Agenda of 134th Meeting of the Board of Approval (BoA) for Special Economic Zones (SEZs).

No. K-43 0 I 6 I 12 12025 -SEZ Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry Department of Commerce (SEZ Section) **{' Vanijya Bhawan, New Delhi Dated the lOth November,2025 OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: l34th Meeting of the Board of Approval (BoA) for Special Economic Zones (SEZs)

-Reg. The undersigned is directed to refer to the subject cited above and to inform that the l34th meeting of the BoA for SEZs is tentatively scheduled to be held on 20-21't November, 2025 at MEPZ, Chennai under the Chairmanship of Commerce Secretary, Department of Commerce in Hybrid Mode. 2. The Asenda for the 134th meetins of the BoA for SEZs is enclosed herewith. The same has also been hosted on the website: wu'r,v.sezindia.gor,'.in. 3. All the addresses are requested to kindly make it convenient to attend the meeting. (Prateek p Under Secretary to the Government of India Tel:23039939 Email : prateekbaj pai.moca@nic. in To L Central Board of Excise and Customs, Member (Customs), Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. (Fax: 23092628). 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Member (IT), Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. (Telefax: 23092107) 3. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Banking Division, Jeevan Deep Building, New Delhi (Fax:23344462123366797). 4. Shri Sanjiv, Joint Secretary, Department of Promotion of Industry and Intemal Trade (DPIIT), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Transport Bhawan, New Delhi. 6. Joint Secretary @), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 7. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Plant Protection, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. 8. Ministry of Science and Technology, Sc 'G' & Head (TDT), Technology Bhavan, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi.

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

10. Additional Secretary and Development Commissioner (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Scale Industry), Room No. 701, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi (Fax: 2306231s). 1L Secretary, Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, New Delhi. (Fax: 24363101)
11. Joint Secretary (IS-D, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi (Fax: 23092569)
12. Joint Secretary (C&W), Ministry of Defence, Fax: 23015444, South Block, New Delhi.
13. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Pariyavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, New Delhi - 110003 (Fax:24363577)
14. Joint Secretary & Legislative Counsel, Legislative Department, M/o Law & Justice, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. (Tel: 23387095).
15. Department of Legal Affairs (Shri Hemant Kumar, Assistant Legal Adviser), M/o Law & Justice, New Delhi.
16. Secretary, Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
17. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. (Fax: 24674140)
18. Chief Planner, Department of Urban Affairs, Town Country Planning Organisation, Vikas Bhavan (E-Block), I.P. Estate, New Delhi. (Fax: 23073678123379197)

anakyapuri, New Delhi. (Fax: 24674140) 19. Chief Planner, Department of Urban Affairs, Town Country Planning Organisation, Vikas Bhavan (E-Block), I.P. Estate, New Delhi. (Fax: 23073678123379197) 20. Director General, Director General of Foreign Trade, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi. 2l.Director General, Export Promotion Council for EOUs/SEZs, 8G, 8th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - 110 001 (Fax: 223329770) 22.Dr. Rupa Chanda, Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, Bennerghata Road, Bangalore, Karnataka 23. Development Commissioner, Noida Special Economic Zone, Noida. 24. Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone, Gandhidham. 25. Development Commissioner, Falta Special Economic Zone, Kolkata. 26. Development Commissioner, SEEPZ Special Economic Zone, Mumbai. 2l.Development Commissioner, Madras Special Economic Zone, Chennai 28. Development Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Special Economic Zone, Visakhapatnam 29. Development Commissioner, Cochin Special Economic Zone, Cochin. 30. Development Commissioner, Indore Special Economic Zone,Indore. 3l.Development Commissioner, Mundra Special Economic Zone,4th Floor, C Wing, Port Users Building, Mundra (Kutch) Gujarat. 32. Development Commissioner, Dahej Special Economic Zone, Fadia Chambers, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 33. Development Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Special Economic Zone, SEEPZ Service Center, Central Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 096 34.

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

43. Government of Telangana, Special Chief Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Telangana Secretariat Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana.
44. Government of Karnataka, Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industry Department, Vikas Saudha, Bangalore - 560001. (Fax: 080-22259870)
45. Government of Maharashtra, Principal Secretary (Industries), Energy and Labour Department, Mumbai - 400 032.
46. Government of Gujarat, Principal Secretary, Industries and Mines Department Sardar Patel Bhawan, Block No. 5, 3rd Floor, Gandhinagar - 382010 (Fax: 079-23250844).

epartment, Mumbai - 400 032. 46. Government of Gujarat, Principal Secretary, Industries and Mines Department Sardar Patel Bhawan, Block No. 5, 3rd Floor, Gandhinagar - 382010 (Fax: 079-23250844). 47. Government of West Bengal, Principal Secretary, (Commerce and Industry), IP Branch (4th Floor), SEZ Section, 4, Abanindranath Tagore Sarani (Camac Street) Kolkata - 700 016 48. Government of Tamil Nadu, Principal Secretary (lndustries), Fort St. George, Chennai - 600009 (F ax 044-2537 0822). 49. Government of Kerala, Principal Secretary (Industries), Government Secretariat, Trivandrum - 695001 (Fax: 0471-2333017). 50. Government of Haryana, Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary), Department of Industries, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh (Fax: 0172-2740526). 51. Government of Rajasthan, Principal Secretary (Industries), Secretariat Campus, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur - 302005 (0141-2227788). 52. Government of Uttar Pradesh, Principal Secretary, (Industries), Lal Bahadur Shastri Bhawan, Lucknow - 226001 (F ax: 0522-223825 5). 53. Government of Punjab, Principal Secretary Department of Industry & Commerce Udyog Bhawan), Sector -17, Chandigarh- 160017. 54. Government of Puducherry, Secretary, Department of Industries, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry. 55. Government of Odisha, Principal Secretary (Industries), Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneshwar - 75 I 00 1 (Fax: 067 1 - 536819 12406299). 56. Government of Madhya Pradesh, Chief Secretary, (Commerce and Industry), Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (Fax: 0755 -255997 4) 57.

isha Secretariat, Bhubaneshwar - 75 I 00 1 (Fax: 067 1 - 536819 12406299). 56. Government of Madhya Pradesh, Chief Secretary, (Commerce and Industry), Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (Fax: 0755 -255997 4) 57. Government of Uttarakhand, Principal Secretary, (Industries), No. 4, Subhash Road, S ecretariat, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 58. Government of Jharkhand (Secretary), Department of Industries Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi - 834002. 59. Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Dadra Nagar Haveli, Secretary (Industries), Department of Industries, Secretariat, Moti Daman -396220 (Fax: 0260-2230775). 60. Government of Nagaland, Principal Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce), Kohima, Nagaland. 61. Government of Chattishgarh, Commissioner-cum-Secretary Industries, Directorate of Industries, LIC Building Campus, 2nd Floor, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Fax: 0771- 2s836s l ). Copy to:- PPS to CS / PPS to SS (LSS) / PPS to AS(AB) / PS to JS (VAy ST.PPS to Dir (GP).

Agenda for the rgatt'meeting of the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) to be held on zoth and zr"t of November, zozs Agenda Item No. r34.r: Ratification of the minutes of the r33rd meeting of the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) held on l5th October, 2o25, Page 1 of 104

nd zr"t of November, zozs Agenda Item No. r34.r: Ratification of the minutes of the r33rd meeting of the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) held on l5th October, 2o25, Page 1 of 104

Agenda Item No. 134.2: Request for extension of LoA of SEZ Unit [5 proposal - rS+.2(i) - rg+.2(v)] Relevant Rule position . As per Rule t8(t) of the SEZ Rules, the Approual Commtttee may approue or reject a proposalfor setting up of Unit in a Special Economic Zone. . Cases for consideration of extension of Letter of Approval i.r.o. units in SEZs are governed by Rule rg(+) of SEZ Rules. . Rule rg[) states that LoA shall be valid for one year. First Proviso grants power to DCs for extending the LoA for a period not exceeding z 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 3.d year (or beyond znd year in cases where two-third activities are not complete) and onwards are granted by BoA. . BoA can extend the validity for a period of one year at a time. . There is no time limit up to which the Board can extend the validity. Page 2 of 104

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 2 of 104

r. Details of business plan: The unit has proposed investment of INR S4,Tool- Cr. in P&M, civil construction and other costs. Items proposed to be manufactured Sulphate, Ammonium Sulphate etc. Caustic Soda, PVC, Tar, Sodium z. Investment made so far & incremental investment since last extension: i. Investment made so far (As of August, zoz5) in P&M and Civil- INR 8, 54rCr. ii. Incremental investment in l year since August, zoz4-INR 5z8o Cr. B. Details as informed by the Unit: i ll. ll The overall CAPEX and timeline for completing the construction and commissioning of project is -INR B4,7oo Cr. and 5 years from the start of the construction activity. ,Vhile the LoAwas issued in December,2c.21, due to Covid pandemic and other issues, the start of the project and commissioning was rescheduled. Now, the project activities are progressing in full swing. The Chartered Engineer has certified that the project completion status of Mundra Petrochem Ltd. is under zlgral of activities relating to setting up of the unit. The unit expects to employee more than zooo employees including contractors on regular basis for the production and other related activities. iii. iv. v 4. Details of Physical progress till date: As certified by the chartered engineer vide certificate dated: oS.o9.2o25. 1 Name of the Applicant lM/".

production and other related activities. iii. iv. v 4. Details of Physical progress till date: As certified by the chartered engineer vide certificate dated: oS.o9.2o25. 1 Name of the Applicant lM/". Mundra Petrochem Limited Address lMundra, Gujarat a Original LOA details lloe No. ho.rr.ro, APSEZ/53 lMPLlzozt-zzl66o dated 4 Nature of business of Unit: thel Manufacturing I I No. of Extensions lz Year by DC and r year by the BoA Existing validity of LOA is to unlso.rz.zozs 7 Request for lOne-year extension upto 3r.rz .2c.26 Page 3 of 104 r3+.2(i) Request of M/s, Mundra Petrochem Limited in APSEZ, Mundra at Gujarat for the Extension of the Letter of Approval (LOA) for further period of one year i.e. 3o.rz.zoz6. Jurisdictional SEZ - Adani Port SE,Z, Mundra Facts of the case:

Activities completed- Temporary Road, Drainage, construction site office, Temporary power temporary Connection for Construction Work, Temporary Labour colony, Township for accommodation for employees, Security Facilities, Canteen Building, Ground Levelling, Permanent Labour Colony, Construction of Water storage facilities, Waterhouse 5 Nos., Laydown Area, Communication Facilities, BCIS Piling, Stone Column, z6 Number of VCM Reactor installation, Reactor Erection, VCM Tank Erection, Column Erection etc. Activities under progress- Stack Erection in boiler package in O's & U's unit, RCC Super Structure Work in Main Control Room, Electrical Substation, Piling (RCC), Pile Cap/Sub- structure (RCC work) & pre-cast column, Structure Fabrication & Equipment

package in O's & U's unit, RCC Super Structure Work in Main Control Room, Electrical Substation, Piling (RCC), Pile Cap/Sub- structure (RCC work) & pre-cast column, Structure Fabrication & Equipment erection - VCM finishing column, piping (fabrication + erection including NDT), Civil works- Chloro-Alkali plant & PVC cooling tower, Non-Metallic Tank, NaOH Tanks, OSBL Pipe rack, AGU Building completion work for Acetylene Generation Plant etc. 5. Project fmplementation schedule: Considering the size of the project, the unit has submitted that the project activities will be ready in another 1 year and thereafter the trial run may take another 6-9 months. Accordingly, the commercial production is expected to start by the end of 2027. 6. Reason for Delay: The unit has informed, considering the size of the project and big investment, the unit expects the project activities will be ready in another 1 year and thereafter the trial run may take another 6-9 months. Accordingly, the commercial production is expected to start by the end of zoz7. While the LoA was issued in December,2C.21, due to COVID pandemic, delay in regulatory approvals, late receipt of the technical (design parameters and drawings) etc. Recommendation by DC, 4PgF'.2: The Development Commissioner, APSEZ, Mundra has recommended for extension of the LoA for r year i.e. upto go.tz.zoz6. Page 4 of 104

esign parameters and drawings) etc. Recommendation by DC, 4PgF'.2: The Development Commissioner, APSEZ, Mundra has recommended for extension of the LoA for r year i.e. upto go.tz.zoz6. Page 4 of 104

134.2(ii) Request of M/s. Padmavati Industries in the Mahindra World City (Jaipur) Ltd. Multi-Prod.uct SEZ at Jaipur (Rajasthan) for extension of LOA beyond 25.o3.2ozo upto z5.o3.zoz6. Jurisdictional SEZ - Noida SEZ (NSEZ) Facts of the case: Present progress: (a) Details of Business Plan:- S. No Type of Cost Proposed Investment (Rs. In Crore) 1 Land Cost 1.72 2 Construction Cost 2.53 3 Plant & Machinery o.03 4 Other Overheads (Give details) o.oo Total: 4.28 (b) Investment made so far & incremental investment since last extension (c) Details of Physical progress till date :- of ame cant s. Padmavati Industries Address Plot No. PA-oro-oo5, Mahindra World City (Jaipur) Ltd, Village Kalwara, Tehsil Sanganer,_Jaipur (Raiasthan) LOA issued on Nature of business of the unit Manufacturin5; & export of (i) Attar; and (ii) Perfume. 26.o5.2ot9 of Number extension Earlier unit had not applied for extension of LOA beyond 25.03.202O. LOAvalid upto 25.O3.2O2O Request For extension upto 25r3.2cz6 s. No Type of Cost Total Investment made so far (Rs. in Crore) Incremental investment since last extension (Rs. in Crore) 1 Land Cost L.72 NA 2 Material Procurement o.g8 NA 3 Service Cost 2.59 NA 4 Other Overheads (Give details) o.oo NA Total 5.29 NA Page 5 of 104

remental investment since last extension (Rs. in Crore) 1 Land Cost L.72 NA 2 Material Procurement o.g8 NA 3 Service Cost 2.59 NA 4 Other Overheads (Give details) o.oo NA Total 5.29 NA Page 5 of 104

S. No Authorised Activity % completion as on date % completion during last one year Deadline for completion of balance work 1 Construction of Building 8o% 40% 9 to rz months after date ofrenew The unit has submitted timeline of the completion of project & start exports, as given below:- S.No. Stage Completion 1. Civil work of unit Till3r.t January, 2c.26 2 Expected date of production End of February, 2c.26 3 Export From March, 2c.26 The Unit has submitted a Certificate from Chartered Engineer certifying that two third activities (more thanTo%) for construction of building has been completed. Detailed. reasons for delav: The unit has stated that after Covid 19 there was a challenging phase for export market, so they were delayed on their previous plans due to unseen circumstances. Now they are gradually coming over from that situation and ready to start commencement of production and export from this unit. Other Details: : As per Rule 19 (+) of SEZ Rules zoo6, Development Commissioner may grant three year's extension i.e. upto 25.c3:023, 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. However, in the instant case the unit had not applied for extension of LOA beyond 21.o1.2o2o.

Unit is complete and a chartered engineer's certificate to this effect is submitted by the entrepreneur. However, in the instant case the unit had not applied for extension of LOA beyond 21.o1.2o2o. Now, the unit has produced a Chartered Engineer Certificate dated t1.og.2oz5 certifying that that two third activities (more than 7o%) for construction of building has been completed, and requested for extension of LOA upto 25.c3.2026. Recommendation of DC. NSEZ: DC, NSEZ has recommended the request for extension of LOA for the period upto 25.o3.2026. Page 5 of 104

184.2(iii) Request of M/s. Anthea Aromatics Private Limited, a Unit in Mangalore SEZ, Karnataka for extension of LOA upto 3t.to.zoz6. Jurisdictional SEZ - Mangalore SEZ Facts of the case: Progress of project from last LoA extension: - . Progress in terms of Investment: - Details of physical progress: - Reasons for seeking extension: - Name of Applicant thelM/s. Anthea Aromatics Private Limited I LoA issued IKA:r6:oz: MSEZ:zJ dated 3r.ro.zor8 anufacturing facility of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients , Pharma Intermediates, Job Work and Other Speciality Nature of B of the Unit No. of extensions $.d extensions (upto 3r.ro.zoz5) Request lExtension of validity of LoA for a further period of one year up to pr.

ntermediates, Job Work and Other Speciality Nature of B of the Unit No. of extensions $.d extensions (upto 3r.ro.zoz5) Request lExtension of validity of LoA for a further period of one year up to pr. ro.zoz6(4tt .o.rrsion) lnvestment made up to (Rs in crore) Incremental investment since last extension (Rs in crore) Total investment made so far (Rs in crore) in crore) Project (Received Consent Karnataka o1 on ro.oB.zoz3 Pollution Board t+.68(Land) o.g6 (land) r^5.64 S.No ln 1""'" Activity pletion 1 Nil Received Consent 25. Total investment so far is Rs 15.64 Board (KSPCB) ro.oB.zoz3 Karnataka Pollution registration in June Page 7 of 104 % completion iluringlast one year

a a a a a a Due to covid pandemic and imposition of lockdown, development and progress of all projects were severely affected and restrained to take up start of execution of the project. The unit applied for the Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Agency, Govt. of Karnataka on o6th January zorT and got the approval only oD 3rd March zozr followed by an amendment dated zznd June 2c21. On receipt of Environmental Clearance, the unit submitted an application for consent to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) for construction of plant & building, on 2oth July zozr and they received consent from State Pollution Control Board only on toth August,2o2S. The registration of the land for the unit was completed in June 2o2S and the unit has started cleaning activities in its plot No 4zB & 4zC. Delay due to business setbacks and financial difficulties.

The registration of the land for the unit was completed in June 2o2S and the unit has started cleaning activities in its plot No 4zB & 4zC. Delay due to business setbacks and financial difficulties. M/s India Resurgence Asset Management Business Private Limited (A joint venture between Bain Capital & Piramal Group) acquired controlling stake in the company effective 19 November zoz4. The primary focus after the acquisition was to restart the existing manufacturing unit of Cataslmth Speciality Chemicals Private Limited which is located in Industrial Plot No 4zA, MSEZL, Mangalore, is a wholly subsidiary company of Anthea Aromatics Private Limited. There was an unfortunate incident of fire in the Piperonal Plant, resulting in the whole facility to be shut for a period of rz months. The insurance claim received was significantly less as compared to actual spent, which led to financial difficulties and business setbacks, resulting an overall delay of two years in project implementation. The operations have been stopped since March 2c23 and the cumulative effect of the above led to serious financial constraints for the company leading to substantial accumulation of creditors payment, defaults in bank repayments and delayed payment of salaries to employees.

t of the above led to serious financial constraints for the company leading to substantial accumulation of creditors payment, defaults in bank repayments and delayed payment of salaries to employees. Post the investment from India Resurgence Asset Management Business Private Limited, all overdue payments were made, and repairs & maintenance activities were undertaken in the plant in Catasynth Speciality Chemicals hrt Ltd and have restarted the manufacturing operations since September 2025. The restart of Catasynth unit operation is expected to be stabilized by March zoz6. Post the same, Anthea Aromatics Private Limited plans to start detailed engineering activities for first phase with an initial investment of INR So crore which is expected to be completed in 18 months after detailed engineering is finalized. Recommendation by DC, MSEZ: - Considering the investment made and that the unit is under revival stage, the request for extension of the validity of LoA No. KA:r6 o7: MSEZ:zJ dated 31.10.2018 of M/s Anthea Aromatics Private Limited, for a further period of one year from 01.11.2025 to 3r.ro.zoz6(4th extension) is recommended and forwarded for consideration of the BoA. Page 8 of 104

0.2018 of M/s Anthea Aromatics Private Limited, for a further period of one year from 01.11.2025 to 3r.ro.zoz6(4th extension) is recommended and forwarded for consideration of the BoA. Page 8 of 104

134.2(iv) Request of M/s. Knitpro International in the Mahindra World City (Jaipur) Ltd. Multi-Product SEZ at Jaipur (Rajasthan) for extension of LOA for one year i.e. from 11.08.2025 to ro.o8.zoz6-reg Jurisdictional SEZ - Noida SEZ (NSEZ) Facts of the case: Present progress: (a) Details of Business Plan:- r'*" I Type of Cost Proposed Investment (Rs. In Crore) 1 lland Cost 16.oo 2 lConstruction Cost 20.oo 3 lflant & Machinery 15.OO 4 lOther Overheads (Give details) 5.oo Iotal S6.oo (b) Investment made so far & incremental investment since last extension (c) Details of Physical progress till date :- LOA issued on rr.o8.zozz Nature of business o{ the unit Manufacturing & export of (i) Carbon Fiber Moulded Products (ITC HS 68154oo); (ii) Carbon Fiber Rods (ITC HS 6815999o); (iii) Carbon Fiber Tubes (ITC HS 6815999o); (iv) Stainless Steel Tubes (HS Code Zgo4trto); (v) Stainless Steel Rods (ITC I{S T3064000); (vi) Stainless Steel Bars (ITC HS 73C69o9o) Number of extension Two extensions have been granted by DC, NSEZ. LOAvalid upto ro.o8.zoz5 Request For extension upto 10.08.2026 S. No. Type of Cost Total Investment made so far (Rs. in Crore) Incremental investment since last extension (Rs.

en granted by DC, NSEZ. LOAvalid upto ro.o8.zoz5 Request For extension upto 10.08.2026 S. No. Type of Cost Total Investment made so far (Rs. in Crore) Incremental investment since last extension (Rs. in Crore) 1 Land Cost o.oo o.oo 2 Material Procurement o.oo o.oo 3 Service Cost o.oo o.oo 4 Other Overheads (Give details) o.oo o.oo Total o.oo o.oo S. No Authorised Activity % completion as on date % completion during last one year Deadline for completion of balance work Page 9 of 104

zFrial Production lo% @ lAlril-Jun e 2o2T 1 construction and rst March 2o2T of Reasons for delalr: Other Details: As per Rule 19 (+) of SEZ Rules zoo6, two year's extension i.e. upto ro.o8.zoz5 has been grantedbythe Development Commissioner, NSEZ. Further extension of one year i.e. upto ro.o8.zoz6 can be granted by the Development Commissioner after submission of Chartered Engineer's Certificate towards completion of two-third construction activity. However, in the instant case the unit has informed that there has been a slight delay in initiating construction activities and two-third construction activity has not be completed Therefore, sought extension of validity of LOA for one year upto ro.o8.zoz6. As per records, the NFE earned by their two SEZ units located in Noida SEZ during current block upto zoz3-z+ (r) LOA No. rolorlzor3-Proj5r4o dated 22.c,5.2073 was Rs.2485.o5 lakhs and (z) LOA No. rolorlzor6-Proj.l474 dated 13.or.zo16 was Rs.366S.69 lakhs. The NFE earned by their unit in Mahindra World City SEZ, Jaipur during current block upto zoz3-24 was Rs.59rz5.r7lakhs. Recommendation of DC.

lorlzor6-Proj.l474 dated 13.or.zo16 was Rs.366S.69 lakhs. The NFE earned by their unit in Mahindra World City SEZ, Jaipur during current block upto zoz3-24 was Rs.59rz5.r7lakhs. Recommendation of DC. NSEZ: The unit has informed that due to their focused engagement in the major projects (construction of unit in Noida SEZ) there has been a slight delay in initiating construction activities of the said unit in MWC SEZ, Jaipur. Keeping in view of the performance of existing SEZ units of Knitpro International, DC, NSEZ has recommended the request for extension of LOA for the period of one year i.e. upto ro .o8.zoz6. Page 10 of 104 Vide letter dated 22.07.2c,25 and r3.o8.zoz5, the unit has informed that due to their focused engagement in the major projects (construction of unit in Noida SEZ) there has been a slight delay in initiating construction activities on the plots covered under LOA No. rolr5lzozz-SEZl6S6S dated rr.o8.zozz. Vide letter dated rg.og.2o25, the unit has informed that civil construction and installation of machinery is expected to be completed by 31't March, 2o2T and trial production is scheduled for Apnl'zoz7.

letter dated rg.og.2o25, the unit has informed that civil construction and installation of machinery is expected to be completed by 31't March, 2o2T and trial production is scheduled for Apnl'zoz7.

r34.2(v) Request of M/s. Velocity Aviation IFSC Private Limited, Unit in GIFT Multi Serviees SEZ Gandhinagar for the Extension of the Letter of Approval (LOA) for further period of one year up to 28.o,6.2o.26. Jurisdictional SE.Z - IFSCA Facts of the case: a. Details of Business plan: Sl.No mt of'lProposed Investment (Rs. In lCost lCrores) Total investment made so Far (Rs. In Crores) r lCost of lproject I 100 2 b. Incremental Investment made so far and incremental investment since the last extension: 1 Name of Applicant thelM/s. Velocity Aviation IFSC Private Limited I 2 Address B-23 (Seats r-4), Ground Floor, Pragya Accelerator, Block , Zorre-L, Road No. 11, GlFT-Multi-Services -SEZ,

• 38z3sc 3 Original LOA details lxes nz7 o C O/ cI FI/ SEZ I II I zg f zo zz-zg D ated. 2 4. o 6 .2o 22 I 4 Authorised Operations [Aircraft Leasing activities as per Circular F.No. I t 7z/ IFSCA/Finance Company Regulation s f zozz-zg/ o r dtd. lrS.os.zozz Broad Ba"airgJN Service Approved I o 5 Present date Validity of the LOA oflzs.o6.zozs Previous extension details granted on 14.08.2o23 by the Development Commissioner, GIFI SEZ. granted on 28.06.2oz4by the Administrator 7 Date Commencement Operations oflNot commenced od I 8 Status of BLUT flccept"d on zr.o7.2cl22 9 Status of Lease Deed lExecuted 26.1c..2cl23 I 10 IFSCA approval Unit (Date of CoR),forloe.rr.zozz Page 11 of 104 6

cement Operations oflNot commenced od I 8 Status of BLUT flccept"d on zr.o7.2cl22 9 Status of Lease Deed lExecuted 26.1c..2cl23 I 10 IFSCA approval Unit (Date of CoR),forloe.rr.zozz Page 11 of 104 6

sl. No Type of Cost Iotal investment made so Far (In Rs.in lacs) Incremental investment since the last extension (In Rs.in lacs) 1 Incorporation expenses and rent and consultancy fees. 23 3.5 2 Fees/stamp du$ of increase in Authorized Capital NA NA Total 23 3.5 c. Details of physical progress till date: d. Details of operational progress und,er IFSCA Regulations till date: sl. No Activity o,//o Completion o,//o Completion during last one year Deadline for completion of balance work 1 IEC of the Unit has been obtained too%o o% Not Applicable 2 GST of the Unit too%o o% Not Applicable 3 Bond Cum Legal Undertaking for the IFSC Unit too% o% Not Applicable 4 Lease Deed for the IFSC Unit IOOYo o% Not Applicable 5 Any other (please specifu). s]. No. Activity o-//o Completion o./ ,/o Completion during last one year Deadline for completion of balance work Identification of aircraft to be acquired o% o% By z3.o6.zoz6 2 Execution of agreement for acquisition of aircraft o% o% By z3.o6.zoz6 3 Execution of agreement (or) LOI for leasing-out the acquired aircraft o% o% By z3.o6.zoz6 4 Sourcing of credit/ finance for acquisition of aircraft o% o% By z3.o6.zoz6 5 Details of appointment of Principal Officer and Designated Director in the IFSC unit o% o% By z3.o6.zoz6 Page 12 of 104 1

ourcing of credit/ finance for acquisition of aircraft o% o% By z3.o6.zoz6 5 Details of appointment of Principal Officer and Designated Director in the IFSC unit o% o% By z3.o6.zoz6 Page 12 of 104 1

Reason for delay in the commencement of operations: The Unit has submitted as below - They had identified the appropriate aircraft model for leasing operations and were actively engaged with multiple vendors capable of supplying aircraft that meet technical specifications and budgetary constraints. However, on zrst May 2025, a significant fire incident occurred at the Nashik (Maharashtra) plant of JPFL Films, one of their group company. The incident resulted in extensive damage impacting approximately 7o% of the property, plant and equipment, inventory, and other infrastructure. This unfortunate event has materially impacted the Unit's strategic decisions and operational timelines. In addition to this unforeseen event, the commencement of their business operations has been delayed due to several broader economic and industry-specific challenges including a. Significant volatility in USD-INR exchange rates, complicating capital deployment and lease pricing models. b. Limited access to aircraft financing institutions willing to fund emerging leasing platforms in the current risk environment. c. Increased price volatility in both new and pre-owned business jets, affecting acquisition timelines and portfolio formation. d. Global interest rate hikes and tighter credit markets, raising the cost of funds and impacting the near-term viability of lease transactions. e.

ting acquisition timelines and portfolio formation. d. Global interest rate hikes and tighter credit markets, raising the cost of funds and impacting the near-term viability of lease transactions. e. Delayed OEM production and delivery schedules due to ongoing post- pandemic supply chain disruptions, affecting fleet induction plans. some non-compliances also observed on the part of the Unit are as below a. During multiple surprise visits by the IFSCA Team at the registered office premises of the entity, it was noted that no manpower was deployed at the premises at the time of the visits. b. In view of the above non-compliances by the Unit an advisory letter was issued to the entity by the IFSCA. The Unit in its response vide email dated October 7,zo2;,has informed that it is unwilling to appoint personnel until the LOA extension is granted. Recommendation by IFSCA Administrator: IFSCA has forwarded the request of Unit to the Board of Approval in terms of Rule rg(+) of SEZ Rules, 2c,c,6 (beyond 3 years), for extension in validity of LOA for a further period of one year i.e. up to z3.o6.zoz6. Page 13 of 104

of Unit to the Board of Approval in terms of Rule rg(+) of SEZ Rules, 2c,c,6 (beyond 3 years), for extension in validity of LOA for a further period of one year i.e. up to z3.o6.zoz6. Page 13 of 104

Agenda Item No. 44.3: Request for extension of Formal approval of SEZ [r proposal -rg+.3(i)] Ruleposition: Rule 6 (z) of theSEZRules, zoo6: - a. The letter of approual of a Deueloper granted under clause (a) of sub-rule (t) (Formal Approual) shall be ualidfor a period of three Aears withtn tohich time at least one unit has commenced productton, and the Special Economtc Zone become operationalfrom the date of commencement of such productton. that the Board fraU, on on application by the Deueloper or Co-Deueloper, the case may be, for reosons to be recorded in writing extend the ualidity period. that the Deueloper or Co-deueloper as the case moA be, shall the appltcattonin Form Ct to the concerned Deuelopment Commrssioner cs Annexure III, who, uithtn a period of fifteen days, shallforwarded it to the his recommendations. b.

r as the case moA be, shall the appltcattonin Form Ct to the concerned Deuelopment Commrssioner cs Annexure III, who, uithtn a period of fifteen days, shallforwarded it to the his recommendations. b. The letter of approual of a Deueloper granted under clause (b) of sub-rule (t) (In-principle approual) shall be ualidfor a period of one year within tuhich ttme, the Deueloper shall submit suitable proposalforformal approual in Form A as prescribed under the prouisions of rule 3: that the Board ffieA, on an application by the Deueloper,for reasons to in writing, extend the ualidity period: further that the Deueloper shall submit the applicatton in Form Cz to Deuelopment Commissioner, as specified in Annexure III, who, within shall it to the Boardtuithhis recommendations. Page 14 of 104

84.3(i) Proposal of M/s. Venkatesh Coke & Power Ltd for extension of validity of Formal approval for Free Trade Warehousing Zone TFTWZI at Athipattu, Nandiambakkam and Puludivakkam Villages, Ponneri, Ihiruvalur District, Tamil Nadu. Jurisdictional SE,ZI Madras EPZ (MEPZ-SE,Z) Facts of the Case: The request of M/s. Venkatesh Coke & Power Ltd for further extension of the validity period of Formal Approval, granted for setting up of Free Trade Warehousing Zone at Athipattu, Nandiambakkam and Puludivakkam Villages, Ponneri, Thiruvalur District, Tamil Nadu beyond o2.Lo.2o2;. Present Progress: a. Details of business Plan:- b. Incremental investment since last extension:- 1.

andiambakkam and Puludivakkam Villages, Ponneri, Thiruvalur District, Tamil Nadu beyond o2.Lo.2o2;. Present Progress: a. Details of business Plan:- b. Incremental investment since last extension:-

1. Name of the developer l*rr Venkatesh Coke & Power Ltd. Sector ln'fWZ 3 Location lAthipattu, lThiruvalur Nandiambakkam and Puludivakkam Villages, Ponneri, District, Tamil Nadu 4 Formal approval l' r I 3 I zotT-SEZ dated oS.oT.2ot7 5 Notification log.og.zoz+ 6 Request extension ormal approval to the developer was granted on oB.oT.2oL7. The has been granted Five extensions, last extension on .tt.2o24, validity period of which was upto o2.to.2o25. The has requested for further extension upto oz.ro.zoz7. S. NolTVpe of cost Proposed Investment (Rs. in lakhs/crores)
2. lland Cost z35.zo Cr.
3. lConstruction Cost r,294,37 Ct. Itotal 1.,529.57 cr. s. No. Ilpe of Cost Total Investment made far (Rs. in lakhs/crores) to o9.o9.2025 solfncremental investment upl(Rs. in crores) since last lextension
4. Land cost zgs.zo Cr.l NIt Material Procurement *rrl NIL 3 Construction NIU NIL Total z35.zo Cr.l NIL Page 15 of 104 2,

9.2025 solfncremental investment upl(Rs. in crores) since last lextension

1. Land cost zgs.zo Cr.l NIt Material Procurement *rrl NIL 3 Construction NIU NIL Total z35.zo Cr.l NIL Page 15 of 104 2,

c. Details of physical progress till d.ate:- S. No. Authorised activity o/ ,/o completion % completion during last one year Deadline for completion of balance work 1 Construction Compound Wall It is stated that they have initiated the work and negotiating with the shortlisted contractors for finalizing the cost. 2 Ground levelling work TotaI Detailed Reasons for delay: Although the Formal Approval was granted on oS.oT .2oL7 , the SEZ was notified only on og.og.2o24. It has been stated that investors were willing to commit funds only after the SEZ notification. Due to the delay in notification, they were unable to carry out development activities as planned. Following the extension of their Formal Approval validity by the BOA, they will now be in a position to commence the development works. It has also been informed that a Memorandum of Understanding has been executed with an investor interested in becoming a Co-Developer in FTWZ. The investor, being a multinational company, is expected to initiate its global trading operations from the FTWZ soon after obtaining Co-Developer status. Recommendation by DC, Is,{EPZz The request of the developer M/s. Venkatesh Coke & Power Ltd for Extension of the Formal Approval beyond o2.1o.2o25, for a period of r year i.e. up to oz.ro.z026,may be placed in the forthcoming BOA meeting, for its consideration.

s. Venkatesh Coke & Power Ltd for Extension of the Formal Approval beyond o2.1o.2o25, for a period of r year i.e. up to oz.ro.z026,may be placed in the forthcoming BOA meeting, for its consideration. DC has recorded his recommendation. Page 16 of 104

Agenda Item No. 134.4: Request for Co-Developer status [ 3 proposal - 94.4(i)-44.4(iii)] provision: In terms of sub-section (rr) under Section 3 of the StrZ Any person who or a State Gouernment which, intends to prouide tn the identified area or undertake any authorized entering tnto an agreement with the Deueloper, make a proposalfor the the Boardfor its approual. Page L7 of 104

Facts of the Case: 1. Name of the Developer & Location M/s SmartCity (Kochi) Infrastructure Private Limited, Block-og, Kakkanad Village, Kanayanoor Taluk, Ernakulam District, Kerala 2 Date of LoA to Developer zrst April zoo8 3 Sector of the SEZ ITlITeS 4. Date of Notification o1.o3.2011 & 26.02. 2Ot4 5 Total notified area (in Hectares) 93.9165 6. Whether the SEZ is operational or not Operational (i)If operational, date of operationalization 17.o6.zo16 (ii)No. of Units g8 (iii)Total Exports & Imports for the last 5 years (Rs.

tares) 93.9165 6. Whether the SEZ is operational or not Operational (i)If operational, date of operationalization 17.o6.zo16 (ii)No. of Units g8 (iii)Total Exports & Imports for the last 5 years (Rs. in Cr.) - 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2O23-2024 2024-2025 Exportllmport Exportllmport Export Import Export Import Export Import n2.2413o.6o 3e3.B7l re.8r 699.o8 B.6z 962.97 6.zt rr4z38 o.oo (iv)Total Employment (In Nos.) 7129 Nos 7 Name of the Co-Developer sought approval for Co-Developer status M/s Aryabhangy Holdings Private Limited Aryabhangy Pinnacle, S.A Road, Elamkulam , Ernakulam, Kerala 68zozo B. Details of Infrastructure facilities/ authorized operations to be undertaken by the co-developer The proposal is for obtaining Co- Developer status in SmartCity (Kochi) Infrastructure Private Limited SEZ in an area of o.6o Ha for construction of IT/ITES Infrastructure and leasing out of buildings. 9 Total area (in Hectares) on which activities will be performed by the co- developer o.6o Ha 10. Proposed investment by the Co- developer ({ in crore) 38.oo Page 18 of 104 184.4 (i) Request of M/s Aryabhanry Holdings Private Limited for Co- Developer status in SmartCW (Kochi) Infrastructure Private Limited SE,Z, Ernakulam-reg Jurisdictional SEZ: Cochin SEZ (CSEZ)

104 184.4 (i) Request of M/s Aryabhanry Holdings Private Limited for Co- Developer status in SmartCW (Kochi) Infrastructure Private Limited SE,Z, Ernakulam-reg Jurisdictional SEZ: Cochin SEZ (CSEZ)

11 et worth of the Co-developer ({ o.o1 applicant submitted that ) ect cost of t38.oo crore will met availing bank loan of {zo.oo the balance will be funded by com Recommendation by DC, CSEZ: The request of M/s Aryabhangy Holdings Private Limited for obtaining Co-Developer status in SmartCity (Kochi) Private Limited SEZ, Cochin for Construction of IT/ITES Infrastructure and leasing out of buildings in an area of o.6o Ha (r.5 acre), is recommended, in terms of Section 3(tr) of SEZ Act 2oo5 & Rule 3-A of SEZ Rules 2006 and forwarded for consideration of the BoA. t2 lOate of the Co-developer agreement lo4.o6.2o2S Page 19 of 104

134.4 (ii) Request of M/s Monarch Business Solutions Private Limited for Co-Developer status in SmartCW (Kochi) Infrastructure Private Limited SEZ, Kochi - reg. Jurisdictional SB.Z: Coehin SEZ (CSEZ) Facts of the Case: 1 Name of the Developer & Location M/s SmartCity (Kochi) Infrastructure Private Limited, Block-og, Kakkanad Village, Kanayanoor Taluk, Ernakulam District, Kerala 2 Date of LoA to Developer zrst April zoo8 3 Sector of the SEZ IT/ITeS 4 Date of Notification o1.o3.2O1 t & z6.Oz.zor4 5 Total notified area (in Hectares) 9q.9165 6 Whether the SEZ is operational or not Operational l. If operational, date of operationalization 17.o6.zot6 ii. No.

Notification o1.o3.2O1 t & z6.Oz.zor4 5 Total notified area (in Hectares) 9q.9165 6 Whether the SEZ is operational or not Operational l. If operational, date of operationalization 17.o6.zot6 ii. No. of Units 38 Ill. Total Exports & Imports for the last 5 years ({ in crore) 2020-2021 2027-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 Im Export Import Export Import Export Import Export Import 2 o.6o 393.87 19.8r 6sq.o8 8.62 962.97 6.zr u4z38 o.oo lv Total Employment (in Nos.) 7L29 7 Name of the Co-Developer sought approval for Co-Developer status M/s Monarch Business Solution Private Limited Door No. 4265, Second Floor, Spazehiva, A Njikathu Road, Chittethukara, Coch in SEZ, Eranakulam Kerala -68zo37 B Details of Infrastructure facilities/authorized operations to be undertaken by the Co- Developer The proposal is for becoming a Co-Developer in SmartCity (Kochi) Infrastructure Private Limited SEZ in an area of o.6352 Hectares for IT/ITES Infrastructure Development, operation and maintenance of buildines. 9 Total area (in Hectares) on which activities will be performed by the Co-Developer o.6352 Ha 10 Proposed investment by the Co- developer ({ in crore) 68.oo Page 20 of 104

maintenance of buildines. 9 Total area (in Hectares) on which activities will be performed by the Co-Developer o.6352 Ha 10 Proposed investment by the Co- developer ({ in crore) 68.oo Page 20 of 104

et worth of the Co-developer networth of M/s Monarch crore) hrt. Ltd. is tr5.oz crore. M/s W Investments Limited, UAE, vide dated 22.o,9.2c.25 has submitted /s Monarch Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is of their company. Further, of West Ireland Investments is 6,7621- (t3oo.63 crore), and IT Park Building project Kochi SEZ by M/s. usiness Solutions h/t. Ltd., will be funded est Ireland Investments Ltd. Recommendation by DC, CSE.ZT The request of M/s Monarch Business Solutions Private Limited for granting Co- Developer status in SmartCity (Kochi) Private Limited SEZ for providing IT/ITES Infrastructure Development, operation and maintenance of buildings in an area of 0.6352 Hectares, is recommended, in terms of Section 3(tt) of SEZ Act 2oo5 & Rule 3-A of SEZ Rules 2006 and forwarded for consideration of the BoA. the of nt o4.2025 Page 21 of 104

ngs in an area of 0.6352 Hectares, is recommended, in terms of Section 3(tt) of SEZ Act 2oo5 & Rule 3-A of SEZ Rules 2006 and forwarded for consideration of the BoA. the of nt o4.2025 Page 21 of 104

g4.4(iii) Request of M/s Ctrls Data Centers Limited for Co-Developer status in SmartCity (Kochi) Infrastructure Private Limited SE.Z, Ernakulam District, Kerala-reg Jurisdictional SEZ: Cochin SEZ (CSEZ) Facts of the Case: 1 Name of the Develope r & Location D Date of LoA to Develo per zrst April zoo8 3. Sector of the SEZ ITlITeS 4 Date of Notification o1.03.201 t & Z6.Oz.zOt4 5. Total notified area (in Hectares) 93.9165 6 Whether the SEZ is op erational or not Operational (i)If operational, date of operationalization t7.o6.zo16 (ii)No. of Units 38 (iii)Total Exports & I mports for the last 5 y ears (Rs. in Cr.) - 2020-2 o2l 2027-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 Expor t Im po rt Expor t Im t Ex t Import Export Import Export Import 332.2 4 3o. 6o 393.8 7 19. 8r 6S 9.o 8 8.62 962.97 6.zr rr4z38 o.oo (iv)Total Employ ment (In Nos.) 7129 Nos. 7 Name of the Co-D eveloper sought a pproval for Co-De veloper status M/s CtrlS Data Centers Limited at Pioneer towers, Software units layout, Madhapur, Hydera bad - Sooo81 8 Details of Infrastr ucture facilities/ authorized operat ions to be underta ken The proposal is for becoming a Co-Developer in Smartcity (Kochi) infrastructure Private Limited SEZ for providing I T/ITES infrastructure development (Data Center), creatio n of infrastructure development, operation and maintena nce for the data center in an area admeasuring o.8o94 He

e Limited SEZ for providing I T/ITES infrastructure development (Data Center), creatio n of infrastructure development, operation and maintena nce for the data center in an area admeasuring o.8o94 He Page22 of 104 SmartCity Private Block-og, Kakkanad Village, Kanayanoor Taluk, Kerala.

the (z acres) of land in non-processing area at Plot N 2-2-L in the SEZ for dual use of infrastructure. Recommendation by DC, CSEZ: The request of M/s CtrlS Data Centers Limited for granting Co-Developer status in SmartCity (Kochi) Private Limited SE,Z for providing IT/ITES Infrastructure development (Data Center), creation of infrastructure development, operation and maintenance for the data center in an area admeasuring o.8o94 Hectares (z acres) of land in non-processing area at Plot No.B2-2-r in the SEZ for duty paid dual use of infrastructure, is recommended, in terms of Section 3(tr) of SEZ Act 2oo5 & Rule 3- A of SEZ Rules zoo6 read with Rule rrA(3XcXii) of SEZ Rules zoo6 and forwarded for consideration of the BoA. 9 otal area (in ties will be on which by the co o.8o94 Ha 10. er tin bythe 16o.oo 11. worth of the (t in The networth of M/s. CtrlS Data Centers Limited is Rs. 14 +B.ool- Crore. t2 of the 14.o8.2C.25 Page 23 of 104

ties will be on which by the co o.8o94 Ha 10. er tin bythe 16o.oo 11. worth of the (t in The networth of M/s. CtrlS Data Centers Limited is Rs. 14 +B.ool- Crore. t2 of the 14.o8.2C.25 Page 23 of 104

Agenda Item No. rB4.S: Request for notification or partial/full de-notification lz proposal rs4.s(i)- rs+.s(ii)I Procedural guidelines on de-notification of SEZ: In terms of first proviso to rule B of the SEZ Rules, 2006, the Central Gouernment may, on the recommendation of the Board (Board of Approual) on the application made by the Deueloper, f if rs satisfied, modifu, wtthdrau or resctnd the notification of a SEZ issued under this rule. In the 6oth meeting of the Board of Approval held on o8.11.2or3, 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 a o o (a) DC to furnish a certificate in the prescribed format certifying inter-alia that; the Developer has either not availed or has refunded all the tax/duty benefits availed under SEZ Act/Rules in respect of the area to be de-notified. there are either no units in the SEZ or the same have been de-bonded. (b) The State Govt. has no objection to the de-notification proposal and (c) Subject to stipulations communicated vide DoC's letter No. D.rz/ 45lzoo9- SEZ dated 13.09.2o13. Page24 of 104

de-bonded. (b) The State Govt. has no objection to the de-notification proposal and (c) Subject to stipulations communicated vide DoC's letter No. D.rz/ 45lzoo9- SEZ dated 13.09.2o13. Page24 of 104

B4.S(i) Request of M/s. APIIC Limited, IT/ITES SEZ at Hill No.3, Mad.hurawada, Visakhapatnam for partial de-notification of land of u.59 Ha and an increase in area of o.3t Ha-reg. Jurisdictional SE,Z - Visakhapatnam SEZ (VSEZ) Facts of the case: Name of Developer M/s.APIIC Limited Location Survey Number 4ro, Hill No.g, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam LoA issued on (date) F. zl6rlzo06 -EPZ dated 07.04.2006 Sector ITlITES Date of notification S. O. No. SSIZ G) dated 16.rz.zoo6 Notified Area (in Hectares) 3L.25 Operational or not operational Operation al, tg.o 4.zozo Area proposed for de- notification (in Hectares) reason and rr.59 Ha, the land is vacant since notification, now the companies come forwarded for setting up of IT units in Non SEZ area only. Hence it is proposed for partial Denotifi cation. tn Area proposed for Increase Area (in Hectares) and reason o.31 Ha, which is adjacent to their existing notified area of 31.25 Ha. As regards reasons, for contiguity purpose a new road has to be Iaid hence o.3r Ha to be increased. The Developer vide letter dated 29.ol^.2o24 has informed VSEZ that Govt. of Andhra Pradesh issued order for allotment of zr.16 Acres of land at gg paisa at IT Hill No. 3, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam to M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd for establishing an IT Campus with an investment on INR 1370 Crores and emplo5rment potential for 12,ooo persons.

sa at IT Hill No. 3, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam to M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd for establishing an IT Campus with an investment on INR 1370 Crores and emplo5rment potential for 12,ooo persons. Hence APIIC Developer has requested for partial de-notification of the land to an extent of rr.59 Ha. As per DoC's O.M. datedt4.o7.zor6,the documents required for additional area notification and partial denotification, the status thereof in the instant case are as below: A. Partial denotification S. No Documents/ Details Required lstatus (i) Form-Cs for decrease in area along with DC's recommendation. [Yes, provided (ii) DC certificate in prescribed format [Yes, provided (iii) Developer's Certifieate countersigned by DC [Yes, provided (iv) Land details of the area to be de-notified countersigned bv DC [Yes, provided (v) Colored Map of the SEZ clearly indicating area to be and left over area duly countersigned by DC. de-notifi ed[Yes, provided (vi) "No-Objection Certificate" from state government w.r.t. instructions issued vide by DoC vide its instruction No.[Yes, nrovided Page 25 of 104

ly countersigned by DC. de-notifi ed[Yes, provided (vi) "No-Objection Certificate" from state government w.r.t. instructions issued vide by DoC vide its instruction No.[Yes, nrovided Page 25 of 104

(vii) l'No Dues Certificate'from specified officer. tzl45lzoog-SEZ dated 18.09.2013 for partial de-notifi be com with. Reasons for de-notifi cation proposal : The land is vacant since notification, now the companies come forward for setting up IT Units in Non-SEZ arcaonly NOC from state government: i. Such de-notified parcels would be utilized towards creation of infrastructure which would sub-serve the objective of the SEZ as originally envisaged. ii. Such land parcels after de-notification will confirm to land use guidelines/master plans of the respective State Governments. iii. Exemptions availed under SEZ Act in proportion to de-notified area be re-paid to Govt. of India/State Government as applicable on confirmation of the same by Development Commissioner, VSEZ, Govt. of India. iv. Any incentives availed under State Policy has to be repaid to the State Government such as Stamp Duty Exemptions and other benefits sanctioned by State Government. v.

ioner, VSEZ, Govt. of India. iv. Any incentives availed under State Policy has to be repaid to the State Government such as Stamp Duty Exemptions and other benefits sanctioned by State Government. v. Such land parcels after de-notification shall be utilized only for industrial purpose. DC, VSEZ Certification: (a) The existing units have been de-bonded following the procedure prescribed in Rule 74 of the SEZ Rules (b) The developer has not availed any tax/duty benefits, under the SEZ Act Rules, in r/o of the land being de-notified. (i) The Specified Officer vide letter dated 24.09.2c.25 has stated that the Developer have no dues of taxes and exemptions availed in the proposed do- notification area of 28.65 Acres Hence No customs Central excise duty dues are pending in the proposed partial de notification arca. (c) The SEZ shall remain contiguous even after de-notification of the area of 28.65 Acres and shall meet the minimum land requirement prescribed for the SEZ in an Existing Area. Area after partial de-notification would be 19.66 Ha (d) The land details for partial de-notification and a coloured map of the SEZ showing the area being de-notified, duly countersigned by DC. (S) The State Government has given its'No Objection'regarding de-notification of the above stated area of the SEZ. Inspection of Partial De-notification Area: Development Commissioner, VSEZ along with ADC,YSEZ, Specified Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar has Page26 of 104

above stated area of the SEZ. Inspection of Partial De-notification Area: Development Commissioner, VSEZ along with ADC,YSEZ, Specified Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar has Page26 of 104

conducted physical inspection on o9.o9.2c.25 of the lands proposed for partial de notification of Hill No. 3 Madhurawada Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in the State of Andhra Pradesh in an area of the land Ac z8.65cts or 11 59 Ha and increase in area of Ac o.76cts or o.31 Ha in out of 3r.25 Ha. The lands proposed for partial de-notification are vacant land. The Specified Officer, IT SEZ, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam vide letter dated 24.09 2o21has informed that there are No Dues from APIIC, Madhurawada with respect to de notification of 28.65 Acs or 11.59 Ha of land and increase in area of Ac. o.76cts or o.31 Ha The area remaining after the proposed partial de-notification is contiguous meeting all the requirements of area/built-up area in terms of SEZ Act and Rules and without any public thoroughfare. Comments sought from DoC and response received is as follows: S.No. Clarification sought by DoCr laubmissions made byVSEZ: a. Requested to clarify i.r.o. Map denotification proposal, whether , APIIC ITIITES SEZvide dated 2;:o:o2; has parcels as mentioned t6 & 77 ( that Land Parcels i.e z,g millennium tower) is contiguous with contiguous from the millennium Iarger land parcel notified as SEZ i.e. z, 3 onwards. (Plot no:16,17). B.

parcels as mentioned t6 & 77 ( that Land Parcels i.e z,g millennium tower) is contiguous with contiguous from the millennium Iarger land parcel notified as SEZ i.e. z, 3 onwards. (Plot no:16,17). B. Additional area notification S No. Documents/ Details Required lstatus (i) Certificate from concerned Government or its au agency stating that the develop has irrevocable rights to the area as SEZ. vide letter dated 2l^.to.2o2S has that APIIC is a Government and Govt of AP has delivered to APIIC and these lands were notified as SEZ land. Additional area of .3r Ha. of land to the existing IT SEZ, Hill o.3, Madhurawada is for development of road Hence o.3r Hect. has proposed for in area. APIIC as the developer has ble rights to develop the Ac 0.76 cts o.3r Ha) (ii) Form-C4 along with recommendation DC's[Yes, provided (iii) lnspection Report in prescribedfYes, provided format I (rv) Developer's Countersigned by DC Certificate[Yes, nrovided (v) Legal Possession Certificate Revenue Authorities from[Yes, provided (vi) Non-Encumbrance Certifica from Revenue Authorities te[Yes, provided Page 27 of 104

signed by DC Certificate[Yes, nrovided (v) Legal Possession Certificate Revenue Authorities from[Yes, provided (vi) Non-Encumbrance Certifica from Revenue Authorities te[Yes, provided Page 27 of 104

details of the area es, provided 'ly specified survey numbers be notified duly certified authorities Reasons for notification proposal: For Contiguity purpose a new road to be laid hence .31 Ha to be increased. Recommendation by DC, VSEZ. DC, VSEZ has recommended the proposals for the consideration of BoA. (ix) Colored Map clearly indicating Survey numbers and duly certified by revenue authorities €S, provided vide letter dated 2rlo.2o2; that APIIC being a Govt. organiza Govt of AP has delivered possession of to APIIC, hence sale deed is (x) Copy of Registered Lease/Sale deed Page 28 of 104

84.5(ii) Proposal of M/s. Laxmi Infobahn One hrt. Ltd, Developer for partial de-notification of r.35ro Ha out of z.4zg Ha of IT/ITES SEZ at Sy. No.89/P, Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. Jurisdictional SE.Z - Visakhapatnam SEZ CVSEZ) Facts of the case: Reasons for de-notification proposal: Due to market conditions, Deplete demand of SEZ space and huge requirement of non-SEZ space Requisite documents for considering de-notification proposal: As per DoC's O.M. datedt4.o7.zo16 regarding required documents for partial de- notification and the status thereof is as below: a Name of Developer M/s. Laxmi Infobahn One hrt. Ltd Location Sy.

osal: As per DoC's O.M. datedt4.o7.zo16 regarding required documents for partial de- notification and the status thereof is as below: a Name of Developer M/s. Laxmi Infobahn One hrt. Ltd Location Sy. No.B9/P, Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal, RR Ditrict, Hyderabad LoA issued on (date) tgth January,2ot7 Sector IT/ITES Notified Area (in Hectares) 2.429 Operational or not operational Operation al, tg.o 4.zozo Area proposed for de- notification (in Hectares) 1.351o S. No. Documents/Details Required. lstatus (i) Form-C5 for decrease in area along with DC's recommendation [res, nrovided (ii) DC's certificate in prescribed format [Yes, provided (iii) Developer's Certificate countersigned by DC [Yes, provided (w) Land details of the area to be de- notified countersigned by DC [Yes, nrovided (v) Colored Map of the SEZ clearly indicating area to be de- notified and left-over area duly countersigned by DC fres, nrovided (vi) "No Objection Certificate" from the State Government w.r.t. instructions issued by DoC vide its instruction No. D.tzl45lzoog-SEZ dated 13.09.2013 for partial de- notification shall be complied with Yes, Provided (vii) 'No Dues Certificate'from specified officer JYes, provided Page 29 of 104

ts instruction No. D.tzl45lzoog-SEZ dated 13.09.2013 for partial de- notification shall be complied with Yes, Provided (vii) 'No Dues Certificate'from specified officer JYes, provided Page 29 of 104

DC, VsEZCernfication: a. The existing unit has been de-bonded following the procedure prescribed in Rule 74 of the SEZ Rules. b. The developer had availed the following tax/duty benefits under the SEZ Act/Rules: (i) Customs exemptions availed on Imported Goods and IGST exemption availed on DTA procured goods and DTA procured Services for Rs. 38,64,77,5441-. eil tax/duty benefit indicated above have been refunded by the developer to DC satisfaction. c. The SEZ shall remain contiguous even after de-notification of the area of 1.351 Ha. The area after proposed partial de-notification would be r.o78 Ha. The built-up area after proposed partial de-notification will be r,6o,95o.9r Sq. Mtrs against minimum built up area is 5o,ooo Sq. Mtrs as per Rule S(zXb) of SEZ Rules, zoo6. d. The State Government vide letter dated o2.o4.2o25 has given its'No Objection' regarding proposed partial de-notification of the above stated area of the sEZ. Inspection of Partial De-notification Area: DC, VSEZ along with Specified Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar has conducted physical inspection on 21.04.2c.25 for partial de- notification of M/s. Laxmi Infobahn One hrt. Limited, IT/ITES SEZ at Sy. No. 8g (P), Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana in an area of 1.351 Ha out of z.4zg Ha.

tial de- notification of M/s. Laxmi Infobahn One hrt. Limited, IT/ITES SEZ at Sy. No. 8g (P), Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana in an area of 1.351 Ha out of z.4zg Ha. The constructed built up area proposed to be de-notified is vacant and having no units in the said area. The area remaining after the proposed partial de-notification is contiguous meeting all the requirements of area built-up area in terms of SEZ Act and Rules and without any public thoroughfare. Recommendation by DC, VSEZ: The proposal of M/s. Laxmi Infobahn One hrt. Ltd for partial de-notification of r.35ro Ha land along with building No. 9 having a builtup space of t8,6o,oo9 sqft from the already notified area of 2.429 Ha of IT/ITES SEZ at Sy. No.B9/P, Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana has been recommended for the consideration of BoA. Page 30 of 104

Agenda Item No. t34.6: Request for conversion of Processing Area into Non-Processing Area under Rule u(B) [ 4 proposals - 94.6(i) - $4.6(iv)] In terms of the Rule 5(z) 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 Rule position (r) sl. No. Categories of cities as per TV.A (z) built-up processing 1. Category'A'

be applicable, based on the category of cities, as specified in the following Table, namely: - TABLE Rule position (r) sl. No. Categories of cities as per TV.A (z) built-up processing 1. Category'A' lso,ooo square meters 2 Category'B' lz5,ooo square meters 3 Category'C' l15,ooo square meters c) The minimum processing area in any Special Economic Zone cannot be less per cent. of the total area of the Special Economic Zone. In terms of the Rule 11 B regarding Non-processing areas for IT (r) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules, 5,tt,t1A or any other rule, the Bo Approval, on request of a Developer of an Information Technolory or Enabled Services Special Economic Zones, may, permit demarcation of of the built-up area of an Information Technology or Information Services Special Economic Zone as a non-processing area of the chnology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone called a non-processing area. z) A Non-processing area may be used for setting up and operation of in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled services, an such terms and conditions as maybe specifiedbythe Board ofApproval under su (r), A Non-processing area shall consist of complete floor and part of a floor shall demarcated as a non-processing area. 4) There shall be appropriate access control mechanisms for Special Economic nit and businesses engaged in Information Technolory or Information bled Services in non-processing areas of Information Technology or echnology Enabled Services Special Economic Zones, to ensure adequate

nd businesses engaged in Information Technolory or Information bled Services in non-processing areas of Information Technology or echnology Enabled Services Special Economic Zones, to ensure adequate movement of persons as well as goods in and out of their premises Board of Approval shall permit demarcation of a non-processing area for engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Special Economic Zone, only after repayment, without interest, by Page 31 of 104

(i) tax benefits attributable to the non-processing area, calculated as the benefits provided for the processing area of the Special EconomicZone, in proportion of the 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. (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 andbusiness engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services in non-processing area. (6) The amount to be repaid by Developer under sub-rule (S) shall be based on a certificate issued by a Chartered Engineer. (7) Demarcation of a non-processing area shall not be allowed if it results in decreasing the processing area to less than fifty per cent ofthe total area or less than the area specified in column (g) of the table below: TABLE Sl.

sing area shall not be allowed if it results in decreasing the processing area to less than fifty per cent ofthe total area or less than the area specified in column (g) of the table below: TABLE Sl. No. (r) lCategories of cities lAnnexure IV-A (z) perlVtinimum built-up processing ltu"u (s) as 1 lCategory'A' l5o,ooo square meters 2. lCategory'B' lz5,ooo square meters 3. lCategory'C' lr5,ooo 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. (q) No tax benefits shall be available on operation and maintenance of common infrastructure and facilities of such an Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone. (ro) The businesses engaged in Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services Special Economic Zone in a non-processing area shall be subject to provisions of all Central Acts and rules and orders made thereunder, as are applicable to any other entity operating in domestic tariff area. Consequent upon insertion of Rule rr B in the SEZ Rules, z0o6, Department of Commerce in consultation with Department of Revenue has issued Instruction No.

r entity operating in domestic tariff area. Consequent upon insertion of Rule rr B in the SEZ Rules, z0o6, Department of Commerce in consultation with Department of Revenue has issued Instruction No. rr5 dated o9.o4.2o24 clarifying concerns/queries raised from stakeholders regarding Rule rrB. Further, as per the directions of the BoA in its rzoth meeting held on 18.o6.zoz4, there shall be a clear certification of Specified Office and the Development Commissioner that the Developer has refunded the duty as per the provisions of Rule rrB of SEZ Rules, zoo6 and Instruction No. rr5 dated ogth April, 2c.24 issued by DoC. Accordingly, DoC vide letter dated 27.06.2c.24 has issued one such Certificate to be provided by Specified Officer and Countersigned by Development Commissioner. Moreover, in the t22nd meeting of the BoA held on 3oth August, zoz4, 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. a a Page 32 of 104 a

e BoA held on 3oth August, zoz4, 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. a a Page 32 of 104 a

84.6(i) Request of M/s Gopalan Enterprises (India) Private Limited, Developer at Hoodi Village, K R Puram, Bangalore, Karnataka State, for demarcation of SEZProcessing Built-up area (16oor.8z sq.mtr.) as Non- Processing Area in terms of Rule n B of SBZ Rules, 2trtr6 -reg. Jurisdictional SEZz Cochin SEZ (CSEZ) Facts of the Case: Sl.No. Particulars Details 1. Name of Developer M/s Gopalan Enterprises (India) Private Limited 2 Address of SEZ Hoodi Village, K R Puram, Bangalore, Karnataka State 3 Sector TTlITES 4 Formal Approval F.zl3rzlzoo6-SEZ dated 7th January 2oo8 5 Total Notified land area (in Hectares) 1o.3o92 6. Total Built-up area in Processing Area (in M,), as informed by the developer. r9rz96;34 7 Details of processing (Built- up) area in the SIT.Z Building lTower / Block/Plot No. No. of floors Total built- up area (in M") BlockA B+G+7+Terrace Floor 25336.99 Block B B+G+7+Terrace Floor 52355.47 Block C B+G+7+Terrace Floor 283or.44 BlockAr B+UB+G+7+Terrace Floor 54052.39 Block D B+G+7+Terrace Floor 3125O.O5 Total 19rz96;34 8. Total area to be demarcated as Non- Processing Area (NPA) out of Built-up area (in Square meter) Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No.

54052.39 Block D B+G+7+Terrace Floor 3125O.O5 Total 19rz96;34 8. 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 M') Block C Basement s6B.T7 Block C 4th to P Floors rzzzS.BB Block C Terrace 159.r7 Total 16oo1.82 9 Balance Built-up Processing Area after demarcation (in M2) 175294.52 10 Whether tax/duty calculated has been made as per SEZ Rule rr (BXs)? Yes Page 33 of 104

Yes 11. sheet the tax benefit for the built- to be Non-Processing ? Developer has paid an Itr64rlrgrg71.z5 (Rupees One crore sixty four thousand three hundred seventy five ty five paise only) towards tax/duty exem for the proposed area to be demarcated alongwith common facilities. ({84,23,18r.25 -up space & t79,9o,rg4l- for common amount of challan enclosed t2 yeS, above een made? Pleas ? repayment tion the Yes lTgrgo,rg4/- The Developer has paid \79,9o,r94f - towards the duty/tax exemptions availed for the common assets (Electrical installations, Internal roads, landscape works, sports ground on podium, Food court, Garbage room, Fire pump room, etc.) for the proposed area. 13. uty or tax vailed for creation facility in the be used by both S sheet uded the and non area? L4 common par ubs can health sports landscap above in include ties sewer of power power HVAC utilities center center w&y, foot Yes.

tion facility in the be used by both S sheet uded the and non area? L4 common par ubs can health sports landscap above in include ties sewer of power power HVAC utilities center center w&y, foot Yes. The Developer has considered the duty/tax exemptions availed attributable to the common infrastructure facilities while calculating the amount paid Page 34 of 104 social or compressor hospitals, gardens, ETP, WTP, solar Does the infrastructure

, air condi chiller etc. 15. Yes Developer has paid 17g,9o,tg4f - towards the exemptions availed for the common assets installations, Internal roads, landscape ks, sports ground on podium, Food court, room, Fire pump room, etc.) for the area. If yes, then made of all tax/du repayment has benefits availed developing all facilities? mention amount Pqld' 16. Whether the area to be demarcated as NPA is included to be strictly used for IT/ITES Units, any in terms of SEZ Rules tt (BXz)? Yes t7. Whether thel demarcation isl proposed for completel floor as per SEZ Rulel rr(Bxs)? I Yes rB Whether compliance tol SEZ Rule tt (BXg) hasl been made regardingl "no tax benefits" shalll be available forl operation andl maintenance ofl common I infrastructure? I Yes t9 developer has mentioned that they will maintain appropriate access control mechanisms to ensure uate screening of movement of persons as well as in SEZ premise for the SEZ unit and the engaged in IT/ITES services in the or and non-processing area? con mechanism is in of screen movement non processing areas. Whether access goods between area processrng area order to rule out

and the engaged in IT/ITES services in the or and non-processing area? con mechanism is in of screen movement non processing areas. Whether access goods between area processrng area order to rule out probable diversion duty free goods processing area 20 the demarcation, condition maintaining built-up Yes. SEZ is coming under Category'A' City and the built-up area required for Category'A' is o,ooo sq.mtr. After demarcation of the proposed t-up area, the remaining built-up area in the SEZ Whether as a result minim Page 35 of 104

to SEZ be r75zg4.Sz sq.mtr., and hence fulfills tion. B is adhered to The following requisite documents have been submitted: v[. Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. rr5 dated o9.o4.2o24, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, CSEZ. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 28.oT.2o2S of Shri Nityanand Epoor, Chartered Engineer Membership No. M-r59982-2, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer. 'No Dues Certificate' issued by Specified Officer vide F.No. KA:7 :7 :zoo8 : Gopalan SEZ : Hoodi Village dated t6.o 9.zoz5. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule rrB of SEZ Rules , zoo6 and Instruction No.

: Gopalan SEZ : Hoodi Village dated t6.o 9.zoz5. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule rrB of SEZ Rules , zoo6 and Instruction No. rr5 dated o9.o4.2o24 duly countersignature of DC, CSEZ. Checklist of Rule rrB in prescribed format, duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, CSEZ. An Undertaking from the SEZ Developer to the effect that they shall pay the differential / short paid / non-paid duty / tax benefits, if so determined at a later date on being demanded by the department or any statutory authority without any demur or protest w.r.t. demarcation of built-up area admeasuring 16001.82 Sq.mt. into Non-Processing Area for use by IT/ITES businesses as per Rule uBof the SEZ (Fifth Amendment) Rule, 2025. 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. ll. iii. iv. v. vi. Recommendation by DC, CSEZ: The proposal of M/s Gopalan Enterprises (India) Private Limited, the Developer for demarcation of 16tl01.82 sq.mtr. processing (built-up) area as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule rr B of SEZ Rules.2c,c,6 read with Instruction No.rr5 dated gtt April 2024, is recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA. area as NPA for of built- Developer states that go-4o% of built-up area vacant since long due to implementation clause and consequent to work from available to the SEZ units, resulted in for space from SEZ units.

or of built- Developer states that go-4o% of built-up area vacant since long due to implementation clause and consequent to work from available to the SEZ units, resulted in for space from SEZ units. Hence, decided to demarcate the said built as Non- Area.. 2l o allot the same to non-SEZ units 22 demarcation and usage of Page 35 of 104

184.6(ii) Request of M/s Manyata Promoters Private Limited, Developer at Village Rachenahalli, Nagavara and Tanisandra, Bangalore District, Karnataka State, for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built-up area (rS8Z+ sq.mtr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule rr B of SEZ Rules, zoo6. Jurisdictional SEZ: Cochin SEZ (CSEZ) Facts of the Case: Particulars Details Name of Developer M/s Manvata Promoters Private Limited Address of SEZ Villages Rachenahalli, Nagavara and Tanisandra, Bangalore District, Karnataka State Sector ITlITES Formal Approval F.z/g6lzooS-EPZ dated r6th June zoo6 Total Notified land area (in Hectares) 19.1991 Total Built up Space 8,77,o24.t4 sq mtrs (Processing area: T,So,4og.L4 sq mtr + Non-processing area:1,26,62r sq mtrs) Built-up area in Processing Area 3.r4 M as informed the Details of processing (Built- up) area in the SEZ Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No.

So,4og.L4 sq mtr + Non-processing area:1,26,62r sq mtrs) Built-up area in Processing Area 3.r4 M as informed the Details of processing (Built- up) area in the SEZ Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No. of floors Total built-up area (in l4r1 Block Cz B+G+8 52156.t4 Block CS-MLCP B+G+rz 3,rg9z.zz Block C4 (Annexure building A) B+S+tst floor tt62t.t2 Block C4 (Annexure Building B) B+S+tst, 3.d & 4th Floors 1967538 Block D+ B+G+ro 49sz8.oo Block Fs zB+G+ro g88q+.oo Block Gz zB+G+B 5O703.oO Block Gg zB+G+ro 71994.oo Block G4 ZB+G+t.t to 5ttt Floors 38133.45 Block c6 MLCP zB+G+rz gz668.oo Block Hr B+G+6 456zo.oo Block Hz ( Annexure Buildine A) ZB+G+t.t to 6s & roe Floors 5966q.66 Bock Hz (Annexure Building B) zB+G+rst to 6th Floors 2g48o.oo Block Lr zB+G+ro 59705.oo Page 37 of 104

Block L3 2B+5tn , 7th to toth Floors So6BS.6Z Block L MLCP G+3 Bo67.oo 7504o3.t4 Total Building /Tower / Block/Plot No. No. of floors Total built-up area (in M") j'd Floor 4056.oo Block G4 4th Floor 3446.oo Building Hz (Annexure Building A) Block Lr znd Floor 4rB6.oo Block Lr 4tr Floor 4rB6.oo TotaI 15874.oo Total area to be demarcated as Non-Processing Area (NPA) out of Built-up area (in Square meter) Balance Built-up Processing Area after demarcation (in M2) 734529.44 Whether tax/duff calculated has been made as per SEZ Rule rr (BXs)? Yes Whether the calculation sheet has mentioned the tax or duty benefit originally availed for the built-up space to be demarcated as Non-Processing Area (NPA)? Yes If yes, above then whether repayrnent has been made? Please mention the amount repaid?

tax or duty benefit originally availed for the built-up space to be demarcated as Non-Processing Area (NPA)? Yes If yes, above then whether repayrnent has been made? Please mention the amount repaid? Developer has paid an )Srroor878/- (Rupees One crore fifty one I hundred seventy eight only) towards tax/du availed for the proposed area to b as NPA alongwith common facilities r,26,98,643f - for built-up space 24,62,2351- for common area) (Copy of amount Whether the calculation sheet has included the original duty or tax benefit availed for creation of social or commercial infrastructure and other facility in the SEZ to be used by both SEZ processing and non-processing area? Yes z4r6zrzg5f - , Developer has paid Rs.z4,6z,z35/- towards tax exemptions availed for the common (Electrieal installations, Fire fighting systems, Systems, Window Grills) for the proposed area. , on request of the Developer, the 121.t on 31st J:uly zoz4, was granted approval of ro868r sq.mtr. built-up area on-Processing area, which was conveyed by letter dated 9tr September 2024. At that time, Developer has refunded an 5,2699,629/- vide challan No.NPAor da o7.2o24 (Challan copy enclosed) towards duty/tax exemptions availed for the v7z. Internal amount common Block Lz zB+G+ro Page 38 of 104

eveloper has refunded an 5,2699,629/- vide challan No.NPAor da o7.2o24 (Challan copy enclosed) towards duty/tax exemptions availed for the v7z. Internal amount common Block Lz zB+G+ro Page 38 of 104

sewage, drainage, compressor gardens, utilities like generation tion of power including power back up, facilities, ETP, ETP. Since the the entire duty/tax exemptions availed the common amenities, the osal does not involve t of the same. food courts/hu restaurants, can , community center, clu hospitals, Iands pedestrian walk over bridge, utilities tion and distribution , including power back u facilities, ETP, WTP, air conditioning es the common facilities above internal roads, catering area, complex installed, etc Yes. The Developer has considered the duty/tax exemptions availed attributable to the common infrastructure facilities while calculating the amount paid yes, then whether repaym been made of all tax/ ts availed on developing facilities? Please men re-paid Developer has paid Rs.z4,6z,z35/- towards uty/tax exemptions availed for the common assets installations, Fire fighting systems, Systems, Window Grills) for the proposed area. the earlier proposal approved by BoA, has already been refunded an amount availed for the common facilities in building vide challan No.NPAor da 5rz63916zgf towards the tire en ,u d 6. .2 Yes (Rs.z 416z,zg5/-) of challan the area to as NPAis included strictly used for IT nits, any in terms of SEZ 11 ? Yes Yes the demarcation for complete floor ? SEZ Rule rr compliance to SEZ (exg) has been "no tax benefits" 11 tion available for Yes

PAis included strictly used for IT nits, any in terms of SEZ 11 ? Yes Yes the demarcation for complete floor ? SEZ Rule rr compliance to SEZ (exg) has been "no tax benefits" 11 tion available for Yes Page 39 of 104

of mechanism is in place movement of goods between processing non processing area in rule out any pro version ofduty free goods area and non area? appropriate The developer has mentioned that they will maintain the appropriate access control mechanisms to ensure adequate screening of movement of persons as well as goods in SEZ premise for the SEZ unit and the businesses engaged in IT/ITES services in the proposed non processing areas. Whether as a result of the proposed demarcation, the condition of maintaining minimum built-up area requirement in compliance to SEZ Rule tt(BXZ) is adhered to Yes. The SEZ is coming under Category'A' City and the minimum built-up area required for Category'A' is So,ooo sq.mtr. After demarcation of the proposed built-up area, the remaining built-up area in the SEZ shall be 794529.14 sq.mtr., and hence fulfills the condition. The Developer states that the proposed built-up area is lyrrg vacant in the SEZ since long, due to multiple factors like Sunset Clause for Income Tax benefit, Covid 19 pandemic and consequent to work from home facility available to the SEZ units, resulted in less demand for space from SE,Z units.

multiple factors like Sunset Clause for Income Tax benefit, Covid 19 pandemic and consequent to work from home facility available to the SEZ units, resulted in less demand for space from SE,Z units. Hence, their management decided to demarcate the said built-up area as Non-Processing Area Reason for demarcation of built- up area as NPA 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. rr5 dated o9.o4.2o24, f.or demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, CSEZ. ii. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 11.09.2025 of Shri R. Arunkumar, Chartered Engineer Membership No. F-rrr5o8-S, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer. iii. 'No Dues Certificate' issued by Specified Officer vide F.No. KA: ro : o6 :MEBP: rA(VOL-ry) dated 18.o9.zoz5. iv. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule rrB of SEZ Rules , zo06 and Instruction No. rr5 dated o9.o4.2o24 duly countersignature of DC, CSEZ. v. Checklist of Rule rrB 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.

l 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 Page 40 of 104

vrl 15,874 Sq.mt. into Non-Processing Area for use by IT/ITES businesses as per Rule rrB of the SEZ Rule, 2cl25. 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, CSEZ:- The proposal of M/s Manyata Promoters Private Limited, the Developer for demarcation of r.Sr8Z4 sq.mtr. processing (built-up) area as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule rr B of SEZ Rules.2006 read with Instruction No.rr5 dated 9tr April 2024, has been recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA. Page 41 of 104

84.6(iii) Request of M/s. Span Venture SF.7', Coimbatore, Developer at Rathnam Techpark, Pollachi Road, Eachanari Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nad.u, for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built-up area (78o3.8 sq.mtr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule rr B of SEZ Rules. Jurisdictional SE;Zz Madras l0.dEPZ (MEPZ) Facts of the Case: Particulars Details Name of Developer M/s.

sing Built-up area (78o3.8 sq.mtr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule rr B of SEZ Rules. Jurisdictional SE;Zz Madras l0.dEPZ (MEPZ) Facts of the Case: Particulars Details Name of Developer M/s. SpanVenture SE,Z, Coimbatore Address of SEZ Rathnam Techpark, Pollachi Road, Eachanari Post, Coimbator e 6 4tozt, Tamilnadu Sector ITlITES Formal Approval F .z I z}r I zoo6-SEZ I DATED z5-ro-zoo6 Iotal Notified land area (in Hectares) 1.716 HECTARES Total Built-up area in Processing Area (in Square meters), as informed by the developer. JSj67.4S Sq.mtr Floor Office Space (in Sq.ft) Total Built Up area (in Sq.mtrs) BlockAr Ground Floor 73750 1277.41 First Floor r3750 1277.41 Second Floor r3750 L277.41 Third Floor 13750 1277.4r BlockAr Extension Slit Floor 21000 1950.95 Ground Floor 21000 1950.95 First Floor 21000 1950.95 Second Floor 21000 1950.95 Third Floor 21000 1950.95 Fourth Floor 21000 1950.95 BlockAz Slit Floor 34ooo BrS8.68 Ground FIoor 34ooo 3158.68 First Floor 34ooo .trS8.68 Second Floor 34000 3158.68 Third Floor 34ooo SrS8.68 Fourth Floor 340OO grs8.68 Total 385ooo 3,:a767.45 Total Number of Building constructed in processing area BlockAr, Ar Extension and BlockAz Total area to be demarcated as Non-Processing Area Floor Level as per approvals Area to be Demarcated as NPA (in Sq.mtrs) Slit Floor 1950.95 Page 42 of 104

ing area BlockAr, Ar Extension and BlockAz Total area to be demarcated as Non-Processing Area Floor Level as per approvals Area to be Demarcated as NPA (in Sq.mtrs) Slit Floor 1950.95 Page 42 of 104

out of Built-up area Floor quare meter) The following requisite documents have been submitted: 1 o. Floor 1950.95 Second Floor 1950.95 Total 78o8.8 t Floor, Ground, First and Ar Extension - Floors. T96g.65 Sq.mtrs. after demarcation. Built-up es after demarcation? minimum built-u area

1. DG set
2. Fire Hydrant Systems.
3. Electrical Panels
4. fryAC Equipments S. WTP
5. Elevators / Lifts T. Parking Area B. Lobby area - on Slit Floor will remain of common Utilities nfrastructure, demarcation for demarcation as a non-processing area and no SEZ unit is operational as on date in er ed to be demarcated on-Processing Area rrB. If yes, what is proposed non-processing area. any SEZ Uni on the plan for such Developer has confirmed that the / duff benefits availed area proposed Area of refund of a as Non per Chartered Accountant Certificate, the constructed the Block Ar Extension withou duties and tax benefits on o9-o9-2o25.

d that the / duff benefits availed area proposed Area of refund of a as Non per Chartered Accountant Certificate, the constructed the Block Ar Extension withou duties and tax benefits on o9-o9-2o25. No has been issued by Specified Office on 1.O developer has mentioned that they shall foll ppropriate access control mechanisms for SEZ U business in Information Technology nformation Technology Enabled Services in non area of Information Technology nformation Technology Enabled Services in Zones, to ensure adequate screening t of persons as well as goods in and out movement of employees for IT/ITES Business engaged in the to be demarcated on-Processing Area. Control M t- for demarcation area as NPA existing non-SEZ clients has shown interest about of available and usage of or flexibility of providing space to non-SEZ clients Page 43 of 104

i. Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. rr5 dated og.o4.2o24, for demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, MEPZ. ii. CharteredAccountant Certificate dated o2.o9.2c.25 of Shri S Nithin, Chartered Accountant Membership No. 28899o, stating that the Ar Extension Block was constructed without availing any tax exemptions and all applicable duties and taxes have been paid in accordance with the statutory norms. Further, a certificate from Chartered Engineer Shri R. Basaviah has also been submitted. iii. 'No Dues Certificate' issued by Specified Officer vide OC No .rrr/zoz5 dated rr.o8.zoz5. iv.

utory norms. Further, a certificate from Chartered Engineer Shri R. Basaviah has also been submitted. iii. 'No Dues Certificate' issued by Specified Officer vide OC No .rrr/zoz5 dated rr.o8.zoz5. iv. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule rrB of SEZ Rules , zoo6 and Instruction No. rr5 dated o9.o4.2o24 duly countersignature of DC, MEPZ. v. Checklist of Rule rrB in prescribed format, duly signed by Specified Officer and DC, MEPZ. 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 Z8o3.B Sq.mt. into Non-Processing Area for use by IT/ITES businesses as per Rule rrBof the SEZ (FifthAmendment) Rule, 2c.29. Recommendation by DC, D.{EPZT- The proposal of M/s. Span Venture SEZ, Coimbatore, the Developer for demarcation of 78o3.8 Sq.mtrs. built-up area as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule rr B of SEZ Rules is recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA. Page 44 of 104

batore, the Developer for demarcation of 78o3.8 Sq.mtrs. built-up area as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule rr B of SEZ Rules is recommended and forwarded for consideration of BoA. Page 44 of 104

r84.6(iv) Request of M/s Phoenix Tech zone Private Limited, Developer, for demarcation of sEZ Processing Built-up area 18,363.93 sq.mtr as Non-Processing Area -reg. Jurisdictional SEZ - Visakhapatnam SEZ (VSEZ) Facts of the case! No. Particulars Details 1 Name and address of the Developer M/s Phoenix Tech Zone Private Limited - IT/ITES SEZ, at Survey No. zogfP, Manikonda Jagir Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District - Sooo32 2 Letter of Approval No. and date Formal Approval No. F. r/25 I zor6-SEZ DT.r7 .oz.zot7 3 Date of Notification S. O. 9r9 (E), Dt. LT.oS.2oLT 4 Name of the sector ol SEZ for which approval has been given IT / ITES 5 Total Notified Area o{ Special Economic Zone (in Hectare) z.oz Hectares 6 Total Area Processing Area: z.oz Ha Non Processing Area: Nil 7 Details of Built-up area Tower Centaurus Building Area details Floors Net BUA in Sq.Mtrs Parking lOfEce Basement-3 t6,S68.lgl Basement-z 14,448.541 Basement-t 12,o55.571 z,zT6.Ss Stilt r (Ground floor) zrrSo.zol 5,656.6r Surface parking at Ground floor 1r5r+.5a1 Stilt z 7,8o3.3r1 286.5o Stilt 3 B,szs.zsl 59.52 Stilt 4 g,zT8.8Zl 59.52 Stilt 5 9,z7B.Bgl 59.52 stilt 6 9,278.891 86.r2 Level 1 -l 9,o42.s8 Level 2 -l 9,O42.58 Level S NPA already approved ) .l 9,o42.58 Level + (NPAAlready approved) I 9,O42.58 Level 5 -l 9,O42.58 Level 6 -l 9,O42.58 Page 45 of 104

6 9,278.891 86.r2 Level 1 -l 9,o42.s8 Level 2 -l 9,O42.58 Level S NPA already approved ) .l 9,o42.58 Level + (NPAAlready approved) I 9,O42.58 Level 5 -l 9,O42.58 Level 6 -l 9,O42.58 Page 45 of 104

,o42.58 -l g,o42.s8 Level B -l 9,o42.58 Level 9 -l 9,o42.58 Level ro I s,qs44 Level rr -l 9,039.64 Level rz -l 9,c39.64 Level 13 -l 9,c,g9.64 Level 14 I g,osg.64 Level 15 Level 16 -l 9,cg9.64 -l 9,cg9.64 Level 17 88S.t8 -l Terrace Total 9o,:lSB.aTl 469,o72.78 z,s3,8zs.g5 Sq. Mtrs. Gross Total 8 Total Built up area i. Processing Area: zr31r74o.79 Sq.Mtrs. ii. Non Processing Area: 18,o85.16 Sq.Mtrs a. BoA vide letter ro.F.tl z5l zot6-SEZ Dt.z3.o6.zoz5has approved for NPA. 3 Basements + 6 Stilts + r7 Upper floors 9 Total No. of Floors in the Building wherein demarcation of Non Processing Area is proposed Total BUA: 18,363.93 Sq.Mtrs t'tFloor: g,o4z.58 Sq. Mtrs - Office Floor & Stilt r/Ground Floor Parking & Amenities Areas: 9,Z2t.gS Sq.Mtrs 15,66+.24 Sq.Mtrs- Parking Area + 5,656.6r Sq.Mtrs Amenities Area like - lobbies & service area - For this area already refunded dutv benefits during rt NPAI 10 Total Built up area Proposed for demarcation of Non Processing Area for setting up of Non SEZ IT/ITES units. 11 How many floors are proposed for demarcation of Non Processing Area for setting up of NON SEZ ITIITES Units Two floors: t.tFloor Office Area & Stilt 1/ Ground Floor. L2 Total Duty benefits and Tax exemption availed on the built area proposed to be demarcated as Non Processing Area, as per Charted Engineers Certificate (In Rupees Cr)

Area & Stilt 1/ Ground Floor. L2 Total Duty benefits and Tax exemption availed on the built area proposed to be demarcated as Non Processing Area, as per Charted Engineers Certificate (In Rupees Cr) Total amount paid towards proposed NPA is: Rs.7,t4, 94,4r5l- To the tune of R. 3,5o,o5 ,4351- in r/o 1.t Floor consisting area of 9o4z.S8 Sq. Mtrs. and to the tune of Rs. t,4g,8g,t6o/- in r/o Parking area at Stilt l. UndenrB(SXi): Page 46 of 104

r/Ground Floor consisting area of 5,664.74 Sq. Mtrs. + Already paid the original tax/duty benefits to the tune of Rs. z,zo,99,8zof - for an area of 5,656.6t Sq.Mtrs of Stiltr/Ground Floor - for common areas including lobby, Iift lobbies, service areas, food courts, and other amenities etc., during conversion 1st NPA of area 18,o85.16 Sq. Mtrs, in terms of provisions of Rule rtB(5Xi) of SEZ Rules, zoo6 and the same was approved by BOA on 06.05.2025. uB(S)(ii): Already refunded duty benefits zt,5g,6g,77zl - for creation of infrastructure facilities of building, during conversion of 1't area 1 6 .Mtrs The following requisite documents have been submitted: Duly filled application in the format prescribed vide Instruction No. rr5 dated o9.o4.2o24, f.or demarcation of proposed built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, VSEZ. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 07.o8.2o2S of Shri M.L. Srinivasa Rao, Chartered Engineer Membership No.

oposed built-up Processing Area into Non- Processing Area and recommendation of DC, VSEZ. Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 07.o8.2o2S of Shri M.L. Srinivasa Rao, Chartered Engineer Membership No. M-rgsz5g-3, towards calculation of taxes / duty to be refunded by the Developer. ll refunded an amount of Rs.7,r4,g4,4r;l- NOC from Specified Officer. €S, 13 Whether duty benefits and tax exemptions availed has been refunded and NOC from specified officerhas been obtained tly, we have been able to secure client(s) in Non-SEZ space within our building ence, we have decided to convert the SEZ area to a on-SEZ area under Rule 11B conversron area area to non Reasons for demarcation of Non Processing Area. 15 Total remaining built-up area 2,t7,976.86 Sq. Mtrs [Office Area: r,30,288.43+ Parking Area: 82,o88.+Sl r6 Whether remaining built-up area fulfils the minimum built up area requirement as per Rule s of SEZ Rules,zoo6 Yes. Remaining built up area after approval of proposed demarcation is 2,17,526.86 Sq. Mtrs which is more than 5o% of total requirement of SEZ BUA. L7 Purpose and usage of such demarcation of NON PROCESSING AREA The area will be used for setting up and operating Non- SEZ units engaged in the IT / ITES sector. Page 47 of 104 L4

ment of SEZ BUA. L7 Purpose and usage of such demarcation of NON PROCESSING AREA The area will be used for setting up and operating Non- SEZ units engaged in the IT / ITES sector. Page 47 of 104 L4

iii. 'No Dues Certificate'issued by Specified Officer vide F.No. NIL dated October, 2025. iv. Certificate of Specified Officer in prescribed format, confirming refund of duty as per provisions of Rule rrB of SEZ Rules ,2c,c,6 and Instruction No. rr5 dated o9.o4.2o24 duly countersignature of DC, VSEZ. v. Checklist of Rule rrB 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 du$ / 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 18,363.93 Sq. Mtrs. into Non-Processing Area for use by IT/ITES businesses as per Rule rrB of the SEZ (Fifth Amendment) Rule, 2c.23. 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, Visakhapatnam SEZ:- Request of M/s. Phoenix Tech Zone Pvt. Ltd for demarcation for an area of "18,363.93" Sq. mtrs (go+2.S8. Sq.Mtrs of r st Floor + 9321.35 Sq.mtrs of Stilt r/Ground Floor) is duly recommended by the Development Commissioner, VSEZ and forwarded for consideration of BoA. Page 48 of 104

" Sq. mtrs (go+2.S8. Sq.Mtrs of r st Floor + 9321.35 Sq.mtrs of Stilt r/Ground Floor) is duly recommended by the Development Commissioner, VSEZ and forwarded for consideration of BoA. Page 48 of 104

Agenda Item No.r34.7: Miscellaneous [5 propo sal: r94.7(i)-r3+.2(v)] $4.7G) Request of M/s ONGC Petro additions Limited, a DTA unit for allowing them to use SEZ road network as an interim measure - reg. Jurisdictional SEZ: Dahej SEZ Facts of the Case: M/s ONGC Petro additions Limited, a DTA unit (earlier in Dahej SEZ) vide email dated z7.o8.zoz5 has requested for allowing OPaL to use SEZ road network as an interim measure. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: -

1. The rzTtt Unit Approval Committee vide meeting held on 06.c5.2c.25 had granted final exit approval to the unit. Accordingly, DAHEJ SEZ vide letter bearing F. No. KASEZ/P&CI6lz8lzoo7-o8lVol. IV dated 07.o9.2o25 issued exit order to the unit with certain terms and conditions imposed therein.
2. The Central Government had in exercise of powers conferred by second proviso to sub-section (r) of Section 4 of the SEZ Act, 2oo5 and in pursuance of Rule 8 of the SEZ Rules,2006 de-notified an area of 529.4586 Hectares of Dahej SEZ Ltd vide Notification dated o1.o5.2o25.
3. DAHEJ SEZ vide letter dated o1.o5.2o25 had requested the SO, Dahej SEZ and the Developer to take action as appropriate, and the same was placed below: - i. The Developer i.e. M/s Dahej SEZ Limited is requested to take necessary steps in order to make the SEZ boundary free from trespassing and close the entry and exit gates for M/s.

s placed below: - i. The Developer i.e. M/s Dahej SEZ Limited is requested to take necessary steps in order to make the SEZ boundary free from trespassing and close the entry and exit gates for M/s. ONGC Petro additions Limited. ii. The Specified Officer, Dahej SEZ is requested to ensure that the unit henceforth will not be able to use the SEZ premises anymore. iii. The unit M/s. ONGC Petro additions Limited shall not use the entry and exit gates of Dahej SEZ w.e.f o2.o5.2o25. 4. DAHEJ SEZ had received an email dated 27.o8.2o25 wherein, the firm had requested DC Office for movement of vehicles from the SEZ and the same was placed below: - "This is to bring to your kind attention an urgent matter regarding the mouement of uehicles and personnel to and from the OPaL plant at Dahej. As you may be eu)are, OPaL was preuiously operating os on SEZ untt but was grantedformal exit from SEZ utde order number KASEZ/P&C/6/zB/zoo7-o8/Vol. IV/689o dated 01.oS.2o2S. Post our SEZ exit, OPaL has been using an alternate route uia the GIDC road near Village Suua for uehicular and manpouer mouement, an MoU to use this road Post OPaL's SEZ extt was stgned between OPaL and GIDC in zozt. Howeuer, a Page 49 of 104

ernate route uia the GIDC road near Village Suua for uehicular and manpouer mouement, an MoU to use this road Post OPaL's SEZ extt was stgned between OPaL and GIDC in zozt. Howeuer, a Page 49 of 104

portion of this road is now under dispute between GIDC and Suua ViIIage, with Suua Gram Panchayat claiming it os Gauchar (graztng) land. The matter is currently sub judice, and recently, the Hon'ble Ciutl Court, Vagra has issued an intertm order infauour of Suua Gram Panchayat. Following this deuelopment, Suua Gram Panchayat has physically blocked a portion of the road, practically rendering the entire route non-functional for OPaL. As a result, all mouement of uehicles, material and personnel to OPaL has come to a standstill. On the other hand, GIDC is actiuely pursuing this matter through legal channels and it ts learnt that GIDC has also identified an alternate land to exchange wtth the existing disputed land; houteuer, the resolution may take some time. It is tmportant to note that OPaL is a critical petrochemical installation of national importance, being one of the largest petrochemical complexes in India. Our operations contribute significantlA to the country's economy, tndustrial supply chain, and employment. Moreouer, it ls Worth noting that our petrochemical plant is a conttnuous process plant which produces dffirent type of solid and liquid petrochemicals round the clock on a z4*7 basrs. Thus, constant euacuattonmust be guaranteed. There are monA products which are transported in specialized uehtcles under pressure and / or refrigeration conditton.

ls round the clock on a z4*7 basrs. Thus, constant euacuattonmust be guaranteed. There are monA products which are transported in specialized uehtcles under pressure and / or refrigeration conditton. Thus, trucks and uehicles cannot be made to wait as it endangers the population and enuironment alike. In a situatton where mouement is impacted due to a situation described aboue, it's important that an alternatiue route is made auailable on on urgent bcsrs. Any disrupttonof OPaL'suehicle/ material / menmouement,tuould result in a significant financiol /oss to the company/ exchequer and may also delay important aid in case of any emergency situatton ushich couldfurther lead to a potential disastrous tncident. Hence we requested the DSL authorities including august office of Hon DC of SEZ to permit mouement of our material uehicles and personnel uehicle mouement as a special case during ongotng emergencA situationuntil the district administration resolues the issue at the GIDC road, the only route auail be to us at the moment". 5. Subsequently, the Collector and District Magistrate, Bharuch vide letter dated z8.o8.zoz5 had requested DAHEJ SEZ to permit OPaL to use the SEZ road network as an interim measure until the dispute is resolved. The contents of the letter are placed below: - "This is with reference to the request from the Managing Director, ONGC Petro additions Ltd. (OPaL), regarding the difficulties being faced by the company in vehicular and manpower movement to and from its plant at Dahej. Page 50 of 104

from the Managing Director, ONGC Petro additions Ltd. (OPaL), regarding the difficulties being faced by the company in vehicular and manpower movement to and from its plant at Dahej. Page 50 of 104

6 At present, OPaL has been utilizing the GIDC road for its regular operations. However, it has been brought to our notice that a small stretch of this road near Village Suva remains incomplete, as the matter is currently sub judice due to a dispute between Suva Gram Panchayat and GIDC. In view of this dispute, OPaL is unable to use the said stretch of road and has informed that there is no other viable alternative route for its vehicular movement. The company has further explained that its plant operates on a continuous 24x7 basis, producing a wide range of solid and liquid petrochemical products, many of which require specialized vehicles under pressurized or refrigerated conditions for safe transportation. Any delay in evacuation not only disrupts operations but also poses potential safety and environmental risks. Considering the above, it is imperative that an alternate passage be provided to ensure uninterrupted plant operations. Therefore, it is requested that OPaL may kindly be permitted, as an interim measure, to use the SEZ road network until the dispute is resolved". Thereafter, the case of the firm was placed before the r3znd UAC held on 29.c,8.2c.25 for consideration.

permitted, as an interim measure, to use the SEZ road network until the dispute is resolved". Thereafter, the case of the firm was placed before the r3znd UAC held on 29.c,8.2c.25 for consideration. Shri Gurinder Singh, MD, M/s ONGC Petro additions Limited, appeared before the r3znd Unit Approval Committee through WEBEX video conference and briefly explained the circumstances which led to the emergency situation (including reasons for road closure, attempts made by them to resolve the issue, approaching district administration for early resolution etc.) and pleaded before the UAC to consider their request as this is the only option available to them. The contents of the UAC deliberations are placed below:- a. The committee heard the request of the firm and took cognizance of the letter dated z8.o8.zoz5 received from the Collector and District Magistrate, Bharuch. Since this is an emergency situation and any inaction may lead to human/environmental disaster resulting into loss of human lives, hence in order to normalize the situation and to ensure smooth functioning of the OPaLplant, the committee decidedto provide an interim relief measure to the firm subject to condition that M/s ONGC Petro additions Limited shall approach the BoA for consideration of their request. b. The Approval Committee after detailed discussion unanimously decided to provide an interim relief to M/s ONGC Petro additions Limitedby allowing them to use the road network of the Dahej SEZ. The firm is directed to strive for early resolution of the issue. c.

decided to provide an interim relief to M/s ONGC Petro additions Limitedby allowing them to use the road network of the Dahej SEZ. The firm is directed to strive for early resolution of the issue. c. The r32"d UAC had granted interim relief to the firm subject to following compliances and the same are placed below: - M/s ONGC Petro additions Limited shall maintain Registers at both the gates having details of time of entry and exit of vehicles, Page 51 of 104

name of material etc. Additionally, two Security personnel shall also be deployed 24XT by them at both the gates of the SEZ at their own cost. ii. M/s ONGC Petro additions Limited shall submit a Legal Undertaking clearly stating that neither the raw material nor the finished goods/scrap/waste shall be diverted or sold, directly or indirectly, to any unit located in the Dahej SEZ. In case of any violation to this undertaking, established at any point of time, M/s ONGC Petro additions Limited shall pay a penalty amount equivalent to five times the value of the goods. iii. Smooth movement of vehicles on the SEZ road network used by OPaL shall be the responsibility of OPaL. Gate No. z of OPaL shall be used for movement of their manpower and Gate No. 4 of OPaL shall be used for movement of materials. iv. The movement of the material/equipment shall not cause any hindrance to movement of traffic of the SEZ units, disturbance of any sort to the SEZ units, or any other impact on SEZ operations in any manner.

ovement of the material/equipment shall not cause any hindrance to movement of traffic of the SEZ units, disturbance of any sort to the SEZ units, or any other impact on SEZ operations in any manner. In this regard, the firm shall also submit an undertaking duly notarized and clearly stating that any damage (including infrastructure, man, material, plant, road and other assets of Dahej SEZ or of any other units) if occurred by the vehicles or activities of OPaL either directly or indirectly, the same shall be borne entirely by OPaL. If DSL undertakes the restoration work, then the cost incurred by DSL shall be paid by the OPaL. v. In case of any incident of fire, loss, damage, theft, pilferage of any materials, equipment and goods, caused by movement of the vehicles of OPaL, the matter should be immediately reported to the SO, Dahej SEZ. In this regard, the firm shall also submit an undertaking duly notarized and clearly stating that in case of loss, damage, theft, pilferage of any materials, equipment and goods of Dahej SEZ or any other unit, the same shall be borne entirely by OPaL vi. M/s ONGC Petro additions Limited shall submit an undertaking clearly stating that in case of rejection of their request by the BoA, they shall pay user charges as decided by the UAC. vii. M/s ONGC Petro additions Limited shall submit the approval letter from the BoA on or before 3rst October,2o2S to the DC, Dahej SEZ. In case of failure, the interim relief approved by the UAC, shall stand cancelled and the user charges as per condition at Sr. No.

er from the BoA on or before 3rst October,2o2S to the DC, Dahej SEZ. In case of failure, the interim relief approved by the UAC, shall stand cancelled and the user charges as per condition at Sr. No. 6 above will be recovered from them. M/s ONGC Petro additions Limited was directed to submit undertakings above at Sr. No. 2,4, 5 & 6 to the DC, Dahej SEZwithin o7 days of receipt of the UAC decision. Recommendation by DC, Dahej SEZz - The Proposal of M/s ONGC Petro additions Limited being forwarded to the BoA for consideration. Page 52 of 104

84.7Gi) Proposal of M/s ANSR Global Corporation Private Limited, Co-Developer in M/s. Manyata Embassy Business Park SEZ for IT/ITES in Villages Rachenahalli, Nagavara and Tanisandra, Bangalore District, Karnataka, for partial surrender of built-up area to the Developer. Jurisdictional SEZ - Cochin SEZ (CSEZ) Facts of the case: M/s ANSR Global Corporation Private Limited, Co-Developer in M/s. Manyata Embassy Business Park SEZ for IT/ITES in Villages Rachenahalli, Nagavara and Tanisandra, Bangalore District, Karnataka, seeking decrease in area/ partial surrender of area of 9o,rr4 Sq.ft. of its vacant land area in the SEZ and that proposed surrender area would be handed over to the Developer M/s. Manyata Embassy Business Park SEZ for IT/ITES in, Karnataka to allocate to the other allottees. Name of the Developer M/s.

and that proposed surrender area would be handed over to the Developer M/s. Manyata Embassy Business Park SEZ for IT/ITES in, Karnataka to allocate to the other allottees. Name of the Developer M/s. Manyata Embassy Business Park SEZ Sector IT/ ITES Location Villages Rachenahalli, Nagavara and Tanisandra, Bangalore District, Karnataka LoA issued on (date) F.z196lzoo5-EPZ dated t6th June, 2c,c,6 Name of Co-developer M/s ANSR Global Corporation Private Limited Area of SEZ 19.r99r Ha Area with co-developer 3zr5z5 sq.ft Proposal for Partial Surrender of area: - M/s ANSR Global Corporation Private Limited was issued Letter of Approval No.F.z/96- zOOS-EpZ dated r4th December 2oLZ as a Co-Developer for undertaking the authorized operations of conversion of bare shell buildings into warm shell buildings and to lease the built-up space of 5z,3or sq.ft. Subsequently, BoA has granted approval for enhancement of area as detailed below:- S. No. Built-up area approved Approval No. & Date 1. 523o1 No. F.z/96/zoo5-EPZ dI. t4.tz.2ol7 2 64o9o No. F.z/96 lzoo5-EPZ dt. r5.oz.zor8 3 9otL4 No. F.z/96/zoo5-EPZ dt. 16.o4.2o18 4 115O2O No. F.z/96 I zoo5-EPZ dt. or.ro.2o18 Total 32L525 The net area with the Co-developer is .q,zt,szs sq.ft. Page 53 of 104

6 lzoo5-EPZ dt. r5.oz.zor8 3 9otL4 No. F.z/96/zoo5-EPZ dt. 16.o4.2o18 4 115O2O No. F.z/96 I zoo5-EPZ dt. or.ro.2o18 Total 32L525 The net area with the Co-developer is .q,zt,szs sq.ft. Page 53 of 104

I lt Now, the Co-Developer vide letters dated L8.o7.2o24, 06.08.29.24 & 19- o9.2o24has requested for partial surrender of go;t4 sq.ft. built-up area at znd & 4th Floors of Lr building to the Developer in connection with the business requirement and retaining, the Co-Developer status with z,3t,4rr sq.ft. area at Gg (znd & 3rd Floors), Hz (3rd Floor), Lt (t't, 3.d & Sth Floors). The Specified Officer of the SEZ, vide letter dated 7th August 2o2S has issued No Due Certificate and certified that the Co- Developer vide Challan No.458 S4oorTo dated 2t.or.2o21 has refunded an amount of Rs.r,34,9g,Tg2l- (Rupees One crore thirfy four lakh ninety nine thousand seven hundred ninety two only) towards duty/tax exemptions availed. ln this connection, the Co-Developer has submitted the following documents:- "No Objection Certificate" issued by the Developer, M/s. Manyata Promoters Private Limited for Surrender of space "No Dues Certificate" issued by Specified Officer Recommendation by DC, CSEZ: - The proposal M/s ANSR Global Corporation Private Limited for surrender of go,r14 sq.ft. built-up area in the znd & 4th Floors of Lr building of SEZ has been recommended and forwarded for consideration of the BoA. Page 54 of 104

Corporation Private Limited for surrender of go,r14 sq.ft. built-up area in the znd & 4th Floors of Lr building of SEZ has been recommended and forwarded for consideration of the BoA. Page 54 of 104

B4.Xiii) Request of M/s. Allwin Medical Devices hrt. Ltd. Plot No. zzr, zz3 & ZJo, Surat SEZ for Change of Directors as well as Share Holding Pattern - Reg. Jurisdictional SE.Z - Surat SEZ Facts of the case: They have submitted following documents in support of the aforesaid change: - r. Copy of ROC; z. Copy of Share Holding Pattern; 3. Copy of IEC Certificate; 4. Copy of Resolution for authorised signatory; 5. Copy of last 3 years ITRs of new director; 6. Undertaking for sale or transfer of shares. Z. Audit Report of M/s Esco Technologies (Asia) PTE Ltd. The list of continuing and new directors as per given documents are as under:- . tro.Fvime of the Directolq (Shrvqnqt. Current Status [nirenvra:tatnletrta 1 Director Rameshwarlal Sharma lNewr]..* 3. [YaeFoons Low T ew Director ian Lin lNew Director 5. shankerOza lcontin uing Director The tist of Share Holders as per given Documents are as under:- Name of the Unit lvf/s aUwin Medical Devices hrt. Ltd. Location of the unit lplot No. 22r,22g & z3o at Surat SEZ, Sachin Date of Letter Approval "ff roe No. ssEZ/ rt I zo I zoo6-oz I z++Sdated 2s.o7.2oo1 ty allowed unit activity of Medical Devices, Like Stents, Dilators, Baskets, Pneumatic & Sheaths, Needles, Guidewires, Sets, Forceps, Ports etc.

roe No. ssEZ/ rt I zo I zoo6-oz I z++Sdated 2s.o7.2oo1 ty allowed unit activity of Medical Devices, Like Stents, Dilators, Baskets, Pneumatic & Sheaths, Needles, Guidewires, Sets, Forceps, Ports etc. and of Medical Devices Date of commencement of operation o7.o4.zoo8 Request Change of Directors as well as Share Holding Pattern One of the proposed Shareholder viz. M/s Esco Technologies (Asia) Pte. Ltd. is a foreign entity holding 8o%o share in M/s Allwin Medical Devices Issue involved Page 55 of 104 lContinuins

Sr. No.lName of the Share Holders (Shri/Smt.) % of Share Holders 1 lEsco Technologies (Asia) Pte. Ltd (ETA) I 8o.oo o lHarsha Mehta B.g+ 3. loisistr D. Mehta 4.7r 4. lrriral D. Mehta 4.7r lOhiren Mehta Family Trust 1.63 Total 99.99 Legal Position:- As one of the proposed Shareholder i.e. M/s. Esco Technologies (Asia) Pte. Ltd. (ETA), is a foreign entity holding 8o% shares in M/s. Allwin Medical Devises Pr,t. Ltd.; this case falls within the competency of "Board of Approval" (BoA) in terms of section q(zxc) of the Special Economic ZoneAct, zoo5;which states as under:- "section g(z)(c):- granting of approual to the Deueloper or units (other than the Deueloper or the Units which are exemptfrom obtaining approual under Iaw or by the Central Gouernment) for foretgn collaborations end foretgn directinuestments (including inuestmentsby apersonresident outside India), in the special Economic Zone for ffs deuelopment, operatton and meintenence" Performance of the SEZ unit (M/s. Allwin Medical Devices hrt.

nts (including inuestmentsby apersonresident outside India), in the special Economic Zone for ffs deuelopment, operatton and meintenence" Performance of the SEZ unit (M/s. Allwin Medical Devices hrt. Ltd.):- The Performance of the Unit from the year zotg-2o to 2o2S-24 as per Annual Performance Reports is as under:- The unit is currently providing emplo5rment to 224 persons. Rule Position Instruction No. ro9 of this Department, inter-alia, provides that reorganization including change of name, change of shareholding, business transfer agreement, etc. may be undertaken by the Unit Approval Committee subject to the condition that the Page 56 of 104 Financial Year Export (Rs. in lakhs) Import (Rs. in lakhs) NFE (Rs. in lakhs) 2Ot9-2O ro45.96 263.95 7Bz.ot 2020-21 roz6.98 SS6.z6 69o.72 2021-22 tz93.z8 329.69 963.59 2022-23 3572.52 571.54 3ooo.g8 2023-24 4545.85 745.99 3799.86 Total gz37.16 5.

Developer/ Co-Developer/ Unit shall not opt out or exit out of the SEZ and continues to operate as a going concern.

.59 2022-23 3572.52 571.54 3ooo.g8 2023-24 4545.85 745.99 3799.86 Total gz37.16 5.

Developer/ Co-Developer/ Unit shall not opt out or exit out of the SEZ and continues to operate as a going concern. AII liabilities of the Developer/ Co-Developer/ Unit shall remain unchanged on such reorganization. Section g (zxc) of SEZ Act, zoo5 stated that the power of BoA shall include granting of approval to the Developer or Units (other than the Developer or the Units which are exempt from obtaining approval under any law or by the Central Government) for foreign collaborations and foreign direct investments (including investments by a person resident outside India), in the Special Economic Zone for its development, operation and maintenance. In addition, as per Para 5.2.27.2 of Consolidated FDI Policy of DPIIT effective from 15.10.2o2o, GovernmentApproval is requiredfor FDI beyond 74o/oin 'Pharmaceutical

• Brownfield' sector. Further, it appears that as per the Note under the said Para of the FDI Policy, FDI up to Looyo, under the automatic route is permitted for manufacturing of medical devices. Comments from Other Departments: The proposal of the unit was shared with various departments for their comments which have been received as under: Department Comments DPIIT i. As per para 5.2.27.r of the Consolidated FDI Policy dated 15.1o.2o2o, as amended from time to time (FDI Policy), FDI in the Greenfield Pharmaceuticals sector is up to too%o under the automatic route. ii.

er para 5.2.27.r of the Consolidated FDI Policy dated 15.1o.2o2o, as amended from time to time (FDI Policy), FDI in the Greenfield Pharmaceuticals sector is up to too%o under the automatic route. ii. FDI in the Brownfield Pharmaceuticals sector is permitted up to 74% wder the automatic route and beyond 74%to too%o under the Government route [Para 5.2.27.2 of FDI Policyl. iii. M/s Allwin Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd was granted approval to set up manufacturing activity of medical devices. Further, M/s Esco Technologies (Asia) Pte. Ltd, Singapore (New Shareholder) has purchased 8o% shares of the unit. As per the FDI Policy fNote to Para 5.2.27.5 ], FDI up to too%o, under the automatic route, is permitted in the manufacturing of medical devices. iv. In this regard, it may be noted that Para 4.r.8 of FDI Policy stipulates that: "The monitoring of the compliance of conditions under the FDI approvals, including the past cases approved by the Government, shall be done by the concerned Administrative Ministries/Departments." Hence. the matter malz be referred and comments/ inputs be sought from the Administrative Dept i.e DoP. v. Further, following signed Press Note 3 [reference to Para g.r.r of FDI Policyl related declarations/undertakin$ Page 57 of 104

and comments/ inputs be sought from the Administrative Dept i.e DoP. v. Further, following signed Press Note 3 [reference to Para g.r.r of FDI Policyl related declarations/undertakin$ Page 57 of 104

(as per the requirements of Annexure 1, Operating Procedure dated 17.oB.zoz3) sought: "None of the inuestors/shareholders of t, Indian Inuestee comPonA and the foreign inuestor(s), including their respectiue beneficial ou)ners any percentag e of shareholding), are situated in or cttizen(s) of country(ies) sharing land border India." Recommendation of the DC, Surat SE,Zz' The rroth Unit Approval Committee observed that this case involves FDI and therefore falls within the competency of "Board of Approval" in terms of the Section - g(zXc) of the SEZ Act, zoo5: - as one of the proposed Shareholder i.e. M/s. Esco Technologies (Asia) Pte. Ltd. (ETA), is a foreign entity which would hold 8o% shares in the SEZ unit i.e. M/s. Allwin Medical Devises hrt. Ltd. Therefore, the Committee, after due deliberations, decided to transfer the proposal to the Board of Approval for consideration. Department Pharmaceuticals of DoP has conveyed that M/s Allwin Limited shall comply with para 5.2.27 Consolidated FDI Policy 2o2o IEDI Policy 6(a) and Sl.

to the Board of Approval for consideration. Department Pharmaceuticals of DoP has conveyed that M/s Allwin Limited shall comply with para 5.2.27 Consolidated FDI Policy 2o2o IEDI Policy 6(a) and Sl. No 16.z of Schedule I to Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019, as amended from lime to time IFEM NDI Rules] and/or any other provision(s)/Rules of the FDI Policy/FEM NDI Rules, as lppHcable, for transfer of their shares/business/ownership to Medical Devices Private and para g.r.r (a) of the] I read with Rule foreign entities. Undertaking Unit from the foreign inu estor(s), including owners (hauing anA percentage situated in or are citizen(s) of country(ies) border with India.", ha.s been submitted ore declaring "None of the Undertaking submitted Indian Inuestee companY and inu estor s / shareholder s of the their resp ectiu e beneficial of shareholding), sharing land Page 58 of 104

rg+.Z$v) Request of M/s. R. N. Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. r & 86, rr3-tr8, LS7-L4o &r42, Surat SEZ for Transfer of Ownership/Business Transfer/Sale of Company from M/s R. N. Laboratories hrt. Ltd to M/s Garonit Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Jurisdictional SE.Z - Surat SEZ Facts of the case: Name of the Unit lvf/s n. N. Laboratories hrt. Ltd Location of unit No r & 86, rr3-rr9, rg7-r4o &r4z at Surat SEZ, Sachin th'lrto. Date of Letter Approval "lrce No.

E.Z - Surat SEZ Facts of the case: Name of the Unit lvf/s n. N. Laboratories hrt. Ltd Location of unit No r & 86, rr3-rr9, rg7-r4o &r4z at Surat SEZ, Sachin th'lrto. Date of Letter Approval "lrce No. SSEZ/ S-sols+8/zoo6-o7/1378 dated 3r.o5.zoo6 and trading activities of various chemical/ ticals "Manufacturing activity of (t) Chlorhexidine Gloconate o% (z) Chlorhexidine Base, (g) Chlorhexidine Hydrochloride, +) Chlorhexidine Acetate, (S) Chlorhexidine Gloconate 5% ution, (6) Chlorhexidine Gloconate +% Solution, (Z) orhexidine Gloconate r.5% Cetrimide 15% Solution, (8) Iodine ro% Topical Solution, (9) Glutaraidehyde z% olution, (ro) Povidone lodine, (tt) Calcium Iodate ITC-z9zggo3o, (tz) Calcium odate Anhydrous ITC-28299o3o, (r3) Potassium Iodate ITC- 8299o3o, (r4) Potassium lodate ITC-z8zT6oto, (r5) Sodium Activity allowed the unit ITC-z8z76ozo, (16) Potassium Iodate Stabilised ITC- 8z76oro, (r7) Cetrimide 4o% Solution, Antibacterial and bgocodal Disinfectant Formulations, Glucosamine Sodium te Chloride(zg4zoogo), Glucosamine Sulphate Chloride(z gzz5ogo).

Iodate Stabilised ITC- 8z76oro, (r7) Cetrimide 4o% Solution, Antibacterial and bgocodal Disinfectant Formulations, Glucosamine Sodium te Chloride(zg4zoogo), Glucosamine Sulphate Chloride(z gzz5ogo). Glucosamine Hydrochloride ,), NADG (N-Acetyl-D-Glucosamine (z93zzozo), icotine(M3) (2939 rgoo), Ortho-Glucosamine NADG(N-Acetyl-D- 990), amine(z93zzozo), Octanidine Dihydro phthaladehyde (z9rzzg9o)"and z94zoo9o), activity of r) Glucosamine Hydrochloride Powder ggztggo), z) Glucono Delta Lactone(zggzzogo), 3) Glycerin .7 pot US(z9oS+5oo), 4) Micro Crystaline Cellulose MCC o(39rzrr9o), S) Ketoconazole(3oo49orr), 6) Miconazole trate USP(zggszggo) in LOA dated 31.05.2006 as amended time to time. 2932L99o te of1 olzs .o5.zoo8 ITransfer lfrom M/ lPvt. Ltd. of Ownership/ Business Transfer/ Sale of Company s R. N. Laboratories to M/s Garonit Pharmaceuticals Page 59 of 104

Issue involved o Proposed shareholder M/s Garonit Pharmaceuticals hrt. Ltd. is a foreign entityholding 99.99"/" shares. Further, the proposed FDI does not fall under the automatie route as per DPIIT FDI policy. o Further, they have submitted following documents in support of the aforesaid changes: - r. Copy of AOA & COI & FDI Proposal; z. Undertakings regarding Lease of Land, Sale or Transfer transactions & Transfer fulfils all eligibility criteria applicable to a Unit; 3. Audit Report & Audited Balance Sheet of M/s Garonit Pharmaceuticals hrt. Ltd; 4. Copy of PAN Card & Aadhar Card of all Directors; S. Copy of Company Pan Card; 6. List of Share Holders; 7.Copy of IEC; 8.

it Report & Audited Balance Sheet of M/s Garonit Pharmaceuticals hrt. Ltd; 4. Copy of PAN Card & Aadhar Card of all Directors; S. Copy of Company Pan Card; 6. List of Share Holders; 7.Copy of IEC; 8. ITR Copies of all Directors The list of directors & Share Holding Pattern as per given documents are as under: - Sr-wo.EVame of the Directors ( 1. fnonitsnyamcarg I lDirector 2 lDirector 3 lDarshan Harish Bhawsar lDirector 4. lsanket Dhondiraj Sawant lDirector The list of Share Holders as p[er given Documents are as under:- Sr. No.lName of the Share Holders (Shri/Sm!) % of Share Holders 1 lcaronit Delaware Ltd 99.999% 2. lDarshan Bhawsar O.OOOIYI Legal Position: As one of the proposed Shareholder i.e. M/s. Garonit Delware Ltd., is a foreign entity holding 99.99o/o shares in M/s. R. N. Laboratories hrt. Ltd.; this case falls within the competency of "Board of Approval" (BoA) in terms of section g(zxc) of the Special Economic ZoneAct, zoo5; which states as under: - Page 50 of 104

. Laboratories hrt. Ltd.; this case falls within the competency of "Board of Approval" (BoA) in terms of section g(zxc) of the Special Economic ZoneAct, zoo5; which states as under: - Page 50 of 104

"Section g(z)(c):- granting of approual to the Deueloper or Units (other than the Deueloper or the Untts which are exemptfrom obtoining approual under law or by the Central Gouernment) for foreign collaborations and foreign directinuestments (including inuestmentsby apersonresident outside India), in the Special Economic Zone for its deuelopment, operation and maintenance" Performance of the SEZ Unit (M/s. R. N. Laboratories hrt. Ltd.):- The Performance of the Unit from the year 2otg-zo to zozg-24 as per Annual Performance Reports is as under: - The unit is currently providing employment to 254 persons Rule Position Instruction No. ro9 of this Department, inter-alia, provides that reorganization including change of name, change of shareholding, business transfer agreement, etc. may be undertaken by the Unit Approval Committee subject to the condition that the Developer/ Co-Developer/ Unit shall not opt out or exit out of the SEZ and continues to operate as a going concern.

may be undertaken by the Unit Approval Committee subject to the condition that the Developer/ Co-Developer/ Unit shall not opt out or exit out of the SEZ and continues to operate as a going concern. All liabilities of the Developer/ Co-Developer/ Unit shall remain unchanged on such reorganization. Section g (zxc) of SEZ Act, 2oo5 stated that the power of BoA shall include granting of approval to the Developer or Units (other than the Developer or the Units which are exempt from obtaining approval under any law or by the Central Government) for foreign collaborations and foreign direct investments (including investments by a person resident outside India), in the Special Economic Zone for its development, operation and maintenance. In addition, as per Para 5.2.27.2 of Consolidated FDI Policy of DPIIT effective from 15.1o.2o2o, Government Approval is required for FDI beyond 74% in 'Pharmaceutical

• Brownfield' sector. Further, it appears that as per the Note under the said Para of the FDI Policy, FDI up to too%o,under the automatic route is permitted for manufacturing of medical devices. Comments from Other Departments: The proposal of the unit was shared with various departments for their comments which have been received as under: Financial Year Export (Rs. in lakhs) Import (Rs. in lakhs) NFE (Rs. in lakhs) 20L9-20 11186.4z 5403.29 5783.13 2020-27 14733.o4 7C56.49 z6z6.ss 2021-22 6sgs.og 27L7.27 s9zz.Sz 2O22-23 LOr34.26 S8Sz.z 4goz.o6 2O23-24 9824.4 g833.rr 599r.29 Total zz6to.8s Page 61 of 104

lakhs) 20L9-20 11186.4z 5403.29 5783.13 2020-27 14733.o4 7C56.49 z6z6.ss 2021-22 6sgs.og 27L7.27 s9zz.Sz 2O22-23 LOr34.26 S8Sz.z 4goz.o6 2O23-24 9824.4 g833.rr 599r.29 Total zz6to.8s Page 61 of 104

Department Comments DPIIT i As per pata 5.2.27.tof the Consolidated FDI Policyl dated 15.1o.2o2o, as amended from time to time (FDI Policy), FDI in the Greenfield Pharmaceuticals sector is up to too%o under the automatic route. ii. FDI in the Brownfield Pharmaceuticals sector is permitted up to 7{% under the automatic route and beyond 74%to too96 under the Government route [Para 5.2.27.2 of FDI Policyl. iii. M/s R. N. Laboratories hrt. Ltd has entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with M/s Garonit Pharmaceuticals P\rt. Ltd. (Garonit Pharma), whereby the SEZ business undertaking of RNL is proposed to be transferred to Garonit Pharma on a slump sale basis. Garonit Pharma is stated to be a 9g.9go/o subsidiary of a foreign entity namely M/s Garonit Delaware Limited. It is observed that M/s Garonit Pharmaceuticals Private Limited has been granted FDI approval (up to roo%) by the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) vide letter dated z8.o5.zoz4. In this regard, it may be noted that Para 4.r.8 of FDI Policy stipulates that: "The monitoring of the compliance of conditions under the FDI approvals, including the past cases approved by the Government, shall be done by the concerned Administrative Ministries/Departments." Hence, the matter maybe referred and comments/ inputs be sought from the Administrative Dept i.e DoP. iv.

ved by the Government, shall be done by the concerned Administrative Ministries/Departments." Hence, the matter maybe referred and comments/ inputs be sought from the Administrative Dept i.e DoP. iv. Further, following signed Press Note 3 [reference to Para 3.r.r of FDI Policyl related declarations/undertakings (as per the requirements of Annexure r, Standard Operating Procedure dated 17.o8.zozg) may be sought: "None of the inuestors/shareholders of the Indian Inuestee companA and the foreign inuestor(s), including thetr respectiue beneficial owners (hauing anA percentage of shareholding), are situated in or are citizen(s) of country(ies) sharing land border taith Indta." Department Pharmaceuticals of DoP has conveyed that M/s R.N. Laboratories Private Limited shall comply with para 5.2.22 and para 3.r.r (a) of the Consolidated FDI Policy 2o2o IEDI Policy] read with Rule 6(a) and Sl. No t6.z of Schedule I to Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules,zotg, as amended from time to time IFEM NDI Rules] and/or any other provision(s)/Rules of the FDI Policy/FEM NDI Rules, as applicable, for transfer of their shares/business/ownership to foreign entities. Page 62 of 104

m time to time IFEM NDI Rules] and/or any other provision(s)/Rules of the FDI Policy/FEM NDI Rules, as applicable, for transfer of their shares/business/ownership to foreign entities. Page 62 of 104

ndertaking nit Undertaking submitted declaring "None of inu e s t or s / shar eholder s of the Indian Inuestee companA the foreign inuestor(s), including their respectiue ou)ners (hauing lnA percentage of shareholding) situated in or are cittzen(s) of country(tes) sharing border with India." has been submitted Recommendation of the DC, Surat SEZ:- It is pertinent to mention here that although the Unit has obtained FDI approval from Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers (Department of Pharmaceuticals), but at the same time the proposed FDI does not fall under the automatic route as per DPIIT FDI policy. Therefore, the Committee, after due deliberations, decided to transfer the proposal to the Board of Approval for consideration. Page 53 of 104 The rroth Unit Approval Committee observed that this case involves FDI and therefore falls within the competency of "Board of Approval" in terms of the Section -g(zXc) of the SEZ Act, 2oo5: as one of the proposed Shareholder i.e. M/s. Garonit Delware Ltd., is a foreign entity which would hold 99.99% shares in the SEZ unit i.e. M/s. R. N. Laboratories hrt. Ltd.

Xc) of the SEZ Act, 2oo5: as one of the proposed Shareholder i.e. M/s. Garonit Delware Ltd., is a foreign entity which would hold 99.99% shares in the SEZ unit i.e. M/s. R. N. Laboratories hrt. Ltd.

rS4.Z(v) Hanung Toys & Textiles Limited - Revival/ renewal of LOA/ sick uniq modification in authorized operations; renewal of lease deed pursuant to NCLT Order dated z8.oz.zoz4 Jurisdictional SE,Z - Noida SEZ (NSEZ) Facts of the case: M/s. Hanung Toys & Textiles Limited was granted LOA No.oB/oB/9o-NEPZ Dated 1o.o5.199o, as amended time-to-time, for manufacturing & export of ' t) Toys of aII kinds including Stuffed Toys, Bags, Powder, Puffs, Textile Fabric Sleeper, Furnishings & Made [Jps,Rugs and Sleeping Bags; z) Steel Frame Chair; fl Trading Actiutttes; 4) Apron, Pot Holder and Wouen Mitt'. Unit commenced the production on t5lorlrggr.The LOA was valid upto 3r/oglzozr. As per the available records, the unit is not doing any export activities since zot6. Unit was allotted Plot No. 1oB, 1o9, 11o, 111& rz5, NSEZ. 2. M/s. Hanung Toys & Textiles Ltd. was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Hon'ble NCLT, New Delhi Bench, vide its order dated 28.02.2024, approved the Resolution Plan submitted by M/s Cyfuture India Pvt. Ltd. The Resolution Professional has been directed to hand over all records, premises, and properties of the corporate debtor to M/s Cyfuture India P\rt. Ltd. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Resolution Professional of M/s. Hanung Toys & Textiles Ltd.

directed to hand over all records, premises, and properties of the corporate debtor to M/s Cyfuture India P\rt. Ltd. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Resolution Professional of M/s. Hanung Toys & Textiles Ltd. vide its letter dt. o7.o5.2o24 intimated NSEZ that Adjudicating Authority, NCLT Delhi has approved the Resolution Plan of M/s Hanung Toys & Textiles Ltd. submitted by M/s Cyfuture India hrt. Ltd. which shall be binding to all stakeholders of company. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta vide his email dated zzlo5lzoz5 further informed that the company went under Insolvency Resolution Process bythe order dated 283.2otg by order of Hon'ble NCLT under provision of Insolvency & Bankruptcy code, zo16 which has superseded all other acts and regulations. That said process was delayed on account of stay but later clearedby Hon'ble SC in Jv,ly zozz. Therefore CIRP was revived on 9.9.zozz and Hon'ble High Court, Delhi directed OL to the Official liquidator to handover the company to Resolution Professional by its order dated 28.9.2022. Then the process was recommended. The Entire CIPR period is under Moratorium. S. M/s Hanung Toys & Textiles Limited vide its letter dt. r4lo9l2o2S, received in NSEZ on r8lo8lzoz5, has submitted application for revival / renewal and modification of authorised operation in LOA dated rolo5lrggo. The unit has submitted following: - (i). Acquisition under IBC Proceedings Cyfuture India Pvt. Ltd. has lawfully acquired Hanung Toys & Textile Ltd. pursuant to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), zot6, vide the Hon'ble Page 64 of 104

cquisition under IBC Proceedings Cyfuture India Pvt. Ltd. has lawfully acquired Hanung Toys & Textile Ltd. pursuant to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), zot6, vide the Hon'ble Page 64 of 104

National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, Order dated z8th February 2c.24 in CP (IB) No. gglPBlzorS. . The said order approved our Resolution Plan, vesting full control, management, and ownership of Hanung Toys & Textile Ltd. in Cyfuture India hrt. Ltd. . A certified copy of the NCLT Order is enclosed. (ii). Background and Present Status Hanung Toys & Textile Ltd. was a sick unit and remains under ongoing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). All legacy company data and records are in CBI custody. Consequently, only limited historical information is available to us from residual records, which confirm the existence of the above LOA. (iii). Request for Renewal The unit has applied for renewal of the existing LOA for the aforementioned plots to enable lawful continuation of operations under NSEZ regulations. The unit has confirmed that all NSEZ dues and obligations as per the approved Resolution Plan and NCLT directives have been discharged. (iv). Modification of Authorized Operations The unit has stated that erstwhile operations of manufacturing stuffed soft toys are proposed to be lawfully substituted with IT and IT Enabled Services (ITES), consistent with their core business activities.

e deed of M/s. Hanung Toys & Textiles Limited are forwarded herewith with the recommendation of the Approval Committee, NSEZ for revival of LOA in terms of Rule 7z of SEZ Rules, zoo6. Page 75 of 104

Agenda Item No.r34.8: Appeal [B cases: r34.8(i) - rg+.8(iii)] Rule position: - In terms of the rule 55 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, anA person aggrieued by an order passed by the Approual Committee under sectton 15 or against cancellation of Letter of Approualunder section t6,may prefer an appealto the Boardinthe Form J. Further, in terms of rule 56, an appeal shall be preferred by the aggrieued person within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of the Approual Committee under rule tB. Furthermore, if the Board is satisfied that the appellant had suffictent causefor 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-fiue days from the date oJ communication to him of the order of the Approual Committee. Page75 of 104

riting, admit the appeal after the expiry of the aforesaid period but before the expiry of forty-fiue days from the date oJ communication to him of the order of the Approual Committee. Page75 of 104

84.8(i) Appeal dated 29.o.4.2oz5 filed by M/s. Varsur Impex hlt. Ltd. in KASEZ under the provision of Section 1S(4) of the SEZAct, 2oo5 against the decision of zrztt'UAC meetingheld on z8.o3.zoz:c conveyedvide email dated og.o4,2o21. Jurisdictional SF.Z - Kandla SEZ (KASEZ) Brief facts of the Case: M/s. Varsur Impex Pvt Ltd, is a Warehousing Unit in Kandla Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as 'the Warehousing Unit' to render the service of Warehousing to their clients in terms of LOA No or/zozr-zz dated to.o4.2o2t 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 LT.oS.2o25 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 ztzth, UAC held on 28.og.2o25 at I(ASEZ vide Agenda Point No zrz.z.rr. Shri N.K. Choudhary, Authorized Representative of the company & Shri Mahender Kapoor, Consultant of the company attended the UAC in person & explained the proposals. 4. Mr.

Agenda Point No zrz.z.rr. Shri N.K. Choudhary, Authorized Representative of the company & Shri Mahender Kapoor, Consultant of the company attended the UAC in person & explained the proposals. 4. Mr. Mahender Kapoor, Consultant made a specific request to the UAC during the meeting on 28.03.25 that if the UAC is not approving any of the items proposed by them for warehousing, then a detailed justification may be given by the UAC by way of speaking order for not approving the items proposed. 5. The IA-I section of I(ASEZ vide their mail dated og.o4.zoz5, inter alia, conveyed thal'The Approual Committee tn its 272th, meeting after due deliberation decided to permit the addttional ttems to be warehoused on behalf of DTA/Foreign clients as submif ted by the unit except items at Sr. No 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,70,74,15 & t6 of agenda,subjecttotheunttsubmitttngspecifi.cltstofitemsctsr. Notz,tg&tg,subject to payment of outstandtng rental dues & also subject to unit fulfiUing NFE criteria and subject to the untt submitttng I(YC of your clients along wtth IT R of the last 3 Aears on ushose behalf you utll warehouse goods and subiect to the conditions mentioned tn the UAC mtnutes......' 5.1 Turning to the Minutes of the zl'2il UAC meeting at Agenda Point No ztz.z.tt, the observations of the UAC are stated as follows: "The Commtttee perused Instructtons No tt7 dated 24.09.2024 wherein the Department of Commerce, SEZ Section, Neu Delhi wheretn guidelines for Page77 of 104

rvations of the UAC are stated as follows: "The Commtttee perused Instructtons No tt7 dated 24.09.2024 wherein the Department of Commerce, SEZ Section, Neu Delhi wheretn guidelines for Page77 of 104

operotionalframeuorkof FTWZ andwarehousing unifs inSEZhauebeenprescribed for strict compliance by alt DCs. Further, in the said Instruction, it has been stipulated thot there should be due diligence in uerifuing the credentials including IUC norms of the applicant entities for setting up of FTwz/Warehousing Zones/unfts os well as the clients of such unifs. Aadhar based authenticotion of Indians and Passport based authenticattonfor foreign clients are to be considered. The Income tax return for the lost 3 Aears in respect of the Proprietor/Partners/Directors or the audited balance sheets for the last three Aears in case of Limited Company/Priuate Limited Company should be part of I(YC. In present proposal, the unit has not submitted I{YCs & ITRs of their clients on whose behalf they uill uarehouse the goods and thus the tlAC rs nof in a position to uerifu the credentials of thetr clients. Further, the committee also noted. that uarious ccses are und-er inuestigation against the unit. The committee further noted thot some of items requested for warehousing are sensitiue in nature & the tlAC is not permitting the some in the recent past. The Committee after due deliberation decided to permit the additional items to be warehoused by the aboue unit on behalf of DTA/Foreign clients as submftted by unit except......" 6.

the recent past. The Committee after due deliberation decided to permit the additional items to be warehoused by the aboue unit on behalf of DTA/Foreign clients as submftted by unit except......" 6. Being aggrieved by the above noted decision of the zrztt'UAC, a representation dt r5.o4.zo25 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 I(YCs 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, B[JT, AS USUAL TO NO AVAIL. 7. Hence, being aggrieved with the decisions of the zrzth UAC with regard to Agenda Point No zrz.z.11, as reflected in the Minutes of the 2r2th, UAC meeting & conveyed to the warehousing unit vide mail dated og.o4.2;,I am making this appeal on the basis of the ground mentioned in Annexure B for consideration of the Hon'ble BOA Grounds ofAppeal Ground, No. t: The prevalent practice of making a warehousing unit to seek item & CTH wise permission from the UAC at Kandla Special Economic Zone, deliberation of UAC thereon, or approval or permission thereof is farce, ultra vires & void ab initio because it is not mandated under any provisions of the SEZ law. Neither Rule No r8(z), because it is not a proposal for setting up a new warehousing or sez unit; nor r8(S), because it is not a fresh proposal to warehouse the goods on Page 78 of 104

the SEZ law. Neither Rule No r8(z), because it is not a proposal for setting up a new warehousing or sez unit; nor r8(S), because it is not a fresh proposal to warehouse the goods on Page 78 of 104

behalf of foreignclientsorprovisotoRules tg(z) SEZRules,2oo6,becausenobroad banding is being sought or change in service activity i.e warehousing is being sought mandates for such exercise Explanation r.r 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. r.z On one of the similar appeals in the past before the BOA, shelter of broad banding under the proviso to Rule tg(z) was being taken. Presumably, on this occasion also, the opinion of Kasez authorities pins on this provision. Let us have a relook in the said provisions which reads as follows: Rule 19 which deals Letter of approval to a Unit provides that (r) On approval of a proposal under Rule r8 or 19, Development Commissioner shall issue a Letter of Approval in form G for setting up of the unit; (z) The letter of approval shall 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 TariffArea sale of finished goods, by products, and rejects and other terms and conditions, if any, stipulated by the Board or Approval Committee:

years of operations, limitations, if any on Domestic TariffArea 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 forbroad banding, diversification, enhancement of capacity of production, change in the items of manufacture or service activity, if it meets the requirements of Rule rB: r.3 It may please be appreciated that even the proviso to this particular sub rule z does not provide for the inclusion of additional items for the same service activity. It only talks about change in service activities such as from warehousing to IT, or banking or management or consultancy or medical or logistics or security etc. In the instant matter, there is absolutely no proposal from the appellant seeking change in the service activity. The unit is granted LOA for warehousing activity, it continues to do the same. So, the deliberation on compulsive request of a warehousing unit for inclusion of additional items for the same service is not mandated under proviso to Sub rule z of Rule r9. r.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 r8(z) of the Special Economic Zone Rules, zool-which vests the authority in the UAC to grant the permission for setting up a unit in the Special Economic Zone including the_ documentary

vited to Rule r8(z) of the Special Economic Zone Rules, zool-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 Page 79 of 104

provisions of Rule t8(z) 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. r.6 Similarly, is placed Rule rB (5), which prescribe certain stipulations for the YIWZ unit or a warehousing unit in a SEZ, does not impose any such requirement of item/CTH wise approval on behalf of aF--IltIZ 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 (FIWZ) shall onlybe in convertible foreign currency. t.Z. 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.

rency. t.Z. 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 rg(z).The fact of the matter that only warehousing service are being provided and they will continue to provide the same only. r .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 documenti 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 UnitApproval Committee deliberating onthe proposals of inclusion of additional items for warehousing activities are not mardated under the SEZ Law, hence un authorized & should be discontinued forth with.

pproval Committee deliberating onthe proposals of inclusion of additional items for warehousing activities are not mardated under the SEZ Law, hence un authorized & should be discontinued forth with. On ground alone, the decisions of the zr:zth UAC meeting are liable to be set aside. Ground No z: Ttre impugned decision of the zt2th, UAC reflects improper appreciation & application of rnstruction No rr7 dt z4.og.zozf, self- contradiction, bias, mis-chief & selective approach, unbecoming for a committee constituted primarily for approval purposes. 2.7 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 theletter/mail dt o9.o4.25 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 Page 80 of 104

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 80 of 104

how the provisions of SEZ law will be understood by the bunch of officers at KASEZ & the way it is implemented. The results are obvious and there to see. 2.4 It is further submitted that in the 1st para of the Minutes, the reason cited for denial of permission is non submission of KYC & ITRs of the clients. But in the last para of the same Minutes, the permission is granted for certain items, though, with the request letter, no KYCs or ITRs of any client have been submitted by the warehousing unit. 2.5 If, in terms of the Instructions No rr7, the permission is to be granted only after verifiiing the credentials of the prospective clients on the basis of I(YCs & ITRs of last three years, why the permission is granted in the letter/mail dt o9.o4.25 in the absence of such documents. Hence, the impugned decision of the UAC, reflected in the Minutes of the 2r2th, UAC meeting, contains self-contradictory versions coupled with bias & selective approach, which is unbecoming for a committee constituted primarily for specific purposes. 2.6. Though, the UAC have made their observations with regard to the submission of KYC documents along with ITRs of the clients in terms of Instructions No rr7, yet they have completely ignored the stage of submission of such documents stipulated in the same instructions itself.

of KYC documents along with ITRs of the clients in terms of Instructions No rr7, 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 prospectiue/potential one.In case of an extsting client, the IUCs documents along with respectiue agreement are already submitted taith the ffice of the Deuelopment Commrssroner. Howeuer, in case of prospectiue cltent, the stage of agreement comes prior to commencement of business. And the agreement for rendering warehousing seruices with respect of a parttcular item to a prospecttue cltent cannot be executed in the absence of prior permissionfor that parttcular item by the UAC. So, the prior approual for a particular item proposed to be warehoused by a unit at KASEZ is a pre requisite before an agreement & obtatning KYC document including lTRsfrom a client.

item by the UAC. So, the prior approual for a particular item proposed to be warehoused by a unit at KASEZ is a pre requisite before an agreement & obtatning KYC document including lTRsfrom a client. Accordingly, in the instant case, the stage of I{YC andtts submusfonwiththe office of the DC ISYETTO COME. Similarly, the stage of submission of I{YC & ITR etc is prescribed in Para t(ii) of the Instructions no tt7 tuhich stipulates that'Deuelopment Commissioner to ensure that uarehousing units shouldfurntsh the specified I(YCs details of their clients to the DC office before commencing first transacttons 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 z.B 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. Page 81 of 104

l 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 81 of 104

2.g 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 2.1o The appellant has submitted that it may be appreciated & agreed that storage/ warehousing activities are all about simple service PROCESSES which do not require any special skill or qualification, the way a housewife does not need for making 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. 2.7r All the policy framers are in agreement what has been explained above and that is why, in all the SEZs & FIWZ all across the country, all the items, except, restricted & prohibited items, are permitted to be warehoused and traded.

greement what has been explained above and that is why, in all the SEZs & FIWZ all across the country, all the items, except, restricted & prohibited items, are permitted to be warehoused and traded. You may check next door at Adani SEZ or in any other F'TWZ where units are permitted to warehouse all the items. Since the authorities at KASEZ are also bound by the same law. The Ministry or the BOA should issue necessary instructions to the DC, KASEZ to stop forthwith this un authorized practice in the interest of economic growth & fair play. Ground NO 3: The modification or approval or rejection of any proposal should be based on the specific provisions of SEZ law & it cannot be at the whims & fancies of the Chairman of the UAC & its members Explanation In this regard, it is submitted that neither the letter/mail dated og.o4.25 nor the Minutes of the 2t2th, UAC Meeting available on the official web site of KASEZ make any mention of any Rule or Instructions whereunder the permission is being denied. Denial of permission can onlybe 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 lmpex hrt. Ltd., KASEZ Para r to z: - Facts of the case, hence no comments. Ground of Appeal: Para t: Page 82 of 104

he Chairman of the UAC and its members. Para wise comments in case of M/s. Varsur lmpex hrt. Ltd., KASEZ Para r to z: - Facts of the case, hence no comments. Ground of Appeal: Para t: Page 82 of 104

The contention of the appellant is not correct as the Ministry vide instruction no. rr7 dated 24.c,9.2c.24 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.o2.2ol9 in the case of M/s. Zest Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., KASEZ and in the74te BoA meeting held on 06.01.2017 in the case of M/s. A One Duty Free Prt. Ltd. Further, KASEZ 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.

g LoA by trading and warehousing units and it has been informed that the units has to apply for inclusion of items and the matter is being placed before the Unit Approval Committee for consideration. As such in other SEZ also any new items whether trading or warehousing is being placed before the UAC for approval. Para z: The contention of the appellant is not correct as the Minutes of the zlzth Unit Approval Committee uploaded in the KASEZ website and the email dated o9.o4.2o25 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 I(YC 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 KASEZ made reference to other SEZs regarding procedure being followed for addition of new items in existing LoA by trading ind 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.

ng LoA by trading ind 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. 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 rr6tt' UAC meeting held on tg.o7.2ot1, 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 I(YC of the client before warehousing the items. The contention of the Appellant is not tenable as first proviso to Rule tg(z) of the SEZ Rules, 2c,c,6 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 RuIe 18 and thus the decision taken by the UAC comes within the ambit of Rule Lg(2) of the SEZ Rules, zoo6. Page 83 of 104

e items of manufacture or service activity, if it meets the requirements of RuIe 18 and thus the decision taken by the UAC comes within the ambit of Rule Lg(2) of the SEZ Rules, zoo6. Page 83 of 104

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 r33.d meeting, deferred the appeal due to paucity of time. The Board in r3r"t meeting, deferred the appeal as the appellant did not present his case after joining the meeting through VC link The Board in r3ott'meeting, deferred the appeal due to paucity of time. The appeal is being placed before the Board for its consideration. Page 84 of 104

134.8(ii) Appeal of M/s. Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division) against the decision of zr3rd UAC meeting held on Bo.o4.2oz1 -reg. Jurisdictional SBZ - Kandla SEZ (KASEZ) Brief facts of the case M/s Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division) is a unit in Kandla SEZ since zorr is engaged in activity of warehousing services and trading activity of all the items except restricted and prohibited The appellant has been operating in Kandla SEZ since about 14 years and has clean track record.

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 zSlo4lzor4 and accordingly the LOA has been renewed from time to time. A copy of original LOA dt.r9lo5/zorr. subsequent renewal of LOA vide letter dt.So loqlzorg and the last renewal vide letter dt.SrloSlzoz4. The LOA of the appellant is valid up 1o28/o4lzoz9. The appellant during his operational period had imported cigarettes (Richman Royal) CTH z4o22ogo 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.ooor86+ dt. oSloz/zot6. Similarly the appellant made procurement of cigarettes (CHT 24o22ogo) 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. ooo56z7 dt.z6lrolzor5 and also procured from M/s Shanti Guru Tabaco under Bill of Export No.ooo5655 dt.z6lrolzor5 and exported the same to M/s Bashir International Ltd. Afghanistan under Shipping Bill No.oor584o dt.z6lllzol5 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.

r 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. the UAC in its rr6th meeting held on ryf o7 lzorT 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 I(YC details of clients before warehousing the goods. A copy of minutes of rr6th meeting of UAC held on rgloTlzotZ with corrigendum dt. grloTlzorT. Accordingly, the appellant vide his letter dt.r7lozlzo25 requested for permission to warehouse Lithium-ion battery (CTH 85o76ooo).The appellant also vide their letter dt. t+lo+l2o2S and email dt.r6lo4lzoz5 requested for permission to warehouse cigarettes (CTH 24o22ogo) on behalf of their Foreign client. A copy of their letter dt.tzlozlzoz5, r4lo4/zoz5 and email dt. t6lo4l2025. The request of the appellant for import of cigarettes and Lithium-ion battery was placed before zr3 meeting of UAC held on golo4/zoz5 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 85 of 104

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 85 of 104

the UAC is not permitting such item for warehousing. The decision of UAC was conveyed to th; appellant vide letter dt.zzlo5l2o2; from the Development Commissioner, fandli SEZ (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). A copy of minutes of zr3th and Respondent's letter dt.zzlo5l2025. Being aggrieved with the decision of the UAC communicated by the Respondent the appellant herein, most respectfully, submits the Appeal before BOA, Ministry of Commerce, SBZSection. Vanijya Bhavan. New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as (THE APPELIATE ATITHORITD as per Rule 55 of the SEZ Rules,2006 read with Section 16 (+) of the SEZ Act, 2oo5. Grounds of Appeal and Para wise comments in case of M /s. Flamingo Logistics CWarehousing Division). KASEZ Para no ofAppeal t' ara wise comment from KASEZ 1 Respondent has passed in mechanical a manner t application of mind ppellant appreciating that is already business of this unilaterally tratorily limiting the scope business is ustified and nor warranted. Page 85 of 104 Approval Committee (UAC) acted in guided by Instruction No. 24.c,9.2c.24 from the Ministry & Industry, has issued for the operational framework Trade Warehousing Zones warehousing units in Special (SEZs).

val Committee (UAC) acted in guided by Instruction No. 24.c,9.2c.24 from the Ministry & Industry, has issued for the operational framework Trade Warehousing Zones warehousing units in Special (SEZs). These guidelines oversight on high-risk sensitive items such as to their potential for misuse The UAC's decision to reject Approval (BoA) decisions, the 88th BoA meeting Mls Zest Marine Services KASEZ, and the 74th BoA ot.zot7) concerning M/s A One Pvt. Ltd., where similar were not permitted The UAC's decision aligns with precedents to prevent cigarettes of is and consistent such as that The appellant's Commissioners to to diversion. of sensitive manner without is incorrect.

Respondent has failed to that the original LOA ol appellant is forwarehousing and activity of all the items restricted and prohibited and thout imposing restriction of any item. Not onlythis even in bsequent renewal letter t3olo4lzorg and y/o5/zoz4 also not put any restriction on any specific items. complying with the of rr6th UAC meeting I INNX-D supra) the appellant had lsought the permission to warehouse cigarettes vide its letter dt.r4lo4lzoz5 and email at:,r,iloalzozl. The appellant's claim that of Approval (LoA) permi and trading of all items and prohibited items, and that no restrictions were imposed, o5.2o11 and its subsequent 8o.o4.2o19 and 3r.o5.zoz4 do list restricted items, the UAC'I in its rr6th meeting held r9.o7.2o17 mandates that in KASEZ must seek prior each new item to be warehoused, submission of Know Your details for clients.

3r.o5.zoz4 do list restricted items, the UAC'I in its rr6th meeting held r9.o7.2o17 mandates that in KASEZ must seek prior each new item to be warehoused, submission of Know Your details for clients. This requiremen introduced to ensure compliance with regulations and to mitigate risks ted with sensitive commodities. Further, KASEZ made reference SEZs regarding procedure for addition of new items and it has been informed that has to apply for inclusion of items matter is being placed before the Committee for consideration. in other SEZ also any new ether trading or warehousing is before the UAC for approval. The appellant's request to warehouse cigarettes was considered in the 2$th UAC d on 3o.o4.2c.25 andwas rejected due , sensitive nature of the commodity, the aforementioned guidelines. does not arbitrarily limit s business but reflects The UAC's decision is thus not trary limitation but a ure applied consistently. t. LoA by trading and While the LoA application of 3 Respondent has failed that the appellant business The appellant's assertion that warehousing of cigarettes in zor5 t6 evidenced Annexures B and Page 87 of 104

ding and While the LoA application of 3 Respondent has failed that the appellant business The appellant's assertion that warehousing of cigarettes in zor5 t6 evidenced Annexures B and Page 87 of 104

in past also and all the appeal) justifies rejecting the permission ermission is untenable. The e cigarettes without reason will make k has evolved since 2or1-2o Instruction No. rr7 (z4.og.zoz4) 'business to suffer. rr6th UAC decision (rg.o7.zor7 ucing stricter controls on sensitive The UAC's rejection of ppellant's request is based on the curren perception of cigarettes, which to diversion and mis-declaration, in the 213th UAC minutes. s past activities do not confer tic right to continue items under the updated k. Thus, the UAC's decision is to tory oversight and the ability high-risk commodities The appellant's argument are freely importable under th Trade Policy (FTP) andthus permitted for warehousing is not valid context of SEZ regulations may be freely importable in Tariff Area (DTA), SEZ under a distinct regulatory ,2006. The first proviso to Rule r9(z the SEZ Rules, 2c,c,6 empowers the approve or reject proposals for broad or addition of items based The UAC's decision to for cigarettes is well within thority and aligns with the Ministry' on high-risk commodities. 's decision reflects a proactive mitigate such risks, even if direct im DTA parties is permissible. unI with Rule 18, which of risk and 4 Ihe Respondent has utterly failed in appreciating the commodity cigarettes (CTH 24o22ogo) is infree Iist and any one in India can import the same.

permissible. unI with Rule 18, which of risk and 4 Ihe Respondent has utterly failed in appreciating the commodity cigarettes (CTH 24o22ogo) is infree Iist and any one in India can import the same. A list of verities of cigarettes fall under CTH z4oz as per the FTP is freely Importable. 5 The apprehension of zr3 UAC the commodity of cigarettes is sensitive in nature and prone to diversion is baseless, because the number oI parties in DTA are importing the The appellant's claim that the UAC' pprehension about cigarettes being prone diversion is baseless is incorrect. s concerns are su Page 88 of 104 by the SEZ Act, zoo5, and

as the item is in free Instruction No. rr7 (z4.og.zoz4), , putting restriction identifies sensitive unit is neither justified and cigarettes as high-risk due to version and mis-declaration. The UAC's decision is pported by precedents in other S similar restrictions have and by BoA decisions items (e.9., 88th and Z4th ). The appellant's comparison importers is irrelevant, as SEZ subject to stricter oversight to 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.

work. 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 tch cigarettes to the DTA market payment of applicable customs du taxes, or through physical export, mitigate the inherent risks warehousing such The UAC's decision is based on risk assessment, as mandated guidelines, and is not limited appellant's assurances appellant's compliance with does not override the UAC' to restrict high-risk items sensr regulations. 7 More reasons will be given at the time of hearing of the appeal. appellant's request to tional reasons at the time of may be noted but at the same does not alter the Department's the UAC's decision is well- 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 t to add, alter, amend, or t at the same time it does not impact the s response to the curren It is submitted that the UAC' , as communicated vide I 22.c5.2025, is legally sound, well and in accordance with the S of appeal may be in the 26th Page 89 of 104

impact the s response to the curren It is submitted that the UAC' , as communicated vide I 22.c5.2025, is legally sound, well and in accordance with the S of appeal may be in the 26th Page 89 of 104

,2oo5, SEZ Rules, z006, and No. rr7 dated 24.c,9.2024.Th ection of permission to is consistent with the governing SEZs and aligns wi set by the BoA. The appellant' of appeal lack merit and fail any error in the UAC'I -making process

1. The appeal filed by M/s Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division) be summarily rejected.
2. The decision of the 213th UAC meeting (3o.o4.zoz5) and the Development Commissioner's letter dated 22.c5.2c:5 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. Praver of aopellant: 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.zzlo5l2o2S 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 modiS, 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:
3. The appeal filed by M/s Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division) be summarily rejected.

ief 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 (3o.o4.zoz5) and the Development Commissioner's letter dated 22.c.5.2cz5 be upheld. No relief of any kind be Page 90 of 104

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 r33'd meeting, deferred the appeal due to paucity of time. The Board in r3r"t meeting, deferred the appeal due to paucity of time. The Board in r3oth meeting, deferred the appeal due to paucity of time. The appeal is being placed before the Board for its consideration. Page 91 of 104

184.8(iii) Appeal dated a7.o7.2o25 filed by M/s Diligent Logistics Solution ht. Ltd. in NSEZ under the provision of Section 1S(4) of the SEZ Act, zoo5 against the decision of UAC meeting held on tr5.tr6 .zo21, Jurisdictional SEZ - Noida SEZ (NSEZ) Brief facts of the Case: The applicant M/s Diligent Logistics Solution P\rt. Ltd.

of the SEZ Act, zoo5 against the decision of UAC meeting held on tr5.tr6 .zo21, Jurisdictional SEZ - Noida SEZ (NSEZ) Brief facts of the Case: The applicant M/s Diligent Logistics Solution P\rt. Ltd. had applied for setting up of a unit at the Free Trade and Warehousing Zone (FTWZ) for warehousing of goods with following activities as Authorised Operations : Seruice, Warehousing, Trading with or without labeling, packing & re- packtng uithout anA proce.ss, Assembly of Completely Knocked Down or Semi Knocked Down in respect of items under following HS Codes, excluding those items Restricted' &'Prohtbtted'for imports & exports:- HS Code : 2202, 2209, 2214, 27L5, 2954, 527,0, SgL4, 39zz, SgoS, Sgo4, SgoS, 3906, 3902, Sgo8, 5909.... Post receipt of LOA, M/s Diligent Logistics Solution hrt. Ltd. submitted acceptance letter dated o6.tt.zoz4 to the Development Commissioner, NSEZ M/s Diligent Logistics Solution hrt. Ltd. Submitted BLUT and received acceptance from the DC-NSEZon3o January 2c.25. On 28.o3.2cr25, Diligent Logistics Solution hrt. Ltd. submitted application for enhancement of list of items. The Development Commissioner, NSEZ vide Agenda Item No. 4.r of the Minutes of Meeting bearing No. ro/o6/zozz-sF.Z/53o5 dated 19.o6.zozs rejected for inclusion of additional items (33 previous and 52 new items) in LOA dated o1.to.2o24. The decision passed under Agenda Item No. 4.r is reproduced below for ease reference: 4.tM/s. Diligent Logistics Solutions Private Limited 4.1.1 Sh. Rakesh Trikha, Director of M/s.

dated o1.to.2o24. The decision passed under Agenda Item No. 4.r is reproduced below for ease reference: 4.tM/s. Diligent Logistics Solutions Private Limited 4.1.1 Sh. Rakesh Trikha, Director of M/s. Diligent Logistics Solutions Private Limited joined the meeting through video conferencing and explained the proposal. 4l.zThe Approval Committee discussed the proposal in detail and discussed on the role of M/S Diligent Logistics Solutions as CHA in illegal activities of providing fake documents to the department on behalf of the clients (as brought out in the Specified Officer report dated z4/tz/zoz4). Further, it was observed by the Approval Committee that a show cause has also been issued to the unit by Noida customs Commissionerate under Customs Act, 1962. Hence, after due deliberations and taking into account the serious nature of the fraudulent transaction, the committee decided Page 92 of 104

not to grant approval for inclusion of additional items (33 previous and 52 new items) in LOA dated o3.1o.2o24 till adjudication of the aforementioned show cause notice. The said Unit prefer an appeal against the decision communicated bythe Development Commissioner NSEZ-SEZ vide Minutes of Meeting of UAC bearing No. tolo6/zozz-SEZ/gBoS dated t9.o6.zo25 not approving the additional items. GROUNDS OF APPEAL by appellant: r.

unicated bythe Development Commissioner NSEZ-SEZ vide Minutes of Meeting of UAC bearing No. tolo6/zozz-SEZ/gBoS dated t9.o6.zo25 not approving the additional items. GROUNDS OF APPEAL by appellant: r. Distinct Legal Identity - No Overlap in Legal Personality: The entity Deligent Logistics Solutions, operating as a Customs House Agent (CHA), is a proprietorship firm (against whom the said Show Cause Notice has been issued by the Customs Commissioner) and is completely separate in law and fact from the Appellant i.e. Deligent Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, zor3 and registered as a unit at Arshiya Northern F'IWZ Ltd. The alleged actions of the CHA firm cannot and must not be attributed to the Appellant Company. It is a settled principle of company law that a company is a distinct legal person (See Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd., h8971 AC 22, HL), and unless the corporate veil is justifiably lifted, liability does not pass from one entity to another. 2. No Allegation or Proceedings Against the Appellant: There is no criminal, civil or quasi-judicial proceeding pending against the Appellant. No show-cause notice has been issued to the Appellant under any provision of the SEZ Act, SEZ Rules or the Customs Act. Despite this, the UAC has penalized the Appellant by refusing the legitimate amendment of its LoA. Such action is arbitrary andviolative of principles of natural justice. 3.

Rules or the Customs Act. Despite this, the UAC has penalized the Appellant by refusing the legitimate amendment of its LoA. Such action is arbitrary andviolative of principles of natural justice. 3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem: The impugned Minutes of the Meeting dated 19.06.2c.25 was passed without issuance of any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. The denial of approval solely based on alleged unrelated events without due process is in direct violation of the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard), as upheld in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR t9Z8 SC SqZ. 4. No Provision Under SEZ Act to Punish Third-Party Acts: The SEZ Act, 2oo5 and SEZ Rules, 2c,c,6 do not empower the UAC to deny amendment of an LoAto a unit-holder based on alleged misconduct by another entity not registered as a unit under the SEZ. The CHA in question is neither a unit-holder nor governed by the provisions of SEZ Act for the purposes of punitive action against the Appellant. S. Arbitrariness and Non-Application of Mind: The impugned decision shows complete non-application of mind, wherein no consideration has been given to the business history, compliance record or operational conduct of the Appellant. Ablanket refusal based on extraneous factors unrelated to the Appellant's functioning in the Page 93 of 104

given to the business history, compliance record or operational conduct of the Appellant. Ablanket refusal based on extraneous factors unrelated to the Appellant's functioning in the Page 93 of 104

FTWzrenders the order arbitrary and unsustainable in law (See E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC SSS). 6. Violation of Article 14 and rg(rxg) of the Constitution: The impugned decision violates the Appellant's right to equality before law (Article 14) and right to carry on trade and business (Article rg(rxg)). By preventing the Appellant from carrying out operations for which it is otherwise lawfully entitled, Minutes of the Meeting dated t9.o6.zoz5 amounts to a restriction without reasonable justification or statutory basis. 7. Disproportionality of Action: Even assuming (without admitting) any alleged link between the CHA and the Appellant, the refusal to allow legitimate business operations by denying inclusion of additional items is wholly disproportionate. In regulatory jurisprudence, punitive action must be proportionate to the alleged default, if any. Here, there is no adjudicated default, let alone one attributable to the Appellant. 8. Appellant's Past Compliance and Good Track Record: The Appellant has consistently complied with all provisions of the SEZ Act, Customs Act and the operational rules of Arshiya F[WZ. There is no record of non-compliance, evasion or procedural lapses against the Appellant, which makes the UAC's order even more untenable. g.

t, Customs Act and the operational rules of Arshiya F[WZ. There is no record of non-compliance, evasion or procedural lapses against the Appellant, which makes the UAC's order even more untenable. g. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: The Appellant has a legitimate expectation of fair and equitable treatment from authorities. When an entity applies for an amendment in accordance with law and in line with past approvals, denial without just cause violates administrative fairness and the doctrine of legitimate expectation as recognized by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, AIR 1994 SC 988. ro. Business Prejudice and Loss: The arbitrary refusal to allow the inclusion of new items causes grave financial loss and operational disruption to the Appellant's business. It also prejudices the credibility of the Appellant before its clients and partners, damaging its commercial standing. Prayer of appellant: In view of the above, the Appellant respectfully prays that: The impugned decision of the Unit Approval Committee dated 19.o,6.2c.25 maybe quashed and set aside; The application for inclusion of the additional items (83 previous + 52 new) in the LoA of the Appellant be approved; Any other relief(s) deemedjust and proper in the interest ofjustice maybe granted. Appellant request that Appellant may be granted an opportunity of personal hearing before the case is decided. a a a Page 94 of 104

(s) deemedjust and proper in the interest ofjustice maybe granted. Appellant request that Appellant may be granted an opportunity of personal hearing before the case is decided. a a a Page 94 of 104

NSEZ Reply on the matter: M/s. Diligent Logistics Solutions Private Limited has been recently granted LOA No.ro/rylzoz4-SEZlBz65 dated o3.1o.2o2 4 for setting up a unit in the Multi- Sector SEZ of M/s. Arshiya Northern FTWZ Ltd. at Village- Ibrahimpur, Junaidpur urf Maujpur, Khurja Distt- Bulandshahr (U.P.) to undertake "Warehousing, Trading wtth or wtthout labeling, packing & re-packing wtthout any process, Assembly of Completely Knocked Down or Semi Knocked Down kifs'fn respect of approued HS Codes, excluding those items 'Restrtcted' & 'Prohibited'for imports & exports". The unit has submitted request for taking DCP on records, which has been scrutinized and observations for this has been communicated to the unit. The proposal of M/s. Diligent Logistics Solutions Private Limited for inclusion of 38 nos. HS Codes / products in the LOA dated o3.1o.2o24 of its F-IWZunit in the Arshiya Northern YTWZ Ltd. Multi Sector SEZ at Village- Ibrahimpur, Junaidpur urf Maujpur, Khurja Distt- Bulandshahr (Uttar Pradesh), was placed before the Approval Committee in its meeting held on c.5.72.2024.

thern YTWZ Ltd. Multi Sector SEZ at Village- Ibrahimpur, Junaidpur urf Maujpur, Khurja Distt- Bulandshahr (Uttar Pradesh), was placed before the Approval Committee in its meeting held on c.5.72.2024. The Approval Committee discussed the proposal in detail and after due deliberations empowered the Office of DC, NSEZ to take decision on file after thorough scrutiny in light of sensitivity of the business plan and Guidelines for Operational Framework of YIWZ and Warehousing units in SEZ issued vide Instruction No. rr7 dated 24.c,9.2024. Relevant page of minutes of meeting is attached. Accordingly, proposal of M/s. Diligent Logistics Solutions Private Limited for inclusion of 33 nos. HS Codes / products in the LOA dated o3.1o.2o24, was forwarded to Specified Officer for examination and comments in light of sensitivity of the business plan and Guidelines for Operational Framework of FTWZ and Warehousing units in SEZ issued vide Instruction No. rr7 dated 24.c,9.2024, f.or further necessary action in the matter. Specified Officer was of the opinion that:- The Unit holder was recently engaged in providing CHA services in ANFTWZ Khurja for the M/s Srikaram Prescience Private Limited a Unit (LOA holder) and its DTA client M/s Rehmat Overseas, 3rd Floor Bhardwaj Tower Bypass Road Near Gurunanak Hospital Palwal Faridabad Haryana L2Loo2 for import of Broken Cashew (CTH o8or3zro). The CHA along with the DTA importer used fake documents wilfully mis- stating the country of Origin of impugned goods as Afghanistan in the subject Bill of

for import of Broken Cashew (CTH o8or3zro). The CHA along with the DTA importer used fake documents wilfully mis- stating the country of Origin of impugned goods as Afghanistan in the subject Bill of Entry filed , with an intent to evade payment of Customs Duty. Further, they submitted Bond with Bank Guarantees as per details given hereunder for removal of the subject goods provisionally pending verification of the subject Certificates of Country of Page 95 of 104

Origin. However, on verification of the said Bank Guarantees, the concerned Bank informed through e-mail , that the said Bank Guarantees were not issued by them and these appear to be forged. It appears that the CHA along with the DTA importer is engaged in manipulation, forging the documents and submitting fake documents to the department only for the purpose of evading payment of due customs duties on removal of their goods into DTA. Further investigation is under process. Hence, as the unit and its authorised signatory is having a recent history of serious violation as per relevant act and rules. A decision regarding their extension may be taken in light of above developments. In the mean-time, the unit vide letter dated 28.c3.2cz5 has submitted request for inclusion of 52 nos. HS Codes / products in the LOA dated og.ro.2o24. The proposal was placed before UAC dated os.o6.zozs. The Approval Committee discussed the proposal in detail and discussed on the role of M/s.

52 nos. HS Codes / products in the LOA dated og.ro.2o24. The proposal was placed before UAC dated os.o6.zozs. The Approval Committee discussed the proposal in detail and discussed on the role of M/s. Diligent Logistics Solutions as CHA in illegal activities of providing fake documents to the department on behalf of the clients (as brought out in the Specified Officer report dated z4lrzlzoz4). Further, it was observed by the Approval Committee that a show cause has also been issued to the unit by Noida customs Commissionerate under Customs Act, t962. Hence, after due deliberations and taking into account the serious nature of the fraudulent transaction, the committee decided not to grant approval for inclusion of additional items (33 previous and 52 new items) in LOA dated o3.1o.2o24 till adjudication of the aforementioned show cause notice. In the light of comments of Specified Officer, the matter was placed before UAC. The decision of UAC dated o5.o6.z025: was communicated to the unit vide letter dated 27.06.2025. The unit had submitted a re-presentation against the decision of UAC dated o5.o6,zoz5 on the following grounds.

1. Distinct Entity
2. No Show Cause notice issued
3. Incorrect and unverified allegations
4. Discriminatory treatment S. Sever Financial and reputational impact The above representation of the unit has been placed before UAC dated o6.o8.zoz5. Page 96 of 104

ect and unverified allegations 4. Discriminatory treatment S. Sever Financial and reputational impact The above representation of the unit has been placed before UAC dated o6.o8.zoz5. Page 96 of 104

"The Approual Committee discussed the proposal in detail and after due deliberations noted that draft Show Cause Notice has been sent to Noida Customsfor issuance and the alleged misconduct on part of CHA (i.e. M/s. Diligent Logisttcs Soluhons) is under tnuesttgation. Further, UAC empowered DC office to take a deciston on file after seeking leg al opinion from YP leg al and Leg al Firm wtth respect to the rssue raised by the unit in its representation." Accordingly, legal opinion were sought from YP legal and legal firm. Legal opinion from YP Legal has been received (detailed opinion). As per legal opinion:- IV. LEGAL OPINION Upon perusal of the proposal of M/s Diligent Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (DLSPL) for inclusion of additional items in its LOA dated o3.1o.2o24, the minutes of the Approval Committee meeting dated c5.06.2cz5 (and subsequent rectification), the Specified Officer's report dated 24.12.2024, and the unit's representation, it is evident that the CHA arm of the company has been directly implicated in the use of fake COO certificates and forged bank guarantees, verified independently by the Afghan Chamber of Commerce and the State Bank of India. While the company has urged the plea of separate legal identity, records of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs confirm that the same Director, Mr.

ghan Chamber of Commerce and the State Bank of India. While the company has urged the plea of separate legal identity, records of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs confirm that the same Director, Mr. Rakesh Trikha, controls both the SEZ unit and the implicated CHA, thereby justifying regulatory scrutiny. It is further noted that although only a draft SCN has been forwarded by Noida Customs and no formal SCN has yet been served, the Specified Officer's report provides independent and credible documentary verification of misconduct. Regulatory authorities are not bound to await formal adjudication where verified evidence points to fraud, especially when it concerns SEZ compliance and Customs integrity. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the existence of pending Customs proceedings, the Approval Committee was justified in refusing the proposed amendment and deciding to await the outcome of Customs proceedings. The grounds raised by the unit i.e. separate identity, absence of SCN service, discrimination, and financial hardship do not dislodge the Committee's preventive, reasoned stance. The decision of the UAC is therefore legally sustainable, non-arbitrary, and the representation of DLSPL. does not merit acceptance. V. NEXT COURSE OF ACTION r. Maintain Status Quo: The denial of inclusion of additional items in the LOA may continue until Customs proceedings are concluded. z. Seek Customs Update: The DC's office may obtain a formal status report from Noida Customs on the SCN and adjudication to ensure decisions rest on updated facts. Page 97 of 104

ings are concluded. z. Seek Customs Update: The DC's office may obtain a formal status report from Noida Customs on the SCN and adjudication to ensure decisions rest on updated facts. Page 97 of 104

3. Opportunity Post-Adjudication: DLSPL. maybe informed that its request for inclusion can be reconsidered once the Customs case reaches adjudication and compliance status is clarified. In view of the legal opinion, the status report from customs on the SCN and adjudication has been sought. In the mean-time this office has received an email dated z8.to.zoz5 seeking comments on the ground of appeal(copy of appeal filled) filed by M/s. Diligent Logistics Solutions Private Limited against the decision of UAC before the Board of Approval. The grounds of appeal and comments on the matter are as under:- sl. No. Ground ofappeal Comments 1 Distinct Legal Entity-No overlap in Legal Personality-The entity Diligent Logistics Solutions, operating as a Customs House Agent (CHA), is a proprietorship firm (against whom the said Show Cause Notice has been issued by the Customs Commissioner) and is completely separate in law and fact from the Appellant i.e. Diligent Logistics Solutions hrt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, zor3 and registered as a unit at Arshiya Northern F'IWZ Ltd. The alleged action of the CHA firm cannot and must not be attributed to the Appellant Company. It is a settled principle of company law that a company is a distinct legal person (SEE Solomonv. A. Salomon & Co.

d action of the CHA firm cannot and must not be attributed to the Appellant Company. It is a settled principle of company law that a company is a distinct legal person (SEE Solomonv. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd., [rg8Z] lrC zz, HL) and unless the corporate veil is justifiably lifted, liability does not pass from one entity to another. MCA records confirm that Mr. Rakesh Trikha (DIN: c.226lc,91) has been Director of DLSPL since 29.oi.2ot4; Neha Trikha (DIN: o688+gg6) and Kashish Trikha (DIN: ro39o68r) are also Directors. Mr. Rakesh Trikha is also the proprietor of the CHA "Diligent Logistics Solutions", directly implicated in providing fake COOs and forged bank guarantees. This shows direct overlap of management and control. Further, under Section t47 of Customs Act, acts of an agent bind the principal unless rebutted. The separate entity plea cannot shield Diligent Logistics Solutions hrt. Ltd.,; the UAC was justified in taking the CHA's misconduct into Page 98 of 104

an agent bind the principal unless rebutted. The separate entity plea cannot shield Diligent Logistics Solutions hrt. Ltd.,; the UAC was justified in taking the CHA's misconduct into Page 98 of 104

t while evaluating the compliance credibility. No Allegation or Proceedings Against the Appellant: There is no criminal, civil or quasi-judicial proceeding pending against the Appellant. No show-cause notice has been issued to the Appellant under any provision of the SEZ Act, SEZ Rules or the Customs Act. Despite this, the UAC has penalized the Appellant by refusing the legitimate amendment of its LOA. Such action is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. A draft SCN has been forwarded by Noida Customs for issuance and no SCN has yet been formally served on the unit. Even so, the Specified Officer's report dated 24.L2.2c24 independently substantiates misconduct through verified evidence: The Afghan Chamber confirmed that the COOs relied upon were fake. The contention of the Appellant that the Minutes of the Meeting dated t9.o6.zoz5 was passed without affording an opportunityof hearing is misconceived and untenable. The record demonstrates that the Approval Committee, in its meeting held on c5.06.2025, considered the proposal in detail andtook note of the report of the Specified Officer dated 24.t2.2o24 and the pending show cause proceedings initiated by the Noida Customs Commissionerate under the Customs Act, 196z against M/s. Diligent Logistics Solutions (CHA).

e Specified Officer dated 24.t2.2o24 and the pending show cause proceedings initiated by the Noida Customs Commissionerate under the Customs Act, 196z against M/s. Diligent Logistics Solutions (CHA). The decision of the Committee to withhold approval for inclusion of additional items in the Letter of Approval (LOA) dated og.Lo.2o24 was an interim administrative measure taken pending adjudication of the said show cause notice, in view of the serious nature of the alleged fraudulent transactions. The same was duly communicated to the unit 3 fViolation of Principles of Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem: The impugned Minutes of the Meeting dated Lg.o6.2o25 was passed without issuance of any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. The denial of approval solely based on alleged unrelated events without due process is in direct violation of the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard), as upheld in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC SgZ. Page 99 of 104

ents without due process is in direct violation of the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard), as upheld in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC SgZ. Page 99 of 104

letter dated z7.o6.zoz' , the unit was given full ty to represent its case vide representation dated z8.o6.zoz5 received on ot.o7.2o25), which was before the UAC in its meeting held on 6.o8.2o25. Hence, it is evident that principles of natural justice, uding the right to be heard, were uly complied with, and no violation audi alteram partem can be The reliance placed by the on Moneka Gandhi u Union of India (AIR 1978 SC SqZ) is as adequate opportunity representation was, in fact, and considered by the authority. 4 No Provision Under SEZ Act to Punish Third-Party Acts: The SEZ Act, zoo5 and SEZ Rules, zoo6 do not empowerthe UACto denyamendment of an LoA to a unit-holder based on alleged misconduct by another entity not registered as a unit under the SEZ. The CHA in question is neither a unit-holder nor governed by the provisions of SEZ Act for the purposes of punitive action against the Appellant. Rule 19 of the SEZ Rules, zoo6 Rule r9 (z) Proviso- "Provided that the Approval Committee 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 tB" Section r47, Customs Act,r96z makes both importer and CHA/unit liable for offences committed. "742.

n, change in the items of manufacture or service activity, if it meets the requirements of Rule tB" Section r47, Customs Act,r96z makes both importer and CHA/unit liable for offences committed. "742. Ltability of princtpal and agent.- (t) Where this Act requires anything to be done by the owner, tmporter or exporter of any goods, it Page 100 of 104

be done on his behalf by his t Any such thing done by an agent the owner,importer or exporter of ny goods shall, unless the contrary proued, be deemed to haue been wtth the knowledge and nsent of such owner, tmporter or ', so that in any proceedings this Act, the owner, tmporter exporter of the goods shall a.lso be iqble asif thething hadbeendoneby When anA person is expre.ss/y or authorised by the owner, or exporter of any goods to his agent in respect of such goods ' all or any of the purposes of thts such person shall, uithout t to the liability of the importer or exporter, be eemed to be the ou)ner, importer or rter of such goods for such that where any duty is not or rs short-leuied or refunded on account of A reason other than any wilful act, Itgence or defoult of the agent, duty shall not be recouered the agent unless in the opinton [Assistant Commissioner of or Deputy Commtssioner of [Substituted by Act 27 of 999, Section 7oo, for " Assisfcnf Page 101 of 104

he agent, duty shall not be recouered the agent unless in the opinton [Assistant Commissioner of or Deputy Commtssioner of [Substituted by Act 27 of 999, Section 7oo, for " Assisfcnf Page 101 of 104

of Customs" (w.e.f. .5.1999) these uords u)ere tutedby Act zz of t995, Section (w.e.f. z6.S.tggil.l the slme be recoueredfrom the owner, rter or exporter." Customs Brokers Licensing ulations, zot9 (Regulation to) ', zotB Regulation to(d)(e)(g) duty of due diligence and on Customs Brokers. DLSPL these obligations by aidtng documentation. DLSPL's role as CHA cannot be fromits SEZ entity 5 Arbitrariness and Non-Application of Mind- The impugned decision shows complete non-application of mind, wherein no consideration has been given to the business history, compliance record or operational conduct of the Appellant. A blanket refusal based on extraneous factors unrelated to the Appellant's functioning in the FIWZ renders the order arbitrary and unsustainable in law (See E.P. Royappa u. Stute of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC SSS). of z4.rz.zoz4) utions h/t. Ltd. (acting as a CHA) furnishing fake documents. UAC has taken the decision with diligence and on the credible Specified officer highlighted the of Diligent Logistics 6. Violation of Article 14 and rg(rxg) of the Constitution: The impugned decision violates the Appellant's right to equality before law (Article 14) and right It is further noted that although only a draft SCN has been forwarded by Noida Customs and no formal SCN has yet been served, the Specified Page 102 of 104

equality before law (Article 14) and right It is further noted that although only a draft SCN has been forwarded by Noida Customs and no formal SCN has yet been served, the Specified Page 102 of 104

carry on trade and business (Article Is report provides independent tg(txg)). By preventing the Appellant credible documentary misconduct. carrying out operations for which it of otherwise lawfully entitled, Minutes of authorities are not bound Meeting dated L9.o6.2o25 amounts a restriction without reasonable await formal adjudication where tion or statutory basis. evidence points to fraud, y when it concerns SEZ and Customs integrity. In of the seriousness of the the existence of pending proceedings, the Approval ttee was justified in refusing proposed amendment and to await the outcome of proceedings. The grounds by the unit i.e. separate tity, absence of SCN service, and financial p do not dislodge the ttee's preventive, reasoned The decision of the UAC is legally sustainable, non- bitrary, and the representation of LSPL. does not merit acceptance. 7 Disproportionality of Action: Even assuming (without admitting) any alleged link between the CHA and the Appellant, the refusal to allow legitimate business operations by denying inclusion of additional items is wholly disproportionate. In regulatory jurisprudence, punitive action must be proportionate to the alleged default, if any.

egitimate business operations by denying inclusion of additional items is wholly disproportionate. In regulatory jurisprudence, punitive action must be proportionate to the alleged default, if any. Here, there is no adjudicated default, let alone one attributable to the Appellant. B Appellantrs Past Compliance and Good Track Record: The Appellant has consistently complied with all provisions of the SEZ. Act, Customs Act and the operational rules of Arshiya FTWZ. There is no record of non- compliance, evasion or procedural lapses against the Appellant, which makes the UAC's order even more untenable. 9 Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: The Appellant has a Iegitimate expectation of fair and equitable treatment from authorities. When an entity applies for an amendment in accordance with law and in line with past approvals, denial without just cause violates administrative fairness and the doctrine of legitimate expectation as recognized by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, AIR 1994 SC q88. Page 103 of 104

Prejudice and Loss: refusal to allow the inclusion hardship cannot compliance. items causes grave fi