Minutes of 140th meeting of Board of Approval for SEZ, held on 15th June, 2026.

No. K-43o16/n / 2126-SEZ Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry Department of Commerce (SEZ Section) Vanijya Bhawan, New Delhi Dated the 25th June, 2026

Subject: r4oth Meeting of the Board of Approval on Special Economic Zones (SEZs)

held on r5tt' June, zoz6- Reg. Please find enclosed herer,r.ith Minutes of the 14oth meeting of the Board of Approval for SEZs held on 15th June, zoz6 for information and necessary action. 2. The Development Commissioners are requested to take urgent necessary action, on the directions of BoA. Under Secretary to the Covernment of India Tel: 0l l-23039721 Email: sanjay.78@gov.in To r. Central Board of Excise and Customs, Member (Customs), Department of Revenue, 4th Floor, Kartarya Bhawan - I, New Delhi - 11ooo1 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Member (IT), Department of Revenue, 4th Floor, Kartarya Bhauan - I, New Delhi - rrooor 3. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Banking Division, Jeevan Deep Building, New Delhi (Fax: z334446zlzSt66Zgil. 4. Joint Secretary, Depaftment of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Transport Bhawan, New Delhi. 6. Joint Secretary (E), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 7. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Plant Protection, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. B. Ministry of Science and Technolog)-, Sc'G'& Head (TDT), Technolory Bhavan, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi. (Telefax: 26862512) 9. Joint Secretary, Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, lh Floor, Block z, CGO Complex, l,odhi Road, New Delhi - 11o oo3. 10. lo.

uli Road, New Delhi. (Telefax: 26862512) 9. Joint Secretary, Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, lh Floor, Block z, CGO Complex, l,odhi Road, New Delhi - 11o oo3. 10. lo. Additional Secretary and Development Commissioner (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Scale Industry), Room No. 7or, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi I l. Joint Secretary (lS-l). Ministry of Home Alflairs, Kartavya Bhavan-O3, Janpath, New Delhi

• il0001 u OFFICEMEMORANDUM !^ix

74 12. 13. 15. 16 77 1B 19. 20. .tD 24 26 28 29 3o 31. JJ. J5. 36 38. 39. 40. 4r. Ministry of Del'ence, .loint Secretary (c&w), 6th Floor, Kartavya Bhavan-2, New Delhi - lt000l Joint secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, pariyar,aran Bhavan, cGo Complex, Nen Delhi - 11ooo3 (Fax: z43635ZZ) Joint secretary & tegislati'e counsel, Legislative Department, M/o t^aw & Justice, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. (Tel: zg3gZogS). Depaftment of t"egal Affairs (shri Hemant Kumar, Assistant Legal Adviser), M/o l,aw & Justice, New Delhi. secretary, Department of chemicals & petrochemicals, shastri Bhawan, New Delhi J_oint se-cretary, Ministry of overseas Indian Affairs, Akbar Bhalvan, chanakl,apuri, Nerv Delhi. chief Planner, Department of Urban Affairs, Tou'n country planning organisation, Vikas Bhavan (E-Block), I.p. Estate, New Delhi.

of overseas Indian Affairs, Akbar Bhalvan, chanakl,apuri, Nerv Delhi. chief Planner, Department of Urban Affairs, Tou'n country planning organisation, Vikas Bhavan (E-Block), I.p. Estate, New Delhi. (Fax: zgo)3678lzSiZgiil Director General, Director General of Foreign Trade, Departm"ni oi co*-"..", Udyog Bhar-an, Nerv Delhi. Director General, Export Promotion Council for EOUs/SEZs, gG, gth Floor, Hansalaya Building, t5, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - rro oor (Fax: zzggz977o)' Dr. Rupa Chanda, Professor, Indian Institute of Management, n.angaiore, Bennerghata Road, Bangalore, Karnataka Development Commissioner, Noida Special Economic Zone, Noida. Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone, Gandhidham. Development Commissioner, Falta Special Economic Zone, Kolkata. Development Commissioner, SEEpZ Special Economic Zone, Mumbai. Development Commissioner, Madras Special Economic Zone, Chennai Development Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Special Economic Zone, Visakhapatnam Development Commissioner, Cochin Special Economic Zone, Cochin. Development Commissioner, Indore Special Economic Zone, Indore. Development Commissioner, Mundra Special Economic Zone,4th Floor, C Wing, Port Users Building, Mundra (Kutch) Gujarat. Development commissioner, Dahej special Economic Zone, Fadia chambers, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat De'elopment commissioner, Na'i Mumbai special Economic Zone, sEEpZ Sen'ice Center, Central Road, Andheri (East), Mumbhi - 4oo 096 Development commissioner, Sterling special Economic Zone, Sandesara Estate, Atladra Padra Road, Vadodara - 3goot2

l Economic Zone, sEEpZ Sen'ice Center, Central Road, Andheri (East), Mumbhi - 4oo 096 Development commissioner, Sterling special Economic Zone, Sandesara Estate, Atladra Padra Road, Vadodara - 3goot2 Development Commissioner, Andhra pradesh Special Economic Zone, Udyog Bharvan, 9th Floor, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam - 3 De'elopment Commissioner, Reliance Jamnagar Special Economic Zone, Jamnagar, Gujarat Administrator (IFSCA) International Financial sen'ices centres Authority, znd & 3rd Floor, PRAGYA Tower, Block 15, Zone r, Road lC, GIFI SeZ, Cf"ff iity, Gandhinagar, Gujarat Development Commissioner, Surat Special Economic Zone, Surat, Gujarat Development commissioner, Mihan special Economic zone, Nagpur,"Maharashtra Development commissioner, sricity speciar Economic Zone, Andirra pradesh. Development Commissioner, Mangalore Special Economic ione,Mangalore. Government of Andhra Pradesh, principar secretary and cip, Iniustries and Commerce Department, A.p. Secretariat, Hyderabad _ 5ooo22. (Fax: o4o_ 4452895). 34 V

galore Special Economic ione,Mangalore. Government of Andhra Pradesh, principar secretary and cip, Iniustries and Commerce Department, A.p. Secretariat, Hyderabad _ 5ooo22. (Fax: o4o_ 4452895). 34 V

43 44 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 5o. 51. 52. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58 59. 6o. Government of Telangana, Special Chief Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Telangana Secretariat Khairatabad, Hlderabad, Telangana. Government of Karnataka, Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industry Department, Vikas Saudha, Bangalore - 56ooo1. (Fax: o8o-zzz5987o) Government of Maharashtra, Principal Secretary (Industries), Energr and labour Department, Mumbai - 4oo o32. Government of Gujarat, Principal Secretary, Industries and Mines Department Sardar Patel Bhawan, Block No. 5, grd Floor, Gandhinagar - g82o1o (Fax: oZ9- 23250844). Government of West Bengal, Principal Secretary, (Commerce and Industry), Ip Branch (4th Floor), SEZ Section, 4, Abanindranath Tagore Sarani (Camac Street) Kolkata - 7oo 076 Government of Tamil Nadu, Principal Secretary (Industries), Fort St.

tary, (Commerce and Industry), Ip Branch (4th Floor), SEZ Section, 4, Abanindranath Tagore Sarani (Camac Street) Kolkata - 7oo 076 Government of Tamil Nadu, Principal Secretary (Industries), Fort St. George, Chennai - 600009 (Fax: o44-z117o8zz). Government of Kerala, Principal Secretary (Industries), Covernment Secretariat, Trivandrum - 69500l (Fax: o47r-zgggotT). Government of Haryana, Financial Commissioner and principal Secretary), Department of Industries, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh (Fax: orTz-274o526). Government of Rajasthan, Principal Secretary (Industries), Secretariat Campus, Bhagn'an Das Road, Jaipur - 3o2oo5 (or4r-zzz7798). Government of Uttar Pradesh, Principal Secretary, (Industries), lal Bahadur Shastri Bhawan, Lucknow - 226001 (Fax: c.522-2258255). Government of Punjab, Principal Secretary Department of Industry & Commerce Udyog Bhawan), Sector -r7, Chandigarh- t6oo77. Government of Puducherry, Secretary, Department of Industries, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry. Government of Odisha, Principal Secretary (Industries), Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneshwar - 751oo1 (Fax: o67r-5368t9 / z4o6z99). Government of Madhya Pradesh, Chief Secretary, (Commerce and Industry), Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (Fax: oTSS-2SSgg74) Government of Uttarakhand, Principal Secretary, (Industries), No.

5368t9 / z4o6z99). Government of Madhya Pradesh, Chief Secretary, (Commerce and Industry), Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (Fax: oTSS-2SSgg74) Government of Uttarakhand, Principal Secretary, (Industries), No. 4, Subhash Road, Secretariat, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Government of Jharkhand (Secretary), Department of Industries Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi - 834ooz. Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Dadra Nagar Haveli, Secretary (Industries), Department of Industries, Secretariat, Moti Daman - Jg622o (Fax: 0260- 2230775). Gorernment of Nagaland, Principal Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce), Kohima, Nagaland. Government of Chattishgarh, Commissioner-cum-Secretary Industries, Directorate of Industries, LIC Building Campus, 2nd Floor, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. copy to:- PSO to CS / PPS to AS(AB) / pS to JS (VA)/ Sr.ppS to Dir (Gp). trD -

Minutes for the 14od meeting of the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) held on l5d June, 2026 The One Hundred and Forty (r4oth) meeting of the Board of Approval (BoA) for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) was held on t5th June, zoz6, through hybrid mode. The list of participants is at Annexure-I. The item-wise decisions taken by the Board are as below: - Agenda Item No. 140.1: Ratification of the minutes of the 139th meeting of the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) held on trth May, zoz6. The Board ratified the minutes of the r39th meeting of the BoA for SEZs held on rrth May, 2C26. r4o.z(i) Request of M/s.

e Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) held on trth May, zoz6. The Board ratified the minutes of the r39th meeting of the BoA for SEZs held on rrth May, 2C26. r4o.z(i) Request of M/s. Sandhill Aviation IFSC Private Limited, GIFT- Multi Services-SEZ, Gandhinagar for extension of LoA beyond 3.d Year onwards upto 19.o9.2027. The Administrator, IFSCA, informed the Board that the Letter ofApproval (LoA) was issued to M/s. Sandhill Aviation IFSC Private Limited on 2o.og.2o2t and it was valid up to 19.03.2026. The unit did not commence operations during the validity period and submitted an application for extension of the [oA on r7.o3.zoz6, prior to its expiry. The Administrator further informed that the company had purchased an aircraft in June zoz3. However, the commencement ofbusiness was delayed due to certain technical advisories issued by DGCA. Subsequently, DGCA cleared the aircraft for operations in India, subject to replacement of its engine. The company has also entered into an arrangement with Redbird Flight Training Organization, a DGCA-approved Flight Training Organization (FTO). The Administrator informed that the unit has submitted that delays in obtaining local acquisition permission and the Certificate of Registration from DGCA prevented the aircraft from being brought into an airworthy condition within the required timeframe. As a result, the aircraft could not be ferried to Ahmedabad Airport and thereafter to GIFT City for customs clearance.

ft from being brought into an airworthy condition within the required timeframe. As a result, the aircraft could not be ferried to Ahmedabad Airport and thereafter to GIFT City for customs clearance. The company has now completed the necessary preparations for commencement of operations and has infused capital of USD 2oo,ooo into its IFSC unit. The Administrator, IFSCA has also recommended the proposal for extension ofthe l,oA. The Page 1of 23 Agenda Item No. 140.2: Request for extension of LoA ofSEZ Unit fos proposals - rao.z(i)- rao.z(v)l q-

Board was also apprised that the unit is looking forward to commence operations shortly and an extension upto December, 2026 would suffice. In this regard, DGEP observed that the validity ofthe LoA expired on 19.o3.zoz6 and stated that the legal tenability of granting an extension may be examined in light of Rule r9(5) of the SEZ Rules, zoo6. The Administrator, IFSCA, clarified that the company had applied for extension of the LoA on 72.c3.2026, before the expiry of its validity. However, due to procedural formalities at IFSCA and the time required for completion of necessary checks and examinations, the proposal could only be forwarded subsequently for consideration by the Board of Approval. Accordingly, the Board being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in pursuance to third proviso to Rule r9(4) of SEZ Rules, 2006, sranted extension of validity of LoA for a upto r9.r2.2o26. 14o.2(ii) Request of M/s. Soni Polymers ht. Ltd. MIHAN SEZ, Nagpur for extension of LoA for a period of two years i.e.

of SEZ Rules, 2006, sranted extension of validity of LoA for a upto r9.r2.2o26. 14o.2(ii) Request of M/s. Soni Polymers ht. Ltd. MIHAN SEZ, Nagpur for extension of LoA for a period of two years i.e. o2.o8.2o24 to o1.o1.o8,2026 DC, MIHAN SEZ, informed the Board that the Letter of Approval (LoA) was issued to M/s. Soni Pol),rners hrt. Ild., a unit in MIHAN SEZ, on o2.o8.2o21 and it was valid up to o1.o8.2o24. The unit did not commence operations within the validity period of the LoA. However, as per the Chartered Engineer's Certificate submitted by the unit, the construction activity has since been completed and the facility is ready for commencement of operations. The DC further informed that during a routine compliance review undertaken in zoz5, it was observed that the unit had not applied for extension of the LoA beyond its validity period. Thereafter, the unit submitted an application for ertension ofthe LoA through the SEZ Online portal on 29.77.2025. It was further informed that, vide its letter dated 20.c3.2026, the unit submitted photographs evidencing completion of the project and stated that it had secured export orders from countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. However, these orders were subsequently cancelled due to the prevailing geopolitical situation and war-reiated disruptions. The unit also submitted that procurement and import of capital goods may take additional time owing to logistical and trade reiated issues arising from the conflict.

tion and war-reiated disruptions. The unit also submitted that procurement and import of capital goods may take additional time owing to logistical and trade reiated issues arising from the conflict. The DC, MIHAN SEZ, recommended the proposal for extension of the loA. In this regard, DGEP observed that the validity ofthe LoA had expired on o1.o8.2o24 and stated that the legal tenability of granting an extension may require examination in light of Rule rg(S) of the SEZ Rules, zoo6. In response, the DC, MIHAN SEZ, submitted that the delay in filing the application for exlension of LoA was due to an oversight on the part ofthe unit, which failed to apply for renewal before the expiry of the LoA. However, the constmction of the unit has been completed and substantial investment has already been Page 2 of 23 U-

The Board noted that Section ro(ro) ofthe SEZ Act, zoo5 provides that the Board may, in order to promote exports, protect the interests ofunits, or in the public interest, issue such directions or formulate such schemes as it may consider necessary for the operation of Special Economic Zones. Accordingly, the Board observed that there are precedents where delays in renewal of LoAs had been regularised in order to facilitate commencement of operations by units that had already made substantial investments. However, in the instant case, the Board, also observed that the details of investments and progress made are not mentioned in the proposal.

ons by units that had already made substantial investments. However, in the instant case, the Board, also observed that the details of investments and progress made are not mentioned in the proposal. Therefore, after deliberations, the Board directed the DC, MIHAN SEZ, to submit a c'learly articulated proposal bringing out the details of the total investment proposed in the project, the investment made so far, the incremental investment made since the last extension of the LoA, and the commitments for future progress and investment. Accordingly, the Board deferred the proposal for next meeting of Board of Approval. 4o.2(iii) Request of M/s. Padmavati Industries, a unit of Mahindra World City (Jaipur) Limited, Multi-Product SEZ, Jaipur for extension of Letter of Approval (LOA) for a period upto 25.o9.2o26. DC, NSEZ, informed the Board that the Letter ofApproval (LoA) ofthe unit was valid up to 25.03.2026. The unit, however, submitted its application for extension of the LoA after the expiry of its validity period. The DC further informed that the unit had submitted a Chartered Engineer's Certificate datetl 09.o3.2026 certifuing that the factory building had been completed in all respects.

its validity period. The DC further informed that the unit had submitted a Chartered Engineer's Certificate datetl 09.o3.2026 certifuing that the factory building had been completed in all respects. It was also submitted that the unit could not commence production due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, which adversely affected the procurement of machinery and raw materials required for commencement of operations. In this regard, DGEP observed that the validity ofthe LoA had expired and stated that the legal tenability of granting an extension may need to be examined in light of Rule 19(5) of the SEZ Rules, 2006. Responding to the observation, the DC, NSEZ, informed the Board that the unit had submitted reasons for the delayed filing ofthe application for renewal ofthe LoA. The unit stated that one of the partners was unable to complete the necessary formalities as his father-in-law had been hospitalized for an extended period, requiring his personal attention. The DC, NSEZ, further submitted that the construction of the unit had been completed, as evidenced by the Chartered Engineer's Certificate, therefore, recommended the proposal for exlension of the LoA. Page 3 of 23 made in the project. The DC accordingly requested that the case may be considered as one involving regularisation of the intervening period and grant of extension thereafter. 0 -7

LoA. Page 3 of 23 made in the project. The DC accordingly requested that the case may be considered as one involving regularisation of the intervening period and grant of extension thereafter. 0 -7

The Board took note of above, reiterated its view of extension of LoA ofunit and considered that substantial investment has been made in the unit. Accordingly, after consideration of the reasons for delay, completion of construction activity indicated in the CE Certificate, and submission mentioned above, the Board being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in pursuance to extant provisions of SEZ Acll Rules, including third proviso to Rule r9(4) of SEZ Rules, 2006, sranted extension ofvalidity of LoA for a fufther period of six month, from z6.o3.zoz6 to 25.c9.2026. The Board further directed DC, NSEZ to closely monitor thc progress of the project. r4o.z(iv) Request of M/s. Easy Raw (Manufacturing) located at JNPA-SEZ for 24.o5,2027, Materials Privatc Limited 3rd extension of LOA upto DC, SEEPZ SEZ, informed the Board that the Letter of Approval (l,oA) issued to M/s. Easy Raw Materials Private Limited (Manufacturing), located in JNPA-SEZ on 25.05.2023 was valid up to 24.05.2026. The unit had applied for extension ofthe LoA on 15.04.2026, prior to its expiry. The DC further informed that the unit has not yet completed the construction of its project and the physical progress remains at an initiai stage. Accordingly, the unit has not achieved the prescribed level of completion ofconstruction.

has not yet completed the construction of its project and the physical progress remains at an initiai stage. Accordingly, the unit has not achieved the prescribed level of completion ofconstruction. However, the unit has taken effective steps towards implementation ofthe project and has already made investments in the proposed undertaking. It was further informed that the Developer, JNPA-SEZ, has conveyed its no-objection to the proposal and has supported the request ofthe unit for extension ofthe LoA. The DC, SEEPZ SEZ, accordingly recommended the proposal for extension of the LoA. In this regard, DGEP observed that the validity of the IoA had expired and stated that the legal tenability of granting an extension may need to be examined in light of Rule rg(S) of the SEZ Rules, 2006. In response, the DC, SEEPZ SEZ, clarified that the unit had submitted its application for extension on 15.04.2o26, well before the expiry ofthe LoA on 24.o5.2026. The proposal was placed before the Board after completion ofthe prescribed examination and processing. The Board took note of the submissions made by the Development Commissioner, including the fact that the application for extension had been filed within the validity period of the LoA, the investments already made by the unit, and no-objection by the Developer. Accordingly, the Board being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in pursuance to third proviso to Rule r9(4) of SEZ Rules, zoo6, sranted extension ofvalidity of LoA to M/s. Easy Raw Materials Private Umited (Manufacturing) for a further period of one year, i.e.,

t in pursuance to third proviso to Rule r9(4) of SEZ Rules, zoo6, sranted extension ofvalidity of LoA to M/s. Easy Raw Materials Private Umited (Manufacturing) for a further period of one year, i.e., upto 24.05.2o27. Page 4 of 23 v

14o.2(v) Request of M/s. Easy Raw Materials Private Limited (Trading) located at JNPA-SEZ for 3rd extension of LOA upto 2S.oS.2o2Z. DC, SEEPZ SEZ, informed the Board that the Letter ofApproval (LoA) issued to M/s. Easy Raw Materials Private Limited (Trading) was valid up to 25.05.2026. The unit had applied for extension of the LoA on t5.o4.2o26, prior to its expiry. To assess the physical progress of the project, the Specified Officer conducted a site inspection and observed that the unit had recently commenced construction activities. It was noted that plinthJevel work had been initiated at the project site. The DC further informed that the Developer, JNPA-SEZ, had stated that the unit had paid the upfront lease premium for the plot for a period of 6o years and was regularly paying the applicable service charges. It was further informed that the Developer, JNPA-SEZ, has conveyed its no-objection to the proposal and has supported the request ofthe unit for extension ofthe LoA. The DC, SEEPZ SEZ, accordingly recommended the proposal for extension of the LoA. In this regard, DGEP observed that the validity of the LoA had expired and stated that the lcgal tenability of granting an extension may need to be examined in light of Rule rg(S) of the SEZ Rules, 2006.

his regard, DGEP observed that the validity of the LoA had expired and stated that the lcgal tenability of granting an extension may need to be examined in light of Rule rg(S) of the SEZ Rules, 2006. In response, the DC, SEEPZ SEZ, clarified that the unit had submitted its application for extension on t5.04.2o26, well before the expiry ofthe LoA on z4.o5.zoz6. The proposal was placed before the Board after completion ofthe prescribed examination and processing. The Board took note of the submissions made by the Development Commissioner, including the fact that the application for extension had been filed within the validity period of the LoA, the investments already made by the unit, and no-objection by the Developer. Accordingly, the Board being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in pursuance to third proviso to Rule r9(4) of SEZ Rules, zoo6, granted extension ofvalidity of LoA to M/s. Easy Raw Materials Private Limited (Trading) for a further period of one year, i.e., upto 25.o5.2027. Agenda Item No. 140.3: r+o.S(i) Request of M/s Kerala State Information Technology Infi:astructure Limited, Developcr, of KSITIL Special Economic Zone, Charthala, Alappuzha District, Kcrala for partial de-notification of r.oz4t Ha of notified SEZ land area. Page 5 of 23 Request for full/partial de-notification of SEZ lor oroposals - tao.r(i) - 140.q(iii)'l L

Alappuzha District, Kcrala for partial de-notification of r.oz4t Ha of notified SEZ land area. Page 5 of 23 Request for full/partial de-notification of SEZ lor oroposals - tao.r(i) - 140.q(iii)'l L

DC, CSEZ, informed the Board that M/s. Kerala State Information Technology Infrastructure Limited has requested partial de-notification of r.oz4r hectares of notified SEZ land for the purpose of handing over the tto I{/ substation situated in the proposed de-notified area to Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEBL). The DC further informed that all the terms and conditions prescribed for partial de-notification have been complied with. It was also certified that the Developer has refunded the tax or duty benefits availed under the SEZ Act, zoo5 and the SEZ Rules, 2006 in respect ofthe land proposed for de-notification. The Board was apprised that the SEZ shall continue to remain contiguous after the proposed de-notification of r.oz4t hectares. The net area of the SEZ after de-notification would be 12.o547 hectares. Fufiher, the total built-up area ofthe SEZ after de-notification would remain 22,296.54 sqm. It was also informed that the State Government has conveyed its "No Objection" to the proposal. Explaining the reasons for seeking partial de-notification, the DC informed that the Developer had constructed a rro KV substation over an area of r.oz4r hectares within the notified SEZ to cater to the power requirements of units operating in the SEZ.

ation, the DC informed that the Developer had constructed a rro KV substation over an area of r.oz4r hectares within the notified SEZ to cater to the power requirements of units operating in the SEZ. However, owing to low occupancy levels and the limited presence of units in the SEZ, the substation has remained substantially underutilised. It was further submitted that portions of the existing ITbuilding are also lying vacant due to lower anticipated demand for space. In view ofthe above, the Developer has proposed to transfer the rro KV substation to Kerala State Electricity Board Limited for its effective utilisation. The DC, CSEZ, accordingly recommended the proposal lor partial de-notification of r.oz4r hectares of land from the notified area of the SEZ. The Board, being satisfied, in pursuance to first proviso to Rule 8 of SEZ Rules, zoo6 approved the partial tle-notification of 1.0241 Ha out of r3.o788 Ha of M/s Kerala State Information Technology Infrastructure Limited, Developer, of KSITIL Special Economic Zone, Charthala, Alappuzha District, Kerala. r+o.S(ii) Requcst of M/s. Hydcrabad Metropolitan Development Authority (earlier named as M/s. Information Technology and Communication (IT&C) Department and M/s. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority), SEZ at Sy. No. 2S9 & z4o(P), Kokapet Villagc, Serilingampally Mandal, Telangana for de- notification of entire SEZ area of 47.60 Ha DC, VSEZ, informed the Board that M/s. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (formerly M/s. Information Technology and Communications (IT&C) Department and M/s.

of entire SEZ area of 47.60 Ha DC, VSEZ, informed the Board that M/s. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (formerly M/s. Information Technology and Communications (IT&C) Department and M/s. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority) has requested full de-notification of its Special Economic Zone. Page 6 of 23

The DC informed that there are presently no operational units in the SEZ. It was certified that all terms and conditions prescribed for full de-notification have been complied with. The Specified Officer has confirmed that the Developer has not availed any tax or duty benefits under the SEZ Act, zoo5 and the SEZ Rules, zoo6 in respect ofthe notified area of 47.60 hectares. Accordingly, no duty or tax liability arises on account of the proposed de- notification. The State Government has also conveyed its "No Objection" to the proposal. The DC further informed that the Developer was granted Formal Approval on 23.10.2006. The validity of the Formal Approval expired on 22.7o.2oo9 and the Developer has not sought any extension thereafter. The SEZ was notified on 13.tr6.2007. It was further submitted that Rule S(Z) of the SEZ Rules, 2006 requires construction of the prescribed built-up area within ten years from the date of notification, which has also not been achieved. The Developer has neither undertaken substantial development activities for implementation ofthe SEZ nor sought renewal or extension ofthe Formal Approval despite the lapse of approx.

been achieved. The Developer has neither undertaken substantial development activities for implementation ofthe SEZ nor sought renewal or extension ofthe Formal Approval despite the lapse of approx. 19 years from the date of Notification. The DC further apprised that total of six units were granted Letters of Approval (loAs) in the above SEZ; however, none of the units commenced construction activities or commercial operations even after a lapse of 18 years, and all the IoAs had expired long ago. Accordingly, the expired I.nAs were cancelled after following the prescribed due process. It is pertinent to mention that, out ofthe six cancelled LoAs, one unit, M/s Sonata Software Limited (Petitioner), has filed Writ Petition No. 495r of zoz5 challenging the Adjudication Order dated 25:2.2c.24 recommending to the Unit Approval Committee (UAC) the cancellation of the already expired toA, as well as the Order dated 16.01.2025 conveying the decision of the UAC to cancel the toA. VSEZ filed its Counter Affidavit on 29.04.2025 and the matter is presently pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. The Board was further apprised that the proposal had earlier been considered in the r3lst meeting of the Board of Approval held on 28'08.2025.

efore the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. The Board was further apprised that the proposal had earlier been considered in the r3lst meeting of the Board of Approval held on 28'08.2025. At that time, the Board had remanded the matter to the DC, VSEZ, with directions to obtain a legal opinion from the Central Government Standing Counsel regarding the tenability of the de-notification proposal in view ofthe pending writ petition and to resubmit the matter for consideration. The DC submitted that the validity ofthe Developer's approvals had long since lapsed and that the conditions prescribed under Rule 5(7) of the SEZ Rules, 2006 had not been fulfilled. It was further submitted that, in view of the expiry of the Developer's approvals and the absence of any development activity, the likelihood of revival ofthe SEZ project was remote. The pendency ofthe writ petition filed by the erstwhile unit does not alter the status of the SEZ or the validity of the Developer's approvals. u .2/ Page 7 of 23

vival ofthe SEZ project was remote. The pendency ofthe writ petition filed by the erstwhile unit does not alter the status of the SEZ or the validity of the Developer's approvals. u .2/ Page 7 of 23

DC, VSEZ also apprised the Board that legal opinion was sought from the Deputy Solicitor General of India, Hon'ble High Court of the State ofTelangana and it has been opined that since the impugned proceedings are sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court, the proposal for denotification may be considered after fina'l orders are passed in the Writ Petition to the extent ofland concerned. Further it was also advised to file the petition before the Hon'ble Coufi as early as possible for vacation of stay. After detailed deliberations, the Board observed that the implications of the pending writ petition on the proposed de-notification require further legal examination. Accordingly, the Board remanded the prooosal to the DC, VSEZ, with directions to obtain a fresh legal opinion from the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel or the Learned Solicitor General regarding the appropriate future course of action and the legal tenability of de- notification in view ofthe pending writ proceedings. The Board further directed the Development Commissioner to take necessary steps for expeditious disposal of the matter before the Hon'ble High Court and file petition for vacation of stay in matter and to submit the proposal afresh along with the updated legal opinion for consideration of the Board. r+o.S(iii) Request of M/s.

e Hon'ble High Court and file petition for vacation of stay in matter and to submit the proposal afresh along with the updated legal opinion for consideration of the Board. r+o.S(iii) Request of M/s. Rudradev Infopark Private Limited, Developer for full de-notification of rz.z5 Ha. of IT/ITES SEZ at Kistapur Village, Chevella Mandal, Randa Reddy District, Telangana -reg. DC, VSEZ, informed the Board that M/s. Rudradev Infopark Private Limited has requested full de-notification of its IT/ITES SEZ admeasuring 12.25 hectares located at Kistapur Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. The DC informed that the Developer was unable to commence construction and implement the SEZ project due to various exlernal factors, including delays in achieving financial closure. It was submitted that prospective investors and companies were reluctant to participate in the project, primarily on account of its distance from the city, which adversely affected its commercial viability- The Board was further informed that the Formal Approval granted on 26.1o.2006 to the Developer had expired on z5.ro.zoo9 and it was notified on 18.o5.2oo7.

dversely affected its commercial viability- The Board was further informed that the Formal Approval granted on 26.1o.2006 to the Developer had expired on z5.ro.zoo9 and it was notified on 18.o5.2oo7. Further, the Developer had neither sought ertension of the validity of the Formal Approval nor undertaken any development activity for implementation of the SEZ despite the lapse of more than sixleen years. The DC ftifther certified that there are no units operating within the SEZ area proposed for de-notification and that the Developer has not availed any ta-{ or duty benefits under the SEZ Act, zoo5 and the SEZ Rules, 2006 in respect ofthe land proposed to be de-notified. The DC informed that remarks ofthe State Government letter dated o8.o3.2o23 had been discussed during the 139th meeting ofthe Board ofApproval, wherein it was observed that the language of the letter of State Govt. was ambiguous and prone to future Pase I ot 23 V

mis'interpretations and so a clarification was sought.

fthe Board ofApproval, wherein it was observed that the language of the letter of State Govt. was ambiguous and prone to future Pase I ot 23 V

mis'interpretations and so a clarification was sought. The DC submitted that the State Government in its another letter of z5.oz.zoz6 has conveyed that 'YSEZ may take an appropriate decision, as the State Gouernment had not recommended the proposal for notification of the said SEZ." The DC further apprised the Board that the Developer had not obtained any recommendation from the State Government at the time of notification of the SEZ and had not availed any benefits, concessions, or assistance from any State Government authority. It was submitted that the land comprising the SEZ was purchased directly by the Developer from private landowners following due legal procedures and remained under the Developer's ownership and possession. The State Government had no role in the acquisition or transfer ofthe land for SEZ purposes. Accordingly, upon de-notification, the land would continue to remain in the ownership and possession ofthe Developer. The Board took note of the submissions made by the Development Commissioner, including the fact that the Formal Approval had expired long ago, no development activities had been undertaken, no units were operating in the SEZ, and no tax or duty benefits had been availed by the Developer. The Board, being satisfied, in pursuance to first proviso to Rule 8 of SEZ Rules, zoo6 aooroved full de-notification of tz.z5 Ha of M/s.

and no tax or duty benefits had been availed by the Developer. The Board, being satisfied, in pursuance to first proviso to Rule 8 of SEZ Rules, zoo6 aooroved full de-notification of tz.z5 Ha of M/s. Rudradev Infopark Private Limited of IT/ITES SEZ at Kistapur Village, Chevella Mandal, Randa Reddy District, Telangana' The Board further directed the DC, VSEZ, to ensure that the Developer shall furnish an undertaking to pay any differential dues, 'liabilities, or recoveries that may subsequently be identified or become payable on account ofthe de-notification by State Government' r4o.4(i) Request of M/s GV Techparks Private Limited (formerly M/s Tanglin Developments Limited), Developer of Global Village SEZ at Pattenagere/Mylasandra Villages, Off. Banglore-Mysore Highway, RVCE Post, Bangalore, Karnataka State, for demarcation ofSEZ Processing Built-up area (27o28.8o sq.mtr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule lr B of SEZ Rules' zoo6. DC, CSEZ, informed the Board that M/s. GV Techparks Private Limited, Developer of Global Village SEZ located at Bengaluru, Karnataka, has proposed demarcation of 27,o28.8o sqm. ofbuilt-up processing area as Non-Processing Area (NPA) in terms ofRule 1rB ofthe SEZ Rules, zoo6. Page 9 of 23 Agenda Item No. l^40.4 Request for conversion of Processing Area into Non-Processinq Area under Rule rr(B) [a oroposals - rao.a(i) - rao.a(iv)l

n terms ofRule 1rB ofthe SEZ Rules, zoo6. Page 9 of 23 Agenda Item No. l^40.4 Request for conversion of Processing Area into Non-Processinq Area under Rule rr(B) [a oroposals - rao.a(i) - rao.a(iv)l

The DC further informed that the Developer has submitted all requisite documents in support ofthe proposal. It was also confirmed that duty benefits and tax exemptions availed in respect of the built-up area proposed to be demarcated as Non-Processing Area have been fully repaid by the Developer. The Specified Officer has accordingly issued a No Dues Certificate in respect of the said built-up area. The DC, CSEZ, accordingly recommended the proposal for demarcation of z7,oz8.8o sqm. ofprocessing area built-up space as Non-Processing Area under Rule rrB ofthe SEZ Rules, 2006. The Board, after deliberations, pernql[cd the demarcation of the following area as Non Processing Area in terms of Rule rrB of SEZ Rules, zoo6: - In addition to above, the Board stated that the responsibility to ensure that all the extant provisions relating to demarcation of processing area to non-processing area are implemented in letter and spirit, lies with thc concerned DC.

ed that the responsibility to ensure that all the extant provisions relating to demarcation of processing area to non-processing area are implemented in letter and spirit, lies with thc concerned DC. Further, the DC concerned shal'l also ensure that all the applicable duty benefits have been calculated in toto and the same has been fully repaid. r+o.+(ii) Request of M/s Information Technology Park Limited, Developer at Sadaramangala-Pattandur Agrahara, International Tech Park, Whitefi eld Road, Bangalore, Karnataka State, for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built- up area (4SzgS.4o sq.mtr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules, 2tltr6 -reg DC, CSEZ, informed the Board that M/s. Information Technology Park Limited, Developer of the SEZ located at Bengaluru, Karnataka, has proposed demarcation of 45,295.4o sqm. of built-up processing area as Non-Processing Area (NPA) in terms of Ruie uB ofthe SEZ Rules, zoo6. The DC further informed that the Developer has submitted all requisite documents in support of the proposal. It was also confirmed that the duty benefits and tar exemptions availed in respect ofthe built-up area proposed to be demarcated as Non-Processing Area Building/Tower/ Block/Parcel No. offloors Total built-up area (in M") Parcel A Block B Lower Basement+3rd, sth to lh Floors + Terrace 18o92.oo Parccl C Block F Ground+r"t Floor + Terrance 8936.8o Total 27028.8o Page 10 of 23 9--

o. offloors Total built-up area (in M") Parcel A Block B Lower Basement+3rd, sth to lh Floors + Terrace 18o92.oo Parccl C Block F Ground+r"t Floor + Terrance 8936.8o Total 27028.8o Page 10 of 23 9--

have been fully repaid by the Developer. The Specified Officer has accordingly issued a No Dues Ceftificate in respect of the said built-up area. The Board, after deliberations, pCglittgd the demarcation of the following area as Non- Processing Area in terms of Rule rrB of SEZ Rules, zoo6: - In addition to above, the Board stated that the responsibility to ensure that all the extant provisions relating to demarcation of processing area to non-processing area are implemented in letter and spirit, lies with the concerned DC. Further, the DC concerned shall also ensure that all the applicable duty benefits have been calculated in toto and the same has been fully repaid. r+o.+(iii) Request of M/s Manyata Promoters Private Limited, Developer at Villages Rachenahalli, Nagavara and Tanisandra, Bangalore District, Karnataka State, for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built-up area (97,468 sq.mtr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules, zoo6 -reg. The DC, CSEZ, informed the Board that M/s Manyata Promoters Private Limited, Developer at Bangalore District, Karnataka, has proposed demarcation of 37,468 sqm. of built-up processing area as Non-Processing Area (NPA). The DC further informed that the Developer has submitted all requisite documents in support of the proposal.

posed demarcation of 37,468 sqm. of built-up processing area as Non-Processing Area (NPA). The DC further informed that the Developer has submitted all requisite documents in support of the proposal. It was also confirmed that the duty benefits and tax exemptions availed in respect ofthe built-up area proposed to be demarcated as Non-Processing Area have been fully repaid by the Developer. The Specified Officer has accordingly issued a No Dues Certificate in respect of the said built-up area. Building/Tower/ Block/Parcel No. offloors Total built-up area (in M.) Victor Building Lower Basement + Upper Basement+ Ground +8th to r3th Floors + Terrace 45295.40 Total 45'295.40 The DC, CSEZ, accordingly recommended the proposal for demarcation of45,295.4o sqm. ofbuilt-up area processing area as Non-Processing Area under Rule uB ofthe SEZ Rules, 2006. The DC, CSEZ, accordingly recommended the proposal for demarcation of37,468 sqm. of built-up area from the processing area as Non-Processing Area under Rule rrB of the SEZ Rules, zoo6. u 2.... Page 11of 23

CSEZ, accordingly recommended the proposal for demarcation of37,468 sqm. of built-up area from the processing area as Non-Processing Area under Rule rrB of the SEZ Rules, zoo6. u 2.... Page 11of 23

The Board, after deliberations, per4riEed the demarcation of the following area as Non Processing Area in terms of Rule uB of SEZ Rules, zoo6: - Building /Tower / Block/ Plot No. Total built-up area (in M.) Block -C4 (Annex Building A) Ground Floor Block C,1 (Annex Building B) Terrace 696j Block - D4 Block G3 Ground Floor r934 1sr Floor 2409 4 . Floor 3772 5th Floor 3112 6th Floor 3112 ll' Floor 3172 Block -G4 Ground Floor 25O2 1st Floor Total 37,468 In addition to above, the Board stated that the responsibility to ensure that all the ertant provisions relating to demarcation of processing area to non-processing area are implemented in letter and spirit, lies with the concerned DC. Further, the DC concerned shall also ensure that all the applicable duty benefits have been calculated in toto and the same has been fully repaid. r4o.4(iv) Request of M/s Arliga Ecoworld Business Parks Private Limited, Developer at Devarabeesanahalli and Bhoganahalli Villages ofVarthur Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka State, for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built-up area (r85zz.z3 sq.mtr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules' 2()()6 - reg. The DC, CSEZ, informed the Board that M/s Arliga Ecoworld Business Parks Private Limited, Developer at Bangalore, Karnataka, has proposed demarcation of r85zz.z3 sqm.

11 B of SEZ Rules' 2()()6 - reg. The DC, CSEZ, informed the Board that M/s Arliga Ecoworld Business Parks Private Limited, Developer at Bangalore, Karnataka, has proposed demarcation of r85zz.z3 sqm. of built-up processing area as Non-Processing Area (NPA) in terms of Rule rrB of the SEZ Rules, zoo6. The DC further informed that the Developer has submitted ail requisite documents in support of the proposal. It was also confirmed that the duty benefits and tax exemptions availed in respect ofthe built-up area proposed to be demarcated as Non-Processing Area Page 12 of 23 l) -:-- [o. of floors 2972 lr( Floor 4831 3405

have been fully repaid by the Developer. The Specified Officer has accordingly issued a No Dues Certificate in respect ofthe said built-up area. The DC, CSEZ, accordingly recommended the proposal for demarcation of r85zz.z3 sqm. ofbuilt-up area from the processing area as Non-Processing Area under Rule rrB ofthe SEZ Rules, zoo6. The Board, after deliberations, per4rittcd the demarcation of the following area as Non Processing Area in terms of Rule rrB of SEZ Rules, 2006: - Building/Tower/Block/Parcel No. offloors Total built-up area (in sq.mtr) Building dB 2315.15 Building z Ground Floor 2355.49 Building z 2355.49 Building z Terrace Building 5B 5849.59 Building 5B sth Floor Total In addition to above, the Board stated that the responsibility to ensure that all the extant provisions relating to demarcation of processing area to non-processing area are implemented in letter and spirit, lies with the concerned DC.

ed that the responsibility to ensure that all the extant provisions relating to demarcation of processing area to non-processing area are implemented in letter and spirit, lies with the concerned DC. Further, the DC concerned shall also ensure that all the applicable duty benefits have been calculated in toto and the same has been fully repaid. r+o.S(i) Request for cancellation of Co-Developer status - M/s Cowrks India Private Limited, Co-Developer in Arliga Ecoworld Business Park Private Limited (formerly Arliga Ecoworld Infrastructure Private Limited) S8.7, Bangalore. The DC, CSEZ informed the Board that M/s Cowrks India Private Limitetl was issued Letter of Approval on 2otl, Decemb er 2c24 as a Co-Developer for providing Managed Service provider related to: (i) end-to-end management of flexible workspaces, including design, development, operations, sales & marketing, leasing and onboarding of new and existing tenants (ii) provision of mobile application for users of development area including technology solutions geared at enhancing tenant engagement & management of amenities, Page 13 of 23 lGround Floor l4tt Floor 159.78 14tr,Floor 5486.73 18522.23 Agenda Item No. 140.5: Request for cancellation of Co-Developer status - [r orooosal- lao.s(i)l v

& management of amenities, Page 13 of 23 lGround Floor l4tt Floor 159.78 14tr,Floor 5486.73 18522.23 Agenda Item No. 140.5: Request for cancellation of Co-Developer status - [r orooosal- lao.s(i)l v

over an area of ro.4r5 Ha at SEZ developed by M/s Arliga Ecoworld Business Park Private Limited at Bangalore, Karnataka. Now, it has requested for cancellation of Co-Developer status as due to absence of clients and business activity, they have not generated revenue for the said period. Further, DC was also informed that Developer i.e. M/s Arliga Ecoworld Business Park Private Limited has provided its "No Objection Certificate" for cancellation ofCo-Developer status and Specified officer has also issued No Dues Certificate for the proposal Accordingly, the Board, after deliberations, aoproved the proposal for cancellation of Co- Developer status of M/s Cowrks India Private Limited in the SEZ developed by M/s. Arliga Ecoworld Business Park Private Limited at Bangalore, Karnataka. Agenda item No. r4o.6 Miscellaneous Ir uroposal - rao.6(i)l r4o.6(i) Request of M/S. Larsen & Toubro Limited, a Unit in L&T Shipbuilding SEZ, Kattupalli village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District, seeking permission for procurement of a restricted items from DTA under Rule z7(s) of SEZ Rules zoo6. DC, MEPZ, informed the Board that M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited, a unit in L&T Shipbuilding SEZ located at Kattupalli Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District, has requested permission for procurement of restricted items, namely AK-63o Guns (HSN 9301), from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) supplier, M/s.

t Kattupalli Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District, has requested permission for procurement of restricted items, namely AK-63o Guns (HSN 9301), from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) supplier, M/s. Advanced Weapons and Equipment India Limited (AWEIL), a Government of India enterprise. The DC further informed that the said three guns, having an estimated value of approximately Rs. 92 crore, are required for the development of three vessels for the Indian Nary for cadet training purposes. It was also submitted that prior approval of the Board of Approval (BoA) is required for procurement ofthe said restricted item from DTA by the SEZ unit in terms of Instruction No. 47 dated o4.o3.2oro, para (iii), read with Rule z7(z) ofthe SEZ Rules, 2006. Accordingly, the Board, after deliberations, approved the proposal subject to concurrence of the Department of Defence Production. On receipt of same, the letter granting approval to M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited for procurement of restricted items, namely AK-63o Guns (HSN 9301) [3 in nos.], from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) supplier, M/s. Advanced Weapons and Equipment India Limited (AWEIL), shall be issued. u -....... Page 14 of 23

ted items, namely AK-63o Guns (HSN 9301) [3 in nos.], from a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) supplier, M/s. Advanced Weapons and Equipment India Limited (AWEIL), shall be issued. u -....... Page 14 of 23

Agcnda item No. r4o.7 Appeal [z case: r+o.z(i) - qo.z(ii)] t4o.ZG\ Appeal filed under section 15(4) of SEZ Act, 2oo5 and Rule 56(z) of SEZ Rules, 2006 by Resolution Professional of M/s Arshiya Limited against decision of Unit Approval Committee, SEEPZ-SEZ - reg. The appeal rvas filed under Section 15(4) of SEZ Act zoo5 read with Rule 56(2) of the Special Economic Zones Rules, zoo6 by Shri Pankaj Mahajan, Resolution Professional of M/s Arshiya Limited, challenging the decision of the Unit Approval Committee (UAC), SEEPZ-SEZ, whereby the proposal (Agenda Item No.4) of M/s Swiftlog Shipping Services Private Limited for setting up a new unit in the Arshiya Free Trade Warehousing Zone (FTWZ) at Panvel, Raigad, Maharashtra, was rejected in tToth meeting of Approval Committee held for Arshiya FTWZ, he'ld on 22.o7.2c26 and communicated to the appellant on 03.o2.2O26. The total notified area of the SEZ is 57.898 hectares, out of which approximately 3o.625 hectares has been developed and put to use for authorized operations, while the remaining 27.105 hectares is presently vacant and earmarked for future development.

, out of which approximately 3o.625 hectares has been developed and put to use for authorized operations, while the remaining 27.105 hectares is presently vacant and earmarked for future development. It is further noted that M/s Ascendas Panvel FTWZ Private Limited has been approved as a Co- Developer within the said SEZ vide approval dated oS.12.2o16 for provision of infrastructure facilities. M/s Arshiya Limited is presently undergoing Corporate lnsolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) pursuant to order dated z3.o4.zoz4 passed by the Hon'ble National Company [,aw Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, and the affairs of the Developer are being managed by the Resolution Professional. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of UAC, Resolution Professional of M/s Arshiya Limited (the appellant) filed the present appeal before the Board ofApproval after a delay of 13 days beyond the period of limitation of 3o days from the date of communication ofthe impugned order. In this regard, submission made by DC, SEEPZ-SEZ is as follows: . The appeal has been filed by the Resolution Professional of M/s Arshiya Limited against the decision of the UAC rejecting the proposal of M/s Swiftlog Shipping Services R/1. Ltd. for setting up a unit in Arshiya FTWZ, Panvel. . The UAC rejected the proposal as the proposed open/container yard area is a common/shared area and was not shown to be clearly demarcated or under the Page 15 of 23 y-.-

t in Arshiya FTWZ, Panvel. . The UAC rejected the proposal as the proposed open/container yard area is a common/shared area and was not shown to be clearly demarcated or under the Page 15 of 23 y-.-

exclusive possession and control of the proposed unit, as required under the SEZ framework. . No documentary evidence was submitted to establish exclusive possession, demarcation or operational control over the proposed area. Accordingly, the proposal was found not to be in conformity with Rules 17 and t8 of the SEZ Rules, eoo6. . The Co-developer, M/s Ascendas Panvel FTWZ h/t. Ltd., objected to the proposal on the ground that it had neither been consulted nor had consented to the proposed use of common areas/shared infrastructure. The Co-developer has also not been impleaded as a party in the present appeal. . SEEPZ has submitted that approval ofa unit in a common/shared area with disputed rights and control may lead to operational and legal issues and is not envisaged under the SEZ framework. . It has further been submitted that while M/s Arshiya Limited is under CIRP, the objective of value ma,ximisation cannot override the statutory provisions of the SEZ Act, 2o()5 and SEZ Rules, 2oo6. Similar contentions raised before the Hon'ble NCLT were also not accepted. . SEEPZ has stated that the deficiencies identified by the UAC, namely lack of demarcation, absence of exclusive possession/control and unresolved objections of the Co-developer, remain unaddressed in the appeal.

tated that the deficiencies identified by the UAC, namely lack of demarcation, absence of exclusive possession/control and unresolved objections of the Co-developer, remain unaddressed in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal does not merit acceptance and may be rejected. The appellant appeared, virtually, before the Board and made following submissions: . The Appellant has contended that the UAC misinterpreted Rules 17 and r8 of the SEZ Rules, zoo6. It has been submitted that the proposal fulfilled the requirements under Rule 17 and that Rule r8(z) contemplates execution of a sub-lease only after grant of approval. Therefore, insistence on exclusive possession and control prior to approval is not justified. . It was submitted that issues relating to demarcation of the proposed area are procedural and curable in nature and could have been addressed through conditional approval subject to submission ofsite plans, boundary marking and execution ofthe sub-lease agreement. . The Appellant has further submitted that there is no prohibition under the SEZ Act or Rules against container yard/open yard based storage activities and that absence of precedent cannot be a ground for rejection of an otherwise permissible activity. . It was contended that the objections raised by the Co-developer relate to contractual issues between the Developer and the Co-developer and should not affect w Page 16 of 23

permissible activity. . It was contended that the objections raised by the Co-developer relate to contractual issues between the Developer and the Co-developer and should not affect w Page 16 of 23

consideration of the unit approval proposal, rvhich is required to be examined independently under the provisions of the SEZ Act and Rules. The Appellant has stated that the proposed unit would contribute to export promotion, employment generation and positive NFE and that rejection of the proposal on the ground of demarcation is disproportionate and contrary to the objectives of the SEZ framework. It was also submitted that the proposal did not suffer from any statutory disqualification such as ineligibility ofthe applicant, prohibited activities or failure to meet NFE requirements, and therefore the rejection is based only on demarcation issues, absence of precedent and objections raised by the Co-developer. The Appellant has prayed that the order of rejection passed by the Unit Approval Committee be set aside, and that approval be granted for establishment of the proposed warehousing unit within Arshiya FTWZ-SEZ, Panvel. In the alternative, the Appellant has requested that the matter be remanded to the Approval Committee for fresh consideration, subject to appropriate conditions, modifications or clarifications regarding demarcation ofthe area and execution of lease/subJease under Rule r8(z) ofthe SEZ Rules, 20o6.

ee for fresh consideration, subject to appropriate conditions, modifications or clarifications regarding demarcation ofthe area and execution of lease/subJease under Rule r8(z) ofthe SEZ Rules, 20o6. The Appellant has further prayed for any other order deemed fit in the interest ofjustice. The Board nrade following observations: ll III. Rule r7 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 requires that an application for seeking permission for setting up of a Unit must be accompanied with allotment of land/ industrial sheds in the Special Economic Zone. Rule r8 ofthe SEZ Rules, zoo6 stipulates that the Approval Committee shall approve the proposal ofsetting up of unit if availability ofspace is confirmed by the Developer in writing provided the Developer shall enter into a lease agreement and give possession ofthe space in the SEZto the entrepreneur only after the issuance of Letter of Approval of Development. The objections raised by the Co-developer pefiain to contractual issues between the Developer and the Co-developer, and that approval of a unit in a common/shared area where rights and control are disputed may give rise to operational and legal complications and is not envisaged under the SEZ framework. Accordingly, the Board after deliberation, decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal and deferred the appeal with instruction to the appellant to furnish written submission. 'Ihe Board, further, directed DC, SEEPZ to examine the matter after considering the written submissions in light of ex.tant provisions of SEZ Actl Rules ensuring Page 17 of 23 l. v

itten submission. 'Ihe Board, further, directed DC, SEEPZ to examine the matter after considering the written submissions in light of ex.tant provisions of SEZ Actl Rules ensuring Page 17 of 23 l. v

principle of natural justice is afforded to the appellant and contractual obligation between Developer and Co-Developer are also protected. l.4o.7[i) Appeal filed by M/s. Akshara Metals Private Limited, a Unit in Visakhapatnam Special Economic Zone under Section t6(4) of the SEZ Act, zoo5 against the order passed by the Unit Approval Committee in its meeting held on 09.1o.2o2S. An appeal was filed by M/s Akshara Metals Private Limited, a unit located in Visakhapatnam Special Economic Zone (VSEZ), under Section 16 ofthe Special Economic Zones Act, 2oo5 read with Rule 55 ofthe Special Economic Zones Rules, zoo6. The unit was engaged in the manufacture of diamond cutting and polishing and gold ornaments and had been granted a Letter of Approval (LoA) on r8.o8.2o23. The validity of the LoA was subsequently extended and remained valid up to 17.o8.2025. The appeal was filed against Order No. g/SEZ/S6S /YSEZIzo4/5699 dated 1o.1o.2o25, issued by the Development Commissioner, VSEZ, consequent upon the decision ofthe Unit Approval Committee (UAC) taken in its meeting held on o9.ro.zoz5, whereby the LoA of the appellant unit was cancelled. The cancellation order was sent to the registered office address of the appellant, the unit address, and the Specified Officer, VSEZ.

o9.ro.zoz5, whereby the LoA of the appellant unit was cancelled. The cancellation order was sent to the registered office address of the appellant, the unit address, and the Specified Officer, VSEZ. However, the communication sent by Speed Post was returned undelivered with the postal remark "Addressee Left Without Instructions". The LoA was cancelled on the grounds that, during the review of under-implementation units, it was observed that the appellant unit had remained idle without any manufacturing activity and that the premises were found locked. It was further observed that lease rental dues amounting to Rs. 5,t6,86S/- were outstanding as on 3o.o9.2o25. VSEZ Authority had issued notices to the appellant unit for payrnent of outstanding lease rentals, water charges and maintenance charges; however, the dues were not cleared within the stipulated time. Submission made by DC, VSEZ in this regard is as follow: r. The appellant un'it failed to clear the outstanding lease rental dues despite repeated notices issued by VSEZ. However, the outstaniling amount of Rs. 5,t6,86S/-, which folmed the basis ofthe Show Cause Notice (SCN), has since been paid. z. The appellant failed to implement the project within the initial validity period of the LoA. The unit premises remained idle without any activity, and despite being granted an extension, the unit neither commenced operations nor responded adequately to notices issued by the Authority. n Y-.-'' Page 18 of 23

remained idle without any activity, and despite being granted an extension, the unit neither commenced operations nor responded adequately to notices issued by the Authority. n Y-.-'' Page 18 of 23

3. The cancellation order dated ro.ro.zoz5 was returned undelivered with the postal remark "Addressee Left Without Instructions". The Development Commissioner was not informed regarding vacation ofthe premises or any change in address. As the unit premises were found locked, the Show Cause Notice was pasted on the premises, which was subsequently acknowledged by the appellant.
4. A Show Cause Notice dated o4.o7.zoz5 was issued to the unit for non- implementation ofthe project and non-payment oflease rentals.
5. After considering all relevant factors, the Unit Approval Committee approved cancellation of the LoA upon expiry of its validity period, i.e., r7.o8.zoz5. The appellant in its written submission has made following points: r. It has stated that the Show Cause Notice was not received at its registered office or through e-mail and came to its notice only after it was pasted at the unit premises. It was further submitted that the outstanding lease rental dues had since been paid and that substantial investment had already been made in the project. z. The appellant submitted that adequate opportunity of personal hearing was not provided and that the Show Cause Notice dated o4.o7.zoz5 came to its knowledge onll' after it was pasted on the unit premises.

llant submitted that adequate opportunity of personal hearing was not provided and that the Show Cause Notice dated o4.o7.zoz5 came to its knowledge onll' after it was pasted on the unit premises. 3. The appellant further submitted that the outstanding lease rental dues of Rs. s,16,865/- referred to in the Show Cause Notice have since been cleared. 4. The appellant further submitted that it had invested approximately Rs. r5o lalh in the project and had completed major installations. However, commencement of production was delayed due to difficulties in recruiting a Jewellery Manufacturing Manager, business commitments relating to development of a showroom in Dubai, and temporary closure ofthe unit for more than slx months, which resulted in expiry of the LoA on 17.08.2025. 5. The appellant requested condonation ofdelay in filing the appeal and reconsideration of the cancellation of the LoA. The Board observed that the lease rental dues referred to in the Show Cause Notice had already been paid by the appellant. The Board further noted the appellant's contention that the Show Cause Notice had not been received at its registered address and, consequently, an effective opportunity to respond had not been available. After de'liberation, the Board observed that adequate opportunity ofhearing did not appear to have been provided to the appellant prior to cancellation ofthe LoA. Taking into account the payment of outstanding dues and the submissions made by the appellant regarding non- receipt of the Show Cause Notice, the Board decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

ng into account the payment of outstanding dues and the submissions made by the appellant regarding non- receipt of the Show Cause Notice, the Board decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal. f\y- Page 19 of 23

Accordingly, the Board remanded the matter back to the Unit Approval Committee, VSEZ, with directions to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant and thereafter reconsider the matter in accordance with the provisions of the SEZ Act, zoo5 and the SEZ Rules, zoo6. Supplementary Agenda for the l4oth meeting of the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) Agenda Item No. r4o.8: r4o.8(i): Request of M/s Nagaland Industrial Development Corporation Ltd SEZ for further extension of the validity period of firrmal approval, granted for sctting up of Sector specific SEZ f<rr Agro & Food Processing at Ganeshnagar, Dimapur, Nagaland beyond oz,rz,zoz5. Agenda Item No. r4o.9: Rcquest for conversion of Processing Area into Non-Processing Area under Rule rr(B) [ 3 proposals - r4o.g (i)- r+o.g(iii)] 14o.9(i) Request of M/s Festus Properties Plt. Ltd., developer to an IT/ITES SEZ at Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra obtaining approval for demarcation of Processing Built-up area (9982.62 Sqm + 1104.97 Sqm) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 118 of SEZ Rules r+o.q(ii) Request of M/s. Hyderabad Infi:atech hzt. Ltd. Co-Developer of IT/ITES SEZ developed by M/s.

ilt-up area (9982.62 Sqm + 1104.97 Sqm) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 118 of SEZ Rules r+o.q(ii) Request of M/s. Hyderabad Infi:atech hzt. Ltd. Co-Developer of IT/ITES SEZ developed by M/s. Phoenix Infocity Pvt, Ltd at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana for demarcation of Processing area (7575.38 Sqm) as Non-Processing Area in terms of RuIe rrB of SEZ Rules r+o.q(iii) Request of M/s. Seaview Developers Private Limited, developer of IT/ITES SEZ at Plot No. 20 & 2r, Sector-r35, Noida (Uttar Pradesh) for demarcation of a portion of built-up area ("12554,57 Sqmt. as Non Processing Area and A626,74 Sqmt. as trasement / Parking") in SEZ as Non-Processing Area under Rule rrB ofSEZ Rules, zoo6. The Board could not take up the pr<.rposals of Supplementary Agenda Items No. t+o.8(i), 14o.9(i), 14o.9(ii) and r4o.9(iii) due to paucity of time. Hence, the Board deferred the above-mentioned proposals for the next meeting of Board of Approval for SEZs. Page 20 of 23 v Request for extension of Formal aporoval of SEZ I r proposal -rao.8(i)l

e. Hence, the Board deferred the above-mentioned proposals for the next meeting of Board of Approval for SEZs. Page 20 of 23 v Request for extension of Formal aporoval of SEZ I r proposal -rao.8(i)l

Agcnda Item No. 14o.1(): Miscellaneous [z orooo I - rao.ro(i) - rao.ro(ii)l r4o.ro(i) Request of Operation of Additional Entry/Exit Gates in respect of M/s. Infosys Limited, IT/ITES SEZ, Sholinganallur, Tamil Nadu. DC, MEPZ SEZ informed the Board that M/s Infosys Limited, had requested to grant permission to operate multiple entry and exit gates for smooth movement of employees, materials, service vehicle and emergency services in its IT/ITES SEZ at Sholingarallur, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu over land area of 5.37 Ha. The Gate was required to reduce the traffic congestion. MEPZ conducted the site inspection and it was observed that the existing gates located along the OMR serwice road are functioning under significant space and traffic constraints. The seruice road is narrow, accommodates two-way traffic, and lacks sufficient vehicle holding space. It was further observed that the mandatory inspection of incoming vehicles and materials at the existing gates adversely impacts smooth vehicular movement and overall operational efficienry. The proposal has also been examined fiom the security and customs perspective, and the consent of the Authorized Officer/Specified Officer has been obtained.

ement and overall operational efficienry. The proposal has also been examined fiom the security and customs perspective, and the consent of the Authorized Officer/Specified Officer has been obtained. Further after considering the reasons/justification for additional entry/exit gates submitted by the Developer, Additional entry exit gate has been considered and approved by the Development Commissioner in the light of BoA earlier instructions. The DC has forwarded the proposal for information of the BoA. The Board, heard the issue regarding approval given by DC, MEPZ to the entry exit gate of IT/ITES SEZ developed by M/s Infosys Limited at Sholinganallur, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu; and, directed DC MEPZ to submit the coloured map of the gates that existed prior to the said approval and after the permission ofthe current gate for which permission has already been accorded. The Board mentioned that the concurrence to the proposal may be granted after the review of the said map. 14o.1o(ii) Request of M/s. Parry Sugar Refinery India Private Limited to permit the export of Refined Sugar by SEZ Units utilizing loooz imported raw sugar. DC, VSEZ informed the Board that M/s. Parry Sugar Refinery India Private Limited has sought permission to export Refined Sugar by SEZ Units utilizing 1oo% imported raw sugar. As per DGFT notification dated 13.5.2o26, export ofSugar (rawwhite and refined) has been amended from Restricted to Prohibited upto 30.9'2026. Duc to this reason, custom authorities have issued orders to "put on hold".

ation dated 13.5.2o26, export ofSugar (rawwhite and refined) has been amended from Restricted to Prohibited upto 30.9'2026. Duc to this reason, custom authorities have issued orders to "put on hold". The unit request is to allow them to export sugar under 5tr, Proviso of Rule z6 of SEZ Rules, 2()06. Further DC has also informed that PaEe 27 of 2l L

unit has sought permission to exit from SEZ due to accumulated loss of 14o6 crore as on 31.3.2o25. The Board, after due deliberations in the light of DGFT notification dated t3.5.zoz6 decided to allow the unit for export of the sugar subject to the condition that the sugar being exported is made ofthe 1oo% imported raw sugar as per the fifth proviso to Rule z6 of the SEZ Rules, zoo6. Supplementary Agenda-Il for the r4oth meeting of the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) 14o.1r(i) Proposal of M/s. Lanco Hills Technology Park Private Limited, Developer of IT/ITES SEZ at Manikonda Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Rcddy District, Telangana for partial de-notification of area admeasuring 8.98 Ha from M/s Lanco Hills Technology Park Pvt. Ltd SEZ B (proposed after sub division) of the SEZ DC, VSEZ informed the Board that the proposal for bifurcation and de-notification was placed before the BoA in t39th Meeting. The BoA approved the proposal of bifurcation and deferred the proposal for de-notification. The Board had directed the DC, VSEZ to submit the proposal of partial de-notification once the procedure for bifurcation is complete to maintain the contiguity and administrative clarity.

tification. The Board had directed the DC, VSEZ to submit the proposal of partial de-notification once the procedure for bifurcation is complete to maintain the contiguity and administrative clarity. The DGEP vide its comments on agenda for the r39th meeting of BoA had agreed to the proposal of bifurcation and de-notification existing SEZ. The proposal has now been resubmitted for partial de-notification of 8.98 Ha from M/s Lanco Hills Technologr Park hrt. Ltd SEZ B. The DC further informed that all the terms and conditions prescribed for partial de- notification have been complied with. It was also ceftified that the Developer has not availed any tax or duty benefits under the SEZ Act, zoo5 and the SEZ Rules, zoo6 in respect ofthe land proposed for de-notification. The Board, being satisfied, in pursuance to first proviso to Rule 8 of SEZ Rules, zoo6 approved the partial de-notification of 8.98 Ha of M/s. Lanco Hills Technology Park Private Limited, Developer of IT/ITES SEZ at Manikonda Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana and directed to submit the land details with specific survey numbers/ co-ordinates for the purpose of such gazette notification for the said proposal to differentiate between both SEZs of M/s. Lanco Hills Technolory Park Private Limited, Developer of IT/ITES SEZ at Manikonda Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, as bifurcated in 139th meet'ng of BoA for SEZs. \14 Page 22 of 23 Request for full/partial de-notification/ increase area of SEZ [r proposal rao.rr(i)l

Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, as bifurcated in 139th meet'ng of BoA for SEZs. \14 Page 22 of 23 Request for full/partial de-notification/ increase area of SEZ [r proposal rao.rr(i)l

List of Participants for the Meeting of the r4oth Board of Approval for SEZ held on t5th June, zoz6 under the Chairmanship of Commerce Secretary, Department of Commerce. r. Shri Rajesh Agarwal, Chairman & Commerce Secretary, Department of Commerce z. Shri Ajay Bhadoo, Additional Secretary, Department of Commerce 3. Shri Vimal Anand, Joint Secretary, DoC (additional Charge DC, NSEZ) 4. Shri Gaurav Pundir, Director, DoC 5. Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, DG, DGEP, CBIC 6. Shri Ranjan Khanna, Pr. ADG, DGEP, CBIC 7. Shri Abhay Kumar, ADG, DGEP 8. Shri D.B. Patil, Development Commissioner, SEEPZ-SEZ/ KASEZ 9. Smt. P. Hemalatha, Development Commissioner, CSEZ ro. Shri Srinivas Muppaala, Development Commissioner, VSEZ rr. Shri Alex Paul Menon, Development Commissioner, MEPZ-SFZ rz. Shri Gopal Meena, DC, NSEZ 13. Shri Anupam Kumar, Development Commissioner, Dahej SEZ 14. Shd Chandrakant Mishra, Additional DGFI 15. Shri. C Arthur Worchuiyo, Joint Development Commissioner, II4EPZ-SEZ r6. Shri Paras Mani Tripathi, Joint Development Commissioner, NSEZ 17. Ms. Rajtanil Solanki, JDC, I(ASEZ 18. Shri Mankar Mayur, JDC, SEEPZ r9. Shri Raja Shekhar, JDC, VSEZ 20.Shri Raja Ratna Babu, JDC, APIIC SEZ 21. Shri Amardeep Sutaria, ADC, Dahej SEZ List ofparticipants connected with Video Conferencing: -

1. ITA-I, Division, CBDT
2. Smt. Dona Ghosh, Development Commissioner, Mangalore SEZ
3. Dr.

PIIC SEZ 21. Shri Amardeep Sutaria, ADC, Dahej SEZ List ofparticipants connected with Video Conferencing: -

1. ITA-I, Division, CBDT
2. Smt. Dona Ghosh, Development Commissioner, Mangalore SEZ
3. Dr. Praveen Kumar, Development Commissioner, Mihan SEZ
4. Shri Abhimaniu Sharma, Development Commissioner, Surat SEZ
5. Shri, Shri Abhishek Sharma, Development Commissioner, Indore SEZ
6. Shri Gautham S, DGM, IFSC.
7. Shri Anil Kant Mishra, Research Assistant TCPO, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs
8. Shri P. K. Gangwar, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of Legal Affairs g. Dr. Sandeep Kr Raut, Town & Country Planner, MoHUA Page 23 of 23 Annexure y__-