE Regrind).

llant, and that the Appellant transported the containers outside the SEZ with an intent to de-stuff the actual imported cargo (Areca Nuts) and replace it with the declared cargo (LDPE Regrind). 3. 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.
• SCN was issued without any tangible evidence and is based on surmises and conjectures. • 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.

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

s. No such act is alleged against the Appellant.

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

Page 100 of 156

• 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. • 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.

5. 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

2.1 The Show Cause Notice dated 28.04.2023 was issued under Section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 ("FTDR Act").

A. Show Cause Notice issued without jurisdiction

2.1 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. "

2.2 A 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:

ties 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:

Page 101 of 156

" 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 of power must stand the test to judicial scrutiny. This judicial scrutiny is one of the basic features of our 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 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.

p 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:

“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 is 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 provides for 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.

rtain 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.

Page 102 of 156

B. Violation of Section 16(1) Requirements

2.8 Even assuming the Development Commissioner could exercise powers under Section 16(1) of SEZ Act (thou