Agenda for the 131st BoA SEZ to be held in 3rd Week of August, 2025.

Page 1 of 131

Agenda for the 131st meeting of the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) to be held on Third Week of August 2025

Agenda Item No. 131.1: Ratification of the minutes of the 130th meeting of the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) held on 18th July, 2025.

Page 2 of 131

Agenda Item No. 131.2:

Request for extension of LoA of SEZ Unit [ 2 proposal – 131.2(i)-132.2(ii)]

Relevant Rule position:

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

vities are not complete) and onwards are granted by BoA. • BoA can extend the validity for a period of one year at a time. • There is no time limit up to which the Board can extend the validity.

Page 3 of 131

131.2(i) Request of M/s. Sandhill Aviation IFSC Private Limited, Unit No. 624, 2nd Floor, Signature Building, GIFT Multi Services SEZ Gandhinagar for the Extension of the Letter of Approval (LOA) for further period of one year i.e. Upto 19.09.2025.

Jurisdictional SEZ – GIFT SEZ

Facts of the case: 1 Name of the Applicant M/s. Sandhill Aviation IFSC Private Limited 2 Address Unit No. 624, 2nd Floor, Signature Building, GIFT Multi Services SEZ Gandhinagar - 382355 3 Original LOA details KASEZ/DCO/GIFT/SEZ/II/59/2021-22/309 dated: 20.09.2021 4 Authorised Operations Aircraft Leasing activities as per Circular F.No. 172/IFSCA/Finance Company Regulations/2022- 23/01 dtd. 18.05.2022 Broad Banding Service Approved No 5 Present date of Validity of the LOA 19.09.2024 6 Previous LOA extension details 1st extension of LOA upto 19.09.2023 approved on 11.01.2023.

2nd extension upto 19.09.2024 approved on 11.07.2024 7 Date of Commencement of Operations Not commenced 8 Status of BLUT Accepted on 02.06.2023 9 Status of Lease Deed Not Executed 10 IFSCA approval for Unit (Date of CoR) 09.02.2023 a. Details of Business plan: Sl. No Type of Cost Proposed Investment (Rs. In Crores) Total investment made so Far (Rs. In Crores) 1 Cost of project 6.40 1.86

b.

e of CoR) 09.02.2023 a. Details of Business plan: Sl. No Type of Cost Proposed Investment (Rs. In Crores) Total investment made so Far (Rs. In Crores) 1 Cost of project 6.40 1.86

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

Page 4 of 131

Sl. No Type of Cost Total investment made so Far (In Rs.) Incremental investment since the last extension (In Rs.) 1 Incorporation expenses and consultancy fees. 662,186.00 NIL 2 Fees/stamp duty of increase in Authorized Capital 380,300.00 NIL 3 Acquisition of aircraft, custom clearance pending 13,960,308.00 NIL 4 Amt Paid for acquisition of office at IFSC (Expense at present borne by director 3,652,491.00 3,652,491.00

Total 18,655,285.00 36,52,491.00

c. Details of physical progress till date:

Sl. No Activity % Completion % Completion during last one year Deadline for completion of balance work 1 Bond Cum Legal Undertaking for the IFSC Unit 100% 0% Not Applicable 2 GST of the Unit 100% 0% Not Applicable 3 IEC of the Unit 100% 0% Not Applicable 4 Lease Deed for the IFSC Unit 0% 0% 100% Payment for the same has been made from director’s account. The registration with the registering authority and with IFSCA is pending. It is expected to be done within 3 months from receipt of approval 5 Any other (please specify). Acquisition of aircraft 0% 0% Custom clearance pending

rity and with IFSCA is pending. It is expected to be done within 3 months from receipt of approval 5 Any other (please specify). Acquisition of aircraft 0% 0% Custom clearance pending

Page 5 of 131

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

Sl. No. Activity % Completion % Completion during last one year Deadline for completion of balance work 1 Identification of aircraft to be acquired 100% 0% Not Applicable 2 Execution of agreement for acquisition of aircraft 100% 0% Not Applicable 3 Execution of agreement (or) LOI for leasing-out the acquired aircraft 0% 0% Three months from the approval 4 Sourcing of credit/ finance for acquisition of aircraft 100% 0% The aircraft has been acquired from own sources. 5 Details of appointment of Principal Officer and Designated Director in the IFSC unit 50% 0% Three months from the approval 6 Any other (please specify)

e. Any other progress update: Nil. 2. As regards delay in the commencement of operations, the Unit has submitted as below - a. After incorporation of the company, the next step was to open the bank account for bringing the necessary capital. The banks were demanding the approval from the IFSC Authority for opening the bank account. They received in-principal approval from IFSC Authority on December 2, 2021 and the said in-principal approval was submitted to the HDFC Bank Limited. b.

SC Authority for opening the bank account. They received in-principal approval from IFSC Authority on December 2, 2021 and the said in-principal approval was submitted to the HDFC Bank Limited. b. Thereafter, due to some approvals required from the RBI, the initial capital of Rs 100000 could be brought into the HDFC Bank A/c by 18th May, 2022. c. Further, only after 18.05.2022, they could proceed with other filings on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs with respect to certificate of commencement of business. After obtaining the certificate of commencement of business from the MCA, the company has increased the authorized capital from INR 100000 to INR 20000000 by filing form SH-7 before the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat. d. In the meantime, the LOA was about to expire in September 2022 and company made an application for extension of one year in September 2022 and was granted in January 2023. e. The approval from IFSCA has been obtained on 9th February 2023. f. Thereafter, for import and other requirement, there was a requirement for essentiality certificate which has been granted to the unit on 02.06.2023 and received on 03.06.2023. The said application was made in September 2022 as well as in February 2023. However, It was learnt that there were some errors, hence, they submitted the revised application.

eived on 03.06.2023. The said application was made in September 2022 as well as in February 2023. However, It was learnt that there were some errors, hence, they submitted the revised application.

Page 6 of 131

g. In the meantime, the company has purchased an aircraft and had also entered into a lease agreement for the same. However, on account of technical reasons, the clearance of aircraft could not be completed. h. The authorized representative of the company Mr. CA Rohan Thakkar, their consultant and authorised representative was detected with CKD (Chronic Kidney Disease) and went through kidney transplant operation on 11th January 2023 and was in ICU for the period of 15 days. Thereafter he was quarantined for few months and it took a time for him to continue the operations and on account of his ill health thereafter, he could not look into the said matter. And even after that also his health was not up to the mark and he was working very remotely and for the few hours a day. In April 2023, he was detected with Covid and was hospitalized. Again in October 2023 also, he was hospitalized for few days. i. Meanwhile, the application for LOA expired on 19.09.2023 and the unit also got the approval for the extension upto 19.09.2024. j. They have bought the aircraft but could not commence operation as the custom clearance of the aircraft is pending due to its repairing work and it is likely to take a time of around 5-6 months to bring back the same. Thereafter, custom clearance will take place and will be able to commence the operations. 3.

due to its repairing work and it is likely to take a time of around 5-6 months to bring back the same. Thereafter, custom clearance will take place and will be able to commence the operations. 3. Further they have submitted that they have already made an investment of Rs. 1.86 Crores (Investment Amount includes the Acquisition of Aircraft) in their project till now. 4. However, some non-compliances were also observed on the part of the Unit are as below – a. The Unit has not executed the lease deed for the premises on which they were issued the initial Letter of Approval by the DC, GIFT SEZ. b. They have not appointed the Designated Director/Compliance Officer c. The IFSCA Regulatory team has informed that the Unit has not paid the late fees and interest on the delayed payment of IFSCA Fees for the F.Y. 2024-25 d. The Unit has never submitted monthly reports, half yearly reports and confirmation certificates to IFSCA since inception. e. The Unit has not submitted any audit certificate since its inception to IFSCA. Recommendation by IFSCA Administrator: Development activities carried out by the applicant unit, the case is recommended by the Development Commissioner to the Board of Approval in terms of Rule 19(4) of SEZ Rules, 2006 (two-third activities are not complete), for extension in validity of LOA dated 11.07.2024 (extended up to 19.09.2024) for a further period of one year i.e. up to 19.09.2025.

4. of SEZ Rules, 2006 (two-third activities are not complete), for extension in validity of LOA dated 11.07.2024 (extended up to 19.09.2024) for a further period of one year i.e. up to 19.09.2025.

Page 7 of 131

131.2(ii) Request of M/s. GAIL Mangalore Petrochemicals Limited, a unit in M/s. JBF Petrochemicals Limited, Mangalore SEZ for extension of validity of Letter of Approval for a further period of one year from 15.09.2025 to 15.09.2026 (13th Extension).

Jurisdictional SEZ – Mangalore SEZ (MSEZ)

Facts of the case:

LoA issued 16th September 2011 Nature of Business of the Unit Manufacture and export of Purified Terephthalic Acid’ (PTA) and ‘Polyethylene Terephthate (PET No. of extensions 12 extensions (upto 15.09.2025) Request Extension of validity of LoA for a further period of one year upto 15.09.2026 (13th extension)

Progress of project from last LoA extension: -

• Progress in terms of completion of work: -
Sl. No. Description Current status % of work completed % of work yet to complete 1 Engineering 100 NIL 2 Procurement 99.98 0.02 3 Construction 99.5 0.50 4 Overall 99.85 0.15

• Progress in terms of investment made: - Sl. No.

pleted % of work yet to complete 1 Engineering 100 NIL 2 Procurement 99.98 0.02 3 Construction 99.5 0.50 4 Overall 99.85 0.15

• Progress in terms of investment made: - Sl. No. Description Investment made upto 15.09.2024 by M/s JBF Petrochemicals Limited & GAIL
(₹ in crore) Incremental investment since last extension by M/s GAIL as on date (₹ in crore) Total Investment made so far (₹ in crore) 1 Salaries & Wages 101.79 2.90 104.69 2 Staff Welfare Expenses 3.52 1.13 4.65 3 Other Expenses

Tangible Fixed Assets (including material and Civil work) 4496.59 438.59 4935.18

Page 8 of 131

Intangible Fixed Assets (Software Licence) 1.30 0.26 1.56 Technology, Licence& Construction related fees 546.35 92.00 638.35 Legal & Professional fees and Guarantee Commission
293.87 0.25 294.12 Miscellaneous expenses (Power, Diesel, Admin Expenses, Tent, Travelling & Conveyance etc.) 484.44 31.52 515.96 Borrowing Cost (interest) 1596.60 94.47 1691.07 Foreign Exch. Fluctuation 148.02 0.82 148.84 Fixed Assets 161.32 0.00 161.32

Total 7833.80 661.94 8495.74

Some achievements

Sl. No. Package Target Completion (After takeover by M/s GMPL) ISBL 1 ISBL-PTA Unit Mechanical Completion Mechanical work completed. Inspection Completed. Pre-commissioning under progress. Commissioning is expected from December 2025. Production is expected in February 2026.
2 Commissioning trials As indicated above.

leted. Inspection Completed. Pre-commissioning under progress. Commissioning is expected from December 2025. Production is expected in February 2026.
2 Commissioning trials As indicated above.

OSBL 1 Nitrogen Units Commissioned 2 Air Compression Commissioned 3 DM Water Plant Commissioned 4 Electrical Substation Commissioned 5 Cooling Towers Commissioned 6 Fire Water Tanks and Network Commissioned 7 Cooling Water Towers Commissioned 8 6 Nos. of bagging machine Ready for trial (maintenance under progress) 9 ETP – Aerobic Section Commissioned. Water Run Completed. 10 Power Connection Re-sanction from MESCOM 11 Water Sourcing Agreement signed with MSEZL

Page 9 of 131

12 Effluent Disposal Agreement Signed with MSEZL 13 Natural Gas Gas Transmission Agreement Signed with GAIL. Negotiations going-on for Gas Supply and Capacity Tranche Agreements.
14 Paraxylene Import Tanks hired at Port. Pipeline Laying under progress for transport from Port to Plant. Simultaneously, Land acquired at port for development of Booster Pumping Station to avoid tank hiring at port.

Reasons for seeking extension: -

• Erstwhile JBF Petrochemicals Limited was acquired by GAIL vide NCLT order No.IA/899(AHM)2022 in CP(IB)232 of 2018, order under section 31IBC,2016 dated 13.03.2023 and it was renamed to M/s GAIL Mangalore Petrochemicals Limited (GMPL). • GMPL has started execution of revival activities at the site.

32 of 2018, order under section 31IBC,2016 dated 13.03.2023 and it was renamed to M/s GAIL Mangalore Petrochemicals Limited (GMPL). • GMPL has started execution of revival activities at the site. The unit was not under preservation since 2020, and power supply was cut off due to non- payment of dues, plant and machinery including electronic hardware underwent lot of deterioration. As they are lining up different agencies including Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), it is repeatedly observed that different components are required to be temporarily removed from GMPL site (inside MSEZ area) to DTA for repair and maintenance. Considering the plant was taken over on “as is where is basis” after a non-operational period of 5 years from 2017-18, it is very difficult to trace inward passes for these components and their invoices.

The following activities are under progress: -

• Through persistent efforts and persuasion, GMPL successfully re-engaged most of the OEMs, consultants, and contractors. Over the past two years GMPL has completed revival as well as commissioning of several sections such as:
➢ Air Compression Unit.
➢ Tank Farms
➢ Nitrogen Generation ➢ Cooling Towers ➢ DM Water Plant ➢ Electrical Substations ➢ Street and Plant Area Lighting ➢ Effluent Treatment Plant – Aerobic Section ➢ Fire Water Pump House and Fire Water Network • Additionally, GMPL has secured several statutory permissions and approvals essential for the revival and operation of the plant.

– Aerobic Section ➢ Fire Water Pump House and Fire Water Network • Additionally, GMPL has secured several statutory permissions and approvals essential for the revival and operation of the plant. These include the Poison Licence, PESO approvals, Fire Advisory for buildings, Fire NOC for hydrocarbon storage, clearances related to Legal Metrology, re-sanction of

Page 10 of 131

power supply, and approvals from Boiler Authorities for revival works, among others. • The following activities are under progress: -
➢ Boilers: Revival work for two oil and gas-fired boilers is currently in progress. Additionally, the third boiler is being revamped, including the conversion of its fuel configuration from coal to oil and gas. Overall, approximately 65% of the work has been completed. ➢ Main Process Plant: Preliminary testing and inspection activities completed. Pre-commissioning activities are under progress.
➢ Process Air Compressor: All spares and expert services required for overhauling have been ordered. Presently, overhauling and testing is under progress.
➢ ETP- Anaerobic Section: Revival of the unit is completed. Pre- commissioning is under progress.
➢ Paraxylene Import and Infrastructure: Since sourcing of Paraxylene from MRPL has become unviable, GMPL is envisaging import of entire quantity. GMPL has hired tanks at port to facilitate unloading of Paraxylene from ships. Furthermore, it is laying pipeline from port to plant to enable transportation from these hired tanks to plant. This work is expected to be completed by December 2025.

ng of Paraxylene from ships. Furthermore, it is laying pipeline from port to plant to enable transportation from these hired tanks to plant. This work is expected to be completed by December 2025.
➢ Purchase of Chemicals and Catalyst: GMPL has placed purchase orders for various chemicals and catalysts required for plant production. Work is under progress for 100 % coverage.

The unit has informed that several hindrances such as lack of adequate engineering/ construction related documentation, delays in re-engagements of engineering consultants and the process licensor, major shortcomings observed in the design and construction of Boilers, etc., had to be overcome. This has led to delay in completion of the project. The unit has informed that the plant is expected to be commissioned in February 2026.

Recommendation by DC, Mangalore SEZ: -

Considering the investment made and that the unit is under revival stage, the request for extension of the validity of LoA No. KA:16:07: MSEZ:2B dated 16.09.2011 of M/s GAIL Mangalore Petrochemicals Limited (erstwhile M/s JBF Petrochemicals Limited), for a further period of one year from 16.09.2025 to 15.09.2026 (13th extension) is recommended by DC, MSEZ to the BoA for consideration.

emicals Limited (erstwhile M/s JBF Petrochemicals Limited), for a further period of one year from 16.09.2025 to 15.09.2026 (13th extension) is recommended by DC, MSEZ to the BoA for consideration.

Page 11 of 131

Agenda Item No. 131.3:

Request for extension of LoA Formal approval [1 proposal –131.3(i)]

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

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

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

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

b.

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

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

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

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

Page 12 of 131

131.3(i) Proposal of M/s. Siemens Healthcare Private Limited for setting up of a Sector Specific Special Economic Zone for IT/ITES [Healthcare (IT/ITES/R&D)] in the State of Karnataka – Request for extension of validity of Letter of Approval for a further period of two years from 24.11.2025 to 23.11.2027.

mic Zone for IT/ITES [Healthcare (IT/ITES/R&D)] in the State of Karnataka – Request for extension of validity of Letter of Approval for a further period of two years from 24.11.2025 to 23.11.2027. Jurisdictional SEZ: Cochin SEZ (CSEZ)

Facts of the Case: The request of M/s Siemens Healthcare Private Limited for further extension of the validity period of Formal Approval, granted for setting up of IT/ITES/R&D) SEZ at Industrial Estate, 3rd Phase, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Bommisandra Village, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, Karnataka beyond 23.11.2025 Name of the Developer M/s Siemens Healthcare Private Limited Sector IT/ITES LoA Issued K-43016(11)/6/2022-SEZ dated 24th November, 2022 Notification
21st December, 2022 Operational status Non-operational Location Plot No.239 (Sy.Nos.229 part, 230/2 part, 230/3 part, 231 part, 232 part, 233/1 part, 233/3 part & 235/3 part), Bommasandra Industrial Estate, 3rd Phase, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Bommisandra Village, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, Karnataka. Extension The Developer was issued Formal approval on 24.11.2022 and validity of the same is upto 23.11.2025. The present request is for further extension of validity of LoA for 2 years i.e., upto 23.11.2027 (1st extension). The SEZ stands notified on 21.12.2022. Extension of validity of LoA for 1 year can be considered. Present Progress: a. Details of business Plan: Sl. No.

s i.e., upto 23.11.2027 (1st extension). The SEZ stands notified on 21.12.2022. Extension of validity of LoA for 1 year can be considered. Present Progress: a. Details of business Plan: Sl. No. Description Amount ( in crore) 1 Land 106.05 2 Building Construction (Building, Roads, Boundary wall) 652.60 3 Infrastructures (Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing) 253.60 4 IT ( Telecom, Network facilities) 73.05

Total 1085.30

Page 13 of 131

b. Incremental investment since last extension: -

Sl. No. Type of Cost Total Investment made so far i.e., up to 31.05.2025 (₹ in lakh)
Investment made upto 24.11.2022 (₹ in lakh) Incremental investment since last approval i.e. from 24.11.2022 to 31.05.2025(₹ in lakh) 1 Land cost 114.70 114.70

2 Material Procurement & Construction 329.38 0.00 329.38 3 Machinery 35.95 0.00 35.95

Total 480.03 114.70 365.33

c. Details of physical progress till date Sl. No. Authorized activity % Completion % completion during last one year Deadline for completion of balance work 1 Land acquisition 100

Completed 2 Building construction

38 November 2027 3 Machinery

9 November 2027 Status of construction of the IT buildings: • The Developer is constructing four IT buildings having total projected area of 1,10,000 sq.mtr.. • The construction of the project is in progress and more than 50% of the shell and core works have been completed. Balance work is under execution and expected to be completed by October 2027.

• The construction of the project is in progress and more than 50% of the shell and core works have been completed. Balance work is under execution and expected to be completed by October 2027. • They have completed 100% of foundation work and Plinth Beam. 5th Floor work is in progress. • Basic Road, SWD Infra with facility, Services works of Electrical, Fire HVAC and PHE work is in progress.
• Power Station, BESCOM NoC is obtained, flooring, window, furniture, glazing to be executed.

Reason for delay in implementation of the project:-

Page 14 of 131

• The original estimated project planning approvals were expected from the Statutory Authorities in April 2021 and accordingly the completion was planned in November 2025. Statutory approvals were received only in February 2023 including GST Registration although SEZ notification was approved in November 2022. • Onsite Construction activities were started from 16th February 2023 • Since the project volume is high, taking time for the construction and presently delayed due to following reasons:-
➢ Change in Internal Layout Design
➢ Delay in Statutory approvals ➢ Labour resource constraints across India in Construction Industry. ➢ Environmental impacts like Monsoon, Logistic issues etc.

➢ Change in Internal Layout Design
➢ Delay in Statutory approvals ➢ Labour resource constraints across India in Construction Industry. ➢ Environmental impacts like Monsoon, Logistic issues etc.

Recommendation by DC, CSEZ:
The request of the developer M/s Siemens Healthcare Private Limited, Developer, for extension of validity of Letter of Approval for a further period of one year (1st extension) from 24.11.2025 to 23.11.2026 is recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA, in terms of Rule 6(2) (a) of SEZ Rules 2006.

Page 15 of 131

Agenda Item No. 131.4:

Request for Co-Developer status [ 1 proposal – 131.4(i)]

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

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

Page 16 of 131

131.4(i) Proposal of M/s Ascent Realty, Private Limited, for Co- Developer status in M/s Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited (MIHAN) SEZ, located at plot no. 23 & 24, Sector-18 at MIHAN- SEZ, Nagpur. Jurisdictional SEZ – MIHAN SEZ Facts of the case:

1. Name of the Developer & Location M/s. Maharshtra Airport development company limited 8th Floor, World trade Center-1, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400005 India

2. Date of LOA to Developer 6th November, 2006

3. Sector of the SEZ Multi Product/Multi sector SEZ

4. Weather SEZ is operational or not Operational (01.12.2008)

5. No of Units Operatinal-45

Under implementation-9 6. Total Exports & import for the last 5 years (Rs. in cr)(FY 2020-21 to 2024- 25 Export-Rs 15410 Cr

Imports-Rs 4219 Cr 4. Date of Notification 29.05.2007, 24.01.2008 & 27.07.2009 5. Total notified area (in Hectares) 1236 hectare 7. Name of the Co-Developer sought approval for Co- Developer status M/s. Ascent Realty at Plot No. 23 & 24, Sector 18, MIHAN- SEZ, Village Dahegaon, PS Sonegaon, P.O. Khapri (Rly) Tal-Nagpur, Dist- Nagpur 8.

Co-Developer sought approval for Co- Developer status M/s. Ascent Realty at Plot No. 23 & 24, Sector 18, MIHAN- SEZ, Village Dahegaon, PS Sonegaon, P.O. Khapri (Rly) Tal-Nagpur, Dist- Nagpur 8. Details of Infrastructure facilities/ authorized operations to be undertaken by the co- developer Providing Infrastructure development services for IT/ITES, other manufacturing & services units with allied and associated infrastructure facilities and services as may be required for upkeep, maintenance and repair of common area facilities at site including security, fire protection system, water treatment, storm drainage & sewage disposal, HVAC systems, landscaping & water bodies, housekeeping services, transport, PMC services, access control & monitoring, road network, commercial or industrial construction, advertising & marketing and other consultancy services; and undertaking other default authorized operations as per MOCI Instruction No. 50 dated: 15.03.2010 9. Total area on which activities will be 8093.71 Sq Mtr

d other consultancy services; and undertaking other default authorized operations as per MOCI Instruction No. 50 dated: 15.03.2010 9. Total area on which activities will be 8093.71 Sq Mtr

Page 17 of 131

performed by the co developer 10. Proposed investment by the Co-developer Rs. in Cr. 27.6158 Crore 11 Net worth of the Co- developer (Rs. in Cr.) 130.36 Crore 12 Date of the Co-developer agreement has been entered (a) |into between the developer and the codeveloper 30.12.2024 13 (a) If yes, whether a copy of this agreement
(b) |has been enclosed with this application form Yes

Yes

Recommendation by DC, MIHAN SEZ: The request of M/s. Ascent realty, Plot No. 23 & 24, Sector 18, MIHAN- SEZ, Village Dahegaon, PS Sonegaon, P.O. Khapri { Rly) Tal-Nagpur, Dist- Nagpur has been recommended, in terms of Section 3 (11) of SEZ Act 2005 & Rule 3-A of SEZ Rules 2006 and forwarded for consideration of the BoA.

Page 18 of 131

Agenda Item No. 131.5:

Request for notification or partial/full de-notification [3 proposal 131.5(i)- 131.5(iii)]

Procedural guidelines on de-notification of SEZ:

• In terms of first proviso to rule 8 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, the Central Government may, on the recommendation of the Board (Board of Approval) on the application made by the Developer, if it is satisfied, modify, withdraw or rescind the notification of a SEZ issued under this rule.

y, on the recommendation of the Board (Board of Approval) on the application made by the Developer, if it is satisfied, modify, withdraw or rescind the notification of a SEZ issued under this rule. • In the 60th meeting of the Board of Approval held on 08.11.2013, while considering a proposal of de-notification, the Board after deliberations decided that henceforth all cases of partial or complete de-notification of SEZs will be processed on file by DoC, subject to the conditions that:

(a) DC to furnish a certificate in the prescribed format certifying inter-alia that; o the Developer has either not availed or has refunded all the tax/duty benefits availed under SEZ Act/Rules in respect of the area to be de-notified. o there are either no units in the SEZ or the same have been de-bonded. (b) The State Govt. has no objection to the de-notification proposal and (c) Subject to stipulations communicated vide DoC’s letter No. D.12/ 45/2009- SEZ dated 13.09.2013.

me have been de-bonded. (b) The State Govt. has no objection to the de-notification proposal and (c) Subject to stipulations communicated vide DoC’s letter No. D.12/ 45/2009- SEZ dated 13.09.2013.

Page 19 of 131

131.5(i)
Proposal of M/s. Electronics Technology Parks-Kerala (Technopark), Developer for partial de-notification of 10.4523 Ha out of 17.7120 Ha of IT/ITES SEZ at (Phase-IV) in Andoorkkonam Village, Thiruvananthapuram District, Kerala

Jurisdictional SEZ – Cochin SEZ (CSEZ)

Facts of the case:

M/s. Electronics Technology Parks-Kerala (Technopark) has requested for decrease in the SEZ area by de-notifying the area.

Name of Developer
:

M/s. Electronics Technology Parks-Kerala (Technopark) Location
:

(Phase-IV) in Andoorkkonam Village, Thiruvananthapuram District, Kerala LoA issued on (date)
:

16.05.2012 (Formal Approval) , Notified dated 29.11.2012 Sector
:

IT/ITES Operational or not
operational
:

Operational , 16.03.2020 Notified Area (in Hectares)

:

17.7120 Ha.
Area proposed for de- notification (in Hectares)
:

10.4523 Ha.

Reasons for de-notification proposal: • The proposed land is lying vacant. • To create supporting IT infrastructure which would cater largely for domestic IT business. The Developer proposes to de-notify the vacant land area of 10.4523 Ha out of total notified area of 17.7120 Ha thereby making the SEZ area as 7.2597 Ha.

ld cater largely for domestic IT business. The Developer proposes to de-notify the vacant land area of 10.4523 Ha out of total notified area of 17.7120 Ha thereby making the SEZ area as 7.2597 Ha. However, as per Rule 5(2) (b) of SEZ Rules 2006, there shall be no minimum land area requirement for 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. The SEZ is coming under Category 'B' City and the minimum built- up area required for Category ‘B' 25,000 sq.mtr. The SEZ is having total built-up area of 30376 sq.mtr., and they fulfill the necessary conditions.

Requisite documents for considering de-notification proposal:

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

Requisite documents for considering de-notification proposal:

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

Page 20 of 131

S. No. Documents/Details Required
Status
(i) Form-C5 for decrease in area along with DC’s
recommendation
Yes, provided
(ii) DC’s certificate in prescribed format
Yes, provided (iii) Developer’s Certificate countersigned by DC
Yes, provided (iv) Land details of the area to be de- notified countersigned by DC
Yes, provided
(v) Colored Map of the SEZ clearly indicating area to be de- notified and left-over area duly countersigned by DC
Yes, provided
(vi) “No Objection Certificate” from the State Government w.r.t. instructions issued by DoC vide its instruction No. D.12/45/2009-SEZ dated 13.09.2013 for partial de- notification shall be complied with
Yes, Provided
(vii) ‘No Dues Certificate’ from specified officer
Yes, provided

1. DC, CSEZ Certification: a. There are no units in that part of SEZ requested for notification. b. The developer has not availed any tax/duty benefits, under the SEZ Act/Rules in r/o the land being de-notified.
   All tax/duty benefit indicated above have been refunded by the developer to my satisfaction. c. The SEZ shall remain contiguous even after de-notification of the area of 10.4523 Ha and the net area of the SEZ after de-notification is 7.2597Ha.

2. NOC for De-notification: State Government vide letter No.

remain contiguous even after de-notification of the area of 10.4523 Ha and the net area of the SEZ after de-notification is 7.2597Ha.

2. NOC for De-notification: State Government vide letter No. IT-A2/91/2024- ITD dated 09.04.2025 has provide no objection for partial de-notification.
3. Inspection of Partial De-notification Area: Inspection Certificate submitted.

Recommendation by DC, CSEZ:

The proposal of M/s. Electronics Technology Parks-Kerala (Technopark), has been examined and is recommended for partial de-notification of 10.4523Ha land from the already notified area of 17.7120 Ha of IT/ITES SEZ at (phase -IV) in Andoorkkonam Village, Thiruvananthapuram District, Kerala. After de-notification of the proposed land the balance area of SEZ i.e. 7.2597 Ha shall remain contiguous.

Page 21 of 131

131.5(ii) Request of M/s Gopalan Enterprises (India) Private Limited, Developer for Gopalan (Fortune City) SEZ, for cancellation of LoA and de- notification of entire SEZ area at Mahadevapura & Kaggadasapura Villages, K R Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Karnataka State

Jurisdictional SEZ – Cochin SEZ (CSEZ)

Facts of the case:

Name and address of the developer M/s Gopalan Enterprises (India) Private Limited at Mahadevpura & Kaggadasspura, KR Puram, Whitefield Bangalore Karnataka.

SEZ)

Facts of the case:

Name and address of the developer M/s Gopalan Enterprises (India) Private Limited at Mahadevpura & Kaggadasspura, KR Puram, Whitefield Bangalore Karnataka. Loa Issue on date F.2/320/2006-SEZ dated 3rd July, 2007 Sector IT/ITES Operational or not operational Yet to be Operationalized Date of notification 05.04.2009 Notified area(In Hectares) 14.2903 Area proposed for de- notification(In Hectares) 14.2903(Full denotification) Request of the Developer The Developer vide letter dated 29yh May 2025 has applied for de notification of the entire SEZ area. The Developer states that removal of Income Tax benefits has lead to decrease in demand for IT companies in SEZ. No New IT/ITES clients are opting for SEZ and also few of their existing clients in their other SEZ exited due to the above reason. Hence, the developer submitted application for de-notification of full notified SEZ land and cancellation of LoA. Observation The Developer has refunded an amount of ₹1,04,13,623/- (Rupees One crore four lakh thirteen thousand six hundred twenty three only) towards tax/duty exemptions availed vide BRN No.202505290935438 dated 29.05.2025 for ₹1,04,13,623/- (copy enclosed). The Specified Officer has issued No Due Certificate vide letter dated 30th May 2025 and also recommended for consideration of the proposal of the Developer (copy enclosed).

23/- (copy enclosed). The Specified Officer has issued No Due Certificate vide letter dated 30th May 2025 and also recommended for consideration of the proposal of the Developer (copy enclosed). The State Government vide letter No.C1 218SPI2023 dated 5th July 2025 has also conveyed their No Objection for full de-notification of 14.2903 Ha of notified SEZ land area.
Reason for de- notification M/s Gopalan Enterprises (India) Private Limited was issued Letter of Approval dated 3rd July 2007 for setting up IT/ITES at Mahadevapura Village, K R Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Karnataka State over an area of 14.2903 Ha. The SEZ was notified by Government on 4th May 2009. The validity of the LoA expired on 2nd July 2020. The Developer states that removal of Income Tax benefits has lead to decrease in demand for IT companies in SEZ. No New IT/ITES clients are opting

Page 22 of 131

for SEZ and also few of their existing clients in their other SEZ exited due to the above reason. Hence, the developer submitted application for de-notification of full notified SEZ land and cancellation of LoA.

Land Utilization of the proposed 14.2903 Ha after de- notification To allot the same to the prospective DTA clients

Requisite documents for considering de-notification proposal:

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

S.
No.

ocuments for considering de-notification proposal:

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

S.
No.
Documents/Details Required
Status
(i) Form-C6 for full denotification along with DC’s
recommendation
Yes, provided
(ii) DC’s certificate in prescribed format
Yes, provided (iii) “No Objection Certificate” from the State Government w.r.t . instructions issued by DoC vide its instruction No. D.12/45 /2009-SEZ dated 13.09.2013 for full de-notification shall b e complied with
Yes, Provided
(iv) ‘No Dues Certificate’ from specified officer
Yes, provided

State Government vide letter No. CI 218 SPI 2023 dated 05.07.2025 has provide no objection for complete de-notification of 14.2903 Ha and informed that the de-notified land will be utilised towards creation of IT infrastructure (Non SEZ), which would sub serve the objective of the SEZ and the land will conform to the land use /mater plan of the state government.

Dc CSEZ certified that a. There are no unit in the SEZ b. The developer had availed the following tax/duty benefits under the SEZ Act/Rules. Amount of Rs. 1,04,13,623 - towards tax/duty exemptions availed on all their capital assets as the developer has been refunded by the 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.

assets as the developer has been refunded by the 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.

Page 23 of 131

Recommendation by DC, CSEZ:

The proposal of M/s Gopalan Enterprises (India) Private Limited, Developer for Gopalan (Fortune City) SEZ, at Mahadevpura & Kaggadasspura, KR Puram, Whitefield Bangalore Karnataka for cancellation of LOA and de-notification of entire SEZ area of 14.2903 Ha has been recommended and forwarded for consideration of BOA, in terms of Rule 8 of SEZ Rules 2006.

Page 24 of 131

130.5(iii) Proposal of M/s. Phoenix Ventures Private Limited SEZ for partial de-notification of an area of 2.27 Ha from of 3.60 Hectares of their IT/ITES SEZ at Scheme # Survey No's. 35 (Part) and 36 (Part), Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

Jurisdictional SEZ – Visakhapatnam SEZ (VSEZ) Fact of the case: M/s Phoenix ventures has requested for decrease in the SEZ area by partial de- notifying the area. Name of the developer M/s. Phoenix Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Location
Scheme # Survey No's. 35 (Part) and 36 (Part), Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. LoA issued on (date)
F.1/19/2017-SEZ dated 26.04.2017. Sector
IT/ITES SEZ Notification detail (a) Notification no. S.O.2736 (E) dated 16.08.2017,
(b) Notification no. S.O.1269 (E) dated 16.03.2018 & (c) Notification no.

2017-SEZ dated 26.04.2017. Sector
IT/ITES SEZ Notification detail (a) Notification no. S.O.2736 (E) dated 16.08.2017,
(b) Notification no. S.O.1269 (E) dated 16.03.2018 & (c) Notification no. S.O.4771 (E) dated 09.11.2021 Operational or not
operational
SEZ is an operational through vide Letter no. F.No.22 (61) VSEZ / 2016-17/337/SEZ, dated; 07th May, 2024 Notified Area (in Hectares) 3.60 Hectare (8.90 Acres) Area proposed for de- notification (in Hectares)
2.27 Ha (5.60 Acres)

Reasons for de-notification proposal: The demand for IT/ITE SEZ space decreasing and there are no enquiries despite waiting for almost 4 years. The constructed SEZ space is also vacant.
Requisite documents for considering de-notification proposal:

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

S.
No. Documents/Details Required
Status
(i) Form-C5 for decrease in area along with DC’s
recommendation
Yes, provided
(ii) DC’s certificate in prescribed format
Yes, provided
(iii) Developer’s Certificate countersigned by DC
Yes, provided
(iv) Land details of the area to be de-notified countersigned by D C
Yes, provided
(v) Colored Map of the SEZ clearly indicating area to be de-notifi ed and left-over area duly countersigned by DC
Yes, provided
(vi) “No Objection Certificate” from the State Government w.r.t. i nstructions issued by DoC vide its instruction No. D.12/45/20Yes, Provided

over area duly countersigned by DC
Yes, provided
(vi) “No Objection Certificate” from the State Government w.r.t. i nstructions issued by DoC vide its instruction No. D.12/45/20Yes, Provided

Page 25 of 131

09-SEZ dated 13.09.2013 for partial de-notification shall be c omplied with
(vii) ‘No Dues Certificate’ from specified officer
Yes, provided (ref er Note# 1 Below)

Note1:

i. Specified officer in its ‘No Dues Certificate’ dated 01.07.2025 mentioned that the built-up area after proposed partial de-notification will be 30,425.83 Sq. Mtrs against minimum built up area is 50,000 Sq. Mtrs as per Rule 5(2)(b) of SEZ Rules, 2006.
ii. Further, SO informed that the Tower-1 is going to continue in the SEZ area after the proposed partial de-notification. One SEZ unit viz., M/s. FMC Technologies India Pvt Ltd., in located in Tower-1. But, Tower-1 is not having parking place for vehicles as it is having only one basement for 17 floors. Hence, for the existing SEZ unit located in Tower-1, the co-developer M/s. Evermark IT Developers Pvt. Ltd., has allotted the required parking place at no additional cost (as per the sub-lease deed dated 03-07-2024) in the basement of Tower-2 which is located in the proposed DTA area after partial denotification. In this regard the developer vide letter dated 30-06-2025 informed that, they have requested the SEZ unit M/s. FMC Technologies India Pvt Ltd., on 24-06-2025 to give acceptance letter for the proposed partial denotification and the same is awaited by the developer.

at, they have requested the SEZ unit M/s. FMC Technologies India Pvt Ltd., on 24-06-2025 to give acceptance letter for the proposed partial denotification and the same is awaited by the developer.

Key Findings in the Proposal:

1. DC, VSEZ Certification: a. There are no unit in the land being de-notified
   b. The developer had availed the tax/duty benefits amounting to Rs. 1,27,69,90,235/- towards duly liability on customs exemptions availed on imported goods, IGST exemption availed have been remitted and the same has submitted vide letter dated 27.06.2025.
   c. The SEZ shall remain contiguous even after de-notification of the area of 2.27 Ha and remaining area would be 1.33 Hactares
   d. The land details for de-notification and a coloured map of the SEZ showing the area being de-notified, duly countersigned by DC. e. The State Government vide letter dated 18.06.2025 has given its “No Objection” regarding proposed partial de-notification of the above stated area of the SEZ.
2. NOC for De-notification: Government of Telangana has recommended the proposal
3. Inspection of Partial De-notification Area DC, VSEZ along with Specified officer and Mandal Revenue Officer/ Tahsildar has conducted a physical Inspection on 23.05.2025 for partial de-Notification of M/s. Phoenix Ventures Pvt. Limited, IT/ITES SEZ at Sy.No. 35(P) & 36,

officer and Mandal Revenue Officer/ Tahsildar has conducted a physical Inspection on 23.05.2025 for partial de-Notification of M/s. Phoenix Ventures Pvt. Limited, IT/ITES SEZ at Sy.No. 35(P) & 36,

Page 26 of 131

Gachibowli Village, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana in an area of 2.27 Ha along with Tower-2, Tower -3 and Amenities Block out of the existing SEZ area of 3.60 Ha. The area proposed to be de-notified is having three buildings (Tower 2, Tower3, & Amenities Block) and having no units in the said area. The land area remaining after the proposed de-notification is contiguous without any public thoroughfare. The built-up area remaining with the Developer after proposed partial de-notification will be 30,425.83 sq.mts against minimum built up area of 50,000 Sq mtrs as per Rule 5(2)(b) of SEZ Rules, 2006.

Clarification sought by DoC:
DoC vide email dated 06.08.2025 cought following clarifications: • What is the total built up area as on date and what is the operational area out of the said total built up area? • What would be the remaining built up area after the proposed denotification?

Submissions made by VSEZ: In response VSEZ vide email dated 07.08.2025 furnished following details:

No Description Date Land Extent, Ha Built-up area, Sqm Built-up area, Sft 1 Notification date and land area 16 Aug 2017 3.6

2 100% processing land area

3.6

3 Current Area utilized and constructed

2.8 2,20,344 23,71,771 4 Current proposal for partial de-notification

2.27 1,89,919 20,44,270

.6

2 100% processing land area

3.6

3 Current Area utilized and constructed

2.8 2,20,344 23,71,771 4 Current proposal for partial de-notification

2.27 1,89,919 20,44,270 5 Timeline and area for 50% construction as per Rule 5(7) and 5(2)(b) 15 Aug 2022 NA 2,20,334 wherein the minimum area required was only 25,000 23,71,771 6 Timeline and area for 100% construction as per Rules, 5(7) and 5(2)(b) 15 Aug 2027 NA 50,000 5,38,196 7 SEZ area remaining after partial denotification

0.53 30,425.83 3,27,501 8 Area constructed more than required built area for compliance

5425.83 58,403 9 Built up area required to be constructed by 15th August 2027 for compliance

0.8 19,574.20 2,10,695

Page 27 of 131

10 Total built-up area by within stipulated time (Undertaking already submitted to this effect) 15 Aug 2027

1,05,260 (Present constructed operational area plus future development) 11,33,000

Recommendation by DC, VSEZ

The proposal is for partial denotification of an IT SEZ M/s Phoenix Ventures Pvt Ltd. As per Rule 5(2)(b), there shall be no minimum land area requirement for setting up a SEZ for IT/ITES, but a minimum built up processing area of 50,000 sq.mt shall be applicable for category A cities.
The built-up area after proposed partial de-notification will be 30,425.83 Sq. Mtrs against minimum built up area is 50,000 Sq. Mtrs as per Rule 5(2)(b) of SEZ Rules, 2006 and hence is not meeting the requirement under Rule 5(2)(b).

rtial de-notification will be 30,425.83 Sq. Mtrs against minimum built up area is 50,000 Sq. Mtrs as per Rule 5(2)(b) of SEZ Rules, 2006 and hence is not meeting the requirement under Rule 5(2)(b).
In this regard, the Developer vide letter dated 3.7.2025 has given an undertaking that another 70,000 Sq. Mtrs will be developed on the open/vacant land of 0.80 Ha which is contiguous to the Tower 1 on or before 15.8.2027 to maintain minimum 50,000 Sq. Mtrs in processing area.
The proposal is being forwarded for consideration of BoA.

Page 28 of 131

Agenda Item No. 131.6:
Request for conversion of Processing Area into Non-Processing Area under Rule 11(B) [ 6 proposals – 131.6(i)- 131.6(vi)]

Rule position:
In terms of the Rule 5(2) regarding requirements of minimum area of land for an IT/ITES SEZ: - (b) There shall be no minimum land area requirement for setting up a Special Economic Zone for Information Technology or Information Technology enabled Services, Biotech or Health (other than hospital) service, but a minimum built up processing area requirement shall be applicable, based on the category of cities, as specified in the following Table, namely: – TABLE Sl. No.

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

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

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

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

In terms of the Rule 11 B regarding Non-processing areas for IT/ITES SEZ:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules, 5,11,11A or any other rule, the Board of Approval, on request of a Developer of an Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zones, may, permit demarcation of a portion of the built-up area of an Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone as a non-processing area of the Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone to be called a non-processing area.
(2) A Non-processing area may be used for setting up and operation of businesses engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled services, and at such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Board of Approval under sub- rule (1),
(3) A Non-processing area shall consist of complete floor and part of a floor shall not be demarcated as a non-processing area.

ns as may be specified by the Board of Approval under sub- rule (1),
(3) A Non-processing area shall consist of complete floor and part of a floor shall not be demarcated as a non-processing area.
(4) There shall be appropriate access control mechanisms for Special Economic Zone Unit and businesses engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services in non-processing areas of Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zones, to ensure adequate screening of movement of persons as well as goods in and out of their premises.
(5) Board of Approval shall permit demarcation of a non-processing area for a business engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone, only after repayment, without interest, by the Developer, —

Page 29 of 131

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

essing area to the total built up area of the processing area of the Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone, as specified by the Central Government.
(ii) tax benefits already availed for creation of social or commercial infrastructure and other facilities if proposed to be used by both the Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone Units and business engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services in non-processing area.
(6) The amount to be repaid by Developer under sub-rule (5) shall be based on a certificate issued by a Chartered Engineer.
(7) Demarcation of a non-processing area shall not be allowed if it results in decreasing the processing area to less than fifty per cent of the total area or less than the area specified in column (3) of the table below:
TABLE Sl. No. (1) Categories of cities as per Annexure IV-A (2) Minimum built-up processing Area (3) 1. Category ‘A’
50,000 square meters 2. Category ‘B’
25,000 square meters 3. Category ‘C’
15,000 square meters

(8) The businesses engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone in a non-processing area shall not avail any rights or facilities available to Special Economic Zone Units.

n Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone in a non-processing area shall not avail any rights or facilities available to Special Economic Zone Units. (9) No tax benefits shall be available on operation and maintenance of common infrastructure and facilities of such an Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone.
(10) The businesses engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone in a non-processing area shall be subject to provisions of all Central Acts and rules and orders made thereunder, as are applicable to any other entity operating in domestic tariff area. • Consequent upon insertion of Rule 11 B in the SEZ Rules, 2006, Department of Commerce in consultation with Department of Revenue has issued Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 clarifying concerns/queries raised from stakeholders regarding Rule 11B. • Further, as per the directions of the BoA in its 120th meeting held on 18.06.2024, there shall be a clear certification of Specified Office and the Development Commissioner that the Developer has refunded the duty as per the provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09th April, 2024 issued by DoC. Accordingly, DoC vide letter dated 27.06.2024 has issued one such Certificate to be provided by Specified Officer and Countersigned by Development Commissioner.

ed 09th April, 2024 issued by DoC. Accordingly, DoC vide letter dated 27.06.2024 has issued one such Certificate to be provided by Specified Officer and Countersigned by Development Commissioner. • Moreover, in the 122nd meeting of the BoA held on 30th August, 2024, the Board directed all DCs to ensure the implementation of the checklist (formulated by DoC and DoR) for all the cases including the past cases.

Page 30 of 131

131.6(i) Request of M/s. DLF Cyber City Developers Limited, developer of IT/ITES SEZ at Sector- 24 & 25A, DLF Phase-III, Gurugram (Haryana) – Proposal demarcation of built-up Processing Area admeasuring ‘1096.16 Sqmt. at 1st Floor, Block-C, Building No. 6’ into Non- Processing Area under Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024. Jurisdictional SEZ – Noida SEZ (NSEZ) Facts of the case:
S. No. Particulars Details

Name and address of the Developer M/s. DLF Cyber City Developers Limited, Sector-24 & 25A, DLF Phase-III, Gurugram (Haryana).

Letter of Approval No. and date. LOA No. F.2/126/2005- EPZ dated 25.10.2006.

Date of Notification 13.04.2007 & 12.03.2010

Name of the sector of SEZ For which approval has been given. IT/ITES

Total Notified land area (in Hectares) 10.30 hectare

Total land area of SEZ: i. Processing Area ii. Non-Processing Area Land area 10.30 hectare.
NIL

Details of Built-up area in Processing Area: Building / Tower / Block No.

are

Total land area of SEZ: i. Processing Area ii. Non-Processing Area Land area 10.30 hectare.
NIL

Details of Built-up area in Processing Area: Building / Tower / Block No. Total built- up area

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

(in Sqmt.)

Building No. 6 [Block- A] 17844

Building No.6 [Block- B] 24373

Building No.6 [Block- C] 23147

Floors Parking 7345
Basements of Building No. 6 (Block A, B & C) 29268

Building No.14 [Block- A] 16037
Building No.14 [Block- B] 28490

Page 31 of 131

Building No.14 [Block- C] 50418
Building No.14 [Block- D] 57298
Floors Parking 49584
Basements of Building No.14 (Block A,B,C & D) 83298

Total: 387102

(ii). Total Built up area : 387102 Sqmt.

(iii) Area already 28381.458 Sqmt. (18868.83 + 5544.827 +

demarcated as NPA: 2382.261 + 1585.54)

(iv) Remaining Built-up 3,58,720.542 Sqmt.

area: (3,87,102 – 28,381.458 Sqmt.)

Total Built-up area in Sqmt.: Processing Area: 3,58,720.542 Sq.mt. Non-Processing Area: 28,381.458 Sq.mt. (as demarcated under Rule 11B)

Total number of floors in the building wherein demarcation of NPA is proposed: LG+14(15 floors)

Total Built-up area proposed to be demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES Units: 1096.16 Sqmt.

building wherein demarcation of NPA is proposed: LG+14(15 floors)

Total Built-up area proposed to be demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES Units: 1096.16 Sqmt.

How many floors area proposed for demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES Units: 1 floor (1st Floor, Block-C, Building No.6)

Whether copy of Chartered Engineer Certificate has been submitted? Yes. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 11.06.2025 of Shri Chaitanya Jee Srivastava, Chartered Engineer Membership No. M-163947-6.

13. Total duty benefits and tax exemption availed on the built- up area proposed to be demarcated as NPA, as per Chartered Engineer Certificate: Rs.11,34,657/- (Rupees eleven lakh thirty four thousand six hundred and fifty seven only)

Page 32 of 131

Whether duty benefits and tax exemption availed have been refunded and NOC from Specified Officer has been obtained? Yes, The Developer has submitted copy of ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide letter No. CUS/DCCDL/SEZ/ MISC/03/24/90 dated 19.06.2025. The Specified Officer has mentioned that the Developer has made payment of Rs.11,34,657/- towards refund of duties / tax benefits through TR-6 / GAR-7 challans & DRC-03, as the case may be. The Specified Officer has further mentioned that the developer has already deposited the due duty / taxes of the entire common infrastructure facilities of the said SEZ at the time of demarcation of 18,868.83 Sqmt.

er has further mentioned that the developer has already deposited the due duty / taxes of the entire common infrastructure facilities of the said SEZ at the time of demarcation of 18,868.83 Sqmt. 5544.827 Sq.mt., 2382.261 Sqmt. And 1585.54 Sqmt. in respect of which ‘No Dues Certificate’ had already been issued vide their letter dated 07.06.2024, 09.07.2024, 04.12.2024 and 17.04.2025 respectively.

Reasons for demarcation of NPA To give Non-Processing Area on lease to domestic IT/ITES units who does not wish to setup as SEZ unit.

Remaining Built-up Processing Area after instant proposed demarcation: 3,57,624.382 Sqmt.

Whether remaining built-up area fulfils the minimum built-up area requirement as per Rule 5 of SEZ Rules, 2006. Yes.

Whether application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, has been submitted. Yes.

Whether Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, has been submitted? Yes

Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, has been submitted? Yes

Page 33 of 131

20. Whether required Undertaking has
    been submitted: Yes

Access Control Mechanism for movement of employees & good for IT/ITES Business to be engaged in the area proposed
to
be demarcated as Non- Processing Area. The Developer has mentioned that they will 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.

22. Purpose and usage of such demarcation of NPA. To give Non-processing area on lease to Domestic IT/ITES Units.

The following requisite documents have been submitted: i. Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, NSEZ. ii. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 11.06.2025 of Shri Chaitanya Jee Srivastava, Chartered Engineer Membership No. M-163947-6, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer. iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide F.No. CUS/DCCDL/SEZ/ MISC/03/24/90 dated 19.06.2025. iv.

63947-6, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer. iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide F.No. CUS/DCCDL/SEZ/ MISC/03/24/90 dated 19.06.2025. iv. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 duly countersignature of DC, NSEZ. v. Checklist of Rule 11B in prescribed format, duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, NSEZ. vi. 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 1096.16 Sq.mt. into Non-Processing Area for use by IT/ITES businesses as per Rule 11Bof the SEZ (Fifth Amendment) Rule, 2023. vii. Details of total Buildings / built-up area along with built-up area already demarcated as Non Processing Area and built-up Processing Area proposed to be demarcated as Non Processing Area. Recommendation by DC, NSEZ: The proposal of M/s. DLF Cyber City Developers Limited, developer of IT/ITES SEZ at Sector- 24 & 25A, DLF Phase-III, Gurugram (Haryana) – Proposal demarcation of built-up Processing Area admeasuring ‘1096.16 Sqmt. at 1st Floor, Block-C, Building No.

d, developer of IT/ITES SEZ at Sector- 24 & 25A, DLF Phase-III, Gurugram (Haryana) – Proposal demarcation of built-up Processing Area admeasuring ‘1096.16 Sqmt. at 1st Floor, Block-C, Building No. 6’ into Non- Processing Area under Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No.115 dated 09.04.2024, has been recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA.

Page 34 of 131

131.6(ii) Request of M/s. DLF Cyber City Developers Limited, Developer of IT/ITES SEZ at Sector- 24 & 25A, DLF Phase-III, Gurugram (Haryana) – Proposal for demarcation of built-up Processing Area of ‘1945.647 Sqmt. at 10th Floor, Block-B, Building No. 14’ into Non- Processing Area under Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 - Reg. Jurisdictional SEZ – Noida SEZ (NSEZ) Facts of the case:
S.No. Particulars Details

1. Name and address of the Developer M/s. DLF Cyber City Developers Limited, Sector-24 & 25A, DLF Phase-III, Gurugram (Haryana).
2. Letter of Approval No. and date. LOA No. F.2/126/2005-EPZ dated 25.10.2006.
3. Date of Notification 13.04.2007 & 12.03.2010
4. Name of the sector of SEZ for which approval has been given. IT/ITES
5. Total Notified land area (in Hectares) 10.30 hectare
6. Total land area of SEZ: (i). Processing Area (ii). Non-Processing Area

Land area 10.30 hectare. NIL 7. Details of Built-up area in Processing Area:

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

Building / Tower/ Block No.

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

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

Building / Tower/ Block No. Total built-up area (in Sqmt.) Building No. 6 A 17844 Building No.6 B 24373 Building No.6 C 23147 Floor Parking 7345 Basements
29268 Building No.14 A 16037

Page 35 of 131

Building No.14 B 28490 Building No.14 C 50418 Building No.14 D 57298 Floor Parking 49584 Basements
83298 Total: 387102

(ii). Total Built up area : 3,87,102 Sqmt. 29,477.618 Sqmt. (18868.83 + 5544.827+2382.261 + 1585.54 + 1096.16*) 3,57,624.382 Sqmt. (3,87,102 – 29,477.618) *1096.16 Sqmt. at 1st Floor, Block-C, Building No. 6 is also under consideration for de-notification under Rule 11(B) of SEZ Rules, 2006. (iii) Area already demarcated as NPA: (iv) Remaining Built-up area: 8. Total Built-up area in Sqmt.: Processing Area: 3,57,624.382 Sqmt. Non-Processing Area: 29477.618 Sqmt. (as demarcated under Rule 11B) 9. Total number of floors in the building wherein demarcation of NPA is proposed: Total remaining built-up area G + 16 (17 floors)

3,55,678.735 Sqmt (357624.382 – 1945.647) 10. Total Built-up area proposed to be demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES Units: 1945.647 Sqmt.
11. How many floors area proposed for demarcation of 1 floor only i.e.
(10th Floor, Block-B, Building No. 14)

of NPA for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES Units: 1945.647 Sqmt.
11. How many floors area proposed for demarcation of 1 floor only i.e.
(10th Floor, Block-B, Building No. 14)

Page 36 of 131

NPA for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES Units: 12. Whether copy of Chartered Engineer Certificate has been submitted? Yes. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 01.07.2025 of Shri Chaitanya Jee Srivastava, Chartered Engineer Membership No. M- 163947-6. 13. Total duty benefits and tax exemption availed on the built-up area proposed to be demarcated as NPA, as per Chartered Engineer Certificate: Rs.20,13,978/- (Rupees twenty lakh thirteen thousand nine hundred and seventy eight only) 14. Whether duty benefits and tax exemption availed have been refunded and NOC from Specified Officer has been obtained? Yes, The Developer has submitted copy of ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide letter No. CUS/DCCDL/SEZ/ MISC/03/24/108 dated 10.07.2025.
The Specified Officer has mentioned that the Developer has made payment of Rs.20,13,978/- towards refund of duties / tax benefits through TR-6 / GAR-7 challans & DRC- 03. The Specified Officer has further mentioned that the developer has already deposited the due duty / taxes of the entire common infrastructure facilities of the said SEZ at the time of demarcation of 18,868.83 Sqmt. 5544.827 Sqmt., 2382.261 Sqmt., 1585.54 Sqmt. and 1096.16 Sqmt.

d the due duty / taxes of the entire common infrastructure facilities of the said SEZ at the time of demarcation of 18,868.83 Sqmt. 5544.827 Sqmt., 2382.261 Sqmt., 1585.54 Sqmt. and 1096.16 Sqmt. in respect of which ‘No Dues Certificate’ had already been issued vide their letters dated 07.06.2024, 09.07.2024, 04.12.2024, 17.04.2025, and 19.06.2025 respectively. 15. Reasons for demarcation of NPA To give Non-Processing Area on lease to domestic IT/ITES units who does not wish to setup as SEZ unit. 16. Total Remaining Built-up Processing Area after instant proposed demarcation: 3,55,678.735 Sqmt. 17. Whether remaining built-up area fulfils the minimum built-up area requirement as Yes.

Page 37 of 131

per Rule 5 of SEZ Rules, 2006. 18. Whether application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, has been submitted. Yes.
19. Whether Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, has been submitted? Yes
20. Whether required Undertaking has been submitted: Yes
21. Access Control Mechanism for movement of employees & goods for IT/ITES Business to be engaged in the area proposed to be demarcated as Non- Processing Area.

been submitted: Yes
21. Access Control Mechanism for movement of employees & goods for IT/ITES Business to be engaged in the area proposed to be demarcated as Non- Processing Area. The Developer has mentioned that they will maintain the appropriate access control mechanisms to ensure adequate screening of the movement of persons as well as goods, in their SEZ premises for the SEZ units and the businesses engaged in IT/ITES services in the proposed non-processing areas in terms of the provisions of the new inserted Rule 11-B of the SEZ Rules, 2006 as amended. 22. Purpose and usage of such demarcation of NPA. To give Non-processing area on lease to Domestic IT/ITES Units.

3.             It may be mentioned here that as per approval granted by the Board of 
   

Approval in its meeting held on 06.02.2024, 31.07.2024, 24.01.2025 and 06.06.2025, the M/s. DLF Cyber City Developers Limited, Developer has been issued approval vide this office letter dated 30.07.2024, 06.11.2024, 12.03.2025 and 02.07.2025, respectively, for demarcation of following built-up processing area into Non-Processing Area under Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006:-

Date of BoA meeting Building / Tower / Block No. Floor no. to be demarcated as NPA Total built- up area (in Sqmt.) 06.02.2024 Building No. 6 [Block-A] 5th, 8th & 9th floor 5848.623 Building No. 6 [Block-B] 4th & 9th floor 4019.494 Building No. 6 [Block-C] 5th, 7th & 9th floor 4756.617

up area (in Sqmt.) 06.02.2024 Building No. 6 [Block-A] 5th, 8th & 9th floor 5848.623 Building No. 6 [Block-B] 4th & 9th floor 4019.494 Building No. 6 [Block-C] 5th, 7th & 9th floor 4756.617

Page 38 of 131

Building No. 14 [Block- B] 7th & 15th floor 4244.10 Total:

18868.83

31.07.2024 Building No. 6 [Block-A] 7th floor 1949.541 Building No. 6 [Block-B] 8th floor 2009.747 Building No. 6 [Block-C] 8th floor 1585.539 Total:

5544.827

24.01.2025 Building No. 14 [Block- B] 8th floor 2382.261

06.06.2025 Building No. 6 [Block-C] 6th floor 1585.54

Grand total:
28381.458

The following requisite documents have been submitted: i. Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, NSEZ. ii. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 01.07.2025 of Shri Chaitanya Jee Srivastava, Chartered Engineer Membership No. M-163947-6, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer. iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide F.No. CUS/DCCDL/SEZ/ MISC/03/24/108 dated 10.07.2025. iv. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 duly countersignature of DC, NSEZ. v. Checklist of Rule 11B in prescribed format, duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, NSEZ. vi.

B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 duly countersignature of DC, NSEZ. v. Checklist of Rule 11B in prescribed format, duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, NSEZ. vi. 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 1945.647 Sq.mt. into Non-Processing Area for use by IT/ITES businesses as per Rule 11Bof the SEZ (Fifth Amendment) Rule, 2023.

Recommendation by DC, NSEZ:-
The proposal of M/s. DLF Cyber City Developers Limited, Developer of IT/ITES SEZ at Sector- 24 & 25A, DLF Phase-III, Gurugram (Haryana) – Proposal for demarcation of built-up Processing Area of ‘1945.647 Sqmt. at 10th Floor, Block-B, Building No. 14’ into Non-Processing Area under Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, has been recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA.

, Block-B, Building No. 14’ into Non-Processing Area under Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, has been recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA.

Page 39 of 131

131.6 (iii) Request of M/s. DLF Info City Hyderabad Limited, Developer of IT/ITES SEZ at Sy No.129 to 132, Gachibowli Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Hyderabad, Rangareddy Dist, Telangana – Proposal for demarcation of built-up Processing Area of 65,024.43 Sqmt into Non- Processing Area under Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024-reg Jurisdictional SEZ – Visakhapatnam SEZ (VSEZ) Facts of the case:
S. No. Particulars Details 1 Name of the Developer DLF Info City Hyderabad Limited

Address of SEZ Sy No.129 to 132, Gachibowli Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Hyderabad, Rangareddy Dist, Telangana 2 Letter of Approval & Date LOA No. F.2/136/2005-EPZ dated 23.10.2006 read with MOC letter F.2/136/2005-SEZ dated 01 Oct, 2018
3 Date of Notification S.O.669 (E) dated 26/04/2007.
4 Name of the sector of SEZ for which approval has been given IT / ITES 5 Total Notified Area of Special Economic Zone (in Hectares) 5.850Hectares 6 Total area of – i. Processing Area ii. Non-Processing Area 5.850Hectares 0 Hectares 7 Details of Built up area : i. No. of towers with built-up area of each tower (in square meter) ii. Total Built-up area -Square meter Building/Block No. No.

a 5.850Hectares 0 Hectares 7 Details of Built up area : i. No. of towers with built-up area of each tower (in square meter) ii. Total Built-up area -Square meter Building/Block No. No. of Floors in Processing Area (PA) Built up Area (BUA) of SEZ in PA (Sqmt) Block-1 G+9 54846 Block-2 G+9 84971 Block-3 G+9 84233 Sub-Total

224050

Block 1,2&3 Podium-1 31435 Podium-2 27611 Podium-3 30416 Basement-1 34089 Basement-2 25506 Sub-Total

149057 TOTAL

373107

Page 40 of 131

8 Total Built up area in – i. Processing Area ii. Non-Processing Area 2,79,912.05 Sq. Mtrs
Non-Processing Area – 93,194.95 Sq. Mtrs, vide BOA letter No. F.2/136/2005-SEZ Dt. 09.09.2024

9 Total numbers of floors in the building wherein demarcation of NPA is proposed.

2 BASEMENTS + 3 PODIUMS + GROUND FLOOR + 9 FLOORS – TOTAL 15 NOS 10 Total Built up area proposed for demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non SEZIT/ITES units.

Total area to be demarcated as NPA is 65,024.43 Sqmt, and breakup is as below: Office Area :37,413.40 Sqm Parking Area :27,611.03 Sqm 11 How many floors are proposed for demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES units.

is as below: Office Area :37,413.40 Sqm Parking Area :27,611.03 Sqm 11 How many floors are proposed for demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES units. Block-2 Ground 8328.15 Sqm Block-2 1st Floor 9086.00 Sqm Block-2 2nd Floor 10688.40 Sqm Block-3 4th Floor 9310.85 Sqm and, Parking Area at Podium-2 - 27,611.03 Sqm of Block 1,2&3

12 Total duty benefits and tax exemption availed on the built up area proposed to be demarcated as NPA, as per Chartered Engineers certificate (In Rupees). Rs.4,43,64,410.00 13 Whether duty benefits and tax exemptions availed has been refunded and NOC from specified officer has been obtained. Yes, refunded an amount of Rs.4,43,64,410.00 and obtained NOC from Specified Officer.

14 Reasons for demarcation of NPA The built up floor area is lying vacant, due to multiple factors including sunset date of income tax, Covid-19 pandemic and WFH facility available to the units, and due to market dynamics in office leasing, we intend to expand our Non-Processing Area (NPA) portfolio by converting vacant full floors into NPA space to enhance marketability.

15 Total remaining office built up area 2,14,887.62 Sqm 16 Whether remaining built up area fulfils the minimum built up area YES

t full floors into NPA space to enhance marketability.

15 Total remaining office built up area 2,14,887.62 Sqm 16 Whether remaining built up area fulfils the minimum built up area YES

Page 41 of 131

requirement as per Rule 5 of SEZ Rules, 2006. 17 Purpose and usage of such demarcation of NPA To demarcate the vacant building’s floor(s) as NPA so that the same can be leased to DTA units in IT/ITES businesses

The following requisite documents have been submitted:
i. Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, VSEZ. ii. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 08.07.2025 of Shri Chaitanya Jee Srivastava, Chartered Engineer Membership No. M-163947-6, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer. iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide C.No. DLF/01/Rule 11B/2025-26 dated 23.07.2025. iv. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 duly countersignature of DC, VSEZ. v. Checklist of Rule 11B in prescribed format, duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, VSEZ. vi.

B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 duly countersignature of DC, VSEZ. v. Checklist of Rule 11B in prescribed format, duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, VSEZ. vi. 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 65,024.43 Sq.mt. into Non-Processing Area for use by IT/ITES businesses as per Rule 11Bof the SEZ (Fifth Amendment) Rule, 2023. vii. Details of total Buildings / built-up area along with built-up area already demarcated as Non Processing Area and built-up Processing Area proposed to be demarcated as Non Processing Area. Recommendation by DC, VSEZ: The proposal of M/s. DLF Info City Hyderabad Limited, Developer of IT/ITES SEZ at Sy No.129 to 132, Gachibowli Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Hyderabad, Rangareddy Dist, Telangana – Proposal for demarcation of built-up Processing Area of 65,024.43 Sqmt into Non-Processing Area under Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024.

Dist, Telangana – Proposal for demarcation of built-up Processing Area of 65,024.43 Sqmt into Non-Processing Area under Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024.

Page 42 of 131

131.6(iv) Request of M/s. Phoenix Infocity Private Limited, developer of IT/ITES SEZ at Survey no’s. 30 (P), 34(P), 35 (P) and 38 (P), Gachibowli Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Hyderabad – Proposal demarcation of built-up Processing Area admeasuring ‘47588.29 sq. mtrs.’ into Non- Processing Area under Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024.

Jurisdictional SEZ – Visakhapatnam SEZ (VSEZ) Facts of the case:
No Particulars Details

1 Name and address of the Developer Phoenix Infocity Private Limited
Survey No. 30(P),34(P),35(P)&38(P), Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Hyderabad-500081 2 Letter of Approval No. and date Formal Approval No. 2/51/2006/EPZ, Dated: 16th June 2006 3 Date of Notification F.No.F.2/51/2006- EPZ, 11.08.2006 4 Name of the sector of SEZ for which approval has been given IT / ITES
5 Total Notified Area of Special Economic Zone(in Hectare) 10 Hectares 6 Total Area Processing area: 10 Hectares Non- Processing area: NIL 7 Details of Built-up area

(i) No.

ITES
5 Total Notified Area of Special Economic Zone(in Hectare) 10 Hectares 6 Total Area Processing area: 10 Hectares Non- Processing area: NIL 7 Details of Built-up area

(i) No. of Towers with built- up area of each tower

Tower BUA (in Sq mts) H-1A 26,678.58 H-1B 30,699.89 H-2 26,818.67 H-3 77,234.13 H-4 69,308.62 H-6 91,327.67 H-6A 48,109.80 H-7 40,065.04 H-8 30,995.81 H-9 1,38,179.15 Total 5,79,417.36 (ii) Total built up area Total Built up area of SEZ of 10 Towers is 5,79,417.36 Sq.mts

Page 43 of 131

8

Total Built up area Processing Area –5,42,722.88 Sq.mts Non-Processing Area -36,694.48 Sq. mtrs (Approved in building H-07 Vide BOA letter No. F.2/51/2006- SEZ 23.06.2025)

9 Total No. of Floors in the Building wherein demarcation of NPA is proposed

20 (2 Basements + Ground Floor + 5 stilts+ 12 office floors)

10 Total Built up area Proposed for demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES units. Total BUA is 47,588.29 Sq mts. Office BUA- 27,772.66 Sq. mtrs Parking BUA- 19,815.63 Sq.

10 Total Built up area Proposed for demarcation of NPA for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES units. Total BUA is 47,588.29 Sq mts. Office BUA- 27,772.66 Sq. mtrs Parking BUA- 19,815.63 Sq. mtrs

11 How many floors are proposed for demarcation of NPA for setting up of NON SEZ IT/ITES Units 7 floors of H09 4 Office floors (Officer floors 3 to 6) 3 Parking floors (Ground/stilt1 + Stilt 4+ stilt 5)

12 Total Duty benefits and Tax exemption availed on the built area proposed to be demarcated as NPA, as per Charted Engineers Certificate(In Rupees Crore) Under Rule 11B (5)(i):

Paid back duty benefits availed for proposed NPA of ground, Stilt 4 & 5 and office floors 3 to 6 of an Area of 47,588.29 Sq. Mtrs and duty paid is Rs. 17,68,76,360/-.

Under Rule 11B(5)(ii): Paid back duty benefits Rs.7,21,40,181/- taken for common building centric infrastructure and facilities of H09 such as 17 Lifts, HVAC System, Chiller plant/VRF System, DG Sets, BMS Electrical Equipments etc and paid Rs.1,45,75,485/- on common areas of 3,921.51 Sq. Mtrs such as MEP, Ramps and staircases used for SEZ and Non – SEZ units. Total tax paid for common services Rs.8,67,15,666/-

Total duty benefit paid under rule 11B (5) (i)& (ii) Rs.26,35,92,026/- Note: Paid duty benefits taken on General Development of common facilities of the entire SEZ Campus such as roads, drainage, landscape, lighting of Rs. 6,89,25,282/- during demarcation in request of NPA H07 building and approved by BOA vide letter No. F.2/51/2006-SEZ 23.06.2025.

ire SEZ Campus such as roads, drainage, landscape, lighting of Rs. 6,89,25,282/- during demarcation in request of NPA H07 building and approved by BOA vide letter No. F.2/51/2006-SEZ 23.06.2025.

Page 44 of 131

13 Whether duty benefits and tax exemptions availed has been refunded and NOC from specified officer has been obtained Yes, refunded an amount of Rs. 26,35,92,026/- and obtained NOC from Specified Officer

14 Reasons for demarcation of NPA Recently we have been able to secure client(s) interested in non-SEZ space within our building. Hence, we have decided to convert the SEZ area to non SEZ area under Rule 11B – conversion of processing area (PA) to non-processing area (NPA). 15 Total remaining built-up area
Remaining Built Area of SEZ: 4,95,134.59 Sq. mts.
(Office area 2,98,193+ 1,96,942 Parking rea)

16 Whether remaining built- up area fulfils the minimum built up area requirement as per Rule 5 of SEZ Rules,2006 Yes. Remaining Built-up area of SEZ after approval of proposed demarcation is 4,95,134.59 Sq. Mtrs.

17 Purpose and usage of such demarcation of NPA To let out to Non SEZ IT / ITES units

The following requisite documents have been submitted: i. Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, VSEZ. ii. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 23.04.2025 of Shri Rajaram Mohan Dev, Chartered Engineer Membership No.

built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, VSEZ. ii. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 23.04.2025 of Shri Rajaram Mohan Dev, Chartered Engineer Membership No. 220967, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer. iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide PHOENIX INFOCITY/02/Rule 11B/2024-25 dated 22.07.2025
iv. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 duly countersignature of DC, VSEZ. v. Checklist of Rule 11B in prescribed format, duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, VSEZ. vi. 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 47,588.29 Sq.mt. into Non-Processing Area for use by IT/ITES businesses as per Rule 11Bof the SEZ (Fifth Amendment) Rule, 2023.

any demur or protest w.r.t. demarcation of built-up area admeasuring 47,588.29 Sq.mt. into Non-Processing Area for use by IT/ITES businesses as per Rule 11Bof the SEZ (Fifth Amendment) Rule, 2023.

Page 45 of 131

Recommendation by DC, VSEZ:-
The proposal of M/s. Phoenix Infocity Private Limited, developer of IT/ITES SEZ at Survey no’s. 30 (P), 34(P), 35 (P) and 38 (P), Gachibowli Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Hyderabad – Proposal demarcation of built-up Processing Area admeasuring ‘47588.29 sq. mtrs.’ into Non- Processing Area under Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024., has been recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA

Page 46 of 131

131.6(v) Request of M/s L&T Realty Developers Limited, Developer of L&T Tech Park SEZ, Bangalore, for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built- up area (6739.48 sq.mtr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules 2006 read with Instruction No.115 dated 09.04.2024.

Jurisdictional SEZ – Cochin SEZ (CSEZ) Facts of the case:
S. No. Particulars Details 1.
Name of Developer M/s L&T Realty Developers Limited 2.
Address of SEZ L&T Campus, Bellary Road, Byatarayanapura Village, Next to GKVK, Bangalore District, Karnataka State 3.
Sector of the SEZ IT/ITES 4.
Formal Approval No.43016(11)/5/2022-SEZ dated 24th August 2022 5.
Date of Notification 03.10.2022 6. Total Notified land area (in Hectares) 2.3612 7.
Total Built-up area in Processing Area (in Square meters), as informed by the Developer. 165335.46 Sq.mtr.

f Notification 03.10.2022 6. Total Notified land area (in Hectares) 2.3612 7.
Total Built-up area in Processing Area (in Square meters), as informed by the Developer. 165335.46 Sq.mtr. 8.
Details of Built-up area in the SEZ Building /Tower / Block/Parcel No. of floors Total built- up area
(in Sq.mt.) 9.
Tower S-1 4B+G+10 46067.71 10.
Tower S-2 4B+G+9 50589.98 11.
Basement BUA (4B)
Tower S1 & S2 68677.77 12.
Total

165335.46 13.
Total area to be demarcated as Non- Processing Area (NPA) out of Built-up area (in Square meter)

Tower Description Area (in M2)

S2 9th Floor 5254.34 Car Parking area in Basement 2 1485.14 Total 6739.48

Balance Built-up Processing Area after demarcation. 158595.98 Square meter

Page 47 of 131

15. Whether tax/duty calculated has been made as per SEZ Rule 11 (B)(5)?

The Developer has not availed any duty/tax exemption for construction of building, common infrastructure etc. under SEZ Scheme. The furniture and fittings in the area proposed to be converted as NPA were procured on payment of applicable duties. The Specified Officer has also confirmed the same and issued No Due Certificate. 16. 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)? 17. If yes, above then whether repayment has been made? Please mention the amount repaid? 18.

ginally availed for the built-up space to be demarcated as Non- Processing Area (NPA)? 17. If yes, above then whether repayment has been made? Please mention the amount repaid? 18. 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? 19. 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

The Developer has not availed any duty/tax exemption for the common facilities in the SEZ as the same was constructed/set up prior to notification of SEZ

ilities, ETP, WTP, solar panel

The Developer has not availed any duty/tax exemption for the common facilities in the SEZ as the same was constructed/set up prior to notification of SEZ

Page 48 of 131

installed, compressor room, air conditioning and chiller plant, etc. 20. If yes, then whether repayment has been made of all tax/duty benefits availed on developing all these facilities? Please mention amount re- paid. NA 21. Whether the area to be demarcated as NPA is included to be strictly used for IT/ITES Units, any in terms of SEZ Rules 11 (B)(2)? Yes 22. Whether the demarcation is proposed for complete floor as per SEZ Rule 11(B)(3)? Yes 23. Whether compliance to SEZ Rule 11 (B)(9) has been made regarding “no tax benefits” shall be available for operation and maintenance of common infrastructure? Yes 24. 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. 25.

isms 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. 25. Whether as a result of the proposed demarcation, the condition of maintaining minimum built-up area requirement in compliance to SEZ Rule 11(B)(7) is adhered to Yes. The SEZ is coming under Category ‘A’ City and the minimum built-up area required for Category ‘A’ is 50,000 sq.mtr. After demarcation of the proposed built-up area, the remaining built-up area in the SEZ shall be 158595.98 sq.mtr., and hence fulfill the necessary conditions.

Page 49 of 131

26. Reason for demarcation of built-up area as NPA 9th Floor of the Tower S2 is vacant and they are not getting any SEZ clients to occupy the same and also having lot of inquiries from DTA clients
27. Purpose and usage of such demarcation To allot the same to non-SEZ units

The following requisite documents have been submitted:

i. Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, CSEZ. ii. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 31.05.2025 of Shri Deepak N, Chartered Engineer registration No. AM-162085-4, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer. iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide F.No. KA:46:2022:L&T SEZ dated 07.08.2025. iv.

n No. AM-162085-4, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer. iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide F.No. KA:46:2022:L&T SEZ dated 07.08.2025. iv. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 duly countersignature of DC, CSEZ. v. Checklist of Rule 11B in prescribed format, duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, CSEZ. vi. 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 6739.48 Sq.mt. into Non-Processing Area for use by IT/ITES businesses as per Rule 11B of the SEZ (Fifth Amendment) Rule, 2023.

Recommendation by DC, CSEZ:-

The proposal of M/s L&T Realty Developers Limited, the Developer for demarcation of 6739.48 sq.mtr. built-up area as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules.2006 read with Instruction No.115 dated 9th April 2024, is recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA.

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

Page 50 of 131

131.6(vi) Request of M/s Vikas Telecom Private Limited, Developer of Embassy Tech Village SEZ, for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built-up area (12676 sq.mtr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No.115 dated 09.04.2024.

Jurisdictional SEZ – Cochin SEZ (CSEZ) Facts of the case:
Sr. No. Particulars Details

1. Name and Address of the SEZ M/s Vikas Telecom Private Limited Devarabeesanahalli and Kariyammana Villages, Varthur Hobli , Bengaluru District, Karnataka State

2. Sector of the SEZ IT/ITES

3. Formal Approval F.2/33/2006-EPZ dated 7th April, 2006

4. Date of Notification 08.09.2006, 28.03.2008, 12.03.2015, 24.05.2018, 06.09. 2018 & 29.11.2024

5. Total Notified area (In Hectares) 21.7468Ha

(Total build up area in SEZ as 596285 sqm) 6. Details of processing (Built-up) area in the SEZ Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No.

5. Total Notified area (In Hectares) 21.7468Ha

(Total build up area in SEZ as 596285 sqm) 6. Details of processing (Built-up) area in the SEZ Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No. of floors Total built-up area (in M2) Parcel 1A Tower1 2B+G+10 57886 Parcel 1A Tower 2 2B+G+10 57128 Parcel 1A G+1 3852 Parcel 2A East Wing UG+3rd to 6th Floors +Terrace 33040 Parcel 2A West Wing LG+UG+6 38527 Parcel 2B Tower 1 4th to 7th Floors 9451 Parcel 2B Tower 2 1st, 4th to 7th Floors 13066 Parcel 2B Tower 3 G+1st, 2nd, 4th to 7th Floors 15396 Parcel 2D G+6 21197 Block 7B Office Block 2B+G+10 99921 Block 7B MLCP 2B+G+11 49888

Page 51 of 131

Total

399352

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

Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No. of floors Total built-up
area (in M2) Parcel 2A East Wing Terrace 1654 Parcel 2B Tower 1 4th Floor 2821 Parcel 2B Tower 2 4th & 6th Floors 5425 Parcel 2B Tower 3 6th Floor 2776

Total 12676 8. Balance Built-up Processing Area after demarcation with Developer (in M2) 386676 9. Balance Built-up Processing Area after demarcation in SEZ (in M2) 583609 10. Whether tax/duty calculated has been made as per SEZ Rule 11 (B)(5)? Yes 11. 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 12.

B)(5)? Yes 11. 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 12. If yes, above then whether repayment has been made? Please mention the amount repaid? The Developer has paid an amount of ₹2,07,31,102/- (Rupees Two crore seven lakh thirty-one thousand one hundred two only) towards tax/duty exemptions availed for the proposed area to be demarcated as NPA alongwith common facilities. (₹84,66,761/- for built-up space & ₹1,22,64,340/- for common infrastructure) (Copy of challans enclosed). 13. Whether the area to be demarcated as NPA is included to be strictly used for IT/ITES Units only, in terms of SEZ Rules 11 (B)(2)?
Yes

Page 52 of 131

14. Whether the demarcation is proposed for complete floor as per SEZ Rule 11(B)(3)? Yes
15. 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

nisms 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 16. Whether as a result of the proposed demarcation, the condition of maintaining minimum built-up area requirement in compliance to SEZ Rule 11(B)(7) is adhered to Yes. The SEZ is coming under Category ‘A’ City and the minimum built-up area required for Category ‘A’ is 50,000 sq.mtr. After demarcation of the proposed built-up area, the remaining built-up area in the SEZ shall be 583609 sq.mtr., and hence fulfills the condition. 17. Reason for demarcation of built-up area as NPA The Developer states that due to Sunset Clause for Income Tax benefit to the units, work from home facilities to the unit after Covid 19 pandemic, resulted in less demand for IT/ITeS SEZ space and the proposed built-up area is lying since long.
Hence the management decided to demarcate the vacant built-up area as Non- Processing Area.
18.

ed in less demand for IT/ITeS SEZ space and the proposed built-up area is lying since long.
Hence the management decided to demarcate the vacant built-up area as Non- Processing Area.
18. Purpose and usage of such demarcation To allot the same to non-SEZ units

The Specified Officer of the SEZ vide letter dated 18th July 2025 has issued No Due Certificate and certified that the Developer vide Challan No.14052 dated 11.07.2025 has refunded an amount of ₹2,07,31,102/- (Rupees Two crore seven lakh thirty-one thousand one hundred two only) (copy of challan enclosed) towards duty/tax exemptions availed, as per the provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules 2006 and Instruction No.115 dated 9th April 2024 issued by Department of Commerce. As per

Page 53 of 131

the extant guidelines and instructions, the checklist duly signed in respect of M/s Vikas Telecom Private Limited, Developer for demarcation of processing (built-up) area as non-processing area is forwarded herewith. The following requisite documents have been submitted: i. Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, CSEZ. ii. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 01.07.2025 of Shri R. Arunkumar, Chartered Engineer registration No. F-111508-8, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer. iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide F.No. KA:04:06:VTV:1(Vol-III) dated 18.07.2025. iv.

08-8, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer. iii. ‘No Dues Certificate’ issued by Specified Officer vide F.No. KA:04:06:VTV:1(Vol-III) dated 18.07.2025. iv. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule 11B of SEZ Rules, 2006 and Instruction No. 115 dated 09.04.2024 duly countersignature of DC, CSEZ. v. Checklist of Rule 11B in prescribed format, duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, CSEZ. vi. 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 12676 Sq.mt. into Non-Processing Area for use by IT/ITES businesses as per Rule 11B of the SEZ (Fifth Amendment) Rule, 2023.

Recommendation of DC The proposal of M/s Vikas Telecom Private Limited, Developer for demarcation of 12676 sq.mtr. processing (built-up) area as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules.2006 read with Instruction No.115 dated 9th April 2024, is recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA.

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

Page 54 of 131

Agenda item no. 131.7:

Industrial License [1 proposal: 131.7(i)]

Relevant provision: As per section 9 (e) of the SEZ Act, 2005, the Board has powers and functions of granting, notwithstanding anything contained in the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, a license to an industrial undertaking referred to in clause (d) of section 3 of that Act, if such undertaking is established, as a whole or part thereof, or proposed to be established, in a Special Economic Zone.

Page 55 of 131

131.7(i) Proposal of M/s Hilton Tobaccos Private Limited, a SEZ unit at Visakhapatnam SEZ, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam for enhancement of production capacity and amendment to terms and conditions in their Industrial License dated 14.06.2022 under IDR Act, 1951.

M/s Hilton Tobaccos Private Limited was granted industrial license to set up a SEZ unit in Visakhapatnam SEZ, Duvvada, Visakhapatnam for manufacturing of Cigarettes, Cigars, Cheroots, Other Tobacco Products for an annual capacity of 5,000 million for export vide letter dated 14.06.2022 under IDR Act, 1951 in pursuance of BOA meeting held on 26.05.2022 with the following conditions: a. The manufacturing unit shall have the latest advanced technology b. Special efforts should be made to have minimal pollution effect. c. The unit shall use at least 80% indigenous tobacco d.

s: a. The manufacturing unit shall have the latest advanced technology b. Special efforts should be made to have minimal pollution effect. c. The unit shall use at least 80% indigenous tobacco d. There shall be 100% exports and no DTA sale will be allowed.

At the time of considering the initial application of M/s Hilton Tobaccos Private Limited unit to set up a SEZ unit, Tobacco Board recommended the proposal with the following conditions:

a. The applicant shall use 100% indigenous tobacco and shall not import tobacco for manufacturing of cigarettes. b. The cigarettes manufactured at SEZ shall not be allowed to sale in domestic market.

The unit in their latest application has requested for the following: a. Enhancement of production capacity from 5000 million to 10,000 million of the approved products viz. Cigarettes, Cigars, Cheroots, Other Tobacco Products b. Approval to sell waste tobacco material (tobacco powder) in DTA at Zero value which is biodegradable in nature. c. Minimum 30% use of indigenous Tobacco d. Approval to sell non-tobacco related material like filter rods in DTA In addition to their initial application received from VSEZ, the unit vide their emails has stated that: • They have made contract with a reputed foreign brand and are in talk with another, wherein their customer is mandatorily asking them to use their own blended tobacco to pack the cigarette for subsequent 100% export purpose, hence their request for allowing import of cut tobacco

wherein their customer is mandatorily asking them to use their own blended tobacco to pack the cigarette for subsequent 100% export purpose, hence their request for allowing import of cut tobacco

Page 56 of 131

• They have not been able to utilize their existing capacity due to Space Constrain and recently they have been allotted additional space within VSEZ and have currently expanded their capacity to meet the demand.
• This is a potential opportunity to generate notable net positive foreign exchange from job work charges and also additional revenue for domestic packing material manufacturers facilitated by them and also it will provide additional employment

As per DPIIT’s Press Note 3 dated 11.09.2019 (2019 series), following four industries are compulsory licensable under IDR Act, 1951:
I. Cigar and Cigarettes of tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes II. Electronic Aerospace and Defence equipment III. Industrial Explosives IV. Hazardous Chemicals

The proposal of the unit was shared with various departments for their comments which have been received as under:

        Department 

Comments Tobacco Board

They have stated that any deviation from the conditions stipulated in DoC letter dated 15.06.2022, has to be considered by DoC.

However, they have furnished their opinion regarding the request of the company for “usage of Minimum 30% of indigenous Tobacco”. They have stated that as per the letter dt.

sidered by DoC.

However, they have furnished their opinion regarding the request of the company for “usage of Minimum 30% of indigenous Tobacco”. They have stated that as per the letter dt. 11.05.2022 of Tobacco Board to the Ministry, the Company shall use majority of raw material from lndia which includes tobacco also for manufacturing of Cigarettes, Cigars, Cheroots and other tobacco products. If DOC considers the proposals submitted by the company, it would significantly impact the demand for Indian tobacco, hurting livelihood of the farmers and workers who rely on the tobacco sector, may lead to increased reliance on imports which in turn may reduce net foreign exchange, weakening domestic tobacco industry and its global reputation for unique varieties. Additionally, allowing such a change might set a negative policy precedent,

Page 57 of 131

weakening national policies aimed at supporting local agriculture and industry. Tobacco Board [in response to this Division’s OM seeking comments/inputs whether the imposition of the condition of “using 100% indigenous tobacco and not import tobacco for manufacturing of cigarettes” are applied for both SEZ/EOU and DTA units or not.]

In reference to the establishment of the unit in VSEZ, the Tobacco Board, through its communications dated 11.05.2022 and 28.05.2025, has suggested that the company shall primarily source its majority of raw materials, including tobacco, from within India for the manufacture of cigarettes.

ed 11.05.2022 and 28.05.2025, has suggested that the company shall primarily source its majority of raw materials, including tobacco, from within India for the manufacture of cigarettes. This measure is intended to safeguard the interests of domestic tobacco farmers.

Tobacco Board can not specify the type of raw material to be used or the percentage of raw material to be used because these depend on the blend characteristics of cigarette manufactured by company and their customer preferences.

Further it is informed that Import of tobacco/tobacco products for manufacture of cigarettes doesn’t come under the purview of Tobacco Board.

VSEZ i) Approval to sell waste tobacco material (tobacco powder) in DTA at Zero value which is biodegradable in nature.

DC is of the opinion that as per the condition(s) stipulated in the DoC letter dated 15.06.2022, the unit is not permitted to sell in DTA, as such the waste material is to be destroyed with the approval of the Customs within the zone or outside the zone in the presence of the Customs Authorities as per the provisions in the SEZ Rules’2006. Any change in the above has to be considered by DoC.

ii) Minimum 30% use of indigenous Tobacco:

DC is of the opinion that as per the condition stipulated in the DoC letter dated 15.06.2022, the unit shall utilize at least 80% indigenous tobacco. Any

imum 30% use of indigenous Tobacco:

DC is of the opinion that as per the condition stipulated in the DoC letter dated 15.06.2022, the unit shall utilize at least 80% indigenous tobacco. Any

Page 58 of 131

change in the stipulated percentage has to be considered by the DoC/BOA.

iii) Approval to sell non-tobacco related material like filter rods in DTA:

DC is of the opinion that as per the condition stipulated in the DoC letter dated 15.06.2000, there shall be 100% exports and no DTA sale shall be allowed and any change in the stipulated condition has to be considered by DoC/BOA.

MoEFCC
(Hazardous Substances Management Division)

“This issue ''waste tobacco material'' is not covered under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 as amended from time to time. Hence inputs w.r.t area of work dealt by the undersigned may be treated as NIL.” DPIIT Comments are awaited from DPIIT

Relevant provision: As per section 9(e) of the SEZ Act, 2005, the Board has powers and functions of granting, notwithstanding anything contained in the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, a license to an industrial undertaking referred to in clause (d) of section 3 of that Act, if such undertaking is established, as a whole or part thereof, or proposed to be established, in a Special Economic Zone.

The proposal of the unit is placed before the Board of Approval for consideration.

rtaking is established, as a whole or part thereof, or proposed to be established, in a Special Economic Zone.

The proposal of the unit is placed before the Board of Approval for consideration.

Page 59 of 131

Agenda item no. 131.8:

Request for increase/decrease in area by Co-developer or Cancellation of Co-Developer Status [3 proposal: 131.8(i) -131.8(iii)]

Rule position:

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

Page 60 of 131

131.8(i) Request for cancellation of Co-Developer status - M/s. Leather Crafts (India) Private Limited, Co-Developer in M/s. Mahindra World city SEZ, Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu.

Jurisdictional SEZ – Madras SEZ (MEPZ)

Facts of the case:

M/s. Mahindra World city Developers Limited was issued a Letter of Approval No. F.2/(5)/2004-EPZ dated 8th August, 2004 for setting up of a sector specific SEZ for Multi Sector in Chennai over an area of 246.33 Ha. The SEZ was notified by Government of India vide Gazette Notification dated 26.10.2004. The details of SEZ are as under:- • Area (Hectares) : 246.33 • Date of Notification : 26.10.2004 M/s. Leather Crafts (India) Private Limited, Co-Developer of M/s.

: 246.33 • Date of Notification : 26.10.2004 M/s. Leather Crafts (India) Private Limited, Co-Developer of M/s. Mahindra World City IT SEZ, Tamil Nadu was issued LOA vide No. K-43014(22)/7/2021-SEZ dated 07.06.2021 for providing infrastructure facilities in the sector specific SEZ for Apparel & Fashions at Thenmelpakkam Village, Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu. The present request of the Co-Developer is for cancellation of LOA issued to them and to surrender the space of 1.1897 Hectares (2.94 Acres) back to the Developer M/s. Mahindra World City Developer Limited.

The present request of the Co-Developer, M/s. Leather Crafts (India) Private Limited is for cancellation of LOA No. K-43014(22)/7/2021-SEZ dated 07.06.2021 and to surrender the SEZ area back to the Developer. The Co-Developer, M/s. Leather Crafts (India) Private Limited was allotted 1.1897 Hectares (2.94 Acres) of land by the Developer M/s. Mahindra World City Developer Limited. Now, the Co-Developer M/s. Leather Crafts (India) Private Limited intend to surrender the entire area of 1.1897 Hectares (2.94 Acres) to the Developer vide their letter dated 03.07.2025.

In this regard, the Co-Developer has submitted the following documents: -
i. “No Objection Certificate” issued by M/s Mahindra World City Developer Limited, the Developer for cancellation of Co-Developer status. ii. “No Due Certificate” dated 25.07.2025 issued by the Specified Officer.

Certificate” issued by M/s Mahindra World City Developer Limited, the Developer for cancellation of Co-Developer status. ii. “No Due Certificate” dated 25.07.2025 issued by the Specified Officer.
Recommendation by DC, MEPZ:

The request of the Co-Developer, M/s. Leather Crafts (India) Private Limited for cancellation of the Board LOA issued to them and to surrender the space admeasuring of 1.1897 Hectares (2.94 Acres) back to the Developer M/s. Mahindra World City SEZ is recommended for consideration of Board of Approval.

Page 61 of 131

131.8(ii) Request by the Existing Co-Developer, M/s. Nila Urban Living Private Limited, GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar, for Approval of Additional Development Rights.

Jurisdictional SEZ – GIFT-SEZ

Facts of the case:
Sr. No. Parameter Value

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

(i) If operational, date of operationalization April 21, 2012

(ii) No. of Units 957 7. Name of the Co-developer (already approved) M/s. Nila Urban Living Private Limited, GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar. 8. Details of Infrastructure facilities / authorized operations to be undertaken by the co-developer Development, Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Residential/ Commercial Building in Plot No.

Infrastructure facilities / authorized operations to be undertaken by the co-developer Development, Construction, Maintenance, and Operation of Residential/ Commercial Building in Plot No. 26C in Block No. 26 in dual use area of non-processing area. 9. Total area (in Hectares) on which activities will be performed by the co-developer
Request for increase in development rights from 5,22,000 square feet (48,495.39 square meters) to 5,48,181.78 square feet (50,927.33 square meters). This revised total comprises 4,96,272.71 square feet (46,104.86 square meters) allocated for residential development and 51,909.07 square feet (4,822.47 square meters) allocated for commercial development.

Page 62 of 131

Proposed investment by the Co- developer
Rs. 695.00 Crores 11. Net Worth of the Co-developer
Rs. 129.79 Crores 12. Date of the Co-developer agreement Co-developer agreement dated October 04, 2024 and addendum 2 dated 03.07.2025

M/s. Nila Urban Living Private Limited, Ahmedabad, has been approved as a Co- Developer in GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar, vide Department of Commerce approval letters No. F.1/145/2007-SEZ dated 20-12-2024 and 23-06-2025 (copies attached). The approval is for the development of a residential building at Plot No. 26C in Block No. 26, located within the dual-use, non-processing area, covering 5,550 square meters. Additionally, approval has been granted for 451 square meters of appurtenant land below grade level, extending beyond the basement, for the same residential building at Plot No.

550 square meters. Additionally, approval has been granted for 451 square meters of appurtenant land below grade level, extending beyond the basement, for the same residential building at Plot No. 26C in Block 26 of the dual-use, non-processing area of GIFT-SEZ, Gandhinagar. Pursuant to the aforesaid approval granted by the Department of Commerce, M/s. GIFT Company Limited has revised and expanded the terms of use for the allotted land in the SEZ through Addendum No. 2, in favor of the approved co-developer, M/s. Nila Urban Living Private Limited.
According to Addendum No. 2, the development rights for the residential project have been increased from 5,22,000 square feet (48,495.39 square meters) to 5,48,181.78 square feet (50,927.33 square meters). This revised total comprises 4,96,272.71 square feet (46,104.86 square meters) allocated for residential development and 51,909.07 square feet (4,822.47 square meters) allocated for commercial development. The Co-developer, M/s. Nila Urban Living Private Limited, have in their application dated July 03, 2025 projected an overall investment of Rs. 695.00 Crore for entire project including the additional area sought for approval. They have in Annexure-A to the application given the following project funding details: - a) Funds already infused - Rs. 100.00 crores b) Bank Loan Eligibility - Rs. 250.00 crores c) Surplus from ongoing Project - Rs.

Rs. 100.00 crores b) Bank Loan Eligibility - Rs. 250.00 crores c) Surplus from ongoing Project - Rs. 150.00 crores d) Booking Advance - Rs. 150.00 crores e) Unused Bank Finance - Rs. 125.00 crores Total - Rs. 775.00 crores

Page 63 of 131

In light of the above, the Co-Developer, M/s. Nila Urban Living Private Limited, has submitted a Form-A1 application dated 03-07-2025 (copy enclosed), seeking approval for the additional development rights as per the Developer’s LOA dated 03-07-2025.

Recommendation by DC, GIFT SEZ:

The proposal of M/s. Nila Urban Living Private Limited vide application dated 03-07- 2025 seeking approval for increase in development rights has been recommended for consideration off BoA.

The proposal of M/s. Nila Urban Living Private Limited vide application dated 03-07- 2025 seeking approval for increase in development rights has been recommended for consideration off BoA.

Page 64 of 131

131.8(iii) Request of M/s MariApps Marine Solutions India Private Limited, Co-Developer for taking additional land area admeasuring 0.4775, on lease basis, from the Developer, M/s SmartCity (Kochi) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. SEZ at Village Kakkanad, Taluka Kanayanoor, District Ernakulam in the State of Kerala

Jurisdictional SEZ – Cochin SEZ

Facts of the case:
Sr. No. Parameter Value 1.
Name of the Developer & Location M/s SmartCity (Kochi) Infrastructure Private Limited at Block-09, Village Kakkanad, Taluka Kanayanoor, District Ernakulam in the State of Kerala 2.
Date of LoA to Developer 21.04.2008 3.
Sector of the SEZ IT/ITES 4.
Date of Notification 01.03.2011 & 26.02.2014 5.
Total notified area (in Hectares) 93.9165 Ha 6.
Whether the SEZ is operational or not SEZ is operational

(i) If operational, date of operationalization 17.06.2016

(ii) No. of Units 38 7. Name of the Co-developer (already approved) M/s MariApps Marine Solutions India Private Limited 8. Details of Infrastructure facilities / authorized operations to be undertaken by the co- developer The proposal is for expansion and development of existing facilities developed and maintained by the Co- Developer and for allied activities including parking in additional area oi 0.4775 Ha 9.

oposal is for expansion and development of existing facilities developed and maintained by the Co- Developer and for allied activities including parking in additional area oi 0.4775 Ha 9. Total area (in Hectares) on which activities will be performed by the co- developer
The Co-Developer vide letters dated 18.06.2025 has requested for additional land area of 0.4775 Ha. After approval, the total land area allotted to the Co-Developer would be 1.5014 Ha.
10. Proposed investment by the Co-developer
Rs.8.39 crore

Page 65 of 131

Net Worth of the Co- developer
Rs.100.51 crore 12. Date of the Co-developer agreement Co-developer agreement dated 20.05.2025

The details of area already allotted to M/s MariApps Marine Solutions India Private Limited as co-developer are as under:

Sl. No. Approval No. & Date Area allotted
(in Ha) Activities 1 F.2/74/2006-SEZ dt. 16.04.2018 0.58674 IT/ITES infrastructure and its operation & maintenance with car parking facilities in 1st and 2nd Floor
2 F.2/74/2006-SEZ dt. 01.12.2021 0.04047 Maritime Training Centre 3 F.2/74/2006-SEZ dt. 28.06.2023 0.39660 Construction of new IT Building with additional facilities on additional land of 0.3966 viz., Temporary accommodation facility for trainees, recreational amenities, Parking areas etc

Total 1.02381

Recommendation by DC, CSEZ:

The request of M/s MariApps Marine Solutions India Private Limited, Co-Developer of SmartCity (Kochi) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

areas etc

Total 1.02381

Recommendation by DC, CSEZ:

The request of M/s MariApps Marine Solutions India Private Limited, Co-Developer of SmartCity (Kochi) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. SEZ, for leasing of additional land area of 0.4775 Ha has been recommended for consideration of the BoA.

Page 66 of 131

Agenda Item No.131.9:

Appeal [6 cases: 131.9(i) – 131.9(vi)]

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

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

ecorded in writing, admit the appeal after the expiry of the aforesaid period but before the expiry of forty-five days from the date of communication to him of the order of the Approval Committee.

Page 67 of 131

131.9(i) Appeal dated 10.02.2025 filed by M/s. Margo Impex Private Limited against the decision of UAC meeting held on 02.01.2025 which was conveyed vide order dated 13.01.2025.

Jurisdictional SEZ – Noida SEZ (NSEZ)

Brief facts of the case

I. M/s. Margo Impex Private Limited has been granted LOA No. 10/19/2022- SEZ/8529 dt. 10.10.2022 for setting up of a unit in the for setting up a unit in the Arshiya Northern FTWZ Ltd. Free Trade and Warehousing Zone at Village- Ibrahimpur, Junaidpur urf Maujpur, Khurja Distt- Bulandshahr (U.P.) to undertake ‘ Warehousing, Trading (with or without labeling), packing or re- packing (without any processing), Assembly of Completely Knocked Down or Semi Knocked Down kits for the items (as per list of 62 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 w.e.f. 17.12.2022, accordingly LOA of the unit is valid upto 16.12.2027. The list of items under LOA dt. 10.10.2022 includes HS Code 0801 & 0802 II. The Approval Committee in its meeting held on 04.01.2024 had reviewed the LOAs of the Free Trade and Warehousing units in Arshiya FTWZ, Khurja (U.P.).

10.10.2022 includes HS Code 0801 & 0802 II. The Approval Committee in its meeting held on 04.01.2024 had reviewed the LOAs of the Free Trade and Warehousing units in Arshiya FTWZ, Khurja (U.P.). As per agenda of the said meeting, a high level meeting was held in Department of Commerce on 29.12.2023 which went into the specific on FTWZ 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 an outcome of this meeting the office of Zonal NSEZ reviewed various parameters of FTWZ including the product coverage III. The Approval Committee decided that all LoAs of the existing units in FTWZ/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 71, HS 2616 and HS 9608 shall be removed; b. Goods under ITC HS Codes 080132, 080280, 0904, 9101, 9111, 91149030 shall be removed from LOAs of all such existing trading / warehousing units. c. However, precious metals goods in stock of the unit at FTWZ/SEZ may be allowed to be re-exported by the unit.

49030 shall be removed from LOAs of all such existing trading / warehousing units. c. However, precious metals goods in stock of the unit at FTWZ/SEZ may be allowed to be re-exported by the unit. Goods other than precious metal which are in stock of the unit at FTWZ/SEZ 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 0801 & 0802 had been removed from the LOA No. 10/19/2022-

Page 68 of 131

SEZ/8529 dt. 10.10.2022 of M/s. Margo Impex Pvt. Ltd. vide this office letter dated 18.01.2024. V. Thereafter, M/s. Margo Impex Pvt. Ltd. had filed an appeal before BoA, under Rule 55 of SEZ Rules, 2006, against the aforesaid decision of UAC meeting held on 04.01.2024. The aforesaid appeal of M/s. Margo Impex Pvt. Ltd. was placed before the BoA held on 18.06.2024 [Item No. 120.12(i)]. As per minutes of the said BoA meeting ‘The Board heard the representative of unit and observed that the matter requires to be examined holistically. Further, the Board was of the view that for further examination 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 d eliberations, deferred the appeal and directed DoC to seek these documents / details from the appellants. VI.

iness model, DTA transfer etc. are required. Accordingly, the Board, after d eliberations, deferred the appeal and directed DoC to seek these documents / details from the appellants. VI. DoC vide Instruction No.117 dated 24.09.2024 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 keep a strict watch on the high risk commodities such as Areca nuts, betel nut, black pepper, dates etc. and may consider restricting dealing in such sensitive commodities by FTWZ 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.”

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. Margo Impex Pvt. Ltd. in light of the guidelines issued Instruction No.117 dated 24.09.2024. DoC vide letter dated No. K-43022/114/2024-SEZ dated 18.11.2024 which is addressed to M/s. Margo Impex Private Limited conveying decision of the 124th meeting of BoA held on 05.11.2024 has been received. Vide letter dated 18.11.2024, it has been conveyed that the appeal dated 14.02.2024 of M/s. Margo Impex Private Limited against the decision of UAC, NSEZ was considered in the BoA meeting held on 05.11.2024.

dated 18.11.2024, it has been conveyed that the appeal dated 14.02.2024 of M/s. Margo Impex Private Limited against the decision of UAC, NSEZ was considered in the BoA meeting held on 05.11.2024. The Board, after deliberations, remanded the appeal back to UAC, NSEZ with direction to examine and process the request of the appellant after duly considering the relevant provisions stipulated under DoC’s Instruction No. 117 dated 24.09.2024. As per the direction of BOA, a personal hearing in the matter was once again given the unit on 26.11.2024 at 10.00 AM. As no one appeared before the Development Commissioner, the next date was given 02.12.2024 at 10.30 AM. The unit was granted opportunity for personal hearing before the Joint Development Commissioner on 02.12.2024, 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 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.

presentative 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.

Page 69 of 131

117. They requested to take lenient view and allow to start their operations in HSN

After that the matter was placed before UAC dated 02.01.2025 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 FTWZ & Warehousing units in SEZ issued vide Instruction No. 117 dated 24.09.2024. It was noted that Instruction No. 117 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 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.

ses 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 02.01.2025 has been conveyed to the unit on 13.01.2025 against which they have filed this appeal
Para wise comments of NSEZ: S . N o . Grounds of Appeal Comments/Inputs 1.

Brief of Unit No Comments 2. The appellant is filing this appeal against the UAC's decision dated 02.01.2025, communicated via letter dated 13.01.2025 from the office of the Ld. ADC, DC NSEZ.

Decision of UAC dated 02.01.2025:-

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 Operatio nal
Framework
of FTWZ & Warehousing units in SEZ issued vide Instruction No. 117 dated 24.09.2024. It was noted that Instruction No. 117 had specifically come in the light of the adverse reports and inputs received re lated to functioning of some warehouse units. The Committee maintained its position

ruction No. 117 had specifically come in the light of the adverse reports and inputs received re lated to functioning of some warehouse units. The Committee maintained its position

Page 70 of 131

that on account of the sensitivity given the investigations and seizure by agencies, quality of consignments including the risk of diversio n due to the long inland transport, absence of economic rationale after incurring such high freight costs, difficulties in valuation due to volatility of prices, possib ility
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.

Vide letter dated 13.01.2025 the decision of UAC Dated 02.01.2025 has been conveyed. 3. Under Section 15 of the SEZ Act, 2005 and related rules, the company submitted proposals on 23.08.2022 and 21.09.2022 to set up a unit as per Section (zc) of the Act. The unit had applied for setting up a new unit in Arshiya Northern FTWZ on 24.08.2022. 4. The company's application was approved by the UAC via LoA dated October 10, 2022 (No. 10/19/2022- SEZ), subject to prescribed terms and authorized operations.

LOA dated 10.10.2022 has been issued to the unit.

lication was approved by the UAC via LoA dated October 10, 2022 (No. 10/19/2022- SEZ), subject to prescribed terms and authorized operations.

LOA dated 10.10.2022 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 19(6). Pursuant to the issuance of the LoA, the company qualifies as an "entrepreneur" under Section 2(j) 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 FTWZ Ltd. Multi-sector SEZ, located in Village Ibrahimpur, Junaidpur Urf Maujpur, Khurja, District Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh. The unit caters to diverse customer needs in full compliance with applicable legal and regulatory No Comments

Page 71 of 131

frameworks and the conditions stipulated in the LoA. 8

9 Conduct of Inquiry by the Special Incestigation and Intelligence Branch and its Closure with no Adverse Finding qua the Company. No Comments 1 0

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 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is currently sub-judice. Notably, the notice lacks any incriminating evidence against the company.

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 placed on record as RUDs.

1.3 However, it is evident from

para 18.7 to 18.9 of the impugned

Order-in-original dt 11.03.2025 that the AA has based an intimation letter adjudication, duly 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 Letter of Approval (LOA) and the Lease Deed Agreement.

The SCN provided the Appellant with a detailed account of the alleged violations viz. 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. However, the appellant is conveniently not mentioning the other violations on their part and focussing only on para 18.7 to 18.9 of the impugned Order-in-original dated 11 .03.2025.

in-Original. However, the appellant is conveniently not mentioning the other violations on their part and focussing only on para 18.7 to 18.9 of the impugned Order-in-original dated 11 .03.2025.

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 11.12.2024, 24.12.2024, 03.01.2025, 27.01.2025, 11.02.2025 and 27.02.2025. However, the appellant or his representative has failed to appear before the adjudicating authority. Further, from the submission made by the appellant vide their letter dated 30.12.2024 and 07.02.2025, it is evident that Mr. Junaid

Page 79 of 131

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

1.4 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. Similarly, which provisions of SEZ Law or Customs Law authorize the police authority to investigate the matter under the Customs Law.

e 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, 1962, 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 Act, 1962. Following are few examples of such notifications authorizing officers of other departments to act as Customs Officers under Special Circumstances:
a. Notification No 87-Cus., dated 19th, September, 1970 appoints officers of Intelligence Bureau as has been arrested for diverting the areca nut and has been arrested by police on 21.11.2024.

Further, vide letters dated 30.12.2024 and dated 24.01.2025, the appellant has submitted contradictory statements. In the letter dated 30.12.2024 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.

ictory statements. In the letter dated 30.12.2024 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 24.01.2025, 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.

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.

Page 80 of 131

Customs Officers posted on certain bordering areas b. Notification No 110/2003-Cus (N.T.) dated 08.12.2003 as amended appoints officers posted at Special Economic Zone as Customs Officers. c. Notification No 20/1988 (N.T.) dated 12.04.1988 entrusts the functions of Customs officers posted in the states of Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh within their local limits of their jurisdiction d. Notification No 99/2014 -Cus. (N.T.) dated 27.10.2014 entrusts Sashastra Seema Bal Officers to exercise certain functions of Customs Officers within local limits specified area
1.6 It may kindly be noted that there is absolutely no such notification issued either under Section 4 or 6 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue under the Customs Act, 1962 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.

ing 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 actionable information, under the given circumstances, it should have been shared with the jurisdictional Customs formations or DRI

Important: Instead of questioning the extra jurisdictional action of Gujarat Police, ironically, the AA has penalized the appellant by cancelling their LOA

1.7 Thus, the impugned Order- in-original not only suffers from several legal infirmities but from the procedural aberratio s too, which vitiates the proceedings from the

Page 81 of 131

beginning, hence liable to be set aside

Neither the Development Commissioner in terms of Section 12 of the SEZ Act, 2005 spelling out the functions of Development Commissioner, nor Approval Committee in terms of Section 14 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, 2023.

oner, nor Approval Committee in terms of Section 14 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, 2023. 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, 2023 (BNS Act, 2023) 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, 2005, 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.

023 (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.

The cancellation of the Letter of Approval was an action taken in terms of Section 16 of the SEZ Act, 2005 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:-

1. 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 318(4), 336(2)(3),338,340(2), 61(2)(A) 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

Page 82 of 131

defined under Section 2 (c) of the SEZ Act, 2005. 2. The appellant contravened the provisions of Rule 27 & Rule 75 of SEZ Rules, 2006, 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. 13,75,786/- on time as per the conditions no. 1 of BLUT dated 16.01.2023 and conditions stipulated in lease deed agreement mentioned at Pg-9, Para-4 of lease-deed agreement on 04.01.2023. 4.

75,786/- on time as per the conditions no. 1 of BLUT dated 16.01.2023 and conditions stipulated in lease deed agreement mentioned at Pg-9, Para-4 of lease-deed agreement on 04.01.2023. 4. The appellant has failed to furnish Annual Performance Return for the financial year 2021-22, 2022-23 & 2023-24 within the stipulated time. Thus, they have contravened the provisions of Rule 22 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 5. The appellant has failed to comply with the conditions envisaged in Letter of Approval No. 11/2021-22 dated 16.09.2021mentioned under Sr no 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,16 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 54(2) of the SEZ Rules, 2006 in as much as the Noticee has contravened condition no. (x) of the LOA dated 20.06.2022;
8. the provisions of Section 11 of Foreign Trade Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and Rule 11 of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993.
Further, because of the persistent contraventions by the appellant of SEZ Act, 2005; SEZ Rules, 2006; terms &

nt & Regulation) Act, 1992 and Rule 11 of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993.
Further, because of the persistent contraventions by the appellant of SEZ Act, 2005; SEZ Rules, 2006; terms &

Page 83 of 131

conditions of LoA and BLUT, the case falls squarely within the ambit of Section 16 of SEZ Act, 2005.

The mention of the BNS Act, 2023, does not imply that the 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. 1578- 24/Information/1377/2025 dated

19/05/2025 have submitted a detailed report regarding case no. 1578/2024. They have informed that on 20/11/2024, from 15:00 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/A in Chudva village, truck registration numbers GJ-12-BX-6342 and GJ-12-BZ-9563 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.

l 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/A of Chudva, two trailers were found - GJ-12-BX-6342 and GJ-12-BZ-9563. 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-12- BZ-9563 bore number CAXU9715380- 45G1 and was unsealed. Upon opening, kantan bags filled with betel nuts were

Page 84 of 131

found. Similarly, betel nuts were found in trailer GJ-12-BX-6342. No bills or supporting documents were presented for the goods. The drivers stated that the goods belonged to Mr. Junedbhai Nathani. A third person, Junaid Yakub Nathani (Meman), residing at E-41, 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.

ntation. 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-12-BX-6342 weighed 27,170 kg and was valued at Rs. 81,51,000/-, while the load in trailer GJ- 12-BZ-9563 weighed 26,780 kg and was valued at Rs. 80,34,000/-. Under the provisions of Section 106 of the BNSS Act, the goods were seized due to the suspicious origin, and the three individuals present were detained under Section 35(2)(e) of the same Act. This matter was recorded in station diary entry no. 23/2024 at Gandhidham B Division Police Station on 20/11/2024, 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. 419/A, 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 procured from Anant Star General Trading LLP, Dubai. To facilitate the

o create fake bills and invoices for rock salt in order to disguise the purchase of the betel nuts. The consignment was procured from Anant Star General Trading LLP, Dubai. To facilitate the

Page 85 of 131

smuggling, the betel nuts were loaded into two containers (YMLU8484179 and CAXU9715380) belonging to Blue Merlin Container Line Pvt. Ltd., transported by ship to Mundra Port, and then loaded onto trailers GJ-12-BV-8782 and GJ-12-BZ- 9563. 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 YMLU8484179 was broken and the consignment transferred to trailer GJ-12- BX-6342. Preparations were underway to similarly transfer container CAXU9715380 when a raid was conducted based on received information.

The investigation revealed that Junaid Yakub Nathani and his co- conspirators attempted to smuggle 53,950 kg of betel nuts, valued at Rs. 1,61,85,000, purchased from Anant Star General Trading LLP in Dubai, without paying 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. 419/A, 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 of the FIR were submitted to the Honorable Court in Case No. C.C. 434/2025. 3.

lodged, the accused were arrested, and a charge sheet was filed based on the evidence. The charge sheet and a copy of the FIR were submitted to the Honorable Court in Case No. C.C. 434/2025. 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, 1971, then converting delayed payment/nonpayment as ground for cancellation of LOA amounts to double jeopardy which is not permissible under the law.

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 appellant is not correct as the imposition of penal interest for delayed payment of 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.

nterest for delayed payment of 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.

Page 86 of 131

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 Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, 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-3275/2024 dated 25.11.2024, clearly indicates diversion of areca nut by mis-declaring the same as Rock Salt.

government revenue as reported by the SP, Kutch East, Gujarat vide letter Out Number-3275/2024 dated 25.11.2024, 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 payments.

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

Page 87 of 131

the basis of the legal provisions as well as on the basis of the material facts available on record.

Decision of BoA in prior meetings:

The Board in 130th meeting, deferred the appeal due to paucity of time.

The appeal is being placed before the Board for its consideration.

Page 88 of 131

131.9(iii) Appeal dated 29.04.2025 filed by M/s. Varsur Impex Pvt. Ltd. in KASEZ under the provision of Section 15(4) of the SEZ Act, 2005 against the decision of 212th UAC meeting held on 28.03.2025 conveyed vide email dated 09.04.2025.

Jurisdictional SEZ – 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 01/2021-22 dated 10.04.2021 2.

sing 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 01/2021-22 dated 10.04.2021 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 17.03.2025 for inclusion of additional items in the approved list of LOA for warehousing activities. The details of the items are mentioned from Sr No 1 to 20 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 KASEZ vide Agenda Point No 212.2.11. 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 09.04.2025, inter alia, conveyed that 'The Approval Committee in its 212th, meeting after due deliberation decided to permit the additional items to be warehoused on behalf of DTA/Foreign clients as submitted by the unit except items at Sr.

Approval Committee in its 212th, meeting after due deliberation decided to permit the additional items to be warehoused on behalf of DTA/Foreign clients as submitted by the unit except items at Sr. No 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,14,15 & 16 of agenda, subject to the unit submitting specific list of items at Sr. No 12,13 & 19, subject to payment of outstanding rental dues & also subject to unit fulfilling NFE criteria and subject to the unit submitting KYC of your clients along with IT R of the last 3 years on whose behalf you will warehouse goods and subject to the conditions mentioned in the UAC minutes……’

5.1 Turning to the Minutes of the 212th UAC meeting at Agenda Point No 212.2.11, the observations of the UAC are stated as follows: “The Committee perused Instructions No 117 dated 24.09.2024 wherein the Department of Commerce, SEZ Section, New Delhi wherein guidelines for

Page 89 of 131

operational framework of FTWZ and warehousing units in SEZ have been prescribed for strict compliance by all DCs. Further, in the said Instruction, it has been stipulated that there should be due diligence in verifying the credentials including KYC norms of the applicant entities for setting up of FTWZ/Warehousing Zones/Units as well as the clients of such units. Aadhar based authentication of Indians and Passport based authentication for foreign clients are to be considered.

r setting up of FTWZ/Warehousing Zones/Units as 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 tax return for the last 3 years in respect of the Proprietor/Partners/Directors or the audited balance sheets for the last three years in case of Limited Company/Private Limited Company should be part of KYC. In present proposal, the unit has not submitted KYCs & ITRs of their clients on whose behalf they will warehouse the goods and thus the UAC is not in a position to verify the credentials of their clients. Further, the committee also noted that various cases are under investigation against the unit. The committee further noted that some of items requested for warehousing are sensitive in nature & the UAC is not permitting the same in the recent past. The Committee after due deliberation decided to permit the additional items to be warehoused by the above unit on behalf of DTA/Foreign clients as submitted by unit except……”

e recent past. The Committee after due deliberation decided to permit the additional items to be warehoused by the above unit on behalf of DTA/Foreign clients as submitted by unit except……”

6.     Being aggrieved by the above noted decision of the 212th UAC, a representation 
   

dt 15.04.2025 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 212th UAC with regard to 
   

Agenda Point No 212.2.11, as reflected in the Minutes of the 212th, UAC meeting & conveyed to the warehousing unit vide mail dated 09.04.25, I am making this appeal on the basis of the ground mentioned in Annexure B for consideration of the Hon'ble BOA Grounds of Appeal

Ground No. 1: 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.

t 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 18(2), because it is not a proposal for setting up a new warehousing or sez unit; nor 18(5), because it is not a fresh proposal to warehouse the goods on

Page 90 of 131

behalf of foreign clients or proviso to Rules 19(2) 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 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. 1.2 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.

als 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 (1) On approval of a proposal under Rule 18 or 19, Development Commissioner shall issue a Letter of Approval in form G for setting up of the unit; (2) The letter of approval shall specify 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: 1.3 It may please be appreciated that even the proviso to this particular sub rule 2 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.

, 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 2 of Rule 19. 1.4 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. 1.5 Accordingly, kind attention is invited to Rule 18(2) of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 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

hority 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

Page 91 of 131

provisions of Rule 18(2) or its sub rules right from (i) to (v) requires submission of details of items, CTH Wise for the purpose of FTWZ unit or warehousing unit in SEZ.

1.6 Similarly, is placed Rule 18 (5), which prescribe certain stipulations for the FTWZ 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 (FTWZ) shall only be in convertible foreign currency. 1.7. 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 service activity so as to fall in the domain of proviso to Rules 19(2). The fact of the matter that only warehousing service are being provided and they will continue to provide the same only.

its service activity so as to fall in the domain of proviso to Rules 19(2). The fact of the matter that only warehousing service are being provided and they will continue to provide the same only.

1 .8 Though, it has been pointed out in writing as well as during the course of UAC that there is NO specific or general provision in this regard, yet, the warehousing units have to seek prior permission from the UAC for inclusion of additional items for warehousing activities, because the office of the Specified Officers including Authorized Officers at KASEZ refuse to process the bill of entry or allied documents without such permission. So, the warehousing units at Kandla Special Economic Zone have to fall in line and make applications in this regard.

1 .9 So, from the explanations made above, it is clear beyond doubt that the very act of the Development Commissioner & the Unit Approval Committee deliberating on the proposals of inclusion of additional items for warehousing activities are not mandated under the SEZ Law, hence un authorized & should be discontinued forth with. On ground alone, the decisions of the 212th UAC meeting are liable to be set aside.

Ground No 2: The impugned decision of the 212th, UAC reflects improper appreciation & application of Instruction No 117 dt 24.09.2024, self- contradiction, bias, mis-chief & selective approach, unbecoming for a committee constituted primarily for approval purposes.

er appreciation & application of Instruction No 117 dt 24.09.2024, self- contradiction, bias, mis-chief & selective approach, unbecoming for a committee constituted primarily for approval purposes.

2.1 In explanation, the appeallant has re-iterated the Para 5 along with Para 5.1 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 09.04.25 which should have all details with 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

t 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

Page 92 of 131

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 117, the permission is to be granted only after verifying the credentials of the prospective clients on the basis of KYCs & ITRs of last three years, why the permission is granted in the letter/mail dt 09.04.25 in the absence of such documents. Hence, the impugned decision of the UAC, reflected in the Minutes of the 212th, 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 117, yet they have completely ignored the stage of submission of such documents stipulated in the same instructions itself.

KYC documents along with ITRs of the clients in terms of Instructions No 117, yet they have completely ignored the stage of submission of such documents stipulated in the same instructions itself. The following explanation will make the point clear.

The client can either be an existing one or a prospective/potential one. In case of an existing client, the KYCs documents along with respective agreement are already submitted with the office of the Development Commissioner. However, in case of prospective client, the stage of agreement comes prior to commencement of business. And the agreement for rendering warehousing services with respect of a particular item to a prospective client cannot be executed in the absence of prior permission for that particular item by the UAC. So, the prior approval for a particular item proposed to be warehoused by a unit at KASEZ is a pre requisite before an agreement & obtaining KYC document including ITRs from a client. Accordingly, in the instant case, the stage of KYC and its submission with the office of the DC IS YET TO COME.

requisite before an agreement & obtaining KYC document including ITRs from a client. Accordingly, in the instant case, the stage of KYC and its submission with the office of the DC IS YET TO COME.

Similarly, the stage of submission of KYC & ITR etc is prescribed in Para 1(ii) of the Instructions no 117 which stipulates that 'Development Commissioner to ensure that warehousing units should furnish the specified KYCs details of their clients to the DC office before commencing first transactions by that client.'

2.7 Though, the learned UAC members including the chairman have conveniently ignored it, wherever it suits their pre-planned agenda, yet they are placing reliance on the remaining portion of the same Instructions, as per their convenience. This kind of pick & chose approach is not permissible under any law, including SEZ Law

2.8 With regard to the observation of the UAC that various cases are under investigation against the unit, it is submitted that investigation is a primary stage of a legal process. Hence, none of the provisions of the SEZ law provides for denial of permission on this ground. So, the observation of the UAC on this account is pre mature and not tenable.

ge of a legal process. Hence, none of the provisions of the SEZ law provides for denial of permission on this ground. So, the observation of the UAC on this account is pre mature and not tenable.

Page 93 of 131

2.9 The committee further noted that some of items requested for warehousing are sensitive in nature & the UAC is not permitting the same in the recent past

2.10 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 storage 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 & 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. 2.11 All the policy framers are in agreement what has been explained above and that is why, in all the SEZs & FTWZ all across the country, all the items, except, restricted & prohibited items, are permitted to be warehoused and traded.

eement what has been explained above and that is why, in all the SEZs & FTWZ 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 FTWZ 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 09.04.25 nor the Minutes of the 212th, 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 1 to 7: - Facts of the case, hence no comments. Ground of Appeal: Para 1:

ncies of the Chairman of the UAC and its members. Para wise comments in case of M/s. Varsur Impex Pvt. Ltd., KASEZ Para 1 to 7: - Facts of the case, hence no comments. Ground of Appeal: Para 1:

Page 94 of 131

The contention of the appellant is not correct as the Ministry vide instruction no. 117 dated 24.09.2024 has issued guidelines for operation framework of FTWZ 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 FTWZ 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 25.02.2019 in the case of M/s. Zest Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., KASEZ and in the 74th BoA meeting held on 06.01.2017 in the case of M/s. A One Duty Free Pvt. Ltd. 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.

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 2: 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 09.04.2025 sent to the 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 subject to submission of KYC and ITR of their clients and sensitive items such as Cigarettes, 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 procedure being followed for addition of new items in existing LoA by trading and warehousing units and it has been informed that the unit 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 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 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 116th UAC meeting held on 19.07.2017, the UAC has decided that the warehousing units in KASEZ will have to 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 Appellant is not tenable as first proviso to Rule 19(2) of the SEZ Rules, 2006 empowers the Approval Committee to 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 and thus the

ve 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 and thus the

Page 95 of 131

decision taken by the UAC comes within the ambit of Rule 19(2) of the SEZ Rules, 2006.

Comments of DC:

In view of the above, prayer of the appellant requires to be summarily rejected 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.

Decision of BoA in prior meetings:

The Board in 130th meeting, deferred the appeal due to paucity of time.

The appeal is being placed before the Board for its consideration.

Page 96 of 131

131.9(iv) Appeal of M/s. Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division) against the decision of 213rd UAC meeting held on 30.04.2025 -reg.

Jurisdictional SEZ – Kandla SEZ (KASEZ)

Brief facts of the case

M/s Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division) is a unit in Kandla SEZ since 2011 is engaged in activity of warehousing services and trading activity of all the items except restricted and prohibited

The appellant 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 28/04/2014 and accordingly the LOA has been renewed from time to time.

ive in earning of NFE and has paid the rental dues from time to time.

The appellant commenced its authorized operations on 28/04/2014 and accordingly the LOA has been renewed from time to time. A copy of original LOA dt.19/05/2011. subsequent renewal of LOA vide letter dt.30/04/2019 and the last renewal vide letter dt.31/05/2024. The LOA of the appellant is valid up 1028/04/2029.

The appellant during his operational period had imported cigarettes (Richman Royal) CTH 24022090 on behalf of their DTA Client M/s Jubilee Tobacco Industries Corporation, New Delhi and exported the same to his Foreign Client at Netherlands vide Shipping Bill No.0001864 dt. 08/02/2016.

Similarly the appellant made procurement of cigarettes (CHT 24022090) on behalf of their Foreign client M/s Jubliee Tobacco Industries INC., USA from DTA Godfrey Phillips Limited, New Delhi under Bill of Export No. 0005627 dt.26/10/2015 and also procured from M/s Shanti Guru Tabaco under Bill of Export No.0005655 dt.26/10/2015 and exported the same to M/s Bashir International Ltd. Afghanistan under Shipping Bill No.0015840 dt.26/11/2015 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 items except restricted and prohibited was permitted.

ign client. A copy of Bill of Exports and Shipping Bills.

Although the appellant was holding LOA under which warehousing and trading of all items except restricted and prohibited was permitted. the UAC in its 116th meeting held on 19/07/2017 at para 6 decided that the units in SEZ should seek permission 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 116th meeting of UAC held on 19/07/2017 with corrigendum dt. 31/07/2017.

Accordingly, the appellant vide his letter dt.17/02/2025 requested for permission to warehouse Lithium-ion battery (CTH 85076000). The appellant also vide their letter dt. 14/04/2025 and email dt.16/04/2025 requested for permission to warehouse cigarettes (CTH 24022090) on behalf of their Foreign client. A copy of their letter dt.17/02/2025, 14/04/2025 and email dt. 16/04/2025.

The request of the appellant for import of cigarettes and Lithium-ion battery was placed before 213 meeting of UAC held on 30/04/2025 and the UAC permitted to warehouse Lithium-ion battery, but rejected the permission to warehouse cigarettes solely on the ground that the item being sensitive commodity and prone to diversion

2025 and the UAC permitted to warehouse Lithium-ion battery, but rejected the permission to warehouse cigarettes solely on the ground that the item being sensitive commodity and prone to diversion

Page 97 of 131

the UAC is not permitting such item for warehousing. The decision of UAC was conveyed to the appellant vide letter dt.22/05/2025 from the Development Commissioner, Kandla SEZ (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). A copy of minutes of 213th and Respondent's letter dt.22/05/2025.

Being aggrieved with the decision of the UAC communicated by the Respondent the Appellant herein, most respectfully, submits the Appeal before BOA, Ministry of Commerce, SEZ Section. Vanijya Bhavan. New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as (THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY) as per Rule 55 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Section 16 (4) of the SEZ Act, 2005.

Grounds of Appeal and Para wise comments in case of M/s. Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division), KASEZ

Para no. Grounds of Appeal Para wise comment from KASEZ 1 The Respondent has 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.

The appellant’s contention that the Unit Approval Committee (UAC) acted in a mechanical manner without due consideration is incorrect. The Department, guided by Instruction No.

rranted.

The appellant’s contention that the Unit Approval Committee (UAC) acted in a mechanical manner without due consideration is incorrect. The Department, guided by Instruction No. 117 dated 24.09.2024 from the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, has issued clear guidelines for the operational framework of Free Trade Warehousing Zones (FTWZs) and warehousing units in Special Economic Zones (SEZs). These guidelines direct Development Commissioners to maintain strict oversight on high-risk commodities, including sensitive items such as 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 88th BoA meeting (25.02.2019) concerning M/s Zest Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., KASEZ, and the 74th BoA meeting (06.01.2017) concerning M/s A One Duty Free Pvt. 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 diversion.

lar 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 diversion.

Page 98 of 131

2 The Respondent has failed to appreciate that the original LOA of the 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.30/04/2019 and 31/05/2024 also does not put any restriction on warehousing any specific items. However complying with the decision of 116th UAC meeting | ANNX-D supra) the appellant had sought the permission to warehouse cigarettes vide its letter dt.14/04/2025 and email dt.16/04/2025.

The appellant’s claim that their Letter of Approval (LoA) permits warehousing and trading of all items except restricted and prohibited items, and that no specific restrictions were imposed, is misleading. While the LoA dated 19.05.2011 and its subsequent renewals dated 30.04.2019 and 31.05.2024 do not explicitly list restricted items, the UAC’s decision in its 116th meeting held on 19.07.2017 mandates that warehousing units in KASEZ must seek prior approval for each new item to be warehoused, along with submission of Know Your Customer (KYC) details for clients. This requirement was introduced to ensure compliance with SEZ regulations and to mitigate risks associated with sensitive commodities.

submission of Know Your Customer (KYC) 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 213th UAC meeting held on 30.04.2025 and was rejected due to the sensitive nature of the commodity, as 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 The appellant’s assertion that their prior warehousing of cigarettes in 2015– 2016 (as evidenced by Annexures B and C

iled in appreciating that the appellant was doing warehousing business of The appellant’s assertion that their prior warehousing of cigarettes in 2015– 2016 (as evidenced by Annexures B and C

Page 99 of 131

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.

of the appeal) justifies continued permission is untenable. The regulatory framework has evolved since 2015–2016, with Instruction No. 117 (24.09.2024) and the 116th UAC decision (19.07.2017) 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. The appellant’s past activities do not confer an 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 24022090) is in free list and any one in India can import the same. A list of verities of cigarettes fall under CTH 2402 as per the FTP is freely Importable.

The appellant’s argument that cigarettes are freely importable under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and thus should be permitted for warehousing is not valid in the context of SEZ regulations.

The appellant’s argument that cigarettes are freely importable under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and thus should be permitted for warehousing is not valid in the 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, 2005, and SEZ Rules, 2006. The first proviso to Rule 19(2) of the SEZ Rules, 2006 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. 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 213 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

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

ties in DTA are importing the

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

Page 100 of 131

same as the item is in free list. Therefore, putting restriction on SEZ unit is neither justified and not warranted.

by Instruction No. 117 (24.09.2024), 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.g., 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 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.

The appellant’s undertaking to dispatch cigarettes to the DTA market only upon payment of applicable customs duties and taxes, or through physical export, does not mitigate the inherent risks associated with warehousing such sensitive commodities.

e DTA market only upon payment of applicable customs duties and taxes, or 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. 8 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 (30.04.2025), as communicated vide letter dated 22.05.2025, is legally sound, well- reasoned, and in accordance with the SEZ

.

It is submitted that the UAC’s decision in the 213th meeting (30.04.2025), as communicated vide letter dated 22.05.2025, is legally sound, well- reasoned, and in accordance with the SEZ

Page 101 of 131

Act, 2005, SEZ Rules, 2006, and Ministry Instruction No. 117 dated 24.09.2024. 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 213th UAC meeting (30.04.2025) and the Development Commissioner’s letter dated 22.05.2025 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.

Prayer of appellant:

The appellant, most respectfully, prays to Appellate Authority to graciously grant the following reliefs:

i. The decision of 213th meeting of UAC as far as concerned to the appellant and Respondent's letter dt.22/05/2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii. To allow the appellant to import and warehouse the commodity of cigarettes as the appellant was doing in past under their LOA. iii. If the Adjudication Authority deem fit the same can modify the decision of UAC to give the relief to the appellant iv.

dity of cigarettes as the appellant was doing in past under their LOA. iii. If the Adjudication Authority deem fit the same can modify the decision of UAC to give the relief to the appellant iv. 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 213th UAC meeting (30.04.2025) and the Development Commissioner’s letter dated 22.05.2025 be upheld. No relief of any kind be

Page 102 of 131

granted to the appellant, as the UAC’s decision is lawful and based on established guidelines and precedents.

Decision of BoA in prior meetings:

The Board in 130th meeting, deferred the appeal due to paucity of time.

The appeal is being placed before the Board for its consideration.

Page 103 of 131

131.9(v) Appeal dated 05.07.2025 filed by M/s. Thakur Prasad Sao and Sons Pvt. Ltd. against the Order dated 09.06.2025 passed by DC, FSEZ Jurisdictional SEZ – Falta SEZ (FSEZ)

Brief facts of the Case:

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE M/s. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons Private Limited (TPSSPL) stepped into Falta SEZ by purchasing the Unit namely M/s. Enfield Solar Energy Limited through auction vide Sale Certificate dated 23.08.2021 as a ‘going concern’ through liquidation and Ld. NCLT Kolkata Bench confirmed the said sale on 22.10.2021. Vide letter dated 15.11.2021 M/s TPSSPL forwarded the said NCLT Order dated 22.10.2021 to Falta SEZ.

concern’ through liquidation and Ld. NCLT Kolkata Bench confirmed the said sale on 22.10.2021. Vide letter dated 15.11.2021 M/s TPSSPL forwarded the said NCLT Order dated 22.10.2021 to Falta SEZ. M/s TPSSPL filed an application before Hon’ble NCLT in April 2022 to handover possession of the factory assets in Falta SEZ. NCLT vide Order dated 19.09.2022 recorded that Falta SEZ has no objection in handing over the possession of the property purchased by the successful bidder upon completion of certain formalities. The Unit was requested vide FSEZ letter dated 07.12.2022 and 30.04.2024 to apply for renewal of LoA alongwith all necessary documents as per SEZ Act, 2005 and SEZ Rules, 2006 read with Instruction No.109 dated 18/10/2021, followed by reminder letters dated 10/06/2024 and 02/09/2024. The company prayed vide their application dated 09.09.2024 for renewal of Letter of Approval (LoA), which was placed before the 183rd Unit Approval Committee Meeting held on 25.09.2024 and as per the decision of the UAC, the Letter of Approval bearing No.FSEZ/LIC/E-35/2010/5196 dated 26.02.2010 of the Unit of M/s. Enfield Solar Energy Limited was renewed w.e.f. its date of expiry i.e. 28.09.2021 till 27.09.2026 or till the date of issue of new LOA in the name of M/s. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons Pvt. Ltd., whichever is earlier and the same was communicated to the unit vide this office letter No.FSEZ/LIC/E-35/2024/1011 dated 07.10.2024.

f new LOA in the name of M/s. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons Pvt. Ltd., whichever is earlier and the same was communicated to the unit vide this office letter No.FSEZ/LIC/E-35/2024/1011 dated 07.10.2024.

The Unit was requested to intimate the future plan/road map for commencement of economic activities from their allotted land at Falta SEZ vide FSEZ letter No.FSEZ/LIC/E-35/2010/1077 dated 23.10.2024 followed by a reminder dated 04.12.2024. The Unit has also been requested vide FSEZ letter No.FSEZ/LIC/E- 35/2024/17 dated 04.04.2025 to enter into fresh lease agreement with Falta Special Economic Zone Authority in terms of provisions of the SEZ Rules, 2006 and SEZ Authority Rules, 200