Agenda for the 130th BoA SEZ to be held on 2nd week of July, 2025

No. K-430 I 61 512025 -SEZ Government of lndia Ministry of Commerce and Industry Department of Commerce (SEZ Section) Vanijya Bhawan, New Delhi Dated the )*ne,2025 t'''Joly OFFICE MEMORANDUM S ubject:- 5th meeting (2025 Series) of the Board of Approval for E:lport Oriented Units ard l30th Meeting of the Board ofApproval (BoA) for Special Economic Zones (SEZr;) scheduled to be heid on second week of July, 2025 -Reg. The undersigned is directed to enclose herewith the agenda for the I 30th meeting of the BoA SEZ to be held on under the chairmanship of Commerce Secretary, Department of Commerce in Hybrid Mode, for information and necessary action. The Agenda has also been hosted on the website: www.sezindia.sov.in. 2. All the addresses are requested to kindly make it convenient to attend the meeting. 3. The meeting link of the aforesaid meeting will be shared shortly in due course
I To (Prateek
Ba par Under Secretary to the Covernment of lndia Tel:23039939 Emai I : prateekbaj pai.moca@n ic. i n I . Central Board of Excise and Customs, Member (Customs), Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. (Fax:23092628). 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Member (lT), Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delh i. (Telefax: 230921 07 ). 3. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Banking Division, Jeevan Deep Building, New Delhi (Fax: 23344462123366797). 4. Shri Anil Agarwal, Additional Secretary, Department of Promotion of lndustry and lnternal Trade (DPllT), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 5.

sion, Jeevan Deep Building, New Delhi (Fax: 23344462123366797). 4. Shri Anil Agarwal, Additional Secretary, Department of Promotion of lndustry and lnternal Trade (DPllT), 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) g. Joint Secretary, Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, 7'l' Floor, Block 2, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - I l0 003.

l0.Additional Secretary and Development Commissioner (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Scale lndustry), Room No. 701, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi (Fax: 230623ts). I l. Secretary, Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6, CCO Complex, New Delhi. (Fax: 24363101) 12. Joint Secretary (lS-l), Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi (Fax:23092569) 13. Joint Secretary (C&W), Ministry of Defence, Fax: 23015444, South Block, New Delhi. 14. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Pariyavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, New Delhi - I 10003 (Fax: 24363577) l5.Joint Secretary & Legislative Counsel, Legislative Department, M/o Law & Justice, A- Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. (Tel: 23387095). 16. Department of Legal Affairs (Shri Hemant Kumar, Assistant Legal Adviser), M/o Law & Justice, New Delhi. 17.

ive Department, M/o Law & Justice, A- Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. (Tel: 23387095). 16. Department of Legal Affairs (Shri Hemant Kumar, Assistant Legal Adviser), M/o Law & Justice, New Delhi. 17. Secretary, Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 18. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. (Fax:24674140) 19. Chief Planner, Department of Urban Affairs, Town Country Planning Organisation, Vikas Bhavan (E-Block), I.P. Estate, New Delhi. (Fax:23073678123379197) 20. Director General, Director General of Foreign Trade, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi. 21. Director General, Export Promotion Council for EOUs/SEZs,8G, 8th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi- I l0 001 (Fax: 223329770) 22.Dr. Rupa Chanda, Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, Bennerghata Road, Bangalore, Karnataka 23. Development Commissioner, Noida Special Economic Zone,Noida. 24. Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone, Gandhidham. 25. Development Commissioner, Falta Special EconomicZone, 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, lndore Special Economic Zone,lndore. 31.

issioner, Visakhapatnam Special Economic Zone, Visakhapatnam 29. Development Commissioner, Cochin Special Economic Zone, Cochin. 30. Development Commissioner, lndore Special Economic Zone,lndore. 31. Development Commissioner, Mundra Special Economic Zone,4th Floor, C Wing, Port Users Building, Mundra (Kutch) Cujarat. 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, 9tl' Floor, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam - 3 36. Development Commissioner, Reliance Jamnagar Special Economic Zone, Jamnagar, Gujarat 37. Development Commissioner, Surat Special EconomicZone, 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 Zone, Mangalore.

ihan Special Economic Zone, Nagpur, Maharashtra 39. Development Commissioner, Sricity Special Economic Zone, Andhra Pradesh. 40. Development Commissioner, Mangalore Special Economic Zone, Mangalore.

41. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Principal Secretary and ClP, lndustries and Commerce Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500022. (Fax: 040-23452895).
42. Government of Telangana, Special Chief Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Tel an gana Secretariat Khai ratabad, Hyderabad, Telan gana'
43. Government of Karnataka, Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industry Department, Vikas Saudha, Bangalore - 5 6000 I . (Fax : 080-2225987 0)
44. Government of Maharashtra, Principal Secretary (lndustries), Energy and Labour Department, Mumbai - 400 032.
45. Government of Gujarat, Principal Secretary, Industries and Mines Department Sardar Patel Bhawan, Block No. 5, 3rd Floor, Gandhinagar - 382010 (Fax: 079-23250844).
46. Government of West Bengal, Principal Secretary, (Commerce and Industry), lP Branch (4th Floor), SEZ Section, 4, Abanindranath Tagore Sarani (Camac Street) Kolkata - 700 016
47. Government of Tamil Nadu, Principal Seiretary (lndustries), Fort St. George, Chennai - 600009 (F ax: 044-2537 0822).
48. Government of Kerala, Principal Secretary (lndustries), Government secretariat, Trivandrum - 695001 (Fax: 0471-2333017)'
49. Government of Haryana, Financial commissioner and Principal Secretary), Department of lndustries, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh (Fax: 0172'2740526)'

rum - 695001 (Fax: 0471-2333017)' 49. Government of Haryana, Financial commissioner and Principal Secretary), Department of lndustries, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh (Fax: 0172'2740526)' 50. Government of Rajasthan, Principal Secretary (lndustries), Secretariat Campus, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur - 302005 (0141-2227788)' 5l . Government of Uttar Pradesh, Principal Secretary, (lndustries), Lal Bahadur Shastri Bhawan, Lucknow - 226001 (F ax: 0522-2238255)' 52. Government of Punjab, Principal Secretary Department of Industry & Commerce Udyog Bhawan), Sector -17, Chandigarh- 160017' 53. Government of Puducherry, Secretary, Department of lndustries' Chief Secretariat' PuducherrY. 54. Government of odisha, Principal Secretary (lndustries), odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneshwar - 75 I 00 I (Fax: 067 1-53681912406299)' 55. Government of Madhya iradesh, Chief Secretary, (Commerce and Industry)' Vallabh Bhavan, BhoPal (Fax: 0755-255997 4) 56. Government of Uttarakhand, Principal Secretary, (lndustries), No' 4, Suhhash Road' Secretariat, Dehrad un, Uttarakhand 57. Government of Jharkhand (Secretary), Department of Industries Nepal House' Doranda' Ranchi - 834002. 5g. Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Dadra Nagar Haveli, Secretary (lndustries), Department of industries, Secretariat, Moti Daman - 396220 (Fax: 0260-2230775)' 59. Government ofNa galand, Principal Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce)' Kohima, Nagaland. 60.

stries), Department of industries, Secretariat, Moti Daman - 396220 (Fax: 0260-2230775)' 59. Government ofNa galand, Principal Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce)' Kohima, Nagaland. 60. Government of chattishgarh, commissioner-cum-secretary Industries, Directorate of Industries, LIC Building -u*prr,2nd Floor, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Fax: 0771-2s836s1). Copyto:PSotoCS/PPStoSS(LSS)/PPStoJS(VAyPPStoDir(GP).

Aeenda for the r:otl' meeting of the Board of Approval for Spccial Economic Zones (SEZs) to be held on Secorrd rrreek o/July zozs Agenda Item No. r3o.1: Ratification of the minutes of the r29th meeting of the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) held on 6th June, 2025. Page 1 of 74

Agenda Item No. r3o.z: Request for extension of LoA of SEZ Unit [r proposal - rgo.z(i)] a a As per Rule r8(r) of the SEZ Rules , the Approual Committee may approue reject a proposalfor setting up of Unit in a Special Economic Zone. Cases for consideration of extension of Letter of Approval i.r.o. units in are governed by Rule tg(4) of SEZ Rules. Rule r9(4) states that LoA shall be valid for one year.

in a Special Economic Zone. Cases for consideration of extension of Letter of Approval i.r.o. units in are governed by Rule tg(4) of SEZ Rules. Rule r9(4) states that LoA shall be valid for one year. First Proviso gran power to DCs for extending the LoA for a period not exceeding z years. Proviso grants further power to DCs for extending the LoA for one more 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' certificate to this effect is submitted by the entrepreneur. Extensions beyond 3rd year (or beyond znd year in cases where two- 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. a a a Page 2 of 74 a

13o.2(i). Request of M/s Biocon Biosphere Limited, a unit in Biocon Limited special Economic zone, Bommisandra lndustrial Area, Bangalore, Karnataka, for extension of validity of Letter of Approval for a further period of one year from 12.o,6.2e.25 to LL.o6.2o26 (5,h Extension). Jurisdictional SE,Z - Cochin SEZ (CSEZ) Facts of the case: a Details of Business (b) Totat Investment made so far and incremental investment since last extension: l,oA issued on (date) 12.06.2020 I{ature of business of the Unit Manufacture and export of Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis, Cyclic Lipopeptide Antibiotics, Invasive Candidiasis - Cartridg and Vial Line No.

A issued on (date) 12.06.2020 I{ature of business of the Unit Manufacture and export of Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis, Cyclic Lipopeptide Antibiotics, Invasive Candidiasis - Cartridg and Vial Line No. of extensions granted 3 extensions by DC, CSEZ and one extension by BoA LoA valid upto (date) u.o6.zoz5 Request of the unit Extension of validity of LoA for a further period of two years from Lz.o6po25 to tt.o6.zoz7. Proposed Investment ({ in Crore) sl. No. Description On lease Land 1 1.OO 2 Compound Wall z7B.oo 3 Machinery 1.OO 4 Other statutory fees etc. Bo.oo Investment on facilities/Building (Proposed & Planned) 5 36().oo Total sl. No. Description Investment till last extension - before rzth June 2024 (t in Crore) Incremental Investment since last extension (rzth June 20.24 to till date (t in Crore) Total Investme nt (T in crore) 1 Land (on lease) o.oo o.oo o.oo 2 Civil Building & Compound Wall 46.24 23.72 6g.s6 3 Machinery 176.o4 BB.oz 264.o6 4 Other statutory fee etc. z.zB r.r4 3.42 Total zz4.g6 r12.28 336.84 Page 3 of 74

1 Land (on lease) o.oo o.oo o.oo 2 Civil Building & Compound Wall 46.24 23.72 6g.s6 3 Machinery 176.o4 BB.oz 264.o6 4 Other statutory fee etc. z.zB r.r4 3.42 Total zz4.g6 r12.28 336.84 Page 3 of 74

c Details of till date:- Detailed reasons for delay: - One of the critical equipment (lyophilizer) was initially ordered from a Chinese vendor, but later replaced with the indigenous vendor, M/s Lyophilization Systems India Limited. Deadline for completion of balance work Completio o//o n o-//o Completi on during last one year (till o1.()4.2() 2s) Activity sl. No. o6.o7.zoz3 r.oo 100 Sign off Engineering document for BBSL - Iniectable plant 1 100 95 30.r2.2O23 Sign-off architectural layout documents for iniectable Plant 2 100 100 06.r2.2023 Sign-off major equipment layout for Plant 3 27.O2.2O24 100 33 4 Substructure & Super structure completion for Plant 3r.03.2O26 9o 5 5 Mechanical Completion for BBSL- Iniectable Plant 100 o o4.o4.2025 Qualifi cation Completion (IQ/QQ) for BBSL-Injectable Plant (PFS LINE) Qualifi cation Completion (IQ/QQ) for BBSL-Injectable Plant (CARTRIDGE LINE) 6o o 2O.O3.2O25 o 1O.O3.2026 6 Qualifi cation Completion (IQ/QQ) for BBSl-Injectable Plant (VIAL LINE & PACKAGING) o O to.o4.2025 Equipment trial run - I (Priority r) PFS Line 100 Equipment trial run - II (Priority z) Cartridge Line 5o o 3O.O5.2025 7 Equipment trial run - III (Priority S) Vial Line & Packaging o o 3r.o3.zoz6 Performance trial batches-I (PrioriW t) PFS Line o o 09.05.2o25 Performance trial batches-I I (PrioriW z) Cartridse Line o o 1O.O6.2025 B Performance trial batches-I I I

ne & Packaging o o 3r.o3.zoz6 Performance trial batches-I (PrioriW t) PFS Line o o 09.05.2o25 Performance trial batches-I I (PrioriW z) Cartridse Line o o 1O.O6.2025 B Performance trial batches-I I I (Priority 3) Vial Line & Packaging o o Jo.o4.zoz6 9 Commercial batches o o tt.o6.zoz7 a Page 4 of 74

Technical specification alignment to support various pen devices or a combination line incorporating an auto-injector to strengthen our infrastructure capabilities has led to further shift in timelines. Additional challenges were faced due to the change in the mode of transport from sea shipment to air shipment, owing to geopolitical and regulatory changes in the Middle East. This also necessitated revision of the vendor's export license. The unavailability of personnel from vendors Franzi and Groninger along with the need to coordinate a common slot between both vendors, further delayed the timeline. Delay in the completion on civil work due to a shortage of labourers, which extended the overall timeline. Out of the total estimated project cost of t36o.oo crore, they have made an investment of \zo7 crore towards construction of building and advance payment for some machinery.

ded the overall timeline. Out of the total estimated project cost of t36o.oo crore, they have made an investment of \zo7 crore towards construction of building and advance payment for some machinery. Further, they have issued purchase requisitions/Purchase Orders to the tune of trog crore as on date. Recommendation by DC, CSEZ: Considering the investment made by the unit, and their efforts to materialize the project by procuring machinery, the request for extension of validity of Letter of Approval for a further period of one year (5th extension) from t2.o6.2o25 to tr.o6.2o26 has been recommended and forwarded for consideration of the BoA. a a o a a Page 5 of 74

Agenda Item No. r3o.3: Request for Co-Developer status I r proposal - r3o.S(i)] provision: In terms of sub-section (rr) under Section 3 of the SEZ Any person tuho or a State Gouernment ruhich, intends to proutde re facilities in the identified area or undertake onA after entertng into an agreement with the Deueloper, make a the same to the Boardfor its approual. Page 5 of 74

nment ruhich, intends to proutde re facilities in the identified area or undertake onA after entertng into an agreement with the Deueloper, make a the same to the Boardfor its approual. Page 5 of 74

13o.3(i) Request of M/s ANSR Global Corporation Private Limited, for Co-Developer status in Electronics Technology Parks- Kerala (Phase-III), Attipra Village, Thiruvananthapuram District, Kerala Jurisdictional SE,Z - Cochin SEZ (CSEZ) Facts of the case: 1 M/s. Electronics Technology Parks- Kerala, Attipra Village, Thiruvananthapuram District, Thiruvanantha ,AITI z6th February 2oog ITlITES 19th November zoog 17.5866Ha M/s. ANSR Global Corporation Private Limited development, conversion of bare building into warm shell building, leasing the built-up space, facility mana serlrlce t-up area of 4o62.r85 sq.mtr. (43,725sqftin tt Floor) I: BB.o 6 & Phase-II: lI o2nd May 2c25 t Name of the Developer & Location 2 Date of LOA to Developer 3 Sector of the SEZ 4. Date of Notification 5. Total notified area (in Hectares) 6. Whether the SEZ is operational or not Operational 4.ro.2023 6g (i). If operational, date of Operationalization ii). No. of Units (iii). Total Exports & Imports for the last S ears Rs. in Cr. EZ became operationalized on 04.10.2023 22-2 20-2-1. 2t-22 Export Import Export Import Expord Import Export Impor! Exportl Import 6zs.gs 6.sr Bt4.4s 7.95 o.3 1 34 8.61 4356 Nos (iv).

ears Rs. in Cr. EZ became operationalized on 04.10.2023 22-2 20-2-1. 2t-22 Export Import Export Import Expord Import Export Impor! Exportl Import 6zs.gs 6.sr Bt4.4s 7.95 o.3 1 34 8.61 4356 Nos (iv). Total Employment (In Nos.) 7 Name of the Co-Developer sought approval for Co- Developer status B Details of Infrastructure facilities/ authorized operations to be undertaken by the co-developer 9 Total area (in Hectares) on which activities will be performed by the c developer 1(). Proposed investment by the Co- developer Rs. in Cr. 11 Net worth of the Co-develoPer (Rs. in Cr.) t2 Date of the Co-developer agreement PageT of74 24-25 21.3O 251.94

Recommendation by DC, CSEZ: The request of M/s ANSR Global Corporation Private Limited for granting C?- Developer status in Electronics Technology Parks- Kerala (Phase-III), Thiruvinanthapuram has been recommended, in terms of Section S (tt) of SEZ Act 2oo5 & Rule 3-A of SEZ Rules 2c,c,6 and forwarded for consideration of the BoA. Page 8 of 74

Agenda Item No. r.3o.4: Request for Cancellation of Co-Developer status [r proposal-r3o.4(i)] Page 9 of 74

o5 & Rule 3-A of SEZ Rules 2c,c,6 and forwarded for consideration of the BoA. Page 8 of 74

Agenda Item No. r.3o.4: Request for Cancellation of Co-Developer status [r proposal-r3o.4(i)] Page 9 of 74

13o.4(i) Request for cancellation of Co-Developer status - M/s. Sri Channakeshava Tech Park, Co-Developer in Shyamaraju & Company (India) Private timited (formerly Divyasree Technopark) SE.Z, kundalahalli Village, Krishnarajapuram, Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore, Karnataka. Jurisdictional S'F.Z - Cochin SEZ (CSEZ) Facts of the case: M/s Shyamaraju and Company (India) Private Limited was issued a Letter of Approval No. F.z/r2ol2ooS-EPZ dated 9th June 2c,c,6 for setting up of a sector rpeiinc SEZ for IT/ITES in Karnataka over an area of 2r.76 Ha The SEZ was nbtified by Government of India vide Gazette Notification S.O.No.r771 (E) dated 16.ro.zoo6. The SEZ became operational on 5th April 2oo7. Subsequently, the Department of Commerce, as per Rule B of SEZ Rules 2cc,6, had de-notified 8.56 Ha of SEZ notified land area vide Gazette Notification No. S.O. t8Sz (E) dt. rr.o7.zot4 and thereby the area of SEZ became r3.2o Ha. The details of SEZ are as under:- o Area (Hectares) o Date of Notification o Date operationalized o No. of Units . Export (zoz|-zozs) (Rs. in crore) o Total built-up area (Sq.mtr.) 13.2O 16.ro.zoo 6 &. rr.o7.zot4 o5.o4.2oo7 7 4370.44 451674.83 M/s Sri Channakeshava Tech Park was issued Letter of Approval No.F.z/rzolzoo4-EPZ dated 27th February 2oog as a Co-Developer for providing infrastructure facilities in an area of 4.76 Ha in the SEZ.

M/s Sri Channakeshava Tech Park was issued Letter of Approval No.F.z/rzolzoo4-EPZ dated 27th February 2oog as a Co-Developer for providing infrastructure facilities in an area of 4.76 Ha in the SEZ. The Co-Developer has constructed one building (Cor) admeasuring an area of g74g4.go sq.mtr. in the allotted space. Due to lack of demand for SEZ space, the same built-up area was demarcated by the Developer with the consent of Co-Developer as non-processing area as per Rule rrB of SEZ Rules 2c,c,6, which was approved by the BoA in its tzoth meeting held on r8th June 2024. While submitting the proposal for demarcation of built-up space as Non Processing Area, the Developer has refunded all the duty/tax exemptions availed for the building. The Specified Office vide letter dated z4tt' March 2o2S has certified that the post demarcation, the Co-Developer has not availed any duty/tax exemption for the area allotted to them (copy enclosed). Reason for cancellation of Co-Developer status The Co-Developer has constructed one building admeasuring g7,4g4.go sq.mtr. in the allotted area, which has remained vacant since August 2c25. Despite efforts to have the building designated as NPA and offer it to the IT/ITeS sector, prevailing economic uncertainty and recession have hindered the sector groMh. Consequently, the demand for office space in IT/ITeS Sector decreased, leading many small and medium companies to adopt a cautious "wait-and-watch' approach.

recession have hindered the sector groMh. Consequently, the demand for office space in IT/ITeS Sector decreased, leading many small and medium companies to adopt a cautious "wait-and-watch' approach. In the light of the current uncertainty and subdued market conditions, their management has decided to surrender the Co-Developer status in SEZ. a Page 10 of 74

In this regard, the Co-Developer has submitted the following documents: - (i) "No Objection Certificate" issued by M/s Shyamaraju and Company (India) Private Limited, the Developer for cancellation of Co-Developer status. (ii) "No Due Certificate" dated 24.c3.2cz5 issued by the Specified Officer. Recommendation by DC, CSE,Zz The request of M/s Sri Channakeshava Tech Park for surrender of LOA and cancellation of Co-Develop,er status has been recommended and forwarded for consideration of the BoA. Page 11 of 74

Agenda ltem No. r3o.5: Request for notification or partial/full de-notification tS proposal rso.s(i)- rSo.s(iii)I a a In terms of first proviso to rule B of the SEZ Rules, 2006, the Cen Gouernment may, on the recommendation of the Board (Board of Approua on the application made by the Deueloper, if it is satisfied, modify, or rescind the notification of a SEZ rssued under thts rule. In the 6oth meeting of the Board of Approval held on 08.11.2013, considering a proposal of de-notification, the Board after delibera decided that henceforth all cases of partial or complete de-notification of S will be processed on file by DoC, subject to the conditions that:

a proposal of de-notification, the Board after delibera decided that henceforth all cases of partial or complete de-notification of S will be processed on file by DoC, subject to the conditions that: (a) DC to furnish a certificate in the prescribed format certifiiing in that;o the Developer has either not availed or has refunded all the tax/ benefits availed under SEZ Act/Rules in respect of the area to be 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.rz 45 I zoog-SEZ dated 13.o9. 20 19. Page 12 of 74

13o.5(i) Proposal of M/s. Ansal I'[ City & Parks Limited, f)eveloper for partial de-notification of 8.7t7IIa out of 3o.4r IIa of fT'/n'IiS SF;Z at Irlot No. 6, Sector-lfechzone, Greater Noida, Ilttar pradesh Jurisdictional Sr^,2 - Noida SIiZ (NSIiZ) Ijacts of the case: M/s Ansal 11' City & Parks Limitcd has requested for decreasc in the SFIZ area bv de- notifying the area. Reasons for de-notification proposal : l)ue to lack of Government Infrastructure f<lr connectivity and mobility no IT/ITI.I,S company is interested in setting up their office in this area. Through partial de-notification they shall be spmcing up lhe area and bring in investment as well as create ancillary establishments so that in future the irca develops and pcople can thcn comc to sct up their office in the IUI'Zones.

y shall be spmcing up lhe area and bring in investment as well as create ancillary establishments so that in future the irca develops and pcople can thcn comc to sct up their office in the IUI'Zones. 'l'hcy also plan to sct tlp rcsidcntial and commcrcial infrastructures Lo makc rcasonabll and rcachablc commoditics to the peoplc so that companics can comc and establish in this arca and cmploymcnt can be generated. 'fhe they are crcating a mix of commercia'I, institutional as a support and providing subsislence to IT Infrastructure to cater to thc requirement of the future residentiai and IT and commercial dcmands. Requisite documents for considering de-notification proposal: As per l)oC's O.M. dated t4.o7.2016 regarding required documents for parlial de- notification and thc status thereof is as belor,r,,: S. No. Documents/Details Required [statu-s (i) Form-C5 for decreasc in arca along rvith DC's rccommendation F;**'* (ii ) DC's certificatc in prcscribcd frrrmat fYcs, provided (iii ) Devclopcr's Certi[icate coun[crsigncd by DC [Yes, provided Name of Developer s. Ansal IT Ci & Parks Limited Location No. 6, SecLor-'fechzone, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh LoA issued on (date) zoo6 ormal Sector I'lt,ls Opcrational or not operational rational Notificd Arca (in I lcctarcs) o.4r I-Ia. Area proposed for dc- notification (in I Iectares) 8.7t7 Ha. Page 13 of 74 ['lot

on (date) zoo6 ormal Sector I'lt,ls Opcrational or not operational rational Notificd Arca (in I lcctarcs) o.4r I-Ia. Area proposed for dc- notification (in I Iectares) 8.7t7 Ha. Page 13 of 74 ['lot

(i.') l,and details of the area to be dc- cs, provided counters IJC Key Findings in the Proposal:

1. l)C, NSI'IZ Certifrcation: a. 'I'he developer has not availed any tax/duty bcnefits, under the SFIZ Act/rules, in r/o the land being de-notificd. b. 'l'he Sl,lZ shall remain contiguous even after de-notification of the area tlf 8.717lla c. Coloured map of the SF)Z showing the area being de-notified, duly countersigned by them. d. Principal Secretary, Industrial Development [)epartment-3, (]overnment of Utlar Pradesh vide his letter no.llgZ4ggTlzoz5 clated 27.o5.2o25, has foru.arded 'No objection' of thc State Govcrnment rcgarcling partial dc- notification of 8.7r7 I Ia area of the SliZ.
2. NOC f<rr L)e-notification: State Government vide letter N<t.ll97493ZlzozS dated 27.o5.2o25 has provide no objection for partial dc-notification of 8.717 I Ia out of total notified area 3o.4r IIa subjcct to various terms and conditions: a) 'l'hcy will refund all availed tax/duty benefiLs, b) l)e-notified land parcel should be utilised as per the lease deed of 1().()2.2()06. c) A clear affidavit of No-objection to terms of State Government shall be proviclcd b1, Lhe compony to Greatcr Nclida Industrial do'elopmcnt authority'. litc.
3. lnspection of Partial De-notification Area: M/s Ansal I'l' Citl' & l'arhs l,td.

ms of State Government shall be proviclcd b1, Lhe compony to Greatcr Nclida Industrial do'elopmcnt authority'. litc. 3. lnspection of Partial De-notification Area: M/s Ansal I'l' Citl' & l'arhs l,td. llas submitted proposal for part de-notifica[ion o{ 8.717 IIa ]and from already notificd 30.4r ha of the l't'/l'l'l,ls Sl,Z at Plot No. o6, Scctor-l'cchzone, (lreater Noida, Uttar l'radcsh. As per lns[ruction No. roz dated 18.11.2o19 issucrl b1' l)oC, t)hysical Inspection of the proposed StiZ land rvas carried out on 3o.o5.2o25 in the prescnce DC, NSllZ, DDC & SO, AO along r.tith Revenue/l,and Authority of the concerned SLatc (]overnment and Representative of Ansal I'f City & Parks l,td., Developer. During site inspection following were obsened: - (i) 'fhe land area of 8.7t7 ha proposed Lo be de-notifiecl r,r,as found to be vacant. Colorecl Map of the SEZ clearlf indicating area to [vcs, lro.'ided notified and left-or/er area duly c<tuntcrsigned DC be de- (v) (r'i) No Objcction Certificate" from the State Govcrnment r.t. instructions issued bv t)oC vide its instruction No D.tzl45lzoo9-SI'lZ dated 13.tl9.2o13 for paftial de- cs, Provided lied n,ith tion shall be com tca (vii) No l)ues Ccrtificate'from s d officer rovided CS IC Page 14 of 74

)oC vide its instruction No D.tzl45lzoo9-SI'lZ dated 13.tl9.2o13 for paftial de- cs, Provided lied n,ith tion shall be com tca (vii) No l)ues Ccrtificate'from s d officer rovided CS IC Page 14 of 74

(ii) After part de-notification of 8.7t7 area the remaining notified area of zr.69g ha will be remain contiguous. (iii) During the inspection, the developer informed that after proposed de-notification they will secure the remaining notified SEZ aera by construction of boundary wall & fencing as per provisions of SEZ Rules. Recommendation by DC, NSBZ: The proposal of M/s. Ansal IT City & Parks Limited has been examined and is recommended for partial de-notification of 8.717 ha land from the already notified area of 30.41 ha of IT/ITES SEZ at Plot No. 6, Sector-Techzone, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. After de-notification of the proposed land the balance area of SEZ i.e. zr.698 Ha shall remain contiguous. Page 15 of 74

13o.S(ii) proposal of M/s. G V Techpark_ Private Limited, (Formerly rfr1". Tanglin D6velopments Limited) Develope" 9f Global village_ SEZ Developei fo" partial de-notification of o.278 Ha from the notified SEZ land .i.. of r+.OzS ha at Mylasandra/Pattengere Villages, RVCE Post, Off.

6velopments Limited) Develope" 9f Global village_ SEZ Developei fo" partial de-notification of o.278 Ha from the notified SEZ land .i.. of r+.OzS ha at Mylasandra/Pattengere Villages, RVCE Post, Off. Bangalore-Mysore Highway, Bangalore, Karnataka Jurisdictional SF.Z - Cochin SEZ (CSEZ) Facts of the case: M/s G V Techpark Private Limited has requested for decrease in the SEZ area by de- notifying the area. Reasons for de-notification proposal: 1'hey have filed an application on 7th February, 2c.24 for partial de-notification of rz.Bo9 acres and duly approved and notified by Gazette notification S.O. zZ6g(E) dated 15 th July, 2024. Originally the land area in survey number glS of Mylasandra village also should have de-notified along with other areas mentioned in their referred application. Whereas due to the clerical error occurred during preparation and submission of the land details they have omitted/missed this said area in survey number glS of mylasandra village provided along with the application. The maps submitted then along with the above said application for de-notification included survey no.glS area also. Due to the above fact they are now filing the fresh application to rectif,i the same. Requisite documents for considering de-notification proposal: As per DoC's O.M. dated r4.o7.zo16 regarding required documents for partial de- notification and the status thereof is as below: Name of Developer M/s.

ments for considering de-notification proposal: As per DoC's O.M. dated r4.o7.zo16 regarding required documents for partial de- notification and the status thereof is as below: Name of Developer M/s. G V Techpark Private Limited Location lasandra/Pattengere Villages, RVCE Post, Off. Karnataka M LoA issued on (date) 28.06.2006 (Formal Approyq!) Sector ITlITES Operational or not operational Operational Notified Area (in Hectares) 14.6z5Ha. Area proposed for de- notifi cation (in Hectares) 0.278 Ha. S. No. lDocuments/ Details Required lstatus (i) lfo.*CS for decrease in area along with DC's lrecommendation l"t provided Page 15 of 74

s certificate in format CS Key Findings in the Proposal: DC, CSEZ Certification: a. There are no units in the SEZ land area proposed for de-notification 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 o.278 Ha and the net area of the SEZ after de-notification is 14.947 Ha. d. The land details for de-notification and a coloured map of the SEZ showing the area being de-notified duly countersigned by them. e. The State Government has given its "No Objection" regarding de-notification ofthe above stated area ofthe SEZ. NOC for De-notification: The State Government has recommended for consideration of the proposal of M/S. GV Tech Parks Private Limited for partial de- notification of o.278 Hectares of land situated at Sy. No. 9/S, Myllasandra Village, off Mysore Road, Bengaluru.

or consideration of the proposal of M/S. GV Tech Parks Private Limited for partial de- notification of o.278 Hectares of land situated at Sy. No. 9/S, Myllasandra Village, off Mysore Road, Bengaluru. It is also informed that the partial de-notified land will be utilized towards creation of IT infrastructure (Non SEZ), which would sub-serve the objective of the SEZ and this land will conform to the land use/master plan of the Government Inspection of Partial De-notification Area: DC CSEZ has submitted the inspection certificate citing that the physical inspection for Partial De-notification Area .z7BHa has been conducted on 29.oS.2c.25. Further it has also been certified that the Developer M/s. Global Special Economic zone Banglore for tT ITES has complied the contiguity condition in terms of DoC instruction 99 dated rz.lo.zorg and instruction roz dated r8.rr.zor9 Recommendation by DC, CSE.Zz The proposal of M/s G V Techparks Private Limited, Developer of Global Village SEZ, Bangalore for partial de-notification of o.278 Ha of the notified SEZ area, has been recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA. (iii) Developer's Certificate countersigned by DC fv"r, provid"d (iv) Land details of the area to be de- notified countersigned by DC f""r, o.o"ta.a (v) Colored Map of the SEZ clearly indicating area to be de- notified and left-over area duly countersigned by DC [ves, Rro,nided (vi) "No Objection Certificate" from the State Government w.r.t.

ta.a (v) Colored Map of the SEZ clearly indicating area to be de- notified and left-over area duly countersigned by DC [ves, Rro,nided (vi) "No Objection Certificate" from the State Government w.r.t. instructions issued by DoC vide its instruction No. D.rzl45lzoog-SEZ dated 13.09.2or3 for partial de- notification shall be complied with Yes, Provided (vii) 'No Dues Certificate'from specified officer [Yes, provided Page t7 of 74

l3o.S(iii) Request of M/s. Carborundum Universal Limited, Developer of Carborundum Universal Limited SEZ, Kalamaserry for cancellation of LoA and de-notification of entire SEZ area of ro Ha at Electro Mineral Division, Kalamassery Development Plot, Ernakulam District, Kerala Jurisdictional SEZ - Cochin SEZ Facts of the case: M/s. Carborundum Universal Limited has requested for cancellation of LoA and de- notification of entire SEZ of Carborundum Universal Limited SEZ, Kalamaserry. Name of Developer M/s. Carborundum Universal Limited Location Village Thrikkakara North, Taluka Kanayannur, Ernakulam, Kerala LoA issued on (date) F.t I6Izoog-SEZ dated 27.o2.2oo9 (Formal Approval) Sector Solar Photovoltaic sector Operational or not operational Operational Date of Notification 17.7t.2OO9 Date operationalized 75.O2.2Or4 Notified Area (in Hectares) 10 Ha. Area proposed for de- notification (in Hectares) ro Ha (Full denotification) Request of the Developer The Developer vide letter dated roth March zoz5 has submitted application for de-notification of the entire area of the SEZ and cancellation of LoA.

Ha (Full denotification) Request of the Developer The Developer vide letter dated roth March zoz5 has submitted application for de-notification of the entire area of the SEZ and cancellation of LoA. The Developer states that due to lack of orders and demand for their products the z units in the SEZ exit from the Scheme, and their Board has decided to de-notify the entire SEZ and continue the industrial activities in the area as DTA units, hence submitted application for de-notification. Observation The Developer has refunded an amount of Rs. S,g2,4S8l- (Rupees five lakhs ninety two thousand four hundred and fifty eight only) towards tax/duty exemptions availed by the Developer. The Specified Officer has issued No Due Certificate vide letter dated 18.oz.zoz5 and also recommended for consideration of the proposal. The State Government vide letter No. Jz/15r/zozr/IND dated 23.c2.2c23 has also conveyed their No Objection for full de-notification of ro Ha of notified SEZ land Page 18 of 74

ation of the proposal. The State Government vide letter No. Jz/15r/zozr/IND dated 23.c2.2c23 has also conveyed their No Objection for full de-notification of ro Ha of notified SEZ land Page 18 of 74

for de-notification of lReasons Ithe SEZ The Covi_d-19 induced global economic recession further impacted SEZ exports. Given the bleak export market and uncertain revival prospects, management redirected sales to the captive and domestic markets. ] While CUMI products domestically, the pricing were hindered by duty transferring goodi from market. o o were well Land utilization of the proposed ro Ha after denotification land and its manufacturing facilities will be continued to be used exclusively for industrial purposes only The de-notified Requisite documents for considering de-notification proposal: As per DoC's O.M. dated t4.o7.zor6 regarding required documents for partial de-notification and the status thereof is as below: The State Government of Kerala vide letter dated 25.02.2c,23 has conveyed their No- objection to the proposal subject to the following conditions: Utilization of the de-notified land shall be in line with the conditions as stipulated by DoC vide its instruction No. D.tzl45lzoo9- SEZ dated 13.o9.2o19 De-notified land shall only be used for industrial purposes I II S. No. Documents/ Details Required (i) Form-C6 for full denotification along with DC's recommendation F; provided (ii) DC's certificate in prescribed format [Y, (iii) "No Objection Certificate" from the State Government w.r.t.

equired (i) Form-C6 for full denotification along with DC's recommendation F; provided (ii) DC's certificate in prescribed format [Y, (iii) "No Objection Certificate" from the State Government w.r.t. instructions issued by DoC vide its instruction No. D.rzl45lzoog-SEZ dated 13.o9.2tl13 for full de- notification shall be complied with es, Provided (iv) 'No Dues Certificate'from specified officer fes prr"id"d Page 19 of 74 lfhe z units ope.ating lfrom the SEZ scheme due to the following reasons: o The global solar photovoltaic market has been in decline since zot3, particularly in Europe. o a to the and Status

DC, CSEZ has certified that a. The existing units have been de-bonded following the procedure prescribed in Rule 74 of the SEZ Rules. b. The developer had availed the following tax/duty b_enefits under the SEZ Act/Rules.'^u1 u*o.rnt of Rs. 5,92,4581- towards tax/duty exemptions availed on all their capital assets as the developer has been refunded by the De Developer to DC's Satisfaction c. The State Government has given its'No Objection'regarding de-notification of the above stated area of the SEZ. Recommendation bY DC, CSEZ: The proposal of M/s. Carborundum Universal Limited, Developer of Carborundum univlrsal Limited SEZ, Kalamassery for cancellation of LoA and de-notification of entire SEZ area of ro Ha at Electro Mineral Division, Kalamassery Development Plot, Ernakulam District, Kerala State has been recommendation and forwarded for consideration of BOA, in terms of Rule 8 of SEZ Rules 2006. Page 20 of 74

o Mineral Division, Kalamassery Development Plot, Ernakulam District, Kerala State has been recommendation and forwarded for consideration of BOA, in terms of Rule 8 of SEZ Rules 2006. Page 20 of 74

Rule position In terms of the Rule 5(z) regarding requirements of minimum area of land for an IT/ITES SF.Zz - (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. (r) Categories of cities Annexure fV-A (z) as built-up processing I Category'A' 15o,ooo sqllare meters ., Category'B' lz5,ooo square meters 3 Category'C' lr5,ooo 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: (r) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules, 5,tt,ttA 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

e 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. (z) 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 (r), (S) 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 premlses. Board of shall demarcation of a non- area for a Agenda Item No. 13o.6: Request for conversion of Processing Area into Non-Processing Area under RuIe u(B) [ 3 proposals - rSo.6(i)- r3o.6(iii)] Page 2t of 74

f shall demarcation of a non- area for a Agenda Item No. 13o.6: Request for conversion of Processing Area into Non-Processing Area under RuIe u(B) [ 3 proposals - rSo.6(i)- r3o.6(iii)] Page 2t of 74

business engaged ln Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone only after repayment, without lnterest, by the t Developer, - (i) tax benefits attributable to the non-processing area, calculated as the benefits provided for the processing area of the Special EconomicZone, in proportion of the 6uilt up area of ih" norr-processing area to the total built up area of the processing ur"u 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 Technolosy- Enabled Services Special Economic Zone Units and business engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services in non-processing area. (6) The amounf to be repaid by Developer under sub-rule (S) 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 (S) of the table below: TABLE sl. No. (r) Categories of cities as per Annexure fV-A (z) Minimum built-up processing Area (s) I Category'A' So,ooo square meters

less than the area specified in column (S) of the table below: TABLE sl. No. (r) Categories of cities as per Annexure fV-A (z) Minimum built-up processing Area (s) I Category'A' So,ooo square meters 2 Category'B' 25,ooo square meters 3 Category'C' 15,ooo square meters (B) 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. (q) 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. (ro) 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. a Consequent upon insertion of Rule rr B in the SEZ Rules, 2cc,6, Department of Commerce in consultation with Department of Revenue has issued Instruction No. rr5 dated og.o4.zo24 clarifying concerns/queries raised from stakeholders regarding Rule uB. Further, as per the directions of the BoA in its tzoth meeting held on rB.o6.zoz4, there shall be a clear certification of Specified Office and the Development Commissioner that the Developer has refunded the duty as per the provisions of Rule rrB of SEZ Rules, zoo6 and Instruction No. rr5 dated ogth April, 2cz4 issued by DoC.

ied Office and the Development Commissioner that the Developer has refunded the duty as per the provisions of Rule rrB of SEZ Rules, zoo6 and Instruction No. rr5 dated ogth April, 2cz4 issued by DoC. Accordingly, DoC vide letter dated has issued one such Certificate to be .o S Page 22 of 74

a Officer Countersigned by Development Commissioner. Moreover, in the tz2nd meeting of the BoA held on 3oth August, zoz4, lhe 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 23 of 74

1go.6(i) Request of M/s Manyata Promoters Private Limited, Bangalore, Co-Developer of Embassy Property Developments Private fimited SEZ, Rachenahalli Village, Bangalore, Karnataka for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built-up area (ttrgs7 sq.mtr.) as Non- Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules 2o,o,6 read with Instruction No.tt5 dated o,9.o4.2o24. Jurisdictional SEZ - Cochin SEZ (CSEZ) Facts of the case: Particulars Details Name of Developer M/s Embassy ProperW Developments Private Limited Address of SEZ Outer Ring Road, Rachenahalli Village, Bangalore, Karnataka Sector of the SEZ IT/ITES Formal Approval No.F.r/r/zot7-SEZ dated 2nd March 2017 Date of Notification 03.05.2017 Total Notified land area (in Hectares) 2.5906 Total Built-up area in Processing Area (in Square meters), as informed by the Developer. r82499.83 Sq.mtr. Details of Built-up area in the SEZ Building /Tower / Block/Parcel No.

(in Hectares) 2.5906 Total Built-up area in Processing Area (in Square meters), as informed by the Developer. r82499.83 Sq.mtr. Details of Built-up area in the SEZ Building /Tower / Block/Parcel No. of floors Total built-up area (in Mr) Parcel r gB+G+rB+Terrace 72479.37 Parcel z 28+1st to 4ttt Floor+gtt' to rqttt Floors +Terrace 11OO20.52 Total r8zagg.8g Total area to be demarcated as Non- Processing Area (NPA) out of Built-up area (in Square meter) Building Description Area (in M2 roth Floor 2 Parcel z Floor Total 1 Balance Built-up Processing Area after demarcation. t7rr6z.83 Square meter Whether tax/duty calculated has been made as per SEZ Rule tt (BXS)? 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 Yes Page 24 of 74

Area (NPA)? If yes, above then whether repayment has been made? Please mention the amount repaid? The Co-Developer has paid and amount of 12,85,82,777f - (Rupees Two crore eighty five lakh eighty two thousand seven hundred seventy seven only) towards tax/duty exemptions availed for the proposed area to be demarcated as NPA. 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,

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 Co-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 Common facilities: 79,45,99,23tf - Earlier, on request of the Co-Developer the rz5tt' BoA held on 6th December 2024, had granted approval for demarcation of 40767 sq.mtr. built-up area as Non- Processing area, which was conveyed by DoC vide letter dated 25.72.2024. At that time, the Developer has refunded an amount of {3,45,99,2311- vide challan No.NPAor dated 29.ro.2o24 towards the entire duty/tax exemptions availed for the common amenities iz., 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 Co-Developer refunded the entire duty/tax exemptions availed for Page 25 of 74

dens, utilities like generation and distribution of power including power back up, HVAC facilities, ETP, ETP' Since the Co-Developer refunded the entire duty/tax exemptions availed for Page 25 of 74

creating the common present proposal does payment of the same. amenities, the not involve Whether the area to be demarcated as NPA is included to be strictly used for IT/ITES Units, any in terms of SEZ Rules tt (BXz)? Yes Whether the demarcation is proposed for complete floor as per SEZ Rule rr(BXs)? Yes Whether compliance to SF,Z Rule 11 (gxg) 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.

ol 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. Further, they have undertaken that the company will adhere to all SE,Z conditions/regulations that may be prescribed in this regard. Whether as a result of the proposed demarcation, the condition of maintaining minimum built-up area requirement in compliance to SEZ Rule rr(BXZ) is adhered to Yes. The SEZ is coming under Category 'A' City and the minimum built-up area required for Category 'A' is 5o,ooo sq.mtr. After demarcation of the proposed built-up area, the remaining built-up area in the SEZ shall be t7u62.83 sq.mtr., and hence fulfills the condition. Reason for demarcation of built-up area as NPA The Co-Developer submits that the significant built-up area is l ang vacant due to implementation of Sunset clause for Income Tax, Covid r9 pandemic and introduction of work from home facility to the IT units and there is no 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 IT units The following requisite documents have been submitted: Page 26 of 74

arcate the said built-up area as Non-Processing Area. Purpose and usage of such demarcation To allot the same to non-SEZ IT units The following requisite documents have been submitted: Page 26 of 74

ll. iii. iv. v vi Duly filled ap-plication in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. rr5 dated o9.o4.2o24, fot demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area intt Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, CSEZ. chartered Engineer certificate dated 15.os.2o25 of shri R Arunkumar, Chartered Engineer Membership No. F-rrr5o8-S, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer. 'No Dues certificate' issued by specified officer vide F. No. KA:47:rTEpDpL dated zB.o5.zoz5. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty T p9r provisions of Rule rrB of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. rri dated og.o4.2oz4 duly countersignature of DC, CSEZ. Checklist of Rule rrB in prescribed format, duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, CSEZ. An^Undertaking from the SEZ Developer to the effect that they shall pay the differential / short paid / non-paid duV / tax benefits, if so dLtermined at a later date on being demanded by the department or any statutory authority without any demur or protest w.r.t. demarcation of built-up ar"a admeasuring rr,Q37 Sqmt.

tax benefits, if so dLtermined at a later date on being demanded by the department or any statutory authority without any demur or protest w.r.t. demarcation of built-up ar"a admeasuring rr,Q37 Sqmt. into Non-Processing Area for use by IT/ITES businesses as per Rule rrBof the SEZ (Fifth Amendment) Rule, 2c.23 Details of total Buildings / built-up area with their floor-wise area along with built-up area already demarcated as Non Processing Area and floor-wise built- up Processing Area proposed to be demarcated as Non processing Area. vll. Recommendation by DC, CSF.Zz- The proposal of M/s Manyata Promoters Private Limited, Co- Developer, Embassy Property Developments Private Limited SEZ for demarcation of L$57 sq.mtr. built- up Processing Area as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule rr B of SEZ Rules.2q,g,6 read with Instruction No.rr5 dated 9th April 2024, has been recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA. Page27 of74

13o.6(ii) Request of M/s Bagmane Developels- Private Limited (io"n1l"ty Balmane Constructions Private Limited), Bangalore, if.rr"lop." for-demarcation of SBZ at Mahadevapura, K R Puram, Bangalbre North, Karnataka for Processing _ Built-u! _1lel (gg+8.29 sq.ritr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule u B of SEZ Rules 2()06 read with Instruction No.tt5 dated o9-o4.2o24. Jurisdictional SF;Z - Cochin SEZ (CSEZ) Facts of the case: Particulars Details M/s Bagmane Private Limited Mahadevapura, K R Puram, Karnataka Bangalore North, Sector ofthe SEZ IT/ITES Formal No.

o24. Jurisdictional SF;Z - Cochin SEZ (CSEZ) Facts of the case: Particulars Details M/s Bagmane Private Limited Mahadevapura, K R Puram, Karnataka Bangalore North, Sector ofthe SEZ IT/ITES Formal No. F.z/zzolzoo6-SEZ dated 7th January 2oo8 Date of Notification 11.07.2OO8 Total Notified land area (in Hectares rt.3o79 Total Built-up area in Processing Area (in Square meters), as informed by the 720933.72 Details of Built-up area in the SEZ Building lTower / Block/Parcel No. of floors Total built-up area (in M2 Amber 11 rg6Sz.69 Aquamarine I 7254r.tO Citrine 13 53o66.82 Coral 11 39079.43 Emerald 7 36668.2r Garnet 13 4C,43o.60 Moonstone 8 43293.39 Peridot 13 4970t.53 Onyx 3 6og8.6S Master Plan Area WTC 36o46o.Bo Total 720933.72 Total area to be demarcated as Non-Processing Area (NPA) out of Built-up area (in Square meter) Building Amber Description Area in M2 1 1 t6 88 7th Floor gth Floor toth Floor Ground Floor Basement Total Balance Built-up Processing Area after demarcation. Ztog84.93 Square meter Page 28 of 74 Name of Developer Address of SEZ

a in M2 1 1 t6 88 7th Floor gth Floor toth Floor Ground Floor Basement Total Balance Built-up Processing Area after demarcation. Ztog84.93 Square meter Page 28 of 74 Name of Developer Address of SEZ

Whether tax/duty calculated has been made as per SEZ Rule rr (BXS)? 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 and amount of *t4rzgr5zrogsl- (Rupees Fourteen crore twenty five lakh fifty two thousand ninety five only) towards tax/duty exemptions availed for the proposed area to be demarcated as NPA (Built-up space: T6,4o,45,7591- & Common area: t7,85,o6,3361-). 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 {7,85,o6 3B6l- The Developer has paid an amount of T7,85,o6336l- (Rupees Seven crore eighty five lakh six thousand three hundred thirty six only) towards the duty/tax exemptions availed for the common assets like common internal roads, landscaping and Garden, Basement, common parking, sewage, Drainage, utilities like generation and distribution of power including Electrical installations, Fire fighting systems, HV AC Systems, Window Grills, ETP, WTP, compressor room, lift etc. Does the common infrastructure mentioned above inter-alia include internal roads,

g Electrical installations, Fire fighting systems, HV AC Systems, Window Grills, ETP, WTP, compressor room, lift etc. 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 Common facilities: {7,85,o6 $86/- Page 29 of 74

id 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 Common facilities: {7,85,o6 $86/- Page 29 of 74

Whether the area to be demarcated as NPA is included to be strictly used for IT/ITES Units, any in terms of SEZ Rules rr (BXz)? Yes Whether the demarcation is proposed for complete floor as per SEZ Rule tt(Bxg)? Yes 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. Further, they have undertaken that the company will adhere to all SEZ conditions/regulations that may be prescribed in this regard. Whether as a result of the proposed demarcation, the condition of maintaining minimum built-up area requirement in compliance to SEZ Rule rr(B)(Z) is adhered to Yes. The SEZ is coming under Category 'A' City and the minimum built-up area required for Category 'A' is So,ooo sq.mtr.

mum built-up area requirement in compliance to SEZ Rule rr(B)(Z) is adhered to Yes. The SEZ is coming under Category 'A' City and the minimum built-up area required for Category 'A' is So,ooo sq.mtr. After demarcation of the proposed built-up area, the remaining built-up area in the SEZ shall be 7rog84.g3 sq.mtr., and hence fulfills the condition. Reason for demarcation of built-up area as NPA The Co-Developer submits that the significant built-up area is lyt.rg vacant due to implementation of Sunset clause for Income Tax and Covid r9 pandemic and there is no demand for space from SEZ units. Hence, their management decided to demarcate the said built-up area as Non-Processing Area. Purpose and usage ofsuch demarcation To allot the same to non-SEZ IT units The following requisite documents have been submitted: Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. rr5 dated og.o4.zo24, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, CSEZ. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated r7.o5.2o25 of Shri Sareen Kumar V & S T Aejaz Ahmed, Chartered Engineer Membership No. AMt9o8866 & ll. Page 30 of 74 Whether compliance to SEZ Rule u (gxq) has been made regarding "no tax benefits" shall be available for operation and maintenance of common infrastructure?

mbership No. AMt9o8866 & ll. Page 30 of 74 Whether compliance to SEZ Rule u (gxq) has been made regarding "no tax benefits" shall be available for operation and maintenance of common infrastructure?

lv lll AMr74r59-7, towards calculation of taxes / duff to be refunded by the Developer. 'No Dues Certificate' issued by Specified Officer vide F. No. KA:zz:oB:Bagrnanell:or:Vol II dated zB.o5.zoz5. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule rrB of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. rr5 dated og.o4.2oz4 duly countersignature of DC, CSEZ. Checklist of Rule rrB in prescribed format, duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, CSEZ. An Undertaking from the SEZ Developer to the effect that they shall pay the differential / short paid / non-paid duty / tax benefits, if so determined at a later date on being demanded by the department or any statutory authority without any demur or protest w.r.t. demarcation of built-up area admeasuring 9948.79 Sqmt. into Non-Processing Area for use by IT/ITES businesses as per Rule rrBof the SEZ (Fifth Amendment) Rule, 2o2J. Recommendation by DC, CSEZ:- The proposal of M/s Bagmane Developers Private Limited, Developer for demarcation of 9948.79 sq.mtr. built-up Processing Area as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule rr B of SEZ Rules.2006 read with Instruction No.rr5 dated 9th April 2024, is recommended and forwarded for consideration of the BoA. V Vl. Page 31 of 74

Area as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule rr B of SEZ Rules.2006 read with Instruction No.rr5 dated 9th April 2024, is recommended and forwarded for consideration of the BoA. V Vl. Page 31 of 74

13o.6(iii) Proposal submitted by nr/t. Magarpatta Township Development a"nd bonstruction Company' Ltd. SF,Z, Magarpatta- City, Hadapsar, Ua.relf, p"r"r-fVf"tt"rashtri for apploval-o{ Dcmarcation of C"ifiiip Fioors ;; N";-irocessing Area (NPA, of notified IT1ITE5 SEz' Jurisdictional SBZ - SEBPZ SEZ Facts of the case: Details Particulars Sr. No. M/s. MagarPatta Construction Com Magarpatta CitY, Township pany Ltd. Hadapsar Development & , Haveli, Pune- 110 Name and Address of the SEZ 1 F .zl tzg lzoo6-EPZ dated z9.oB.zoo6 Letter of Formal Approval No. and Date 2 20 20 Date of Notification IT/ITES Name of the Sector of SEZ which approval has been for 4 11.32 hectares Lr.32 hectares o.oohectares Total area of SEZ i. Processing area Non-Processing area ll. 5 Area in Sq Mtr Block / Tower No. Sr. No. 20 1 2 Tower-B 66 Tower-Br Tower-B 2 Tower- 6 Tower- 11 2 B Tower-B6 r20 Tower- Tower-Sr 10 Tower-Sz 11 2ro t2 Excise Office 66 1 Total Details of Built Up area: i. No of towers with built-up area of each tower (in sq. mtr.)- Total No. of Towers 6 i. ii Processin$ area; r,77,665.26 Sq.Mtr area: o .Mtr Non- Total Built up are in 7 Total floor proposed for NPA Sq.Mtr) up (in Built area Sr. No Tower No Floor No. Total Numbers of floors in Building wherein demarcation of NPA is proposed 8 Page 32 of 74 given ?oF42.22 ?o:5t2.94 13932.94 r446j.66 34Bs.6s 2go7.g5

tr) up (in Built area Sr. No Tower No Floor No. Total Numbers of floors in Building wherein demarcation of NPA is proposed 8 Page 32 of 74 given ?oF42.22 ?o:5t2.94 13932.94 r446j.66 34Bs.6s 2go7.g5

1 Tower B UGL 1 3943.06 , Level- 1 1 3522.67 3 Level- 2 1 3522.6r 4 Level- 3 l. 35zz.6t 5 Level- 4 1 3522.61 6 Tower 9 Level- 4 1 3522.61 7 Level 5 1 35zz.6t Total 25o78.72 9 Total built up area proposed for demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non-SEZ IT ITES units ln .mtr. 25o78.72 Sq.mtrs 10 Total built up area proposed for demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non-SEZ IT/ITES units Tower B- Floor Level 3, Level 4. No. UGL, Level r, Level z, Tower 9- Floor No. Level4 & Level 5 11 Total duty benefits and tax exemption availed on the built-up area proposed to be demarcated as NPA ( Rs in crores Total benefit of Tax exemption availed on built up area proposed to be demarcated as NPA is Rs. 5,45,68,2241- 12 Whether duty benefits and tax exemptions availed has been refunded and NOC from Specified Officer has been obtained (Please enclose NPC from Specified Officer) Total Duty benefit and tax exemption refunded by the developer amounting to Rs. 17,68,99,7571- vide (i) TR -6 Challan No zoz4-z5loz dated 2o.o2.2o25 amounting to Rs B,B5,ro,68gl-Gi) TR -6 Challan No zoz5- z6lot dated 14th May 2o2S amounting to Rs.8,83,89 ,068l- (Built up area Rs. 5,45,68,274 and common area Rs t2,2S,ZL,48Sl-) and, NOC from the Specified Officer is received. 13 Reasons for demarcation of NPA New units not intending to enter in SEZ due to no benefits and cumbersome procedures,

common area Rs t2,2S,ZL,48Sl-) and, NOC from the Specified Officer is received. 13 Reasons for demarcation of NPA New units not intending to enter in SEZ due to no benefits and cumbersome procedures, it was observed that some of the units de- bonded either totally or partially and existing units also applying for the Exit from SEZ, the area is vacant for very long time, company is therefore planning for demarcation of portion of the built up area into a non- processing area. t4 Total remaining built up area r,5z,5BS.o4 Sq.mtr 15 Whether built up total area remarnrng fulfils the Yes Page 33 of 74

minimum built up area requirement as per Rule 5 of SEZ Rules,2c,c,6 r6 Purpose and usage of such demarcation of NPA As directed by the MOC&I & vide their instruction no. Dtzl45lzoog-SEZ dated 13.09.2013, the area proposed for NPA shall be utilized towards IT/ITES which would sub-serve the objective of the MOCI as The following requisite documents have been submitted: iii. iv. Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. rr5 dated og.o4.2o24, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, SEEPZ. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 24.o4.2o2S of Shri Vijay Dattatray Khamkar, Chartered Engineer Membership No.

built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, SEEPZ. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 24.o4.2o2S of Shri Vijay Dattatray Khamkar, Chartered Engineer Membership No. F-2565r, M-t535875, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer. 'No Dues Certificate' issued by Specified Officer vide letter dated 19.05.2025. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule rrB of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. rr5 dated o9.o4.2o24 duly countersignature of DC, SEEPZ. Checklist of Rule rrB in prescribed format, duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, SEEPZ. An Undertaking from the SEZ Developer to the effect that they shall pay the differential / short paid / non-paid duty / tax benefits, if so determined at a later date on being demanded by the department or any statutory authority without any demur or protest w.r.t. demarcation of built-up area admeasuring 25o78.72 Sqmt. into Non-Processing Area for use by IT/ITES businesses as per Rule rrBof the SEZ (Fifth Amendment) Rule, zoz1. Details of total Buildings / built-up area with their floor-wise area along with built-up area already demarcated as Non Processing Area and floor-wise built- up Processing Area proposed to be demarcated as Non Processing Area l. V vi vll Recommendation by DC, SEEPZ: The request of M/s. Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Company Ltd.

ise built- up Processing Area proposed to be demarcated as Non Processing Area l. V vi vll Recommendation by DC, SEEPZ: The request of M/s. Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Company Ltd. for approval of Demarcation of Built up Floors as Non-Processing Area (NPA) of notified IT/ITES SEZ Has been recommended to the Board for consideration. Page 34 of 74 orieinally envisaged.

Agenda item no. 180.7: Miscellaneous [r proposal: r3o.7(i)] Rule Position: As per Rule-27(t) - Prouiso proutded also that items prohibited for import can be p.rocurn! by a Spectal Economic Zone unit or Deueloper from a placi outside Indta to -the Special Economic Zone with the prior approual of ihe Board of Approual. Sub-rule (q) (d) of the Rule tB (Consideration of proposals for setting up the tlnit in _a Special Economic Zone) says No proposal shall be considered jor'import of other used goods for recycling". Page 35 of 74

13o.7(i) Request of M/s. Idhan Private Limited, a unit in Vishakhapatnam SEZ, Vishakhapatnam for import of used Cooking Oil (Prohibited Item). Jurisdictional SF:Z - Vishakhapatnam SEZ Facts of the case! M/s. Idhan private Limited was granted Letter of Approval vide Letter gf SgZlSZSlVSEZlzoz5 d.ated: z8.or.zoz5 for manufacture of Bio Diesel and Crude Cty""ri""-for export. ift" unit has proposed an investment of 136.oo crores and employment to 21o peoPle. Background: M/s Biomax Limited, an existing unit in VSEZ has availed financial assistance from M/s. Mahesh Coopeiative Banlilimited. The unit has defaulted in payment of the loan to M/s.

21o peoPle. Background: M/s Biomax Limited, an existing unit in VSEZ has availed financial assistance from M/s. Mahesh Coopeiative Banlilimited. The unit has defaulted in payment of the loan to M/s. Mahuih .oopurative Bank Limited. The Banker has declared the unit as NpA and initiated action and conducted public auction. M/s. Idhan Private Limited has participated in the auction and is the successful bidder of the auction and approachea VSBZ for issue of LoA as they intend to operate the unit. M/s. Idhan Private Limited has cleared the outstanding dues to the VSEZ Authority and submitted application for issue of Letter of Approval. The proposal of IvI/s. idhan^ private Limited inras considered by the Unit Approval Committee and Letter of Approval was granted to the unit. Present request of the Unit: M/s. Idhan Private Limited has requested for permission to import used cooking Oil and process the same to manufacture Biodiesel for export. As per the project application and project report, the unit has mentioned that the rawlmaterid for manufacture of Biodiesel is High FFA Crude Palm Oil(CPO/Other Vegetable Oils with rz-r4%o FFA, Rice Bran Fatty Acids and any,other Fatty acids of vefetable oil origin and Used Cooking Oil (UCO)/Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO)with S- 6% FFA. The unit has informed that their primary feedstock is Used Cooking Oil.

tty Acids and any,other Fatty acids of vefetable oil origin and Used Cooking Oil (UCO)/Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO)with S- 6% FFA. The unit has informed that their primary feedstock is Used Cooking Oil. It is informed that Used Cooking Oil is available in abundance in the international market and it will also ensure smooth operation and commercial viability of the plant. As per ITC(HS) Classifications of Export & Import items Used Cooking Oll covered under r5r8oo4o is a prohibited item for Import. The unit has requested for permission to import the prohibited item for manufacture of biodiesel. The unit has itated that the Used Cooking Oil used solely for the purpose of manufacturing of biodiesel for export only. Precedence: Page 36 of 74

Used Cooktng Oil (UCO) or [Jsed Vegetable Oil (WO) are used. goods which the untt i1.tery! to import and reuse the same for processing of the same 7or manufacture of Biodieselfor export. Earlier, similar request for tmport of UCO for manufacture of Bio-diesel has been app-roued by BoA subject to condttion that the imported -cooktng oil shatl be exclusiuely usedfor manufocturing of Btodiesel and export thereof aid cl"orrnce of imported used cooking oil to DTA shall not be alloued. Recommendation by DC, VSEZ: The_ request of M/s. Idhan Private Limited for permission to import Used Cooking Oil has been forwarded with the approval of DC, VSEZ for placing the same before the BoA for a decision. Page37 of74

The_ request of M/s. Idhan Private Limited for permission to import Used Cooking Oil has been forwarded with the approval of DC, VSEZ for placing the same before the BoA for a decision. Page37 of74

Agenda Item No.L3o.8: Appeal [4 cases: rgo.8(i) - rSo.8(iv)] In terms of the rule 55 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, ana I rteued by an order passed by the Approual Committee under section 15 annst cancellation ofLetter ofApproual under section 16, maa prefer an appeal Board in the Form J. tn terms of rule 56, an appeol shall be preferred by the 0ggrieued order of the thin 0 period of thirty days fro^ the date of receipt of the under ruIe L B. Furthermore, if the Board ls satisfied that the appellan preferring the appeal thin the afo id period, sufficient cause fo, not tDt resQ fo, reasons to be recorded ln writing t admit the appeal after the expiry of period but before the expva of forw-fiue days fro* the date munication to himof the order ofthe Approual Commtttee Page 38 of 74

sons to be recorded ln writing t admit the appeal after the expiry of period but before the expva of forw-fiue days fro* the date munication to himof the order ofthe Approual Commtttee Page 38 of 74

18o.8(i) Appeal dated 1o.o2.2o25 filed by M/s. Margo Impex private Limited against the decision of UAC meeting held on oz.or.iozg which was conveyed vide order dated 18.<11.2<125. Jurisdictional SF,Z - Noida SEZ (NSEZ) Brief facts of the case II M/s. Margo Impex Private Limited has been granted toA No. tolrglzozz- SEZl85z9 dt. ro.ro.zozz for setting up of a unit in the for setting up a unit in the Arshiya Northern VTWZ Ltd. Free Trade and Warehousing Zone at village- Ibrahimpur, Junaidpur urf Maujpur, Khurja Distt- Bulandshahr (u.L) to undertake ' warehousing, Trading (wtth or utthout labeling), po.cking or re-pocking (without any processing), Assembly of completely Knocked Down or Semi Knocked Dotun kits for the items (as per list of 6z No. HS Codes & item description) except 'Restricted' &'Prohibited' items'. The unit has executed Bond-Cum-Legal Undertaking which has been accepted by the Competent Authority. The unit had commenced operations we.f. t7.72.2o22, accordingly tOA of the unit is valid upto 16.rz.zoz7. The list of items under toA dt. to.to.2o2z includes HS code o8or & oSoz The Approval Committee in its meeting held on o4.ot.zoz4 had reviewed the L,OAs of the Free Trade and Warehousing units in Arshiya FIV,IZ,I(hurja (U.P.).

A dt. to.to.2o2z includes HS code o8or & oSoz The Approval Committee in its meeting held on o4.ot.zoz4 had reviewed the L,OAs of the Free Trade and Warehousing units in Arshiya FIV,IZ,I(hurja (U.P.). As per agenda of the said meeting, a high level meeting was held in Department of Commerce on 29.12.2c.25 which went into the specific on F-[WZ including documentation filed (and whether this was manual or online), customs procedures including the method of valuation, relationship of the unit with the clients, measures to streamline operations and the scope of products covered under FII"WZs. As an outcome of this meeting the office of. Zonal NSEZ reviewed various parameters of FTWZ including the product coverage The Approval Committee decided that all LoAs of the existing units in FI"WZ/SEZs having precious metals and related goods and other sensitive goods for warehousing/trading activities shall be amended to the following extent:- a. Trading / warehousing of all precious metals and related goods falling under Harmonised System (HS) Chapter 7r, HS z616 and HS g6o8 shall be removed; b. Goods under ITC HS Codes o8or3z, o8o28o, o9o4,9101, gttt, gtl49o3o shall be removed from LOAs of all such existing trading / warehousing units. c. However, precious metals goods in stock of the unit at F|WZ/SEZ may be allowed to be re-exported by the unit. Goods other than precious metal which are in stock of the unit at FIWZ/SEZ and being excluded herewith may be allowed transaction as per existing policy condition of DGFT and/or any other Government agency III I Page 39 of 74

etal which are in stock of the unit at FIWZ/SEZ and being excluded herewith may be allowed transaction as per existing policy condition of DGFT and/or any other Government agency III I Page 39 of 74

IV V. w, Accordingly, as per the decision of the Approval Committee, the items under HS Code 0801 & o8oz had been removed from the toA No' t(,tfrylzozz-SFiZlBszgdt.ro.ro.zozzofM/s.MargoImpexPvt.Ltd.vide this office letter dated r8.or.zoz4. Thereafter, M/s. Margo Impex Pvt. Ltd. had filed an appeal before BoA, under Rule 55 of SEZ Rules, 2C,C,6, against the aforesaid decision of UAC meeting held on o4.or.2o24. The aforesaid appeal of M/s. Margo Impex p,1. f.ia. was placed before the BoA held on t'8.o6.2o24 [Item No' rzo.rz(i)1. As per minutes of the said BoA meeting 'The Board heard the representotiue of unit and. obserued that the matter requires to be exqmined holistilaily. Further, the Board was of the uiew that for further examination of the iatter, documents / detaits of the unit in regard to their imports and. ixports, business model, AA, ffansfer etc. are required. Aicordingly, it " Board, after deliberations, deferred the appeal and directed DoC to seek these documents / details from the appellants' DoC vide Instruction No.rr7 dated 24.og.2o24 has issued guidelines for operation framework of FTWZ and Warehousing units in SEZ, for strict compliance.

these documents / details from the appellants' DoC vide Instruction No.rr7 dated 24.og.2o24 has issued guidelines for operation framework of FTWZ and Warehousing units in SEZ, for strict compliance. As per para (ix) of the said Instruction, "DCs shall keetrt a strict watch in the high risk cornmodities such os Areco nuts, betel nut, black pepper, dates etc' oLnd maA consider restricting deorling in- iuch sensitiue cotnmodities by FTWZ units 6rnd wgLrehiusing units. Moreouer, the lisf moy further be regularly reuiewed by the Llnit Approual Committee based on the risk perceptions of the uarious commodities." The aforesaid comments were forwarded. to DoC with request that the Board of Approval may take suitable decision in respect of aforesaid appeal of M/s' tvtuigo Impex p,vt. Ltd. in light of the guidelines issued Instruction No.rr7 dated 24.o9.2024. DoC vide letter dated No. K-43ozzlrt4lzoz4-SEZ dated t}.rr.zoz4 which is addressed to M/s. Margo Impex Private Limited conveying decision of the :r. th meeting of BoA held, on os.rt.2o24 has been received. Vide letter dated r9.t].zoz4, it has been conveyed that the appeal dated L4.o2.2o24 of M/s' Margo Impex private Limited against the decision of UAC, NSEZ was considered in the BoA meeting held on iS.rr.ror4. The Board, after deliberations, remanded the appeal back to UAC, NSBZ with direction to examine and process the request of the appellant after duly considering the relevant provisions stipulated under DoC's Instruction No.

rations, remanded the appeal back to UAC, NSBZ with direction to examine and process the request of the appellant after duly considering the relevant provisions stipulated under DoC's Instruction No. rr7 dated 24.09'2024. As per the direction of BOA, a personal hearing in the matter was once again given ihe unit on 261t.2o24 at 1o.oo AM. As no one appeared before the berrelopment Commissioner, the next date was given o2.r2.2o24 at 1O'3O AM' The unit was granted opportunity for personal hearing before the Joint Development Commissioner on O2.r2.2o24, to explain their case. Mr. Imran Ahmad, Director and Mr. Sumit Wadhwa, Advocate of M/s. Margo Impex Private Limited appeared before the Joint Development Commissioner on the said date wherein the Page 40 of 74

representative from the unit stated that they have orders for export and their business operations are totally hampered. They have submitted that they will fulfil all requirements of Instruction No. rr7. They requested to take lenient view and allow to start their operations in HSN o8oz. After that the matter was placed before UAC dated o2.or.2o2; ReQuest for reconsideration of HS Codes removed from the LOA of the IJfWZ Unit: The Approval Committee discussed the proposal in detail in light of the sensitivity of business plan and Guidelines for Operational Framework of FTWZ & Warehousing units in SEZ issued vide Instruction No. rr7 dated 24.09.2024. It was noted that Instruction No. rr7 had specifically come in the light of the adverse reports and inputs received related to functioning of some warehouse units.

struction No. rr7 dated 24.09.2024. It was noted that Instruction No. rr7 had specifically come in the light of the adverse reports and inputs received related to functioning of some warehouse units. The Committee maintained its position that on account of the sensitivity, given the investigations and seizure by agencies, quality of consignments including the risk of diversion due to the long inland transport, absence of economic rationale after incurring such high freight costs, difficulties in valuation due to volatility of prices, possibility of trading in precious metals, referencing some of the high risk commodities which are part of their tOA in Instruction No. 117, cases of transfer from other FTWZs prior to this Instruction (which has now been disallowed without approval of UAC); the earlier decision to remove certain sensitive products from the LOA is upheld. The decision of UAC dated o2.ot.2oz1 has been conveyed to the unit on 13.01.2025 against which they have filed this appeal Para wise comments of NSEZ: S. No. Grounds ofAppeal Comments/Inputs Brief of Unit No Comments 2 The appellant is filing this appeal against the UAC's decision dated oz.oL.2o2S, communicated via letter dated 13.01.2025 from the office of the Ld. ADC, DC NSEZ. Decision of UAC dated oz.ot.2o21:- Request for reconsideration of HS Codes removed from the LOA of the FTWZ Unit: The Approval Committee discussed the proposal in detail in light of the sensitivity of business plan and Guidelines for Operational Framework of F'IWZ & Warehousing units in SEZ issued vide Instruction No.

proval Committee discussed the proposal in detail in light of the sensitivity of business plan and Guidelines for Operational Framework of F'IWZ & Warehousing units in SEZ issued vide Instruction No. rr7 dated 24.c,9.2024. It was noted that Instruction No. rr7 had specifically come in the light of the adverse reports and inputs received related to functioning of some Page 4t of 74 1.

warehouse units. The Committee maintained its position that on account of the sensitivity given the investigations and seizure by agencies, quality of consignments including the risk of diversion due to the long inland transport, absence of economic rationale after incurring such high freight costs, difficulties in valuation due to volatility of prices, possibility of trading in precious metals, referencing some of the high risk commodities which are part of their LOA in Instruction No. rr7, cases of transfer from other FTWZs prior to this Instruction (which has now been disallowed without approval of UAC); the earlier decision to remove certain sensitive products from the LOA is upheld. Vide letter dated 13.01.2025 the decision of UAC Dated o2.o1.2o25 has been 3 Under Section r5 of the SEZ Act, 2oo5 and related rules, the company submitted proposals on 23.08.2022 and 2t.og.2o2z to set up a unit as per Section (zc) of the Act. a Northern on u a new unit in 24.C8.2022 4 The company's application was approved by the UAC via LoA dated October ro,2c22 (No.

08.2022 and 2t.og.2o2z to set up a unit as per Section (zc) of the Act. a Northern on u a new unit in 24.C8.2022 4 The company's application was approved by the UAC via LoA dated October ro,2c22 (No. ro/rg lzozz- SEZ), subject to prescribed terms and authorized operations. LOA dated ro.ro.zozz has been issued to the unit. 5-7 LoA is valid for 5 years from the start of the unit's service activities, as per its terms and SEZ Rule tg(6). Pursuant to the issuance of the LoA, the company qualifies as an "entrepreneur" under Section zfi) of the SEZ Act. As such, it has carried out its commercial activities strictly in line with the terms and conditions of the LoA and in compliance with the SEZ Act and Rules. The company operates a unit in the Noida Special Economic Zone, within Arshiya Northern No Comments Page 42 of 74

F-nt{Z Ltd. Multi-sector SEZ, located in Village lbrahimpur, Junaidpur Urf Maujpur, Khurja, District Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh. The unit caters to diverse customer needs in full compliance with applicable legal and regulatory frameworks and the conditions stipulated in the LoA. B-q Conduct of Inquiry by the Special Incestigation and Intelligence Branch and its Closure with no Adverse Finding qua the Company. No Comments 10- 11 Following an SIIB inquiry, the DRI under the Ministry of Finance initiated a probe into the company's authorized commercial activities conditionally permitted to it. Pursuant to the inquiry, DRI issued a show cause notice under Section rz4 of the Customs Act, 196z, which is currently sub-judice.

ny's authorized commercial activities conditionally permitted to it. Pursuant to the inquiry, DRI issued a show cause notice under Section rz4 of the Customs Act, 196z, which is currently sub-judice. Notably, the notice lacks any incriminating evidence against the company. It may be mentioned here that this office had received a letter No. DRI/NRU/CI- z6llnt-olEnq-rg/zonlSZo dated 26.04.2c24 from Sh. Dinesh Singh, Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Lucknow Zonal addressed to Joint Secretary, SEZ DOC informing that DRI, Noida has seized the goods declared as "Betel Nuts (o8oz8ogo)- others" in 31 bills of entries having cumulative value of Rs. tgg,zt,77,876f - filed by M/s. Margo Impex Prt. Ltd. and goods declared as "Betel Nuts (o8oz8o9o)-others". Seizure Memo No. DRI/NRU I CI-26 I rnt-o/ Enq- tglzo4l54g dated 26.04.2c24 has been issued in respect of M/s. Margo Impex Pvt. Ltd. by DRI, Noida for "Contravention of the Customs Act, L962". t2- r4 On o4.ot.2oz4, the UAC held a meeting to review the functioning of units in Free Trade and Warehousing Zones under the SEZ Act. The company was shocked to learn that during the UAC meeting on o4.ot.2oz4, its LoA for HSN oSor (coconuts, betel nuts & cashew nuts, fresh and dried, whether or not shelled or peeled) and o8oz(other nuts, fresh and dried, whether or not shelled or peeled) was suo moto and unjustifiably cancelled.

oconuts, betel nuts & cashew nuts, fresh and dried, whether or not shelled or peeled) and o8oz(other nuts, fresh and dried, whether or not shelled or peeled) was suo moto and unjustifiably cancelled. This was communicated to the company on 18.01.2o24 by The Approval Committee in its meeting held on o4.ot.2o24 had reviewed the LOAS of the Free Trade and Warehousing units in Arshiya F--[WZ, Khurja (U.P.). As per agenda of the said meeting, a high level meeting was held in Department of Commerce on 29.L2.2o29 which went into the specific on YII/,{Z including documentation filed (and whether this was manual or online), customs procedures including the method of valuation, relationship of the unit with the clients, measures to streamline operations and the scope of products covered under FTWZs. As Page 43 of 74

the Deputy Development Commissioner (the "First Impugned Order"), which removed these goods from the LoA dated to.ro.2022. At the o4.or.2o24 meeting, the UAC arbitrarily cancelled the appellant's LoA for certain HSNs and imposed extra compliance burdens beyond its authority, which are ultra vires the SEZ Act. These matters fall under specialized statutory regulators. The relevant part of the first Impugned Order detailing these burdens is reproduced below: z. The Approual Committee further decided that in case of warehousing units, each unit will exercise due diligence and shall ensure KYC in respect of its clients wherein coptes of following documents shall be inuariably ensured:- a. Copy of Business Agreement. b.

using units, each unit will exercise due diligence and shall ensure KYC in respect of its clients wherein coptes of following documents shall be inuariably ensured:- a. Copy of Business Agreement. b. Copy of Passport/ualid ID of the promoter/director. c. Copy of undertaking to the effect that the usarehousing untt has uerified the KYC, antecedents and financial standing of their clients. d. CopA of Bank Statement and financial credentials. The unit uill monitor the remittances receiued against the supply of goods. an outcome of this meeting the office of Zonal NSEZ reviewed various parameters of F'[WZ including the product coverage. (iii). The Approval Committee decided that all LoAs of the existing units in F'lWZlSEZs having precious metals and related goods and other sensitive goods for warehousing/trading activities shall be amended to the following extent:- a. Tlading / warehousing of a-ll precious metals and related goods falling under Harmonised System (HS) Chapter 71, HS z6t6 and HS g6o8 shall be removed; b. Goods under ITC HS Codes o8o132, o8o28o, o9o4r 9101, gtttr 91149o3o shall be removed from LOAs of all such existing trading / warehousing units. c. However, precious metals goods in stock of the unit at I-'II'MZISEZ may be allowed to be re-exported by the unit. Goods other than precious metal which are in stock of the unit at F-lwzlSEZ and being excluded herewith may be allowed transaction as per existing policy condition of DGFT and/or any other Government agency. (iv).

an precious metal which are in stock of the unit at F-lwzlSEZ and being excluded herewith may be allowed transaction as per existing policy condition of DGFT and/or any other Government agency. (iv). Accordingly, as per the decision of the Approval Committee, the items under HS Code o8ol & o8o2 had been removed from the tOA No. tolrgl zozz- SEZIBSz9 dt. !o.to.2o22 of M/s. Margo Impex h,t. Ltd. vide this office letter dated 18.01.2024. 15- t6 Aggrieved by the First Impugned Order, the Appellant challenged its validity including the HSN cancellations and additional compliance burdens before this Thereafter, M/s. Margo Impex P,1. Ltd. had filed an appeal before BoA, under Rule 55 of SEZ Rules, zoo6, against the aforesaid decision of UAC meeting held on o4.o1.2024. The aforesaid appeal of Page 44 of 74

Board via an appeal dated r4.o2.2o24 under Section fi(+) of the SEZ Act read with Rule 55 of the SEZ Rules. In its rrgth meeting on 06.c3.2024, the BoA considered the companyb appeal and remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Development Commissioner, directing that the company be given a hearing and the case be decided on merit. This decision was communicated via letter dated t1.o7.2o24. Hon'ble the representatiue of unit and obserued. that the matter requires to be examined. holistically. Further, the Board. was of the uieu that for further examinatton of the matter, documents / details of the unit in regard to their imports and exports, business model, DTA transfer etc. are required.

Further, the Board. was of the uieu that for further examinatton of the matter, documents / details of the unit in regard to their imports and exports, business model, DTA transfer etc. are required. Accordingly, the Board, after deltberattons, deferred the appeal and directed DoC to seek these documents / detatls meeting S. m I P,1. Ltd. Ml WAS Margo pex placed the before held BoA on rB 6 o 2024 N tem 120 o. II As m i) L2( l nutes per of the id so BoA 'The Board rd hea .from the fs.' 77- t9 Hon'ble Board's first order, the Appellant received a show cause notice dated o9.o7.2o24 (F. No. rolrglzozz- SEZlzzt6) from the Ld. Development Commissioner, asking why trading/warehousing of precious metals and goods under certain HSN codes (Ch. 71, 2616, 96o8, and ITC HS oBo1B2, o8o28o, ogo4, 9101, gttt, gtt4go1o collectively "Impugned HSNs") should not be removed from the Company's LoA. On 2t.o8.2024, the Appellant submitted a detailed reply to the SCN, opposing the removal of the Impugned HSNs from its LoA, citing lack of justification and highlighting the significant revenue and foreign exchange earned from these goods.

detailed reply to the SCN, opposing the removal of the Impugned HSNs from its LoA, citing lack of justification and highlighting the significant revenue and foreign exchange earned from these goods. A personal hearing was attended on 22.c3.2024, where the Appellant reiterated its submissions before the Ld. Following the t Commissioner discussion in the UAC meeting on o4.o4.2024. direction hearing Following hearing, As Board the of S per Approval unit the was a \14 given personal CN S o8 dated the .03 2024 the ma sch tter was eduled for 20- 22 The Appellant was appear before the UAC o4.o4.2o24 and, despite attending and presenting submissions, was given only a day's notice-falling short of a "reasonable opportunity" under Section 16 of the SEZ Act. In the same meeting, the UAC to on removed the 2c- The decision of the Approval Committee meeting held on o4.o4.2o24, is re- zz produced as under:- u7. The Committee obserued that a personal hearing uas giuen to these unfrs by the Deuelopment Commissioner, NSEZ on 22.o, .202 Page 45 of 74

ng held on o4.o4.2o24, is re- zz produced as under:- u7. The Committee obserued that a personal hearing uas giuen to these unfrs by the Deuelopment Commissioner, NSEZ on 22.o, .202 Page 45 of 74

andby the UAC on o4.o4.2o24. 2. On the issue of the Power of the tlAC to remoue products fro^ those in the LOA, the tlAC exqmtned Sections t4, t5, and fi of the SEZ Act as tuell as ailrt fi and 19 of the SEZ Rules' It noted the argumenls of the unit as well os the internal legal opinion' Some of the releuant aspicts which were duly considered on the power of the UAC to omend a goods in the LOA were Section t+(t)(c) in monitoring of the utiliz.ation of- goo'ds, Section t6 on cqncellation 9f iOa and Rule tg(z) on change in the item of monufacture. A uiew was taken that cancellalion of an LOA is a horsh measure and remoual of some sensitiue goods is a more trade facilitatorY *noturu which allous the unit to function. Therefore, under t\e an\iy of "monitoring, it ruasfelt thot the tlAC had the power to remoue sensitiue goods' S.

ensitiue goods is a more trade facilitatorY *noturu which allous the unit to function. Therefore, under t\e an\iy of "monitoring, it ruasfelt thot the tlAC had the power to remoue sensitiue goods' S. SecondlY, on the issue of iensitiuity, the UAC noted the quality concerns, possibility of diuersion during the long' inlond transPort, lack o{ n"ono^{, rationale in incurring such high freight cost, sensitiuity of goods as monilesied by inuestigation czrried out bg agencies, irnport ualue below which to , goods ure Prohibited which attendont dfficulty in uoluation due to uolatitity in prices, possibility of trading in precious metols and their produits and informol meeting in the Department of Commerce to discuss PtWZs based on concerns raised bY Department of Reuenue. 4. In the light of this, the UAC reiteroted and upheld its decision of remouing specific sensitiue products Iromthe LOA of theunit." The decision of UAC dated o4.o4.zoz5 was con to the unit on 20 incurring high freight cost, sensitivity of goods, imPort value below which some goods are prohibited, with attendant difficulty in valuation due to volatilitY in prices, possibilitY of trading in precious metals and their products and informal meeting in the Department of Commerce to discuss FTWZs based on concerns raised by DePartment of Revenue . This detision was communicated vide order dated 23.04-2024 citing diversion, possibility the S from HSNr Impugned and LoA S vaSue Com , pany ty ASONS re namely quali genenc of concerns, ln rationale of economlc lack No Comments t24th meeting of BoA held on .

citing diversion, possibility the S from HSNr Impugned and LoA S vaSue Com , pany ty ASONS re namely quali genenc of concerns, ln rationale of economlc lack No Comments t24th meeting of BoA held on . BoA remanded the back which dated filed A appeal ppellant agaln ln heard was o 2 15 5 o24 o 11.20 25 23- Page 46 of 74

the matter to UAC with direction to examine and process the request of the appellants after duly considering the relevant provisions stipulated under DoC's Instruction No. rr7 dated 24.c,9.2024. Accordingly, the appellant filed a communique dated zo.tt.zoz4 to DC, NSEZ seeking re-adjudication opf the matter z6 Pursuant to the BOA order, the Appellant received a hearing notice dated 27.tt.2o24 for a virtual hearing on 02.12.2024, which the Appellant attended in person along with legal counsel. I As per, lhe direction of BOA, a I personal hearing in the matter was I once again given-the unit on z6.rt.zoz4 I at lo.oo AM. As no one appeared I before the.Development Commisiioner, I the next date was given oz.rz.zoz4 at I ro.3o AM. The unit was sranted gpportunity for personal hearing Gfore. . [he Joiht DevelopmenT Commissioner on 02.12.2024, to explain their case. Mr. lmran Ahmad. Director and Mr. Sumit Wadhwa, Advocate of M/s. Margo Impex Private Limited appeared b6fore 'the Joint Development Commissioner on the said date wherein the representative from the unit stated that they have orders for export and their birsiness operations are totallv hamoered. Thev h'ave submitted that"they will futnt afi requirements a,f Instruition No.

epresentative from the unit stated that they have orders for export and their birsiness operations are totallv hamoered. Thev h'ave submitted that"they will futnt afi requirements a,f Instruition No. tt7. Thev requested to take lenient view and- allo* to start their operations in HSN o8oz. 91- 29 The Appellant appeared before the UAC on o2.ol2o25 and reiterated its objections to the removal of the Impugned HSNs. However, the UAC again decided against the Appellant through the Impugned Order, mechanically upholding the removal without providing specific reasons and merely relying on the Instruction. Additionally, The Committee maintained its position that on account of the sensitivity given the investigations and seizure by agencies, quality of consignments including the risk of diversion due to the long inland transport, absence of economic rationale after incurring such high freight costs, After that the matter was placed before UAC dated 02.o1.2025. Request for reconsideration of HS Codes removed from the LOA of the F'[WZ Unit: The Approval Committee discussed the proposal in detail in light of the sensitivity of business plan and Guidelines for Operational Framework of FTWZ & Warehousing units in SEZ issued vide Instruction No. rr7 dated 24.c,9.2024. It was noted that Instruction No. rr7 had specifically come in the light of the adverse reports and inputs received related to functioning of some warehouse units.

truction No. rr7 dated 24.c,9.2024. It was noted that Instruction No. rr7 had specifically come in the light of the adverse reports and inputs received related to functioning of some warehouse units. The Committee maintained its position that on account of the sensitivity given the investigations and seizure by agencies, quality of consignments including the risk of Page47 of74

difficulties in valuation due to volatility of prices, possibility of trading in precious metals, referencing some of the high-risk commodities which are part of their LOA in Instruction No. tt7, cases of transfer from other FTWZs prior to this Instruction (which has now been disallowed without approval of UAC); the earlier decision to remove certain sensitive products from the LOA is upheld. diversion due to the long inland transport, absence of economic rationale after incurring such high freight costs, difficulties in valuation due to volatility of prices, possibility of trading in precious metals, referencing some of the high risk commodities which are part of their LOA in Instruction No. 117, cases of transfer from other FTWZs prior to this Instruction (which has now been disallowed without approval of UAC); the earlier decision to remove certain sensitive products from the LOA is upheld. The decision of UAC dated oz.or.zoz5 has been conveyed to the unit on 13.01.2025 against which they have filed this appeal. Praygr of appellant: In view of the following, it is respectfully prayed that may your goodself be graciously please to: (i).

eyed to the unit on 13.01.2025 against which they have filed this appeal. Praygr of appellant: In view of the following, it is respectfully prayed that may your goodself be graciously please to: (i). Set aside the decision taken by the UAC against the Appellant in its meeting held on January cr2,2o2S via which the Appellants' LoA has been cancelled qua the Impugned HSNs; (ii). Quash the Impugned Order dated January LS,2o24 in toto and restore the appellants', as it originally stood before the passing corresponding decision taken by the UAC against the appellant in its meeting held on January oz, 2025 (iii). Grant and effective, meaningful, fair and reasonable hearing in the matter; (iv). Allow the appellant to file any additional document(s)/ground(s)/information or likewise, as and when the need arises, if any, at a subsequent date to the filling of this appeal; and (v). Pass such other or further order(s) as your goodself may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and to secure the ends of justice. Decision of BoA in prior meetings: The Board in t24th meeting, after deliberations, remanded both the appeals [item no. r24.7(ii) & rz+.2(iii)] back to UAC, NSEZ with direction to examine and process the request of the appellants after duly considering the relevant provisions stipulated under DoC's Instruction No. rr7 dated 24.c,9.2024. The Board in its 12oth meeting, heard the representatives of both the Units [item no. 12o.12(i) & rzo.rz(ii)l and observed that the matter requires to be examined Page 48 of 74

r7 dated 24.c,9.2024. The Board in its 12oth meeting, heard the representatives of both the Units [item no. 12o.12(i) & rzo.rz(ii)l and observed that the matter requires to be examined Page 48 of 74

holistically. Further, the Board was of the view that for further examination of the matter, documents/details of the above Units in regard to their imports & exports, business model, DTA transfer etc. are required. Accordingly, the Board,^after deliberations, deferred both the appealJ and directed -DoC to seek these documents/details from the appellants. The Board in its rrgtt' meeting, heard the appellant and observed that there is vitiation of the proceedings in issuing Order and withdrawing the permissions by DC, NSEZ. The Board, after deliberations, agreed to the prayer of the appellani and remanded the appeal back to DC, NSEZ with direction to grant the Unit an opportunity of being heard and thereafter, decide the case on merit. The appeal is being placed before the Board for its consideration Page 49 of 74

k to DC, NSEZ with direction to grant the Unit an opportunity of being heard and thereafter, decide the case on merit. The appeal is being placed before the Board for its consideration Page 49 of 74

13o.S(ii) Appeal dated og.o4.2oz5 of Y/". F.N. IMPEX against the d'"a."-in-"rifrr"i Uo feSiZlzrlzoiq-rS dt u/o3 lzoz5 passed by the Development Commissioner, KASEZ -reg' Jurisdictional SEZ - Kandla SEZ (KASEZ) Brief facts of the case M/s. F.N IMPEX, plot no LglA, Sector,4, Kandla Special F'conomic Zone, Gandhidhurr, *.."'issued Letter-of Approval No. rr/zo2t-22 dt 16.o9.zozr by the Development Commissioner, Kandla Sptcial Economic Zone, Gandhi Dham vide File N" feSgZ ltAlrrlzozt-2215457-60, as amended_or extended from time to time for setting .rp i.udi.rg and warehousing activities in the Zone, subject to standard terms and conditions. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Unit vide F.NO. KASEZ-ArlBglzozz- SEZKANDI-A11I6572711757 dated zgl:rlzoz4 proposing to cancel the LOA granted to the unit in termi'of S..tio" 16 of the Special Economic ZoneAct, zoo5 and impose penalty under FIDR Act, 1992. The subject SCN was issued. on the basis of letter dt 25Jt.2o24 from the Superintendent of Police, East Kutch, Gandhi Dham intimating that they are investigating a case of smuggling of areca nuts by mis declaring the same as rock salt from the UAE by M/s. F.N.

24 from the Superintendent of Police, East Kutch, Gandhi Dham intimating that they are investigating a case of smuggling of areca nuts by mis declaring the same as rock salt from the UAE by M/s. F.N. IMPEX, KASEZ. Based on this intimation letter from the SSP, East Kutch, Gandhi dam and clubbing with other allegations of nonpayment of lease rent amounting to $ to,77,7ggf - for last 9 quarterslnd non-furniihing of Annual Performance Report for the Financial year 2o2t-22,2o22-23, & zozg-i4 with in the stipulated time, the SCN dated zglrrlzoz4 was issued by the DC, KASEZ. The subject SCN has since been adjudicated by the Developm-ent Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zote, Gandhidham vide Order-in-original No Being aggrieved with the above Order-in-Original, the present appg{ is being filed in termi Jf1fr" provisions of Section 6(q) of the SEZ Act, 2oo5 with the grounds of appeal mentioned below of F.N. IMPEX Grounds of Appeal & Para wise comments in case of M/s. F.N. Impex' KASEZ Para no. Grounds ofAppeal Para wise comments from KASEZ 1 There is total breach of Natural Justice as the Adjudicating Authority has based his findings on an Intimation letter from the SSP, East Kutch, Gandhidham. No independent enquiry or investigation having been The contention of the appellant is not correct as while the initial information regarding Potential violations may have originated from the SP, East Kutch, Gandhidham, the issuance of the Show Cause Notice and the subsequent adjudication, dulY Page 50 of 74

initial information regarding Potential violations may have originated from the SP, East Kutch, Gandhidham, the issuance of the Show Cause Notice and the subsequent adjudication, dulY Page 50 of 74

conducted by the Development Commissioner or its sub- ordinate office under the SEZ Law culminating into issuance of this SCN. Hence, the SCN itself is void ab initio & the proceedings carried out thereunder stand vitiated Explanation 1.1 The Show Cause Notice is void ab initio as neither the office of the Development Commissioner nor any office sub ordinate to it, has carried out any enquiry, much less an investigation in the matter culminating into the issuance of the present SCN. It has been issued on the basis of an intimation letter from SSP, East Kutch, Gandhi Dham which is not sub ordinate to the office of the Development Commissioner. t.2 In this regard, it may please be appreciated that SCN, being a legal document which provides a framework for bringing a dispute to a logical conclusion. It should be the culmination of an independent enquiry/investigation, having been conducted by the concerned department whereby the SCN is being issued. And, the cardinal Principle which needs to be adhered to by the Authority issuing SCN is to ensure that it is an outcome of an independent examination carried out by him/her with regard to the fact, evidences placed on record & extant law position.

ered to by the Authority issuing SCN is to ensure that it is an outcome of an independent examination carried out by him/her with regard to the fact, evidences placed on record & extant law position. The edifice; facts & versions mentioned in the SCN should be such that it may stand to the test of legality, fairness & cogent reasonings during the course of valuation/examination of evidentiary value of the material on record as RUDs. ratified by UAC, were carried out by the Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone, who is the competent authority under the SEZ Act and Rules. The intimation received from the SP served as an alert regarding potential irregularities that warranted further examination by the competent authority within the SEZ administration. The Show Cause Notice was issued after due consideration of the information received and a preliminary assessment of the potential violations of the SEZ Act and the terms and conditions of the [,etter of Approval (LOA) and the Lease Deed Agreement. The SCN provided the Appellant with a detailed account of the alleged violations wz. illicit activity of smuggling Areca Nuts by mis-declaring; failure to discharge the rental dues; failure to furnish Annual Performance Return; failure to comply with the conditions envisaged in Letter of Approval; failure to comply with the conditions of Bond Cum Letter of Undertaking etc. and an opportunity to submit their explanation and evidence. The Appellant availed this opportunity and their submissions were duly considered before passing the Order-in- Original.

Undertaking etc. and an opportunity to submit their explanation and evidence. The Appellant availed this opportunity and their submissions were duly considered before passing the Order-in- Original. However, the appellant is conveniently not mentioning the other violations on their part and focussing only on para tB.7 to 18.9 of the impugned Order-in-original dated 11 .o3.2025. The principle of natural justice, including the right to be heard, was duly adhered to throughout the proceedings. Multiple personal hearing was granted to the appellant on Lt.12.2024, 24J2.2024, 03.O1.2O25, 27.o:..2o25, tt.oz.zoz5 and 27.o2.2o25. However, the appellant or his representative has failed to appear before the au Page 51 of 74

Further from the submission made by the appellant vide their letter dated 3o 12 2024 and 07 o2 20 Dtr. it IS evident that Mr Junaid has been arrested for diverting the areca nut and has been arrested bY Police on 2t.tL.2024. Further, vide letters dated 8o.t2.2o24 and dated 24.c1.2c25, the appellant has submitted contradictory sfitements. In the letter dated 5o.t2.2o24 they stated that Shri Juned Yakub Nathani was overseeing the business of the company and that the power of attorney had been transferred to him. However, in their subsequent letter dated 24.ot.2o25, they stated that Shri Juned Yakub Nathani had no authority to act on behalf of the company and Power of Attorney was granted to Mr.

erred to him. However, in their subsequent letter dated 24.ot.2o25, they stated that Shri Juned Yakub Nathani had no authority to act on behalf of the company and Power of Attorney was granted to Mr. Javed Yakub Nathani. this clearly indicates that the appellant himself handed over the SEZ Unit to unauthorised person/s. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the findings were solely based on the intimation letter. The facts of the case were placed before the UAC & the Committee after due deliberation & considering the facts & circumstances of the case and the aPPellant's submission arrived at the conclusion in the Order-in-Original. Thus, it appears that the aPPellant is deliberately attempting to twist the facts to suit his convenience. 1.3 However, it is evident from para r8.7 to rB.9 of the impugned Order-in-original dt rr.o3-zoz5 that the AA has based an intimation letter from the Superintendent of Police, East Kutch, Gandhi Dham onlY. There is absolutely no mention about any enquiry/investigation or independent examination of the facts having been carried out bY the office of the DeveloPment Commissioner or any office sub ordinate to it. It shows that the impugned order has been issued with any application of mind on the part of the AA. r.4 Most importantlY, the AA has failed to bring it on record as to under which provisions of IPC or CR. PC, any mis declaration made under the Customs Law can be investigated bY the Police Authorities.

Most importantlY, the AA has failed to bring it on record as to under which provisions of IPC or CR. PC, any mis declaration made under the Customs Law can be investigated bY the Police Authorities. SimilarlY, which provisions of SEZ Law or Customs Law authorize the police authority to investigate the matter under the Customs Law. There are no finings in the entire impugned order, validating the action of Gujarat Police in this regard, on basis of which first SCN ISSUED & THEN ORDER IS PASSED. 1 .5 However, in this regard, it is of absolute importance to bring it on record that there are provisions under the Customs Act, Lg62, whereunder certain officers of other departments including Police can be bestowed with such authority i.e. to act as Customs Officers. That can onlY be done by way of Notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue in terms of Section 4 or 6 of the Customs 1 .F are Page 52 of 74

few examples of such notifications authorizing officers of other departments to act as Customs Officers under Special Circumstances: a) Notification No B7-Cus., dated 19th, September, 1970 appoints officers of Intelligence Bureau as Customs Officers posted on certain bordering areas b) Notification No rro/zoo3- Cus (N.T.) dated o8.12.2003 as amended appoints officers posted at Special Economic Zone as Customs Officers. c) Notification No zolrg99 (N.T.) dated rz.o4.r9B8 | entrusts the functions of I Customs officers posted in I the states of Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh within their local limits of their jurisdiction

rg99 (N.T.) dated rz.o4.r9B8 | entrusts the functions of I Customs officers posted in I the states of Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh within their local limits of their jurisdiction d) Notification No 99/zor4 - Cus. (N.T.) dated 27.to.zotq entrusts Sashastra Seema Bal Officers to exercise certain functions of Customs Officers within local limits specified area r.6 It may kindly be noted that there is absolutely no such notification issued either under Section 4 or 6 of the Customs Act, 196z by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue under the Customs Act, t962 appointing or entrusting the officers of Gujarat Police to act as Customs Officers. As such, act of Gujarat Police in this regard is not only beyond their jurisdiction, ultra vires but un- authorized and illegal too. Even if they have developed some Page 53 of 74

actionable information, under the given circumstances, it should have been shared with the jurisdictional Customs formations or DRL Important: Instead of questioning the extra jurisdictional action of Gujarat Police, ironically, the AA has penalized the appellant by cancelling their LOA t.Z Thus, the Order-in-original suffers from several infirmities but from procedural aberratio s too, which vitiates the proceedings from the beginning, hence liable to be set aside impugned only legal the not 2 Neither the Development Commissioner in terms of Section tz of the SEZ Act, 2oo5 spelling out the functions of Development Commissioner, nor Approval Committee in terms of Section t4 of the Act ibid are mandated or empowered to take

ner in terms of Section tz of the SEZ Act, 2oo5 spelling out the functions of Development Commissioner, nor Approval Committee in terms of Section t4 of the Act ibid are mandated or empowered to take notice and implement the provisions of Indian Penal Code, now Known as the BNS Act, 2cz5. Hence, the act of the UAC & DC, Kasez, implanting the provisions of BNS, that too on the basis of an intimation letter, and resulting into issuance of a SCN and the impugned Order is un-authorized, beyond their jurisdiction and ultra vires The Appellant has argued that the UAC & DC, KASEZ, acted beyond their jurisdiction by "implanting" the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2o2S (BNS Act, zoz3) based on an intimation letter, leading to the SCN and the impugned Order. In this context, it is respectfully submitted that the Order-in-Original and the Show Cause Notice were primarily based on the alleged violations of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2oo5, the rules framed thereunder, and the terms and conditions of the Letter of Approval, conditions of Bond Cum Letter of Undertaking and the Lease Deed Agreement executed with the Appellant. Reference to any other legal provisions, including the BNS Act, 2023 (formerly the Indian Penal Code), was made in the context of highlighting the potential ramifications of the alleged illegal activities reported by the SP which have much wider implications. Page 54 of 74

rly the Indian Penal Code), was made in the context of highlighting the potential ramifications of the alleged illegal activities reported by the SP which have much wider implications. Page 54 of 74

The cancellation of the Letter of Approval was an action taken in terms of Section 16 of the SEZ Act, zoo5 in accordance with the powers vested in the Approval Committee, due to the alleged violations of the SEZ Rules and the contractual obligations. The contraventions committed by the appellant are as follows:- l. the appellant have imported Areca Nut by mis-declaring the same as Rock Salt from the UAE and therefore a case is registered under section gr8(4), 336(zXS),338,34o(z), 6t(zXA) of BNS Act and in this case, 3 persons were arrested by Gujarat Police. This act by the appellant does not fall under the definition of "authorised operations" as defined under Section z (c) of the SEZ Act, 2oo5. 2. The appellant contravened the provisions of Rule 27 & Rule TS of SEZ Rules, 2ocr6, in as much as they breached the trust and reliance placed on them for self certification and declaration regarding their inward and outward transactions and related documents; 3. The appellant was bound to discharge the rental dues amounting to Rs. t9,75,7861- on time as per the conditions no. r of BLUT dated 16.01.2028 and conditions stipulated in lease deed agreement mentioned at Pg-9, Para- 4 of lease-deed agreement on Page 55 of 74

Rs. t9,75,7861- on time as per the conditions no. r of BLUT dated 16.01.2028 and conditions stipulated in lease deed agreement mentioned at Pg-9, Para- 4 of lease-deed agreement on Page 55 of 74

4. The appellant has failed to furnish Annual Performance Return for the financial Year 2o2t-22, 2cz2-23 & zoz3-24 within the stipulated time. Thus, they have contravened the provisions of Rule zz of the SEZ Rules, 2o,o6
5. The appellant has failed to comply with the conditions envisaged in Letter of Approval No. rtf2o21'-22 dated 16.09.20zrmentioned under Sr no tr 7, 8, 9, lo, ttrt6 and 17.
6. The appellant contravened the conditions of Bond Cum Letter of Undertaking in as much as they failed to comPlY with the relevant provisions of the SEZ Rules;
7. The appellant contravened the provisions of Rule S+@) of the SEZ Rules, 2o,o,6 in as much as the Noticee has contravened condition no. (x) of the LOA dated 20.o6,2o22;
8. the provisions of Section rr of Foreign Trade Development & Regulation) Act, r99z and Rule rr of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. Further, because of the persistent contraventions bY the appellant of SEZ Act, 2oo5; SF,Z Rules, zoo6; terms & conditions of LoA and BLUT, the case falls squarely within the ambit of Section 16 of SEZ Act, 2oo5. The mention of the BNS Act, does not that the 2 Page 56 of 74

ct, 2oo5; SF,Z Rules, zoo6; terms & conditions of LoA and BLUT, the case falls squarely within the ambit of Section 16 of SEZ Act, 2oo5. The mention of the BNS Act, does not that the 2 Page 56 of 74

cancellation order was issued under the provisions of the said Act. It merely acknowledged the broader legal implications of the reported activities. Therefore, the contention of the appellant of unauthorized application of the BNS Act is unfounded and incorrect. Further, the SP, Kutch East vide their letter C.R No. ISTB- z4flnformationl rg77 I zoz5 dated rglo5lzoz5 have submitted a detailed report regarding case no. r579lzoz4. They have informed that on zolttlzoz4, from 15:oo hrs, the Local Crime Branch team of East Kutch Gandhidham District Police, during patrolling in the area of Gandhidham-B Division Police Station on the highway road, received reliable information that at the location of survey no. 16/,{ in Chudva village, truck registration numbers GJ-rz-BX-6542 and GJ-rz- B2-SS6S were parked in the parking lot of Gautam Transport Company, containing a quantity of betel nuts obtained through theft or fraud. This quantity was reportedly loaded by Juned Nathani, resident of Sapnanagar, Gandhidham, and preparations were being made to distribute the betel nut. Acting on this information, the team reached the site with two witnesses to verify and take legal action. At Survey No. 16/,4. of Chudva, two trailers were found - GJ-rz-BX- 634z and GJ-rz-BZ-gS6S. The first had a tarpaulin tied on the trolley and the second had a container loaded.

and take legal action. At Survey No. 16/,4. of Chudva, two trailers were found - GJ-rz-BX- 634z and GJ-rz-BZ-gS6S. The first had a tarpaulin tied on the trolley and the second had a container loaded. The drivers present were identified as Babulal s/o Kanaram Gujjar and Vishal s/o Fulchand Jatav, who confirmed that their trailers contained betel nuts. The container on trailer GJ-tz-BZ-9569 bore number CAXUgTtS3Bo-45Gr and was unsealed. Upon opening, kantan bags filled with betel nuts were found. Similarly, betel nuts were found in trailer GJ-rz-BX-6Sqz. No bills or Page57 of74

supporting documents for the goods. The dri were presented vers stated that the goods belonged to Mr. Junedbhai Nathani. A third person, Junaid Yakub Nathani (Meman), residing at E-4t, Sapnanagar, Gandhidham (originally from Katlery Bazaar, near Dhandushapir Dargah, Upleta, Rajkot District), also failed to provide valid documentation. It was revealed that the betel nuts had been imported from Dubai under the guise of rock salt, and that false bills and invoices had been created to facilitate transport via containers. Since no documentary evidence, such as bills or invoices, was available for the areca nut found at the scene, it appeared that the goods had been acquired through theft or fraud. The areca nut from trailer GJ-tz-BX-6342 weighed 27,r7o kg and was valued at Rs. 8r,5r,oool-, while the load in trailer GJ-Iz-BZ-9S63 weighed z6,78o kg and was valued at Rs. Bo,34,ooo/-.

ft or fraud. The areca nut from trailer GJ-tz-BX-6342 weighed 27,r7o kg and was valued at Rs. 8r,5r,oool-, while the load in trailer GJ-Iz-BZ-9S63 weighed z6,78o kg and was valued at Rs. Bo,34,ooo/-. Under the provisions of Section ro6 of the BNSS Act, the goods were seized due to the suspicious origin, and the three individuals present were detained under Section gS(zxe) of the same Act. This matter was recorded in station diary entry no. z3lzoz4 at Gandhidham B Division Police Station on zof rrf zoz4, and further investigation was initiated. During further investigation, it was found that Junaid Yakub Nathani, along with co-accused Azaz Ameen Kachchi, had arranged through Mohammad Akbar to deliver a shipment of betel nuts to Sector No. 4, Plot No. 4LglA, in the Kandla Special Economic Zone. A company named FN Impex, registered in the name of Nazira Javed Nathani, was used as a front to create fake bills and invoices for rock salt in order to disguise the purchase of the betel nuts. The consignment was from Anant Star General Page 58 of 74

zira Javed Nathani, was used as a front to create fake bills and invoices for rock salt in order to disguise the purchase of the betel nuts. The consignment was from Anant Star General Page 58 of 74

Trading LLP, Dubai. To facilitate the smuggling, the betel nuts were loaded into two containers (YMLU8+B+tZg and CAXU97r538o) belonging to Blue Merlin Container Line P,1. Ltd., transported by ship to Mundra Port, and then loaded onto trailers GJ-rz-BV- 87Bz and GJ-rz-BZ-gS6S. However, instead of delivering them to FN Impex at the declared KASEZ address, the containers were diverted to Gautam Transport Company in Chudva. There, the seal of container YMLUB4B4r79 was broken and the consignment transferred to trailer GJ-rz-BX-6g42. Preparations were underway to similarly transfer container CAXU1TIS3Bo when a raid was conducted based on received information. The investigation revealed that Junaid Yakub Nathani and his co- conspirators attempted to smuggle S3,9So kg of betel nuts, valued at Rs. t,6t,85,ooo, purchased from Anant Star General Trading LLP in Dubai, without payrng applicable duty by falsely declaring the shipment as rock salt. The operation involved the creation of forged bills and electronic records under the name of FN Impex, based in Sector No. 4, Plot No. 4rglA, KASEZ. A formal complaint was lodged, the accused were arrested, and a charge sheet was filed based on the evidence. The charge sheet and a copy ofthe FIR were submitted to the Honorable Court in Case No. C.C.

ormal complaint was lodged, the accused were arrested, and a charge sheet was filed based on the evidence. The charge sheet and a copy ofthe FIR were submitted to the Honorable Court in Case No. C.C. 4g4lzoz5. 3 When Kandla Development Authority charges penal interest on delayed payment of lease rent and recovery thereof is the domain of Public Premises (Eviction of un-authorized Occupants) Act, tg7r, then converting delayed payment/nonpayment as ground for cancellation of LOA amounts to double which is not The Appellant has argued that demanding penal interest for delayed payment of lease rent and simultaneously considering the same delay/non-payment as grounds for cancellation of the LOA amounts to double jeopardy, which is not permissible under the law. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the contention of the Page 59 of 74

appellant is imposition of payment of not correct as the penal interest for delaYed lease rent and the cancellation of the LOA are distinct actions taken for different reasons, although they may arise from the same underlying issue of non-PaYment. The penal interest is a financial penalty for the delay in meeting a financial obligation under the Lease Deed Agreement. The cancellation of the LOA is an action taken due to the persistent and deliberate default and contraventions in all aspects, which can be construed as a violation of the terms and conditions of the LOA and indicative of the Appellant's non-compliance and potential non-viability within the SEZ. While the recovery of arrears of rent can be pursued under the Public

the terms and conditions of the LOA and indicative of the Appellant's non-compliance and potential non-viability within the SEZ. While the recovery of arrears of rent can be pursued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, r97r, the Development Commissioner also has the authority under the SEZ Act and the terms and conditions of the LOA and BLUT to take action, including cancellation, for breach of the terms & conditions subject to which the LoA was granted. These are separate remedies available to the Department and do not constitute double jeopardy in the legal sense, as they address different aspects of the Appellant's failure to comply with the SEZ regulations and contractual obligations. Further, there is alleged evasion/loss of government revenue as reported by the SP, Kutch East, Gujarat vide letter Out Number-3z75lzoz4 dated z1.tr.2oz4 clearly indicates diversion of areca nut by mis-declaring the same as Rock Salt. This is further compounded by habitual non- compliance w.r.t. discharge of statutory ents. permissible under the law. Page 60 of 74

In view of the above, the prayer of the appellant requires to be summarily rejected and no relief of any kind be granted to them and the O-I-O passed by the Development Commissioner requires to be upheld as the O-I-O passed is a well reasoned legal and proper order issued on the basis of the legal provisions as well as on the basis of the material facts available on record. The appeal is being placed before the Board for its consideration. Page 61 of 74

order issued on the basis of the legal provisions as well as on the basis of the material facts available on record. The appeal is being placed before the Board for its consideration. Page 61 of 74

18o.8(iii) Appeal dated 2g.o4.2ozS filed by M/s. Varsur Impex hrt. I,ta. ir. KASEZ-under the provision of Section r5(4) of the SEZ Act, 2oo5 against the decision of zizr*. UAC meeting held on 28.<13 .2o.25 conveyed vide email dated o9.o4.2o25. Jurisdictional SF;Z - Kandla SEZ (KASEZ) Brief facts of the Case: M/s. Varsur Impex Pvt Ltd, is a Warehousing Unit in Kandla Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as 'the Warehousing Unit' to render the service of Warehousing to their clients in terms of LOA No or/zozr-zz dated to.o4.2o2]- 2. As per the prevalent practice in Kandla Special Economic Zone, the warehousing unit has to take prior approval from the UAC before warehousing ADDITIONAL ITEMS M/s Varsur Impex Pvt Ltd. submitted a request letter dt 17.615.26125 for inclusion of additional items in the approved list of LOA for warehousing activities. The details of the items are mentioned from Sr No r to zo in the letter for consideration. 3. The said request of the warehousing unit was considered by the 212th, UAC held on 28.03.2025 at KASEZideAgenda Point No zrz.z.rr. Shri N.K. Choudhary, Authorized Representative of the company & Shri Mahender Kapoor, Consultant of the company attended the UAC in person & explained the proposals. 4. Mr.

Agenda Point No zrz.z.rr. Shri N.K. Choudhary, Authorized Representative of the company & Shri Mahender Kapoor, Consultant of the company attended the UAC in person & explained the proposals. 4. Mr. Mahender Kapoor, Consultant made a specific request to the UAC during the meeting on 28.03.25 that if the UAC is not approving any of the items proposed by them for warehousing, then a detailed justification may be given by the UAC by way of speaking order for not approving the items proposed. 5. The IA-I section of KASEZ vide their mail dated og.o4.zoz5, inter alia, conveyed that'The Approual Committee in its 21-2th, meeting after due deliberation decided to permit the additional items to be warehoused on behalf of DTA/Foreign clients as submfrrcd by the untt except items at Sr. No 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,70,74,15 & t6 of agenda, subject to the unit submitting specific list of items at Sr. No tz,t3 & t9, subject to payment of outstanding rental dues & also subject to unit fulfiUtng NFE criteria and subject to the unit submttting KYC of your clients along taith IT R of the last 3 Aears on whose behalf you wtll warehouse goods and subject to the conditions mentioned in the UAC minufes......' S.1 Turning to the Minutes of the zrzth UAC meeting at Agenda Point No ztz.z.tt, the observations of the UAC are stated as follows: "The Committee perused Instructions -A/o tt7 dated 24.09.2024 toherein the Department of Commerce, SEZ Section, New Delhi taherein guidelines for operational frameuork of FTWZ and warehousing units tn SEZ haue been prescribed for strict compliance by all DCs.

4 toherein the Department of Commerce, SEZ Section, New Delhi taherein guidelines for operational frameuork of FTWZ and warehousing units tn SEZ haue been prescribed for strict compliance by all DCs. Further, tn the said Instruction, it has been stipulated that there should be due diligence in uerifuing the credentials Page 62 of 74

including KYC norms of the applicant entittes for setting up of FTWZ/Warehousing Zones/Unfts os well as the clients of such units. Aadhar based authentication of Indians and Passport based authentication for foreign clients are to be considered. The Income tox return fo, the /cst S yeors in respect of the Proprietor/Partners/Directors or the audited balance sheets for the last three Aeors in case of Ltmtted Company/Priuate Limited Company should be part of KYC. In present proposal, the unit has not submitted KYCs & ITRs of their cltents on tuhose behalf they uill warehouse the goods and thus the UAC rs not in a position to uerifu the credentials of their clients. Further, the committee also noted that uarious cases are under inuestigation against the unit. The commtttee further noted that some of items requested for uarehousing are sensitiue in nature & the UAC is not permitting the same in the recent past. The Committee after due deliberation decided to permit the addittonal items to be warehoused by the aboue untt on behalf of DTA/Foreign clients os sutrmifted by untt except......" 6.

the recent past. The Committee after due deliberation decided to permit the addittonal items to be warehoused by the aboue untt on behalf of DTA/Foreign clients os sutrmifted by untt except......" 6. Being aggrieved by the above noted decision of the zrzth UAC, a representation dt 15.04.2c25 was sent to the Development Commissioner, Kasez pointing out fallacy and hollowness of the grounds mentioned in the minutes of the meeting & the stage of applicability of the KYCs norms for the new clients with the request to re -consider the items in the upcoming UAC, with the hope that on being pointed out on record, a sense of proposition, fairness, better dispensation of law & devotion to duty will prevail, BUT, AS USUAL TO NO AVAIL. 7. Hence, being aggrieved with the decisions of the zrzth UAC with regard to Agenda Point No ztz.z.11, as reflected in the Minutes of the 2r2rh, UAC meeting & conveyed to the warehousing unit vide mail dated og.o4.z;,I am making this appeal on the basis of the ground mentioned in Annexure B for consideration of the Hon'ble BOA Grounds ofAppeal Ground No.

& conveyed to the warehousing unit vide mail dated og.o4.z;,I am making this appeal on the basis of the ground mentioned in Annexure B for consideration of the Hon'ble BOA Grounds ofAppeal Ground No. t: The prevalent practice of making a warehousing unit to seek item & CTH wise permission from the UAC at Kandla Special Economic Zone, deliberation of UAC thereon, or approval or permission thereof is farce, ultra vires & void ab initio because it is not mandated under any provisions of the SEZ law. Neither Rule No r8(z), because it is not a proposal for setting up a new warehousing or sez unit; nor rB(S), because it is not a fresh proposal to warehouse the goods on behalf of foreign clients or proviso to Rules rg(z) SEZ Rules , 2006, because no broad banding is being sought or change in service activity i.e warehousing is being sought mandates for such exercise Explanation Page 63 of 74

1.1 None of the provisions of SEZ law or instructions mandates that an FTWZ unit or warehousing unit in SEZ is required to take item/CTH wise approval from the UAC or for that matter from the Development Commissioner. t.z On one of the similar appeals in the past before the BOA, shelter of broad banding under the proviso to Rule 19(2) was being taken. Presumably, on this occasion also, the opinion of Kasez authorities pins on this provision.

peals in the past before the BOA, shelter of broad banding under the proviso to Rule 19(2) was being taken. Presumably, on this occasion also, the opinion of Kasez authorities pins on this provision. Let us have a relook in the said provisions which reads as follows: Rule 19 which deals Letter of approval to a Unit provides that (r) On approval of a proposal under Rule r8 or 19, Development Commissioner shall issue a Letter of Approval in form G for setting up of the unit; (z) The letter of approval shall specifii the items of manufacture or the particulars of service activity, including trading or warehousing, projected annual export and net foreign exchange earnings for the first five years of operations, limitations, if any on Domestic Tariff Area sale of finished goods, by products, and rejects and other terms and conditions, if any, stipulated by the Board or Approval Committee: 'Provided that the Approval Committee may also approve proposals for broad banding, diversification, enhancement of capacity of production, change in the items of manufacture or service activity, if it meets the requirements of Rule 18: r.3 It may please be appreciated that even the proviso to this particular sub rule z does not provide for the inclusion of additional items for the same service activity. It only talks about change in service activities such as from warehousing to IT, or banking or management or consultancy or medical or logistics or security etc. In the instant matter, there is absolutely no proposal from the appellant seeking change in the service activity.

IT, or banking or management or consultancy or medical or logistics or security etc. In the instant matter, there is absolutely no proposal from the appellant seeking change in the service activity. The unit is granted LOA for warehousing activity, it continues to do the same. So, the deliberation on compulsive request of a warehousing unit for inclusion of additional items for the same service is not mandated under proviso to Sub rule z of Rule 19. L.4 Further, in order to understand the matter in the right perspective, it is imperative to do a little incision into the whole gamut of related stipulations/ provisions on the subject. 1.S Accordingly, kind attention is invited to Rule tS(z) of the Special Economic Zone Rules, zoo6 which vests the authority in the UAC to grant the permission for setting up a unit in the Special Economic Zone including the documentary requirements to be complied by the applicant & procedure thereof. None of the provisions of Rule r8(z) or its sub rules right from (i) to (v) requires submission of details of items, CTH Wise for the purpose of YII//Z unit or warehousing unit in SEZ. t.6 Similarly, is placed Rule 18 (5), which prescribe certain stipulations for the tr'fWz unit or a warehousing unit in a SEZ, does not impose any such requirement of item/CTH wise approval on behalf of a FTWZ unit or warehousing unit in SEZ. The only stipulation imposed by this sub rule is that all the transactions by a unit in Free Trade and warehousing Zone (FI'WZ) shall only be in convertible foreign currency. Page 64 of 74

t in SEZ. The only stipulation imposed by this sub rule is that all the transactions by a unit in Free Trade and warehousing Zone (FI'WZ) shall only be in convertible foreign currency. Page 64 of 74

L.7. It is a matter of record that warehousing unit at KASEZ are being forced to seek items wise approval time and again without any mandate to this effect under any provisions of the SEZ law. It is re-iterated that there is neither any proposal nor any intention on the part of the applicant/appellant to change its serviie aiti'oity so as to fall in the domain of proviso to Rules rg(z). The fact of the matter that only warehousing service are being provided and they will continue to provide the samL only. r-.8 - Though, it has been pointed out in r,witing as well as during the course of UAC that there is NO specific or general provision in this regard, yJt, the warehousing units have to seek prior permission from the UAC for inclusion of additional itemi for -warehousing activities, because the office of the Specified Officers including Authorized Officers at I(ASEZ refuse to process the bill of entry or allied documentl without such-permission.

temi for -warehousing activities, because the office of the Specified Officers including Authorized Officers at I(ASEZ refuse to process the bill of entry or allied documentl without such-permission. So, the warehousing units at Kandla Special Economic Zone have to fall in line and make applications in this regard. t.9 So, from the explanations made above, it is clear beyond doubt that the very act of the Development Commissioner & the Unit Approvai Committee deliberating on the propos-als of inclusion of additional items for warehousing activities u." ,oI mandated under the SEZ Law, hence un authorized & should be discontinued forth y th.On ground alone, the decisions of the ztzthUAC meeting are liable to be set aside. Ground No z: The impugned decision of the zt2th) UAC reflects improper appreciation & application of Instruction No rr7 dt z4.og.zoz4, setf- contradiction, bias, mis-chief & selective approach, unbecoming for a committee constituted primarily for approval purposes. 2.L In explanation, the appeallant has re-iterated the Para 5 along with Para S.1 as mentioned under 'brief facts of the case' above. 2.2. In this regard, it is submitted that the Minutes of the meeting which should be a summarized record of the proceedings of the meeting have detailed description of each point and the letter/mail dt og.o4.25 which should have all details witli regard to the observations of the UAC pertaining to our proposal does not have these.

eting have detailed description of each point and the letter/mail dt og.o4.25 which should have all details witli regard to the observations of the UAC pertaining to our proposal does not have these. It means that what should have been conveyed to the applicant and for their consumption and action only, have been put in the public domain. 2.3 Such is basic understanding prevailing at KASEZ with regard to official communication, its objective; purpose & actionability So, it can well be imagined as to how the provisions of SEZ law will be understood by the bunch of officers at KASEZ & the way it is implemented. The results are obvious and there to see. 2.4 It is further submitted that in the 1st para of the Minutes, the reason cited for denial of permission is non submission of KYC & ITRs of the clients. But in the last para of the same Minutes, the permission is granted for certain items, though, with the request letter, no KYCs or ITRs of any client have been submitted by the warehousing unit. 2.5 If, in terms of the Instructions No rr7, the permission is to be granted only after verifying the credentials of the prospective clients on the basis of KYCs & ITRs Page 65 of 74

rehousing unit. 2.5 If, in terms of the Instructions No rr7, the permission is to be granted only after verifying the credentials of the prospective clients on the basis of KYCs & ITRs Page 65 of 74

of last three years, why the permission is granted in the letter/mail dt o9.o4.25 in the absence of such documents. Hence, the impugned decision of the UAC, reflected in the Minutes of the 2r2th, UAC meeting, contains self-contradictory versions coupled with bias & selective approach, which is unbecoming for a committee constituted primarily for specific purposes. 2.6. Though, the UAC have made their observations with regard to the submission of KyC documents along with ITRS of the clients in terms of Instructions No tr7, yet tf,"V frur" completely ig"nored the stage of submjssion of such documents stipulated in the same ins1ructi,on"s itself. The foll,owing explanation will make the point clear. The client can either be an existing one or o prospectiue/potential one. In case of an iittting client, the KYCs d.ocuments aJong with- respectiue ogreement are already submitted uitn tie- ifice of the Deuelopinent Commissf oner. Howeuer, in case of irtp"rtiue client, tn, ttig" of agreement comes prior to commencement of business. And the'agrru nit foi reidering uarehousing ser.uices ttsith respect of a particular item to i prorp"riiue client calnnot be executed in the absence of prior iiriition for that'pariicular item_by thg_UAC.

he'agrru nit foi reidering uarehousing ser.uices ttsith respect of a particular item to i prorp"riiue client calnnot be executed in the absence of prior iiriition for that'pariicular item_by thg_UAC. So, the prior approual for a 'particular ii"^ piiposed to be warehoused by a unit at KASEZ is a pre requisite Ln\orn on ogrn}^int & obtaining KYC dociment including ITRs from a client' iiioiaiigtai tn the instant case, tte stage of KYc and its submission uith the ffice of the DC IS YET TO COME. Similarly, the stage of submission of KYC & ITR etc is prescrib-ed.tn Pora t(ii) of the Instructions no ,iz it irt, stipulatei that'Deuelopmeni Commissioner to ensure that warehousing uniis should furnish the spectfied I(YCs details of their cltents to the DC ffice belore commencing first transactions by that client.' z.Z Though, the learned UAC members including the chairman have conveniently fino.ed it, #hererer it suits their pre-planned agenda, yet they.are placing reliance o"n the remaining portion of the rurn" Instructions, as per their convenience. This kind of pick & ch6se approach is not permissible under any law, including SEZ Law z.B With regard to the observation of the UAC that various cases are under investigation afainst the unit, it is submitted that investigation is a primary stage of a legal pioc"r.. Ilur.e, none of the provisions of the SEZ law provides for denial of pJ*i.rion on this ground.

nvestigation afainst the unit, it is submitted that investigation is a primary stage of a legal pioc"r.. Ilur.e, none of the provisions of the SEZ law provides for denial of pJ*i.rion on this ground. So, the observation of the UAC on this account is pre mature and not tenable. 2.g The committee further noted that some of items requested for warehousing arl sensitive in nature & the UAC is not permitting the same in the recent past 2.1o The appellant has submitted that it may be appreciated & agreed that storage/ warehousing activities are all about simple service PROCESSES which do not require any special-skill or qualification, the way a housewife does not need for making ,torug" of various items flammable, non-flammable, spices including black pepper etc in a kitchen & various other items in a home. It needs to be understood that though, there may be slight change in the pattern of storage in case of inflammable & Page 55 of 74

other items, yet the activities of storage/warehousing remain the same. however, any item can be termed as Sensitive or otherwise with regard to its FTP or its importability. But the items requested are Freely importable in terms of Policy. Further, from the view point of warehousing in a SEZ Unit, such observations are irrelevant because the role of warehousing unit in SEZ is limited to storage & proper upkeep. z.rl All the policy framers are in agreement what has been explained above and that is why, in all the SEZs & F-IWZ all across the country, all the items, except, restricted & prohibited items, are permitted to be warehoused and traded.

reement what has been explained above and that is why, in all the SEZs & F-IWZ all across the country, all the items, except, restricted & prohibited items, are permitted to be warehoused and traded. You may check next door at Adani SEZ or in any other F-IWZ where units are permitted to warehouse all the items. Since the authorities at KASEZ are also bound by the same law. The Ministry or the BOA should issue necessary instructions to the DC, KASEZ to stop forthwith this un authorized practice in the interest of economic growth & fair play. Ground NO 3: The modification or approval or rejection of any proposal should be based on the specific provisions of SEZ law & it cannot be at the whims & fancies of the Chairman of the UAC & its members Explanation In this regard, it is submitted that neither the letter/mail dated og.o4.z5 nor the Minutes of the 2t2th, UAC Meeting available on the official web site of KASEZ make any mention of any Rule or Instructions whereunder the permission is being denied. Denial of permission can only be done under a specific provision of relevant law and it needs to be communicated to the applicant. It should also be mentioned in the communication with whom the appeal lies against the decision. Any rejection or denial cannot be at the whims & fancies of the Chairman of the UAC and its members. Para wise comments in case of M/s. Varsur Impex Pvt. Ltd.. KASEZ Para r to 7: - Facts of the case, hence no comments. Ground of Appeal: Para t: The contention of the appellant is not correct as the Ministry vide instruction no.

f M/s. Varsur Impex Pvt. Ltd.. KASEZ Para r to 7: - Facts of the case, hence no comments. Ground of Appeal: Para t: The contention of the appellant is not correct as the Ministry vide instruction no. r17 dated 24.c,9.2c.24 has issued guidelines for operation framework of IIIWZ and warehousing unit in SEZ wherein direction were issued to DCs to keep strict watch on the high risk commodities such as areca nuts betel nuts black pepper dates etc. and may consider restricting dealing in such sensitive commodities by II-IWZ units and warehousing units. Moreover, the list may further be regularly reviewed by the Unit Approval Committee based on the risk perceptions of the various commodities. Further the appellant has requested for sensitive items such as Cigarettes, filter cigarettes etc. which the Board of Approval has not been permitting in the recent past i.e. in the 88th BoA meeting held on 2;.oz.zot9 in the case of M/s. Zest Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., KASEZ and in the 74tn BoA meeting held on 06.01.2017 in the case of M/s. A One Duty Free Pr,t. Ltd. Page 67 of 74

h BoA meeting held on 2;.oz.zot9 in the case of M/s. Zest Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., KASEZ and in the 74tn BoA meeting held on 06.01.2017 in the case of M/s. A One Duty Free Pr,t. Ltd. Page 67 of 74

Further, this office made reference to other SEZs regarding procedure being followed for addition of new items in existing LoA by trading and warehousing units and it has been informed that the units has to apply for inclusion of items and the matter is being placed before the Unit Approval Committee for consideration. As such in other SEZ also any new items whether trading or warehousing is being placed before the UAC for approval. Para z: The contention of the appellant is not correct as the Minutes of the 212th Unit Approval Committee uploaded in the KASEZ website and the email dated og.o+.zozS sent to th; unit just for their information and make necessary compliance of the Unit Approval Committee's decision. Further, the permission for addition of items which appears to be non- sensitive & granted to the other warehousing units were granted to.the appellant ."Uj".t to sribmission of KyC and ITR of their clients and sensitive items such as Cigirettes, filter cigarettes etc. were denied by the UAC' The contention of the appellant is not correct as this office made reference to other SEZs regarding proceduie being followed for addition of new items in existing LoA by tradin! and ilarehousing units and it has been informed that the unit has to uppfy to. incltision of items andlhe matter is being placed before the Unit Approval Ctmmittee for consideration.

g LoA by tradin! and ilarehousing units and it has been informed that the unit has to uppfy to. incltision of items andlhe matter is being placed before the Unit Approval Ctmmittee for consideration. As such in other SEZ also any new items whether trading or warehousing is being placed before the UAC for approval. Para 3: The contention of the appellant that approvals are granted at the whims and fancies of the Chairman of the UAC and its-members is not correct as in the rr6th UAC meeting held on Lg.o7.2ot7, the UAC has decided that the warehousing units in KASEZ will have io seek permission for any new items which they intend to warehouse on behalf of foreign clients as well as DTA clients and submit KYC of the client before warehousing the items. The contention of the Afpellant is not tenable as first proviso to Rule 19(2) of the SEZ Rules ,2oo6"poLi. the Approval Committee to approve proposals for broad- banding, diversification, enhancernent of capacity of production, change in the items of manirfacture or service activity, if it meets the requirements of Rule rB and thus the decision taken by the UAC comes within the ambit of Rule rg(z) of the SEZ Rules, 2C06. Comments of DC: In view of the above, prayer of the appellant requires to be summarily rejecte{ and no relief of any kind be granted to them and the decision of the UAC is a well reasoned legal and proper decision as per past approval of not approving the sensitive items such as Cigarettes, filter cigarettes etc. The appeal is being placed before the Board for its consideration. Page 68 of 74

proper decision as per past approval of not approving the sensitive items such as Cigarettes, filter cigarettes etc. The appeal is being placed before the Board for its consideration. Page 68 of 74

r3o.8(iv) Appeal of M/s. Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division) against the decision of zr3rd UAC meeting held on Bo.o4 .2ozs -reg. Jurisdictional SEZ - Kandla SEZ (KASEZ) Brief facts of the case M/s Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division) is a unit in Kandla SEZ since zorr is engaged in activity of warehousing services and trading activity of all the items except restricted and prohibited The-appella-nt has been operating in Kandla SEZ since about 14 years and has clean track record. The appellant has always remained positive in earning of NFE and has paid the rental dues from time to time. The appellant commenced its authorized operations on zSlo4lzor4 and accordingly the LOA has been renewed from time to time. A copy of original LOA dt.rglo5lzo"ri. srrbsequent renewal of LOA vide letter dt.go/o4lzor9 and t[e last .ene*u[vid-e letter dt.gtlo5lzoz4. The LOA of the appellant is valid up roz8/o 4lzozg. The appellant during his operational period had imported cigarettes (Richman Royal) CTH z4ozzogo on behalf of their DTA Client M/i Jubilee fobacco Industries Corporation, New Delhi and exported the same to his Foreign Client at Netherlands vide Shipping Bill No.ooor864 dt. oBlozlzot6. Similarly the appellant made procurement of cigarettes (CHT 24o22ogo) on behalf g{ L!gi.

Delhi and exported the same to his Foreign Client at Netherlands vide Shipping Bill No.ooor864 dt. oBlozlzot6. Similarly the appellant made procurement of cigarettes (CHT 24o22ogo) on behalf g{ L!gi. Foreign-client M/s Jubliee Tobacco Induitries INC., USA from bre Godfrey Phillips Limited, New Delhi under Bill of Export No. ooo56z7 dt.z6lrolzor5 and also procured from M/s Shanti Guru TabaCo under Bill of ExporL No.oooS6SS dt.z6lrolzor5 and_-exported the same to M/s Bashir International Ltd. efghanistai under -shipping Bill No.oor584o dt.z6lrrlzol5 on behalf of their Foreign"client. A copy of Bill of Exports and Shipping Bills. Although the appellant was holding LOA under which warehousing and trading of all it"-Tt except restricted and prohibited was permitted. the UAC in its tr6th rneeting held on rgloTlzorT at para 6 decided that the units in SEZ should seek permissioi for each item they intend to warehouse on behalf of their Foreign clients as well as DTA clients and submit the KYC details of clients before warehousing the goods. A copy of minutes of rr6th meeting of UAC held on rgloTlzotT with coirigendum dt. StloTlzorz. Accordingly, the appellant vide his letter dt.t7lozlzo25 requested for permission to warehouse Lithium-ion battery (CTH 85o76ooo). The appellant also vide their letter dt. r4lo4lzoz5 and email dt.r6lo4lzoz5 requested for permission to warehouse cigarettes (CTH 24o22ogo) on behalf of their Foreign client. A copy of their letter dt.tTlozlzoz5, r4f o4lzoz5 and email dt.

. r4lo4lzoz5 and email dt.r6lo4lzoz5 requested for permission to warehouse cigarettes (CTH 24o22ogo) on behalf of their Foreign client. A copy of their letter dt.tTlozlzoz5, r4f o4lzoz5 and email dt. 16loqlzo2;. The reque,st of the appellant for import of cigarettes and Lithium-ion battery was placed before er3 meeting of UAC held on golo4lzoz5 and the UAC permitied to warehouse Lithium-ion battery, but rejected the permission to warehouie cigarettes solely on the ground that the item being sensitive commodity and prone to diversion Page 69 of 74

the UAC is not permitting such item for warehousing. Th-e decision-of UAC was conveyed to th; appellant vide letter dt.zzloSl2o2i from th9 Development- Commissioner, fandta SEZ (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). A copy of minutes of zr3th and Respondent's letter dt.zzlo5l2025- Being aggrieved with the decision of the UAC communicated by the Respondent the Appe"lla"ni herein, most respectfully, submits the- Appeal. before qOA, Ministry of Commerce, SEZ Section. Vanijya Bhavan. New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as (THE AppELt/.TE AUTHORITY) ur p.. Rule 55 of the SEZ Rules, zoo6 read with Section t6 (+) of the SEZ Act, 2oo5. Grounds of Appeal and Para wise comments in case of M/s. Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division), KASEZ Para wise comment from KASEZ Grounds of Appeal Para no. incorrect. The Department, guided by Instruction No.

al and Para wise comments in case of M/s. Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division), KASEZ Para wise comment from KASEZ Grounds of Appeal Para no. incorrect. The Department, guided by Instruction No. rr7 dated 24.og.2o24 from the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, has issued- clear guidelines for the operational framework of Free -Trade Warehousing Zones (FIWZs) and warehousing units in Special Economic Zones (SEZs). These guidelines direct Development Commissioners to maintain strict oversight on high-risk commodities, including sensitive items rrl-.h ut cigarettes, due to their potential for misuse or diversion. The UAC's decision to reject the warehousing of cigarettes aligns with this directive and is consistent with prior Board of Approval (BoA) decisions, such as those in the SSih goe meeting (z5.oz.zorg) concerning M/s Zest Marine Services Pr,t. Ltd., KASEZ, and the 74th BoA meeting (o6.or.zo17) concerning M/s A' One DuU Free h/t. Ltd., where similar sensitive commodities were not permitted for Trading. The UAC's decision aligns with these established precedents to prevent the warehousing of sensitive commodities prone to I diversion. Committee the t nit U tion conten tha S lant' The appel ln a acted UAC) ( Approval n IS consideratio thout wr due manner mechanical The Respondent passed the order in mechanical a manner and without apPlication of mind and without appreciating that the appellant is alreadY doing warehousing business of cigarettes and this unilaterallY and arbitratorily limiting the scope of aPPellant business is neither justified and nor warranted.

ing that the appellant is alreadY doing warehousing business of cigarettes and this unilaterallY and arbitratorily limiting the scope of aPPellant business is neither justified and nor warranted. has 1 permits of thei t Letter r claim S tha a The ppellant' and ware,housing (LoA) Approval and restricted all items of The Respondent failed to appreciate that LOA of the has the 2 Page 7O of 74

appellant is for warehousing and trading activity of all the items except restricted and prohibited and without imposing restriction of any particular item. Not only this even in subsequent renewal letter dt.golo4lzorg and gtlo5lzoz4 also does not put any restriction on warehousing any specific items. However complying with the decision of rr6th UAC meeting I ANNX-D supra) the appellant had sought the permission to warehouse cigarettes vide its letter dt.r4lo4l2o2S and email dt.t6lo4l2o2S. prohibited items, and that no specific restrictions were imposed, is misleading. While the LoA dated 19.05.2011 and its subsequent renewals dated 3o.o4.2o19 and 31.05.2024 do not explicitly list restricted items, the UAC's decision in its rr6th meeting held on tg.o7.2ot7 mandates that warehousing units in KASEZ must seek prior approval for each new item to be warehoused, along with submission of Know Your Customer (I(C) details for clients.

meeting held on tg.o7.2ot7 mandates that warehousing units in KASEZ must seek prior approval for each new item to be warehoused, along with submission of Know Your Customer (I(C) details for clients. This requirement was introduced to ensure compliance with SEZ regulations and to mitigate risks associated with sensitive commodities. Further, this office made reference to other SEZs regarding procedure being followed for addition of new items in existing LoA by trading and warehousing units and it has been informed that the units has to apply for inclusion of items and the matter is being placed before the Unit Approval Committee for consideration. As such in other SEZ also any new items whether trading or warehousing is being placed before the UAC for approval. The appellant's request for permission to warehouse cigarettes was duly considered in the zr3th UAC meeting held on 3o.o4.2o25 and was rejected due to the sensitive nature of the commodity, os per the aforementioned guidelines.

permission to warehouse cigarettes was duly considered in the zr3th UAC meeting held on 3o.o4.2o25 and was rejected due to the sensitive nature of the commodity, os per the aforementioned guidelines. This decision does not arbitrarily limit the appellant's business but reflects a consistent application of regulatory oversight. The UAC's decision is thus not an arbitrary limitation but a regulatory measure applied consistently. 3 The Respondent has failed in appreciating that the appellant was doing warehousing business of cigarettes in past also and all of sudden rejecting the permission to warehouse cigarettes without any cognate reason will make the appellants' business to suffer. The appellant's assertion that their prior warehousing of cigarettes in 2ot1-zot6 (as evidenced by Annexures B and C of the appeal) justifies continued permission is untenable. The regulatory framework has evolved since 2o1S- 2016, with Instruction No. rr7 (z4.og.zoz4) and the n6th UAC decision (r9.o7.zor7) introducing stricter controls on sensitive commodities. The UAC's rejection of the appellant's request is based on the current risk perception of cigarettes, which are prone to diversion and mis- declaration, as noted in the 213th UAC minutes. activities do not confer an The a ant's Page 7l of 74

est is based on the current risk perception of cigarettes, which are prone to diversion and mis- declaration, as noted in the 213th UAC minutes. activities do not confer an The a ant's Page 7l of 74

automatic right to continue warehousing such items under the updated regulatory framework. Thus, the UAC's decision is to ensure regulatory oversight and the ability to control high-risk commodities. 4 The Respondent has utterly failed in appreciating the commodity cigarettes (CTH 24o22o9o) is in free list and any one in India can import the same. A list of verities of cigarettes fall under CTH 24c.2 as per the FTP is freely Importable. The appellan S argumen are freely m ble Policy (FrP) and thus should warehousing IS not valid the ,t t t tha cigarettes I porta under the Forelgn Trade perm tted for be i in context of SEZ regulations. While cigarettes may be freely importable in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), SEZ units operate under a distinct regulatory regime governed by the SEZ Act, 2oo5, and SE7, Rules, ioo6. The first proviso to Rule rg(z) of the SEZ Rules, 2c,c,6 empowers the UAC to approve or reject proposals for broad-banding or addition of items based on compliance with Rule 18, which includes considerations of risk and regulatory compliance. The UAC's decision to deny permission for cigarettes is well within its authority and aligns with the Ministry's guidelines on high-risk commodities.

considerations of risk and regulatory compliance. The UAC's decision to deny permission for cigarettes is well within its authority and aligns with the Ministry's guidelines on high-risk commodities. The UAC's decision reflects a proactive measure to mitigate such risks, even if direct import by DTA parties is permissible. 5 The apprehension of zr3 UAC the commodity of cigarettes is sensitive in nature and prone to diversion is baseless, because the number of parties in DTA are importing the same as the item is in free list. Therefore, putting restriction on SEZ unit is neither justified and not warranted. The appellant's claim that the UAC's apprehension about cigarettes being prone to diversion is baseless is incorrect. The Department's concerns are substantiated by Instruction No. tt7 (z4.og.zoz4), which explicitly identifies sensitive commodities like cigarettes as high-risk due to potential diversion and mis-declaration. The UAC's decision is further supported by precedents in other SEZs, where similar restrictions have been imposed, and by BoA decisions rejecting such items (e.8., 88th and 74th BoA meetings). The appellant's comparison to DTA importers is irrelevant, as SEZ units are subject to stricter oversight to prevent misuse of the SEZ framework. 6 The appellant is carrying out the business of warehousing services The appellant's undertaking to dispatch cigarettes to the DTA market only upon payment of applicable customs duties and taxes, or Page 72 of 74

t is carrying out the business of warehousing services The appellant's undertaking to dispatch cigarettes to the DTA market only upon payment of applicable customs duties and taxes, or Page 72 of 74

exclusively as explained herein above and therefore considering the item as prone for diversion by the UAC is not justified. Moreover, the appellant undertakes that the item will be exclusively dispatched to DTA market on payment of applicable Custom Duties and Taxes, Physical Export of same. through physical export, does not mitigate the inherent risks associated with warehousing such sensitive commodities. The UAC's decision is based on a broader risk assessment, as mandated by Ministry guidelines, and is not limited to the appellant's assurances. Furthermore, the appellant's compliance with customs duties does not override the UAC's authority to restrict high-risk items under SEZ regulations. 7 More reasons will be given at the time of hearing of the appeal. The appellant's request to provide additional reasons at the time of the hearing may be noted but at the same time it does not alter the Department's position that the UAC's decision is well-reasoned and legally sound. B The Appellant reserve its right to add, alter, amend, and/or delete any of the Grounds of the Appeal at any stage. The appellant's reservation of the right to add, alter, amend, or delete grounds of appeal may be acknowledged but at the same time it does not impact the Department's response to the current grounds. It is submitted that the UAC's decision in the 213th meeting (3o.o4.zoz5), as

s of appeal may be acknowledged but at the same time it does not impact the Department's response to the current grounds. It is submitted that the UAC's decision in the 213th meeting (3o.o4.zoz5), as communicated vide letter dated zz.o5.zoz5, is legally sound, well-reasoned, and in accordance with the SEZ Act, 2oo5, SEZ Rules, zo06, and Ministry Instruction No. rr7 dated 24.c,9.2024. The rejection of permission to warehouse cigarettes is consistent with the regulatory framework governing SEZs and aligns with precedents set by the BoA. The appellant's grounds of appeal lack merit and fail to demonstrate any error in the UAC's decision- making process. 1. The appeal filed by M/s Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division) be summarily rejected. 2. The decision of the zr3th UAC meeting (3o.o4.zoz5) and the Development Commissioner's letter dated z2.o1.2o2; be upheld. No relief of any kind be granted to the appellant, as the UAC's decision is lawful and based on established guidelines and precedents. Page73 of 74

Commissioner's letter dated z2.o1.2o2; be upheld. No relief of any kind be granted to the appellant, as the UAC's decision is lawful and based on established guidelines and precedents. Page73 of 74

Prayer of appellant: The appellant, most respectfully, prays to Appellate Authority to graciously grant the following reliefs: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) The decision of 213th meeting of UAC as far as concerned to the appellant and Respondent's letter dt.zzlo5lzo2s may kindly be quashed and set aside. To allow the appellant to import and warehouse the commodity of cigarettes as the appellant was doing in past under their LOA. If the Adjudication Authority deem fit the same can modify the decision of UAC to give the relief to the appellant Any other relief in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted as may be deemed fit. Comments of DC:

1. The appeal filed by M/s Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division) be summarily rejected.
2. The decision of the zr3th UAC meeting (3o.o 4.zoz1) and the Development Commissioner's letter dated 22.c,5.2c.25 be upheld. No relief of any kind be granted to the appellant, as the UAC's decision is lawful and based on established guidelines and precedents. The appeal is being placed before the Board for its consideration. Page74 of 74