Agenda of 29th BoA meeting - 19th November, 2008

URGENT No. F.2/70/2008-SEZ Govemment of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry Department of Cornmerce (SEZ Section) Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi Dated the 18th November, 2008 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subjeck Agenda for the 29tt meeting of the Board of Approval of Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to be held on 19tr November, 2008 at 5.fi) PM in Room No. 141 at Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi -- Reg. The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's OM of even number dated 17tt, November 2008 on the subject mentioned above. 2. The Agenda note with relevant documents about the item to be considered by the BOA i.e. appeal of M/s Quest Life Sciences Pvt. Limite a unit in MEPZSEZ is enclosed. 3. Kindly make it convenient to aftend the meeting. Encls: As above T,tlt---r (R.K. Pandey) Under Secretary Telefax: 23063418 E-mail: rk.pandey@nic.in As per the list enclosed > o(,-i €.$l'.1('.r>.' P'a w \ L{,4 ..1,< );fl -(^le ,s,nc1ryL )od + p.s L{ wJolT s4r:r A- .:.t) rK'" \8 l.o$, v ''d-tjl o D d b\o u l-rQ ht Q1-o " c A? I $
ryo L, /fl cJ '-oL ( rwlo.^ t\

) 1,

1. Central Board of Excise ancl Customs, (Shri J.K. Batra), Member (Custorns), Departrrent of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. (Fax: 23092628).

2. Centlal Board of Direct Taxes (Shri Dinesh Verma, CIT 0TA), Departrnent of Revenue, Nortl-r Block, New Delhi. (23095479)

3. Ministrv of Finance (Srnt. Ravneet Kaur, Joint Secretary), Banking Division, Department of Economic Affairs. (Fax: 23367702/23360250)

4. Departrnent of Irrdush'ial Policy and Protnotion (Shri Gopal Krishna, Joint Secretary).

5. Ministry of Science and Technology (Dr. Laxman Prasad, Adviser & Head (TDT & NSTMIS), Technology Bhavan, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi. (Telef ax : 26570686)

6. Adclitional Secretary and Development Commissioner (Small Scale Industry) (Shri Jawhar Sircar), Room No. 701, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. (Fax: 23062375)

7. Department oI Information Technology (Slrri Jainder Singh, Secretary), Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex, New Delhi. (Fax: 243631,01)

8. Ministry of Home Affairs (Shri Dipti Vilasa, Joint Secretary), North Block, New Delhi. (Fax: 23093153)

9. Ministry of Defence (Shri Ananti Misra, Joint Secretary (Coordination). (Fax:23792043), South Block, New Delhi.

10. Ministry of Environrnent and Forests (Ms. Nalini Bhat, Adviser), Pariyavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, New Delhi - 3. (Telefax: 24364592)

11. Legislative Department (Shri S.R.Dalheta, Joint Secretary and Legislative Counsel, Room No. 430, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi). (Fa x : 23384832)

12. Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (Shri G, Gurucharan, ]oint Secretary (FS), Akbar Bhawan, Chankyapuri, New Delhi. (Fax:24674140)

13. Department of Urban Affairs, Town Country Planning Organisatiory (Shri J.B.Kshirsagar, Chief Planner), Vikas Bhavan (E-Block), I.P. Estate, New Delhi. (Fax: 23073678 /2337919n

14. Director Ceneral of Foreign Tracle (Shri R.S Gu.iral, DG), Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.

15. Shri L.B. Singhal, Director General, Export Prornotion Council for EOIJs ISEZ Units, 705, Bhikaii Carna Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place' New Delhi - 110 066. (26165538).

16. Dr. Rupa Chanda, Professor, Inclian lnstitute of Management' Banglore' Bennerghata Road, Banglore, Karnataka

17. Develo[ment Commissioner, Noida Special Economic Zone' Noic{a'

18. Development Cotntnissioner, Kanclla Special Economic Zote' Gancll"ritlham.

19. Development Commissioner, Falta Specia'l Economic Zone' Kolkata' 20 D"r"loprr"nt Commissiolrer, SEEPZSpecial Economic Zone' Mumbai' ii. O"r"top*"nt Commissioner, Madras Special Economic Zone' Chennai ii, O"r"top-"nt Cornmissioner, Visakhapatnam Special Economic Zone' VisakhaPatnart '+- ,

20. Development Commissioner, Cochin Special Economic Zone, Cochin.

21. Development Commissioner, Indore Special Economic Zone, Indore.

22. Development Commissioner, Mundra Special Economic Zone,4th Floor, C Wing, Port Users Building, Mundra (Kutch) Cujarat,

23. Government of Tamil Naclu (Shri Shakthikanta Das, Secretary (Industries)), Fort St. George, Chennai - 600009 (Fax: 044-25670822). Copy to: PPS to CS/PPS to AS (RG)/PPS to lS (AM)/PA to Dir (VK)/ PA to Dir (RKM) -I a t.

AGENDANOTE Appeal of I\d/s. Quest Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., a unit tn MEPZ SEZ against the order of cancellation of letter of approval M/s. Quest [ife Sciences Private Limited, a unit in the MEPZ SEZ was granted letter of permission on 24.11.2003 for sefting up a unit for generating clinical bio-analytical statistics and data management. Th"y started the conunercial production on 3147.2ffi4. on obtaining the inforrration that the unit was selling their services in the DTA, the Development Commissioner initiated proceeding under the FTDR Act' On completion of the proceedings, a penalty was imposed on the unit' WhenthecasewasbroughtbeforetheUnitApprovalCommittee,it decided to cancel the letter of approval' Accordingly, the letter of approval was cancelled, vide order dated 23'5'20/UE: (copy of order is placed at Annerl). The unit had appealed to the Board of Approval against such cancellation order (copy of appeal is placed at AnnerII) and the appeat was listed on the Agenda of the BoA during its meeting held on 1.8.2008. In the meanwhile' the unit had also approached Hon ble High Court, Chennai' vide W'P' No' 17878 and obtained interim orders staylng the orders passed by the UAC' In defurence to such (

orders, the BOA did not take up the appeal petition on 1-8-2008. DC, MEPZ SEZ has informed that the above case carne up for hearing on 31.10.2008. Hon'ble High Court rlismissed the case with a direction to the BoA to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner in four weeks' time (copy of Hon'ble Court order is placed at AnnerIII). Accordingly, the matter is placed for consideration of the BoA'

A- Yr P A{ve -_, e? F.No.e/3lJ/2OO3/sE;z covernment of Iodia Ministry of Commerce and Industry Office of the Development Commissioner ITIEPZ€pecial Economic Zone Tambaram, Cfiariiai :GOO d45 Dated: May 23,2OOB o.RDEESUNDER SECTTGTI 76(7i OF SE ACT 2OO5 OF T'TE These orders are being issued for and on behalf of the Unlt Approval commlttee constituted for MEPZ-special Economic zone vide Government of lndia Gazette Notlfication S.O.152(E) dated 7h February 2Oo7 by the Development Comrnlssioner, MtrZ-SEZ and Chairman of Unlt Approydl Committee as authorized by the UAC in ltrs meeting held on 5.4.2008. 2. M/s.Quest Llfe Scienc6 Pw. Ltd. was granted Lett€r of permission N}.8/3O|2OO3/SEZ dated 24.LL.2O03 by the Development Commissioner for setting up a Unit for generating Clinical bio-analytiGl statistics and data management. They started the commerclal production on 3L.7.2OO4. 3. On obtaining lnformauon that the Unlt was selling thelr servlces into DTA in violation of rules and procedures in force, the Development Commissioner lnitiated proceedings under Foreign Trdde (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 by issulng a Show Cause Notice No.8/30/2003/ SEZ dated 23.8.2005. On completion of these proceedings, the Development-Commissioner came to the conclusion that there were violations regarding sale into DTA and imposed a penalty of tu.5.00 lakhs Ru Five Lakhs only) vide Order No.8/30/2003/SEZ dated 21.02.2006. The Unlt appealed against the orders of the Development Commissioner to the Appellate Committee constituted by the Ministry of Commerce, which-uphqlllhg,Dcl s!de! , vide letter N}.L2OL3/L412O06-ADJ/AC dated 10 42007', The Unit has gone on appeal to the Hon'ble High Court the Appellate Committee. a leased to sta orders of of Mad 1 1"{ cra

Q8 4. As Chapter X-A of the Indian Customs Act was applicable to the SF7< for the year 2OO4-OS and 2005-0G, the Deputy Commlssioner of Customs posted to MEPZ-SEZ inttiated pararer proceedings for vioration of customs Act rike exporting services without firing shipping birs or softex forms and transferring servioes into DTA without foflowing the procedures and for non_payment of duty whlle selling lnto DTA. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs on conclusion of the proceedings imposed a penalty of Ls.24.4g lakhs and duty of Rs.24.zl8 lakhs. The Unft has appealed to the Appellate commissioner of customs, chennai. The f nal orders are yet to be passed on the appeals. 5. In sptte of the above action, lt was brought to the notice of tfre Deputy commissioner of Zone customs that the unit is continuing to repeat ttn. same vioration in the year 2006-07. proceedings were initiated by the zone customs for sales into DTA without payment of duty aM ordered recovery of duty amounting to Rs.5'43 lakhs and a mandatory penarty of Rs.2s.43 lakhs. The orders of 6," zone customs has been draflenged and is pending before the Apge ate commissioner, Custom House, Chennai. 6. A show cause Notice issued by the Deveropment commissroner vide retter No.8/30/2O03lSV dated 3L.LO.ZOO7 poirted out the following viotations: _ For the vear 2005-06: (i) Exported services for a value of Rs.31.32 lakhs (as per the ApR filed by the Untt), whereas the Unit had fired documents with MEpz-sEz customs for a value of Rs.11.35 lakhs only. There were no do6uments for the remaining value. (iD Transferring services to .DTA for a value of fu.94,99,697 /- (as per Income Study Ledger account of the Unit) without obtaining appropriate permission from the competent authority as required under para 7.L2 (d) of FTP 2004-09. For t e vear 2 -O7i' (i) Exported services for the value of Rs.45.84 lakhs (as per the ApR filed by the Unlt), whereas the Unit had filed documents with MEPZ-SEZ Customs for Rs.11.51 lakhs only and for remaining value, there documents. 2
*iT 19 \ni) t J to9 $

7 'i ?1q 3<7 7. The Unit repried vide their retter No.NIL dated oL.L2.2c,07 that tor the year 2005-06, they had submttted oopies of the Foreign Inward Remittance certificate (hereinafter referred to as 'EIRC) for an amount of Rs.31.23 lakhs; whereas for the year 20o6-07, they contended that the value of exports was only Rs.3s.74,lakhs out of which studies have been compreted for a varue of Rs.25.3s rakhs onry, They arso produced FIRC for an amount of Rs.19.72 lakhs. They also-pointed out that they wer€ not expected to file any softex forms for amounts below usgzs,ooo as per RBI guidelines. It r,yas observed from the riply.to the show cause Notice that the unit was o)ntradicting the figures given..ln the ApR regarding \rdlue of exports and they had no explanation to offer for the same. Regarding DTA sares, they had no explanation for sale into DTA without paying duty. . FIRcs produced by them indicated the following amount of remittances: - 2005-06 - Rs.14.74 lakhs 2006-07 - Rs.lS.BO takhs Even this amount do€s not cover the entire value of the exports of Rs.31.32 lakhs for the year 2005-06 and Rs.45.84 lakhs for 2O06-07 given in the r.=p"d;; ApRr. 8. Not satisfied by the explanations and finding repeated violations of the rules and proc€dures, the Development commissioner thought it fit to bring lt to the notic€ of the unit Approval commlttee. The UAC in tts meeting held on 28.01.2008 decided to proceed against the unlt under section 16(1) of sEZ Act 200s. It was further decided by the Approval commlttee that a fresh show cause Notice may be issued to the unit by the Development commissioner on behatf of the commlttee under the first proviso to the section 16(1) of the sEz Act 2005. During the meeting of the Commlttee; Shri S Vasudevan, General Manager of M/s.euest llfe Sciences Pvt. Ltd. was also present and he requested for some more time for the Managing Director of the company to appear in person, 9. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice under Section 16(1) of the SEZ Act was issued to the unit vide lener No.8/30/2003/sEz dated L4.oz.2oog. The show cause Notice once again pointed out the foflowing viorations for the years 2005-06 and 2OO6-07: - Violation in the vear 2005-06: (a) Exporting services for a value of Rs.19.97 lakhs without filing docurnents with the Zone customs in vioration of reguration No.13 of Notification No.53/2003 under -hapter XA of the Indian Customs Act. (b) Transferring services to DTA for a value of Rs.94,99,69 in violation of .l ,) 7.72 (d) of FTP 2004-09. Lt rzt url oI I

o3o Violation in the vear 2006-07: (a) Exporting services for the value of E&.31-leEhs_g&Sgt__fli0g statutory doqrments wtth the Zone Customs tn violation ofi,ute +O of SFZ Rules 2006. i (b) .Carry'ng out irb work for DTA companies in violation oF Rule 43 of SEZ Rules 2006 It was also brought to the notice oF the U the above are also violations of dauses 9 and 11 of the Bond-cum-LuT submttted by them. 10. The Unit replied to the Show Cause Notie on 17.3.2OOg, which.was placed before the unlt Approval committee for their consideration ln its meeting held on 25.4.200a. An opportunity for personal hearing was also given to the. unn" Shri T.S.Jaishankar. Managing Director and Shri S Vasude\ran/ General Manager of M/s'Quest Life scienc€s h,.. Ltd. represented the unrt during the personat h;;^;. During the personar hearing, the representatives of the unit reiterated the arguments given rn their repry to Ere show cause Notie. They arso adrnttted that a[ oeorts are ln the furm of printed format such as C1t and and they have ngt @lgleled thejr researcfr findings electronica They also stated that they receive advance from their foreign sponsors for dinical trials and sometimes they have to abandon studies because of Cinical fallures, in whicft case, there will not be any exports and the ad\ranes received are treated as exports eamlnEs because of whrcfr tfiere can be discrepancy behreen the export figures lndicated in APR and shipping brlrs. Regarding DTA sares, they accepted that they had to fire bflrs of enuy and get duty assessrnent done by the Zone custorns, They also admitted that they have not done so for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and they requested the Commlttee to condone this lapse. 11 The committee deriberated on the repry given to the show cause Notice as well as the statements made by the representatives of the U;lt during the p'ersonal hearing. The preliminary objections raised by the unlt in page 2 of their written reply to the show cause Notice (hereinafter referred to as.written repry,) were found to be frivolous and \ rithout substance except objection Nos.l, 3 and 4, The Unit in their objection No'l contended that the Deveropment commissioner has no authority to issue Show cause Notice under section 16(1) of the sEZ Act. The committee noted that the Development Commissioner issued the Show Cause Notice on 05'02'2008 0nry on the basis of authorization given to him by the committee as already pointed out in para 8 above. objection Nos.3 and 4 dear with action taken by the Deveropment commissioner for viorations committed by the unit ouring ine year 20O4-05 whereas the present cause of action was for the comml ed I ) (: 3'1bC] & .:j

5 by the Unit during the years 2005-06 and 20,06-07, hence all the above -objections were oveffuled by the Commlttee. L2, The Unit in page 3 of the written reply took the view that there wlll always be discrepancy r.egarding value of exports beause of receipt of advance payments. The same was reiterated during their personal hearing also. on perusal of the various invoices as well as EIRCS obtalned from their bankers, the commlttee noted that only one advance paym€nt was received during the year 2005-06 for a value of Rs.4.69 lakhs vide FIRC No.2916 dated 30.11.2005 and two advances were nicriiVdd during th€ year 2006-07 for a value of Rs.4.E1 lakhs dnd Rs.3.37 lakhs respectively vide FIRC No.1046 dated L7,4.2OO6 Therefore, lt was..yvrong to say_that the entire discrepancy were on aGoount of receipt of advance payments. 13. Even assuming that advances could not have been accounted for, the Unit was not able to account for a gap of Rs.1G.58. {ak*s for the year 2005-06 (aft€r deductng ks.L4.74lakhs as shown in EIRC from Rs.31.32 lakhs iniricated iii ttie ApR for the year 2005-06) and a gap of Rs.30.(X lakhs for the year ZOO6-OZ laner deductlng Rs.15.80 lakhs as shown in FIRC from nr.+S,ea lakhs indkated in Sle ApR for the year zOO6-iO7), The Unit has not come forward wlth any explanation for this. Further, the Unlt has also not produced any doanmeniary proof to show the btsiness agreements between the Unlt and the sponsor for clinlcal trials, which interalia, would have indicated the conditions of payments and receipts. Therefore, dre Commlttee came to the condusions this explariation can only be an afterthought. 74. The Unit has taken protection under proviso to Rule 46(l) a of Sfl Ru!es, 2006 which exempts filing of softex forms for receipt of payments !1.gOgrts ltue below US$25,000. The Committee noted that during the personal hearing, the Managing Director of the Unit explicitly stated that all exports are in the form of chromatographs or books containing the research findings and they have never transmitted any exports (research findings) using electronic m ta Hence this reason 6i-ri6inting shipping bitis was atsg. reject€d-by_ the Committee, 15. The Unit in pages 4 and 5 of their written reply argued that ther€ can either be a DTA sale or transfer to DTA for exports. From these statements, it was abundantly clear to the commlttee that they were confusing between the DTA sales and job work for the DTA companies, whereas the sEz Act and Rules make a clear distinction between DTA sa{es and job work for the DTA companies. The unit,s contention is that both cannot happen simurtaneousry. The conrmittee not"o tnut it r in both I t .- \r^t', are was possible for a Unit iri'an SEZ to do both, as natu oSl eS

=- 32- 6 entirely dlfferent. A Unlt can do DTA sales of their ucb and servic€s and can also undertake job work for a DTA company. The former ts allowed under certain conditions and the latter is totally prohlblted. 16' In the year 2oos-o6, ie. prior to thi introduction of sEz Act and Rules, the conditions goveming the DTA sales by an SEZ Unit is stipulated under paE 7.L2(d) of Foreign Trade poricy and chapter xA of the Indian customs Act. According to these provisions a service unit can sefl their s€rvices into DTA onry with the prior permission of the .Development commissioner and also on .fulfillment of the NFE. Further a brrr of entry wt|J have to be fired as stipurated under customs Act and sha pay appricabre duties before sefling into DTA. After the enforcement of the SEZ Act and Rules w.e.f. 10.02.2006 (in this case for the year 20o6-07), fte Unit does not fequire any permission, but has to file bill of entry with the zone customs and also pay applicable duties; The written reply is totally sllent about compliane of these provbions, but on the contrary, they have irgued that none of these condftiys are applicable to them. However, during the personar hearing, the representatives of the unlt admltted that they ought to have flred blrs of entry wh e effecting DTA sares and pay the applicable duty. They admltted this lapse. Further it was also nouced that the APR filed by the unlt for the year 2oos-o6, the DTA sares rs shown as NIL; whereas they admitted to having effected DTA sares during the personar hearing. These are glaring contradiction in their arguments. Mor@ver, they arso admttted that services transferred were through the medium of chromatographs and printed books. which can easily be classified as 'goods'. It is for the customs to assess whether ttrey are duuable or'not. It was noted that the unit in their written reply argued that the services transferred is not dutiable irrespective of the dassification as a service or goods. How can the Zone Customs know if the goods or services transfe'ed/ sold to DTA attract duties without filing a bill of entry? The Unit was arguing that whatever they sold in DTA do not attract duty without even filing bill of entry. It was apparent from the above arguments, the Committee noted, that they had appointed themselves as Customs Appraisers of the Zone. 77, The Unit went on to argue that in view of the fact that their products or services is not dutiabre according to them, they have not vrorated crauses g and 11 0f LuT-cum-Bond which obriges them to pay duties whire sering into DTA and not disposing of goods and services into DTA except as provided under sEZ Act. 9i. 4i -231 osloS'

7- 3e 7 18. Regarding violation of job work, the unit in their wrnten reply argued that the services .an be rendered to the companies ahoad by way of dircct e,(Pofts or to pharmaceutical companies in rndia as sales to DTA whidr helps sucfi DTA unns ultimately market their products abroad using these knowledge for fulfilling statutory requirements and registration abroad. Therefore lt is not Job work for exports. The commlttee noted that an sEz unlt is entifled to receive goods and services free of duty and use them for manufacture or generate goods and services for exports only, In case such an sEz unit transfers lts services or supplies goods to a DTA company wtthout payment of duties that recipient DTA company wlll get unintended benef,t vis-a-vis other DTA companies who have to pay duties for procurement of all their goods and services. This would kill the Indian DTA industry. Thls goes against the fundamental principles and spirlt of the concept of sEz as envisaged in the sEz Act and Rules. 19. Ther€fore, the Commtttee came to the condusion that there has been (D viohtion of paa 7.72 (d) of FTp 2OO4-O9 in respect of DTA sales made by the Unlt in the year 2005-06, (ii) regulagon No.13 of Noufication No.53/2003 of Customs in the year 2005-06, (rii) (iv) (v) violation of Rule 46(1)(a) of SU Rules 2006 in rhe year 2006-07, violation of Rule 43 of SEZ Rules 2006 in the year 2OOE-O7, violation of clauses 9 and 11 of Bond-cum-LUT for the years 2fi)F06 and 2006-07. 20. Hence, the unit Approval commlttee unanimously decided to cancel the Letter of Approval issued to the unit in exercise of the powers conferred on the commlttee under section 16(1) of sEz Act 2oo5 for persistent viorauons as discussed above. 2L. However, the Unit may prefer an appeal to the Boad of Approvals under Section 16(4) of the SEZ Act read with Rute 55 and 56 of SEZ Rules 2006. ( 3t (8. VUAYAN) Development Commissioner, MEqZ-SEZ and Chairstan, Unit Approyal Commlttee for and on behalf of the UAC for MEpZ-SEZ To M/s.Quest Life Sciences (p) Ltd., SDF-[I, MEPZ-SEZ, Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045,

A u l.-*,,tc Form-J )-, L APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF UNIT APPROVAL COMMITTEE /s. 16 4 of SEZ Act r/w Rule 55 & 56 of SEZ R les

1. Name of the Applicant res d Ad 2
2. Name and address of the authority, whose decision or order is brought up in appeal:
3. Brief of the decision against which appeal is made: Reason as to why the decision needs review Unit Approval Commiftee MEPZ-SEZ (Chennai) NH-45, Tambaram, Chennai-600045 M/s Quest Life Sciences (P) Ltd SDF-Ill, MEPZ, Chennai 600 045 Cancellation of approval on grounds of violation of- i) Para7.12(dl of FTP 2004-09 in respect of DTA Sales for 2005-06, ii) Of regulation No. 13 of Notification No.53/2003 of Customs notification in respect of exports charged to have been made without filing requisite documents with the Customs for the year 2005-06 iii) of Rule 46(1Xa) of SEZ Rules 2006 in respect of exports charged to have been made without filing export documents with the Customs for the year 2006-07 iv) of Rule 43 of SEZ Rules 2006 by carrying out work for exports for the year 2006-07 v) Of clauses 9 and 11 of Bond-cum-LUT for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07. As per the details facts and grounds enclosed g

L REASONS AS TO WHY THE DECISION NEEDS REVIEW FACTS OF THE CASE The Unit Approval Committee, MPEZ-SEZ, Chennai (for short 'UAC') has cancelled the Letter of Permission dated 24.11.03 granted to M/s Quest Life Sciences (P) Ltd ( hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants') vide its Order No. 8l30l2O03lSEZ dated 23.5.08 on various charges without appreciating the correct factual and legal position. Copy of the impugned Order is enclosed as Annexur* ,. The appellants are filing the present appeal before this Hon'ble Board against the said order of UAC. 2. ln the show cause notices dated 31 .10.07 , 14.2.08 issued by the Development Commissioner and subsequently in the impugned order of UAC, the image of the appellants has been projected as if they are big frauds indulging in all sorts of violation of law relating to SEZ Act, Rules, Customs, FEMA etc. lt has, therefore, become of paramount importance to highlight our activities in brief, the varrous legal provisions contarned in the relevant laws etc and thereafter to discuss the contravention, if any of the laws, so as to facilitate this Hon'ble Board to analyse the entire position in correct factual and legal perspective. 3. The appellants are a company registered under the Companies Act 1956. The appellants are a Clinical Research Organisation (CRO) operating from SEZ viz. MEPZ Tambaram, Chennai 45, in terms of LOP dt. 24.11.03 granted by the Development Commissioner. The appellants commenced their activities in 2004. The appellants are engaged in conducting clinical studies and generating Clinical Bio Analytical Statistics and Data Management for sponsors who are

ta pharmaceutical companies. For this purpose they have set up a state of art US FDA compliant facility with ultra modern equipments at a project cost of over Rs. 6 crores of which Rs. 2 crores were spent on infrastructure alone in MEPZ. Fifty percent of the equity capital of the company is held by a US collaborator, M/s UVB Consultants, lndiana Polis, USA. 4. The unit was set up in the SEZ to get the orders from overseas entities. To establish capability to international clients, the unit has done clinical research for domestic companies even at the low prrce while the company is of the international standards. Therefore, the appellants have also supplied the 'Research Data' in the form of bound books to the domestic companies though the ultimate target is to garner the overseas clients. 5. As per the mandatory requirements of the Cllnical Research Data followed world over as per WHO norms, the appellants are storing one copy of the bound book in their archives, for a penod of '15 years. 6. The appellants have generated expertise in testing, analyzing, interpreting and drawing conclusions on the samples referred to them for analytical study. The appellants have developed in-house technology to carryout the tests and have employed highly qualified medical professionals and have 39 scientists employed besides administrative and related staff for this purpose. The work of the appellants is well recognized. and accepted by the drug administration in various countries. The appellants are always engaged in the continuous exercise of improving the output quality. I

Almost all pharmaceutrcal companies developed all these bio analytical statistics in their own labs, so as to reach perfection in launching commercial manufacture of a drug. But when these companies are ready to commercially manufacture and market the drugs in a country, the Regulatory authority requires them to submit the bio analytical tt.A"r from an independent CRO to confirm the veracity of bio-statistical claim made Oy tnese companies. The appellants have thus limited role of independently' generating bio-analytical statistics, for comparison by the Regulatoryl'utnority with the bio analytical statistics claim of sponsoring pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, the bio analytical statistics are not technical know how transferred to the sponsoring pharmaceutical companies but are only bio statistics generated for comparison with the bio statistics claimed by the sponsonng companies. 8. This bio analytical statistics is not a tradable commodity but is required to meet the Regulatory requirement for marketing a drug in the country. Thus the bio analytical statistics facilitates trade but they themselves are not tradable and the data is specific for the respective client. 9. ln view of the above activities being undertaken by the appellants they were correctly placed rn the category of a 'service provider'. The unit has been set up in the SEZ, with a view that they will !e=gq! to get orders for such Bio analytical analysis from overseas entities and thus earn valuable foreign exchange and generate employment. But these_ types of peculiar activities take time to win the confidence of the renowned overseas entities engaged in the l-

, r manufacture of the drugs. The appellants expect that over a period of time their export would far exceed to the value of the service provided in DTA. But in the initial years due to more work from the domestic companies they have done the analysis work more for domestic companies as compared to overseas entities, But the fact remains that they have achieved positive NFE far in excess than contemplated under the provisions of SEZ Act 10. The appellants receive a percentage of the total value of the services in advance from all customers whether overseas entities or the domestic customers. After the required analysis which may take around 6-8 months time, the data contained in book form showing the analysis is sent to the customers. Sometimes it may happen that the data as analysed by the appellants is not suitable (when the sample fails in the test) and therefore data is not required by the customers. ln that situation, the data analysis ls not supplied. But the money received from the customers is retained and appropriated towards the services rendered by the appellants Therefore, this may result in I situation where the service consideration has been received but no export or supply of goods has been made to the customers in any tangible form. Accordingly, there would be no question of submitting of any shipping bill or bill of entry in these types of situationS) THE APPELLANTS ARE NOT A FRAUD COMPANY. 11. From a perusal of the- order of the UAC and the preceding show cause notices, the image of the appellants has been projected as if they have indulged in the fraudulent activities leading to evasion of duties and taxes. The appellants wish to clarify that the apprehensions in this regard are totally misconceived and

e have been developed without understanding the law and factual background in its correct perspective. 12. The appellants by setting up a unit in SEZ the appellants have got no lncome tax benefit even against their exports for the reason that they have incurred losses continuously since the inception of the unit. The appellants have imported/received the capital goods/inputs without payment of duties having value of Rs. 75 lacs approximately, on which the duty benefit of about Rs. 25 lacs has been taken. Against the said imports the appellants have already exported their services to the tune of Rs. 130 lacs approximately, thus far exceeding the requirement of positive NFE. Had this activity been set up in DTA the same would have been exempt from service tax. 13. ln other words, right from the date of setting up of the unit till date, the appellants have availed a meagre benefit of the duties to the tune of Rs. 25 lacs approximately, against which they have fulfilled the export obligation far in excess. An observation has been made vide paragraph 18 of the impugned order that SEZ unit is entitled to receive goods and services free of duty and in case such SEZ unit is allowed to transfer the goods or services the DTA company without payment of duty then such recipient company will get unintended benefit vis-a-vis other DTA companies who have to pay duties for procurement of their goods and services. lt has been furtfrer observed that this would kill the lndran DTA lndustry. It has been further observed that this is against the fundamental principles and concept of the SEZ as envisaged in the SEZ Act and the Rules. 1

t 14. The appellants would like to clarify that if a DTA company receives similar services from some other DTA service provider then it can receive the same without payment of any duties or service tax, because for all such services no duty or taxes is payable. Similarly, if a DTA unit gets this analysis from abroad then no customs duty is payable if the analysis is imported in the form of books and no service tax is payable by the recipient of service because the activity is exempt from service tax. Therefore, the contention that the appellants are availing unintended benefit is totally inconect and misconceived. Thus, the observatrons made in paragraph 18 of the impugned order are inconect and without any legal basis. GOODS VS. SERVICES 1 5. The unit of the appellants has been approved as a 'service provider'. As explained in detail in the foregoing paragraphs that the appellants are engaged in providing the services relating to the analysis of bio analytical data for comparison by the Regulatory Authority. The said data after analysis is compiled in a book. Therefore, the essential character of the activity being undertaken by the appellants is of providing the services relatingJo the analysis of bio analytical data and not manufacturing of the books 16. ln the case of services it may not be possible always to render them by way of presenting it in tangible form. The appellants submit that after undertaking the analysis if the same is not required by the customers either abroad or within the country then though the services has been rendered but there is no mechanism by which a shipping bill can be filed for export of such services or bill of entry

it, could be filed when such services has been rendered in DTA. Entire confusion has arisen due to the reason that UAC, Development Commissioner and the customs authoritres are of the view that for each transaction of services the appellants are required either to file a shipping bill for the export goods and a bill of entry in the case of DTA supplies. 17. The appellants submit that filing of shipping bill in the case of export and of bill of entry in the case of imports as mandated under the SEZ Act as also under the Customs Act is possible when there is physical export and import of goods. lt is not possible in the case of export and import of services. Unfortunately, Rule 48 of the SEZ Rules stipulates the filing of Bill of Entry for supply of goods and or services in DTA by the DTA buyer. Similarly, Rule 46 stipulates that the unit shall file shipping bill alongwith currency declaration form. But there is no clarif cation as to how the shipping bill or bill of entry can be filed in the case of services particularly when they are not in a physical form. lt is clarified that these documents are filed under the provisions of Customs Act when there is physical export or import of goods. Provisions of Customs Act and the procedure prescribed thereunder is applicable to the export and import of goods and it is not applicable to export and import of services. But, uhder the provrsions of SEZ Act and the Rules, both goods and services have been placed in the same category providing for payment of customs duty and submitting of shipping bill or bill of entry against export and imports. This has resulted in lot of confusion and ambiguity both in the minds of trade & lndustry and also in the minds of Government officials dealing with the im lementation of the scheme g I (

ln , 1 18. As clarified in the preceding paragraphs that the shipping bill or the bill of entry can be filed only in the case of export of goods and not in the case of services particularly when they are in not in physical form From the above it is' thus, clear that misconception has been developed due to the reason that the UAChasconslderedthattheSameprocedureforrenderingofServiceshastobe followed which is applicable for goods' FEMA PROVISIONS 19. The appellants would like to submit that if goods are exported out of lndia then the exporter is required to file a shipping bill along with the GR/SDF form But if the 'software' is exported then a declaration in form Softex has to be filed lt has been further provided in Export of Goods and Service Regulations' 2000 as amended that if the value of the export goods is less than USD 25'000/- then no such declaration has to be submitted Further' the provisions regarding submissionofthedeclarationareapplicablewhenthegoodsareexported.There is no provision for making any declaration if the services are exported' 20. ln other words, if the goods are exported out of lndia then a person ts required to flle a declaration in form GR/SDF/Sofiex provided the value thereof is more than USD 25,000/- No declaration is req uired to be filed if the value of the export goods is less than USD 25,000/- and no declaration is required to be filed if there is exPort of services After the foreign exchange proceeds are received in the bank on account of export of goods or servrces or advance gayments' the bank issues a certificate in the form FIRC 1

1 'r io 21. From a perusal of the notices and the impugned order it would be seen that one of the allegation is that the appellants have not submitted any declaration in Softex form. The appellants clarify that the Softex form applies only in the case of exports of software and that too when the value of export exceeds USD 25,0001. Therefore, the allegation in this regard is misconceived and baseless. 22. ln view of the discussions detailed in the foregolng paragraphs the various charges on which the LOP of the appellants has been cancelled are explained below:- VIOLATION OF PARAGRAPH 7,12G1 OF FTP 2OO4.O9 IN RESPECT OF DTA SALES MADE BY THE UNIT IN THE YEAR 2005-06. 23. Paragraph 7.12(d) ol the FTP, prevailing as on 1.4.2005 stipulated as under:- 7.12 (d) Sub Contracting SEZ units other than gems and jewellery units may be allowed to undeftake job-work for export, on behalf of DTA expofter, provided the finished goods are expofted directly from SEZ units. For such expotts, the DTA units will be entitled tor refund of duty paid on the inputs by way of Brand Rate ot duty drawback 24. This para of the Policy can be applied when a DTA unit has supplied the raw materials for manufacture of the goods on iob work basis to the SEZ unit. ln such a situation, the finished goods are to be exported directly from the SEZ unit. The expression 'jobbing' has been defined in paragraph 9.33 of the FTP as under: "Jobbing" means processing or working upon of raw materials or semi- finished goods supplied to thelob worker so as to complete a paft of the

it 1 process resulting in the manufacture or finishing of an afticle or any operation which is essential for the aforesaid process. 25. ln the present case, there is no supply of raw materials or semi flnished goods. The appellants have not manufactured any finished goods. The appellants have rendered the services relating to analysis of the Bio Analytical Data. The provision of paragraph 7.121d) can be applied only to the goods and not to the services. ln the concept of services, it is implied that the relevant inputs are supplied by the recipient of services. The service provider on the basis of inputs received from the client provides the requisite services. Therefore the very basis to say that the appellants had violated the paragraph 7.12(d) ot FTP is incorrect and misconceived. VIOLATION OF REGULATION NO. 13 OF NOTIFICATION NO. 53/2003 OF CUSTOMS lN THE YEAR 2005.06 26. lt has been observed that the appellants have exported the goods in the year 05-06 without filing the documents with the Zone Customs in violation of Regulation No. 13 of Notification No. 53/03. Regulation 13 of the Customs Regulations 2003 stipulates that the Zone unit will file shipping bill with the customs officer in the zone. The appellants submit that when so ever they have exported the services by way of incorporating the data in the book form they have filed the proper shipping bill with the customs authorities. But in circumstances where they have received advance payments atfd no €xports made or in situations where the services have rendered by analysing the data, without any export of the goods in tangible form then the question of filing the shipping bill does not arise.

l7/ 4 27. The appellants reiterate that the entire confusion has arisen because the activity of 'services' is being considered as synonymous as to the export of 'goods'. As clarified in the foregoing paragraphs that there. may be supply of services without giving anything in tangible form. 28. Further, Section 52 (2) of the SEZ Act, 2005 specifically stipulates that where there is contravention of any provision of Customs Act or SEZ Rules, 2003 or SEZ Regulations, 2003 the same shall be continue to be governed by the provisions of said Act or the Rules. Chapter XA of the Customs Act read with Rules, and Regulations do not stipulate any provisions whereby the UAC can cancel the LOP of the Unit. VIOLATION OF RULE 45(1Xa) OF SEZ RULES, 2006 lN THE YEAR 2006.o2. 29. This allegation is similar to the allegation of violation of Rule Regulation 13. Rule 46 requires that a unit shall file shipping bill with the authorised officer of the customs together with the relevant documents namely invoice, packing list and GR form. The proviso of the said rule further provides that the filing of the declaration shall not be necessary if the value of the export goods is up to USD 25,0001-.ln the present case, value of which individual consig nment was less than USD 25,000/-. Therefore there was no question of filing any declaration in terms of Rule 46 read with the relevant FEMA Regulations. lt has been clarified in the foregoing paragraphs that declaration in form GR/SDF has to be made when the goods are exported in tangible form out of lndia. The declaration in Form Softex has to be made in the case of export of 'software'. There is no requirement to file any declaration in the case of export of 'services,. lnterestingly, for the same

t> activity of rendering the services in DTA durrng the relevant years, charge has been confirmed on the ground that the appellants cleared the services in DTA without obtaining prior permission of the Development Commissioner in the year 2005-06 but the same thing has been dealt as a 'job work' for the year 2006-07, since no permission for DTA sales was required after the SEZ Act came into force. This shows the inconsistency in approach of the Development Commissioner/UAC. 30. ln any case, whensoever, there was export of services containing the data in the form of books, the appellants have filed the requisite shipping bill. lt is reiterated that shipping bill was not filed or could not be filed where there was no export of goods in physical form but there was receipt of foreign exchange on account of rendering of services or advance amount was received. Thus, in situations where the goods are exported in physical form, the appellants have filed shipping bill but no currency declaration form was filed as it is not required under Rule 46 and the relevant provisions of the FEMA. But in case there is an export of services in non physical form then there is no way under which shipping bill can be filed. There is no such requirement under the provisions of the SEZ Rules or FEMA regulations or Customs law to file any such declaration. Thus, the entire findings are totally baseless and misconceived without appreciating the correct factual and legal position. VIOLATION OF RULE 43 OF THE SEZ RULES 2006 IN THE YEAR 2006.07. 31 Rule 43 of the SEZ Rules. 2006 the sub-contracting. This rule provides that a unit on the basis of annualrcermission from the specified officer

II undertakes sub contracting for export subject to the condition that all raw materials including semi finished goods and consumables are supplied by the DTA exporter. 32. lt is clear from the plain language of the rule itself that this can be applied in the case of the goods. lt cannot be applied in the case of services. The appellants have not received any raw materials for the manufacture of the finished goods. The appellants have received samples for undertaking the study and doing the technical analysis of the data. Considering this situation as a sub contracting for DTA unit is totally incorrect and illogical. Therefore this charge is also wild without any legal basis. V]OLATION OF CLAUSES 9 & 11 OF BOND CUM LUT FOR THE YEARS 2OO5- 06, AND 2006-07. 33. Clause 9 of the Bond silpulates that the obligors shall pay the duty on the goods and services sold in DTA in terms of the SEZ Act and the rules made there under. Rule 48 of the SEZ Rules stipulates that the DTA buyer will file the Bill of Entry in respect of the goods received from the SEZ unit. Therefore, it is the onus on the DTA buyer to file the Bill of Entry and pay the duty. The additional facility has been provided under Proviso to Rule 48 stipulates that the unit can file a Bill of Entry on the basis of authorization from DTA buyer. Thus, the, liability to pay the duty and file the B/E is on the buyer of the goods in DTA in terms of Section 30 of the SEZ Act read with the Rule 48 of the SEZ Rules.

t) 34. ln any case when so ever there was supply of services in the form of books, the appellants have trred to file the Bill of Entry. ln some cases, B/E couid not be filed due to the reason that the Customs themselves were not clear as to whether the B/E can filed for such services and they refened the matter to the Development Commissioner for clariflcation. Since there is no duty on import of books in Chapter 49 of the Customs Tariff Act, the question of paying duty thereon does not arise. 35. During the period under dispute, the appellants received three show cause notices from the Customs demanding differential amount of duty. All the orders were set aside by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and have been remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CC ys Gujarat Perstrop Electronics Ltd rcported in 2005 (186) ELT-532 (SC/. Therefore as on date, there is not even a single case confirming the demand of duty and penalty against the appellants. lt is, therefore, inconect to say that the appellants did not pay the duty on the goods and services sold in DTA. 36. Clause 11 of the Bond stipulates that the obligors shall not dispose of goods and services admitted in to the SEZ or goods manufactured or services to the DTA except provided in the SEZ Act and the Rules made there under. The appellants respectfully submit that they did not dispose of goods and services in DTA in contravention of the said clause 11 of the Bond. Rather, the services rendered by the appellants in DTA were duly supported by the documentary evidence. Rule 47 & 48 of SEZ Rules stipulate that the unit can render services in

IL DTA. Rule 48 stipulates that a Bill of Entry shall be filed while selling the goods and services in DTA. The appellants have filed the Bill of Entry as and when the same were supplied in the book form. Therefore all allegations in this regard are baseless. 37. ln view of the foregoing submissions it is clear that the appellants have not contravened any provision of the SEZ Act, SEZ Rules, 2006, SEZ Regulations, 2003 or of bond and LUT. Section 16 of the SEZ Act stipulates the cancellation of the LOP when there is persistent contravention of terms and conditions of LOP. The appellants have substantially complied with all legal requirements. Omissions, if any, are due to the confusion, ambiguity over the interpretation of various provisions of law- There is no question of violating the law persistently so as to warrant the cancellation of LOP. COMMENTS ON THE OBSERVATIONS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF UAC 38. ln paragraph 3 ofthe impugned order an observation has been made that a penalty of Rs. 5 lacs was imposed by the Development Commissioner which was upheld by the Appellate Committee which has been stayed by the High Court of Madras. Thus, the said issue is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Madras High Court and has not attained finality. lt cannot be consldered as contravention of law or of the bond when the mafter has yet to be decided by the High Court. 39. ln paragraphs 4 of the impugned order, it has been contended that the Customs had issued a demand notice of Rs, 24.48 lacs with regard to the DTA sales made in the year 2004-05 and 05-06 but the final orders are yet to be t passed by on the appeals. Likewise, in para 5 it has been observed that another

tv order of the Customs demanding duty of Rs. 25.43 is pending before the Appellate Commissioner Chennai. ln other words, it has been admitted in the impugned order itself that the proceedings with regard to short payment of duty are still pending and have not attained finality. The appellants wish to clarify that the Appellate Commissioner of Customs has already set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities and has remanded the matter for denovo adjudication in accordance with the conect law as advised by the appellate commissioner. The Appellate Commissioner in his order has observed that the goods supplied by the appellants are in the nature of books and therefore are exempted from duty. The appellants fail to understand as to how this can be said as a violation of law when it is a purely matter of interpretation anO is yet to be decided by the higher appellate form. 40. ln para 6, it has been observed that a Show cause notice dated 31.10.2007 was issued by the Development Commissioner alleging contravention of law during the year 200$06 and 2006.07. The appellants had clarified their position vide their reply dated 1.12.2007. lt has been observed in para 7 of the impugned order that there was discrepancy in their figures. The appellants once again are enclosing (Annexure2) the details of exports and the foreign exchange (alongwith the copies of FIRCs) received during the relevant years to substantiate that there is no mismatch between the figures. The difference between the value of the FIRCs and the shipping bills is on account of_ export of services in non physical form or receipt of money in advance. Therefore, thisl)bseMation of the UAC is also without any substance and legal basis

41 Paragraph 9 of the impugned order stipulates that another SCN was issued on 14.2.2OO8 making the same allegations proposing to cancel the LOp of the appellants. The appellants again clarified the entire posltaon vide their letter dated 17.3.08 Copies of the SCN dated 14.2.08 and of reply dated 17.3.08 are collectively enclosed as Annexure-3. 42. ln the succeeding paragraphs of the impugned order it been observed that the UAC was not satisfied with the explanation fumished by the appellants. The allegations made in the SCN were confirmed. The appellants have clarified in detail in the preceding paragraphs as under: .r that there is no contravention of any of the law in any manner; o that no unintended benefits were availed by the appellants; . that non filing of shipping bill against the advance payments or rendering of services in non physical form cannot be attributed as lapse on the part of the appellants; . that whatsoever disputes are pending are on account of interpretation of law; that there is no alleged contravention of law which has aftained finality; . that the present episode is result of the confusion created by the ambiguous provisions and lack of knowledge of the Government officlals dealing with the SEZ units. 43. Thus, all the observations and findings in impugned order are incorrect and have been made without appreciating correctly the factual and legal position tg

t1 PRAYER It is. therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Board may be pleased to: (i) Quash the order No. 8l3Ol2003lSEZ dated 23.5.2008 passed by the Unit Approval Committee, MEPZ -SEZ, Chennai with consequentlal benefits. ii) Stay the above order of the UAC till the disposal of this appeal. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Board may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv) Grant personal hearing in the matter [or 0UES1 $t': SCt iii) ii lJ0. -..,,.A8 D ir Ecrol T Manaliing APPELLANTS VERIFICATI 'i-5-Aa'tLr*.b^^, the applicant, do hereby declare that what is stated above is true to the best of my information and belief tl, Verified today, the day of June, 2008 Eo: ni ,, '.,,1;fi t ir e cicr i*,a, . APPELLANTS 08/A,/O uest-appal

fAw,. € r<rr'< - ? QUEST UFE SCIENCES P LTD 3+ Exports eamlngs as per ApR Rs. in lac Rs. in Lac 31.32 02766/13.03.06 (F|RC 218841 &218eri2) nce P.ymt recetved lpplng Bills Ftled: No.fr2173 FIRC No.201363 FIRC No.202174 5.55 8.69 5.68 11A0 19-92 31.32 a t6

V -.--- r s{ =, W@@nwtank (fi(":{(6rnGr@) &fu-da.: E<q6,@, G-..oaa. .,,4, ac (A Gdt.ltrrdd,h& tln&.t *b!) hlt;ffic.: Clr..rdeGgtfE I, {artlla.l Potu, X.rrlbl-a@@r- A I\19 202773 orrRREF.No. ftB+' . t{28. Branch (9?+c- W@ 9 ot' We ccrtify t-hat wc havc roccived thc followiag rcEitt scc aud procccds thcrcof wcre paid . s) to 6e b@c6ciay lvls. 9cipu-a-t (r@c ql J E By.cssh ! By Pay-cdcr E] :BJ"AEalitto OEEd/lsrviDg/Cash for Mday'5 rccoEt CrctlitAcposat with u5/{qri6 m

• .b) ro BEnq @ for crrilit of bcodcia'y lrif/s. (amaitaiftrs$ 't.itpcd N""'e andplace ofresidencc of he.remittr : ErilA :* Nme and addrcss of remiting baak : o For igtr cr.urory @oud @ryees FaorEiry R^ - E plied purpose of remittmce as stated by rc,oitter ll .;t:"tl .Rrycc{guivaLats. A*$ru-z- lgl- fl 'We also certify lbat lhc palament lhereof* has / has not becq received in noD-conv€rt'ble rupees or gnder any special trade or pa)rnents agreeneEt. We confirm lhat we havc obtained reimbursement in aa approved ma.una. *Strikc out whicbever is inapplicable. FOT CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA la Authorised Sigutory Couatersigaed Busiaess) v 9 I (Ad&ess) a

r A N9 201363 OURRE.NO. flOIfIETH ROAD. 58e €e W#$eryv1ganx s( t' (ql(lf?cEf,ElitB, 1l GoErrp1rd15. thd.ri.th.l ddq'da: cqrEt o6ca: q.<n*,:fr{re, o'anosrrrrcfrin port +tHfilt'Bttl( 0f ltloll, r..6,-/oo@' ,lra.mtlio!"! Bssioe.s Br. AS 49 cHEililAr-600 oo8. IlElA. Da ztt ls l"-s- Branch I Wc ccrtiff tlat wc havc rcccivcd thc followilg reEittaucc ond procccds thcrcof wcrc paid r) to 6c bcorficiry lvf,/sa L; 3cl et-r et (nmc odod&css) a2 t /olos E sy C..t' El By Piy-odq E BJ GEdit b CEl rnssvilgrca$ GeditAccoEt wirh Esturit oEr for MciE /6 accqrd ,w .b)to B-L

for codit ofbcacfciry l{/s. (aruc md ad&css) 'sAocm Nme ad placc of rcsideace of 6e rcmiter €r.1 5 S 4 Naxae atrd addrlcss ofremitirg hank : c-r-i c.o u- <4 Ja'-b P.-uJ* D6d 2-3 Rqpec Rs.96 o rr,r-q Qq< P-eDt o € n- 98p (Rtpees o @@nt os 4aal44 Favouriag Rate ryplied purpose of rc:mittoce as stat€d by t3 e-t1C ! Wc alp.g certi& thafifie payncnt thcreofr bas / any special rade or paymefits agreement. has not be€n rcccived in non-convertible npees or r.uder We confrm that we have obtained reimbursement iD an approved manner. *Strike out whichevcr is inapplicable. FoT CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA .s45. K.G. TrI'UAR latlu r/r-nzz CormtersigDed (F3qq Business) tiaacrOC.esignation) DJTt (Ad&es0 .)

m F- (qrrd:!f,{m-EraEa) d*{6nka: A Ne zoztzl =H'E.e' ouRREF.No. fup4' "/-rLl ' E) to 6e bEocfcia.y l'trls. Ggortrrlsrdh& ljd !.ltE) harOfio6: ClErnrfdd{, atrdt PoH, ltrttal - adr ozt- $ryI$a@cerygilEt"rx 3+ ( p$$, Brach Date CERIIFTCAIE OF.FOREIGN D{W2|RD EI}IITIAN@ Wc ccrtify thst wc havc rcccivcd thc folloriag rcmittalcc aad proccc& thcrcof wcrc paid r o (" rd&6s) o! E gyc.t" I ByPzy-odct E By Alditb OErrdisrvilg/Crsh Crcdit Accqrm wih udri6 oEr fc bcacfciry'c aocouut +b)to B@k, (Il fq credit of bcodciry l9f/s. (mc adad&css) 'sAcom Namc ad place ofresidacc of thereoitter : 4" fbt Ottz Namc and addrrss of rtoifiagta* : 9tE-t,/,tL-Ld Foreign ctrency amouO Rrpcc equival€nt Rs. @ryees ;b* L t) tucd ) Fa'-ruring Rr--rylicd prrpose of remittancc by rcmittef We also ccrti& that the paymcnt tlereof+ has / has not been received in non-cocvertible rqpccs cn rmder a.uy spccial tade or pa,,Eeots agr€€mcnt We coEfrm that we have obtaiaed reimburscment iD 8n approved Eanncr. +Strike out *tichever is inapplicable. FoT CENTRALBANK OF II\DIA --'t'p{ . Authorised Signatory Brsiness Countersigned (AdclresO )

D 1 i!I ! .. {ffiIf;fu$c.,,gggr"x 39 (A GorfiEr dtr Uod.tftE CsiIEf 'Offco : Ctra,dorf**rd, Eftlanrbld trr!b6i - 4{X, aEt . a Ng 2t8841H1ffi, ouRREF.No. Vp+- 2Atb a (q(rstdrEra8Etl, ffi; I (
Branch Drte o a CERTHICAIE OF FOREIGNINWARD REI'ITTANCE Wc ccrtify ther wc havc rcccivcd thc following tcEittsncc and procccds t&crcof wcrc paid . &) to ttr bcoc6ciEy }gs A,-p,-tt- Itt=ott-etl (amc rod o! E Eyc&sL E By P&y-ordlr E By CGditto fuEd6avisg/C.rsh f6bcDcfciEy's.c@uat GEditAccoud Ei6 usluritt o .b)b_ Eo.L @ frccdit of boc6ciry lrI/s. (amc aod ait{rcss) Noe odplace ofresidcncc ofthertmittq : Nmc oad address ofcoiting baok : FueignsutnclraD@ (Rryoes Favorring R.a pplicd DD/TTJIviTJI.Io. has / has tot b€€B rec€ivcd '5Acc@a, t/ttt4 v lDgtod ,8-L ro Rrpoe equnrdat Rs ) purpose of reaittaace as stated by rEmitter+ We also certi& tLat lte pal/mctrt therEof any special Fade or pcyE€ots agrceEcnt We cm.firm f}ler q,s have obtained rcimbursement ia an approvcd ma[ner. *Strike out whichev€r is iupplicable. m nm-convertible nryccs c rmdrr IoT CENTRALBANK OF z--- A Signrtory Busincss) Countersigned (Ad&ess)

7 g? x6tcofurmor5$r-mltibnie ,',i rorrrft'o. Eia'.: 98 6m*3 'bilii.a6 { .lo;3 qp 2.o5 0z?s6 &r.n- EFt I Cl{..1 +d.' drr.t- drd Btrt !.bEd CttI---C Jctrml.r_1 I ir!.r€Ddq 1 . I 8El Afrrr C& ffo. CI|.rI eb. 9 Fd .co.l tdsb OR stl.n nd rvhlct F.lr O&lllcy c&F E'{134.955/- !a !ilu. C ldt ,6?[ o/- Im, '1 c Arno![it .,0 cRT.No. rBB0 ? 439 B / L3. 03. 6 E,ii,i?o.isilBj litL/a^ Io. r b -l Erycli. r ri Oo,rrl.trf C.Pri- o@sr IiIaE scjrEDrcEs PrrT;rrID., CEhBT 500 o{52.rdDIA; ,'1), . " eErt.l.G r tb C.riablr. ',- :-i orlx mcetolpeE:INc., zt -rmitr gneag, rpsr .fiqantE 'u, q?osz. LE, l{o C|rlG f$ .Frftr-nt r. ty jlFr ssrD PIF .l Rrc.lpt by Pl}c.d.r stv R&.r L!. ol,tlt.erb . l:(l c--!F--rE4orr I I qt-ll FD..ry 6idr.d. crtli Trr.- CltdPlrs ': ltEa.rqt 'lto' gT AIR Prt C Errlro . eiaf,i n? l,crat I mr .t - .ebdC.E: CIF I ri.Itr a lwr [8Rri, UsA ' lcddrd faarlhd.ue L a cr ssbrdsjl+.3ol- qrrt{y C{trlrri. .GiD r-l FctdEbctulr TW i'EREIY aet .F@ .' iPar{ft.. .d14. &l w.5il 750 Ue o|!.alwdclt -Ebalb. rb,rBcfE C.irbb.. fb. BAlrlE Stt Dy crElrrcar, RESETR,CS REPORTS FOR I;EITOfIo)CACIlIEi7sO@ A5.XER llslqrcE 1 Bo)( ONIJE

• e Qa-l'o4a.l.a'F&..rd anl Echaa..Cda.$.n qifl .{$ RITC NOs49O599OO.O0' Otrd! ECX 1 Tct l FOE thtt h !sd. ([s.Af,rrfa,l f.alAr IrIfnfV.iUIrR lEqrsAllD NINE HUND&ED aro spcgr SX O!fiJY i e€o FoE l,llll. Fdgn '-u'*.*r',, Ccnnil$loo Rrt. Crl'r.n!v USD Olh.r O.dudiqE OLadra! iait B 2006 ra^Eiaa ,t3

l 1l- I i !l I It' -t--

t l, It' &t- r.:
!:--- E4 E . a74.3eF- ,l. ,.',, I I I l i- ),,1 tl'-t.;4 {-YqyrEgrard-a. YGI t. ffit ,rEErdpdrErgld6lBtrtx .::r::r,;fqF E&i EY llisrfrcr ffalbdr.&Er4td rbd,rf .tdid;dfrftosl @i6iq;!6e E&.rErU,C#rEkRrad--k5e!t- i ,' .'- {., tuirldaL :',..^:+. ,, ] :r'1ffi;i" ei T ---(Srrltt 'C.aErdrlliuaecoritu-, d.ddjin E.Jaf, !q.lru-- .r.!!'!EdEEretrcE5r=Iilr=D5E E t! Hal(tidtr: - -fEatla'qGi ITE, dil.-. ,scd6;i t' I IL '.,'r l. t.i li ,iI I RarffiGrusbnd&l l'dlddEtirld;tiir- -ttger6#+!e.fL l (r) , (4) ($' I I GBJ (e ;r I 1" i I I I I I i I l dsdr€blt .dineqFdleer-f,Fe.djroc.ats{S olry} ' (Wrtb]Ualrseefllbt.Ds:irEdtdior6& (Sef&,suf{r6ep,EIrt s*!6deb.) TDE ,ddliis 5_.. t II I .SMH;FF@RIUFEF RSEHUFEEAI*K OFII1DEF t, .i -:it !;l 'i. I ....:&16, I /(rrprql 1 ol;

a> d *EH#b (ctrrllrrFEr3trfito &re{a. zt884z H,Tf $enggpnx lrt (A GdrlrEn.tde Und3lttE) CqLd&: ChaoderffdC4 .f.rhEr fbkr Mrrrtd -,(xr@t- t t)0 eNg OI,IRRE'.NO. ftP+'ot1) ! Bycash ! ByPay<rda E By Gedit to GrrEd/SrviDglclsh for bcocficia.yt accoqm Branch D^te L3'l'o6 Wc ccrtify thst wc [avc rcccivcd ttrc fotlowiag rcEittancc aDd . a) ro tb€ bocficiary ldls. t Procccds t[ctcof wcte paid Ic-<-tpzttl LGI (namc od GEditA.coutrt witLosfoie @r @ 'b) to -Ban& for acdit of bcocfciry l'l/s. Naoe ad place of rcsidacc of 6e remitei Noe -.d addrcEs ofraiting bok : OL lsl tDded LO, I:o6 (D@c + Dd liutcss) 'sAcoounf Fueign cuncnry aaonnt (&pees Favouring R ?plied purii6se of remiUuce as sat{l by rcniuer equivalcnt Rs. received rn non-conycrtr-ble npees or rmder FoT CENTRAL BANK oF INDIA Signatory r-'- o. We coufirm tbat we have obtained reimburs€Nnent in au approved ,h,nl,er. *Stike out whichever is inapplicable. We also ceti$ rhai aly special tade or the palment tbcrcof paJments sgrcemcnt. has / has not-bcen Cormtersigned ) (Address) )

426" ','t ceAN+'cofifr ouuLEr-en: rotulr'o 6ia5'i,ffi#g8 F{ qr vdqa.Ch rtF rc !rt&h rytE O.[tutc, c&t .ao/- I {:' P,. .05 E .E+t lla rl llll I .8ld.d d inli - 9P 0z?66 I Er.r r-a. 1 f,od C,rqI -- J.d rbbr t .t. ,crra4 d. .i. t orct tal A-r-iE& ,b. & Dli th; I 1 Ii I I I,t- t e o J s&134965/. 'ta rib 'ceq,i 7t i OIrS 02 o Lab lrn& ll..'3 U. orrEsa EIEE 6qIEECES Pl'lr.rlID. , tlbdr.. 1l+n r. E+rbi. EEl?-@. -. eOO.O(? rrr @F TSTBARAT{ cEhEtt IfuIA , olc t.lb- l L a& rEqEGpqI.Es'INc., zi lEn cliSc rREacE" dqsr oean6t."il, qrosz. ljq [o FLF. O' Odt!- 'lrs 80eD & by MLrL, Ini c aihrrr{': CiddA 8.L. .l coriqa een t tu . I €e.{0 1 I I x Rd.a c. EDc.t lri. odd ttrh ccd: ctFl lffit , t5I ', fri {3i. i F..r d htIE G{BrsEi\t 8i n:n !a9. l- CEtld:b.b. gIrD fe- . Alv Wr-drttr c.fofi.. 116. { aarn.acrrr rr iiCl+Fli Rfl€ r@s49059900.00 ,d lrbdr., L-,lr. Ordry BnEr I l{.t 'Gn}tl :lIE a, l.a gA Erar4 tEW CqdI O.*.d 15. r IH d€14.. &qd.l AS.?,ER ffiOICE 1 BOC ot{ur BA/EE TUDY CUEIICE! nn'seasca nppe,r3 aon I/ETVoEIOXACD@-75O8 ) tpE Tot l h wda Wr ou IE NINE RED EUND om,Y FO RTY UR SAIiID EI{D stx B..EI, ,TAKIT ( EVBI ETI SDCIY cEa FoB rfthr F.doti -Io(rr Co.nnih.,lon R.L Crla.n6, usD Oth.r O.dsc oar O!c.!c .tctt n 2006 tr^aira ,t 3 .|} IIH +- I I GRr .No. : BB0?4398/13.03.. 05 '7-t' t' I , : : :I8, I

.0.i4,398 t' ,.. I :'l I I ','l.:,1 -;:) | l:l:,t ;l I .l_ Y€F{ ,::;,.'?+.,2 l&BE+ifird''J.{elrt8agrcr^ Eyi* off, d.gldrlel rli, ryEL' w /. :j,1 +l=- (tb TEF (l ({+, (e!d t&le &. nidtr; (4) OEgtl, H€ldIi{F-. I I (Bj (s), i.tt' I gEriodqlnnnaUrrir ldrctE .iEituif, 14: 1"" I I I I I I t' ( I I I I '-(Wrte{helrycefihtrncq+f gu- ,i@!.dieEtsi rEEfdrE€Fl$r,rr' ($EEt€SEdepf aub6*odlasb4 IEra. ,rft€sr rt j { l l ). L ,: ,i ,'1 .,,r 'i'l :: l + Er-ilrt I i :... :. : Ir.(}Drt:i :l5furq1 (!, .ltirErE@

Ar.e,o..-.--. { ! QUEST LIFE SCTENCES P LTD Not€ 1: For this outstanding advance palment, exports made vide S.B. No.orxs0726.03.0g +t 2 7 EXPO lnvoices ralsed and reported in Revised APR dt.20.6.2007 Rs. in Lac Rs. in Lac 33.75 ical Exports made under Shipping Covering Exporb relating to current year Govering 0$06 advance received Adv Remittances rcceived no. 005421 dt.22.05.06 9.13 2.38 11.51 26.93 FalanceAdva hnc zrars3s fanc.zzoars 1 IF|RC 247s34 ( (26.93-9.13) lnvoice No:050) lnvoice No:060) FIRC 248157 (lnvoice No:054) FIRC 2m601 F|RC247533 noe FIRC 220f62 6.86 1.75 1.75 1.47 2.54 2.55 0.88 17.80 17.A0 I ch': d I,lc

'r-lj r]E i\Jl * k_&b' . qGvaal (qftrfiG,rcrtffi{) '. . *ffie' 21893& C4 Odtrllstdhda Urdstelcr8) Ced.., Ofto ! Otradrl&radi,l&rten fut ll.rltd!aO@l- @ntral Bank , otln4la il.<,. I I j t.. 4{ A ilro OI'R REF. NOJ ftP+ .\4tlb' ioB, Dttc cERr"rrrcArE0F rORErCtr{rNTyARp REMrr..TrtfrcE rcccivod thc follo$irig rcEittatrcc ard irocccds thcrcofwcrc paid t- lc;<t^:p-.,-l (nmc aad Braach ( 'Wc ccni

• 8. ro the \ wi havc Ucocfi)kry fv1/s. C (tr! Q -ay casl ! By Pay.udrr E By Gdii ro OiwdlsreiDglC&sh GEdir Accord wirt lsh/irh oor fu bcodci.ryb rcoort b)to Baolq on fo crEdit of bcacfciary l.v/E. ('u-c ad adatess) Acc(,I[t Name aod placi of resideace of 6c remiter': L Nane ad atldress clf rcmitting bsoft : FsEigD gryccs Frv;oring. R Tplicd purpose offt ,ltrithce 8s f, tdoby rcEitllr+ f d^t d1 ./ Ddad S ) I oZ) , any specia.l eade or paym€nts sgrccDeat ' I e confirrn that we haydobtained reimbursement itr 8n approved manner.
• Stikr our whicteN,,cr isinapplicable ilio cclrti$, 1"t thc paymel th€raoff bas / bas not bcca receivdd if ncat-coowrtible npces or uacler FoT CENIRAL.BANK oF INDIA Signatory Businas) CTNTRAL B,r,Nl( 0E lNOll. lntcrnatron I : '.r:.i.r, si Di. 48, 49 MOrir i; H FoAD CHENNAi 600 oO8 Countersigned (Address) .t I I I I t\L-.

,[-r DECI.ARATION 1 -.005121 Cru..tb l4bEr22 ntffi .dAf EEqIElrtd I aa 5!&. 4. gr.E D- trqElib ' I oi{:i.4dI Sr:l FFit.r .gturErad rElgaeE[ !E.. ofrlf,crtrhsflte firrErrmEl&dF.Gi. .I€tql& t' llrtartrq.' .:IIffiL} 'hrd .l , et rQrpdrctr.rE ttol* tt-..(! , f Ey-'i t cRl J FoEE t 'rdii..sc:gfl t !ffitl ..

c,d,rdL . !rjry trri{itrfj. . -. esDtlo{rr9o/r ffi .?ed!0eqr .tEr[ JE881r 9b. iOB' rEg,Llptlcel. &I5 TW fofrldcd EOIC.DCd..ltrOfl& ttr1E Ara9&nBaQCLrSO .--- fo.fffd{t+ryr Cod&JJcC !@!s8 4ltlE @ -rr'Tn?c?t' EF*!nEE.WEpE_r8B IErEr4sDE- @ rE IE @T, (B.3E EvEx[ r.rE F]pI[ ovE lE@qArE @E EftFEED !E sEvErrr r'{ilF G[[&Y ). Totrl F.OB tl€lu.-lr! Woflb FOBVduo. Fdgttt . lnlinace CoI|!tgrlotl Cunulcv Anounl nd. Otlur Dedu€dor. Dlrcourit I FaearrtiraoRnhrrc..c.fih.!l.'ft.y.t$. $lcb qo.lr oS.Cr to rEcah,!$ th. a.t olgoli,ds. "*"&omFzffi -0,, oq6f,?.rFer/.r cE[ oEO+:AY057 4563 I 22.85. F t r! i L:vrt) lj.:Z:E t { l1': !: E OI T I I A- mEit ;!r, a .iADNAE Fr (nrT ii!-!:) il.Z $,.1i L 6ltl,il-...i

7 tflfirH8rkEe3' cg@$783 flr"-l.t - Dupr,cc q jffi-E#ffi-t8hffi zFl?.!trEC*.ei,;c' .irrE|lrr-6rror o45 jlttDra- I E DECIIRATION U!!e d.clar. lhrtall th. p.rucuLi rhan h..aln ar ts!! aad Gornct b 6 .O 7, & .D 7 5JO lc. t 0.I tna,IIIAI&lDt G.d.Io.aO.t dtet 4clldraor 'LC,Lti!! L I I I I I .F,raaDL.t E Pna.nhf.t, B]r IAAD I Ccbrltrat t CdldE{a Ai.d .t.{r!.t a DLla coataaa - . qrl.t.Drr lmE 9I4CttE6 rrc, rrrirlfGrgg..?o ^t*tEb I}T.c blhdaa l oea brqr.4h&. I'ED 21 3IFEA :ERRAIICE. Est: {teri(iF. E o:r0s2; lEtirtrdrr: Dftrct.at , Jdatft- t.. .t rfrrd t t Etllqtrcblc. &nt I &h rrrsxr&r.rEE fiaIlEBiffrtuidiB atlu,a ELtldHrO( dcrrar..slr. O&- FP.{, 't a. f@ Oo..tlH 'Lss 8m B;iactet far Ior lc-&&d frr a.Lr Caa.rll|{0.L C{AhtI{, Cd (r' Er€crcr cmil 3EIlID @ FOes sf snrD:r ari,orir rrIEry3{eo+olggg ea, ?C8.i 1 rs't64H;?s51.: fITR. ESt 8[XEEEtr DAEEi FOUBTY FOSE TI'O .EUITDRED A}ID EEETT ETVE FOAtAk.hwolrL TEOESAI@ FOB Vdur Fdeht lnogllncg Cdunhrloh OBcourt q-r't!ncY lngunl R.ta Amtvtk olErporl ltlue Oth.r D.dtctoB Fd qod rlll,l. OR xtu i odrscrtliru., thcyin. Itld qporf.r .p.cb b Ecatv. clli. r.i o, food. CunEtrc1 FOB USD Aeolr{ ar tl ^ao,/; EE R 7 a a I It Irr!irf -:,-.'l:I E IE EffiG.i lr$ie .lso atlrch the rl.chrrUonla) Endarghu!.lto. l.J __-_.,__- Lt rh^ri^6d Sicnatoi'y .E..tEz-: r a:r I , IB 6 ,tt6'

t I 1-) tr- 4s EXCTIAN Y€s I DECLABATION.(GR) FOBM NO: BB ls Expod undor UC 6rl6ng6{,lads ? li yos. namo ot adrlslng bar* h ln ria FOn C:trSTOltS C.lstoarE AssossaHe Vatue Rs. le ffi#rs#qr-" erporG to s.arshoss€s estaolisneo outside( Customs Aop.aissr Value Cusbnls Apprair€r Declar8tlon under Forelgn ErclEnge lklagemeo! Act, 199 : [i{/e tE.eby dedais that UWe of the goods ki ,6psd o, wl ch lhb dedaratin b nade and lhat the pa Fr8(a Oi'ren ebow are tue s.ld wth ihe buyer b lhe 'same as th€ fult.eport yalue d€da]gd qwdeaf / b) 'the lu{ s,@d yalue oI lhe goods b nol ol erport and lhat tho vElrrg dsdated ls lhat whlch UW€, havlog rglErd lo lhe pr€vsling n|arl(st conditions, expect tg receive gn Esods in lhs oversBas maret Ul,V€ undsrtake tEl L/We wll doliwr b lhe bank nEm€d harBh tl€ lorotfr exd|ange r€pEssnting ,dl e,@rl value afltre.goods on or belor€ o in lh€ rla nerspeclti€d io ths Reguhtioos made uoder the Act l Neru a dedaie that yl,Ve anl/are rEsldeat ir lndia.ind l/We have a place of b^,"rI ,nltthUfsf lm PW. LTD, o lrw€' aElhrs OR am/are ml h Csution LIsl ol the Rosorye-Bank of lndia. "-asl-s.t. I'* StaiB appr@.iare date old€liv€ry t**r must be wlhln slxnronths l'rqn lhe AaqJglpq,enq uutto, lndia wlth ttle pembsiro ol lrlo Reserve Bank, ths date o{dolili€ry must be wt66'rllt€En monlhs, StrI(8 out s,hlchsvEr b not apdi:aH6 FOR a_rr[roBrsEp DEATEE's usE Unfidm Cod€ Numbor 'lndicate ( ) ln the box Epdlcabl€ Oate ol'(i) nogoli.ltion ([) rec€Ft lc,r col€dbo .., g lNo. .-n.i:,-i.1::4rri_, Type ol Blt' (0 DA [ ] / (i0 OP [ ) (iil) Others [ ] (Writa tr€ name ol hs corEerDed lrdiao Authoiissd Dealor Bran fi). Any other mannor of .€calpt (Spectty) - (Stamp t Srgnature ol authonsed d€aler) Dale ..............................-.....-....:... Adoress .............-.... (SPectrY) . TypeolSt pmeor (i) FlIm Sale Conlrscl I I/(i) CorEignment Basis I. ]/.(fr]Othe6[ ],...........--.........- (Specily) The GF lorm rlas Mudsd ln tfie Statom€ seottothe R6erve Bank with rle R-Retum for the lortrtight ending .,.-.....,............ senton.............. We certlty and confifm that we have rec€lwd the total amounl of .... ...,.,.......-...... as undor behg the proceeds of exports dsclared on lhis lorm (cunency) (Amounl) Period ol R-Rgturn rt ith t\tlich lh6 reallsalion h8s b€en r€ponsd lo RBI 17) G Bank th.ouoh whlch paFhenr b b be .ooon/ed "^-:-S_-f"^ ,@:41 b t-{vLcn tbz-xoo-?f Wheth€r Paymeol ls to be received lhrorghtE ACU YE,STNO Date of Ship.neflt rv-f Credit to NostroAccount in (Country) Deblt to NB Rupoe Account ol a Baok in .............. (Counrry) Daie ol recsipt Currency ln our name Held wlth us Held wltl' (1) (2) (3) (4) (s) (6) .....t . lt ln the nam6 of

r- o4tffa$engggrrx l+q (cffi*€rrElz'arg d*cEaldc: a Ns zzosts H' ' ouRRm.No. €9" srt . (A OorEEst 6(hlla th(hdarhg) C€naEl Ofi€ : CtEds..*rdf, faarhar Pb&a ,*r&l - {D GZl. he lo r, Ized. CERTIFICATE OF TTOREIGI\INWARD REMITTANCE wc ccrtify tLrr sc hrvc rcccivcd the following rcDittancc and procccds thcrcof wcrc paid +"

• a) to thc bcodci{y ltil/E. fi (uanc rod addrrss) olr C-d ?ry{td!r GEdit b OEldlsaviqgi/Cesh C.le<tl Accorut wirh ssrtith our fotcacfciry's rccm
• b) to

Bolq for crcdit dbcacficiry M/s. (mm aod d&uss) 'sAocom Name od plaoe of resibcc of the Noc and addrcss ofrauiriagtak : Furigl orcocfr aoouat t'cr' ll, Pq / 19 lat zot,e 1,44o t+l- DD/TTJIfI/I{o. Dated Rrpee equival€at Rs. (Rq€es Favming r ryplicd pupose of remitmce as statcd by remittcr*/bene6ciary_ Wc slso ccdiry th"r the psrment thereofr h8s / has duy special'Eade or paymqrts agre€,menl lot be€n received in non-converh-ble rr.pces or rmder We coofirm that wc have obtained reinbursem€nt in a! qBproved mamer. +Strike out vd.ichever is inap,plicable. FoT CENTRAL BANK OF II\DIA 0 sov Signatory Brsiness) WI- EBy EBv Egv oo J.S.Daweon o.rr8 F (Address) rZ e.a. r. r-r-o r.r ry-- BruCh

X F.-- W{#6@ @rfiffiank fi A (qfrtEt-Erso *&crift : Ng z475st:#'.T#, lA efir.Er o, hCr frnd..ideg, -Cerdofioe: qlaI!&rrc( a{artrEn Poi( ttrlB-{lOEl. OURREF.No. F(F 8a/ t!b. . ?6,,._r Branch Drtl 2e- , CERrIFICATE OFFOREIGN IIY1VARD RETilITTANCE Wc ccrtify that wc havc rcccivcd thc foltowing rcEittaDce rad procccds thcrcof wcrc paid ) to tta b@6ciEy lv,/s- Qu.e{ Jt . ...r ea (p 4) ",-} ,, (aame adak€is) oD El sy cr6n E ByPly-ordcr E By Grdit to Gtrllotaslvilrg/Cash CrEdir Acconrt wi6 uJwilh oll- fc bcocfcia3r's tccouat Nu.{en rho4<<r^, ' t) to

Badc m for credit of bcocfciray Ms (oaae od ad&css) tAccout Name aad place of residcncc oflhe remi ter : 9 +K Trr-.+ r.lotoq Ea Arc Nme md ailfrcs of rEmiftiag trank: u y'' Nl q,r Bqx DD/TTylvfI/t,to. Fore4p (Rupees Smou currEDcv o^o'[ 4,8+, equivalent Rs 11. 9- 02 l7rot2 Dated l+t .3"o 4o,r has not b 0'{ k'.' -i:::.1'laSAll ----'---- E-t+Ifi Couotersigned It Fr uing Rhs'applied '4 -.,, puqrose of:eminmce as stated by rc:rnit&r* We also certiS that the payEent thereoF has / any special trade or paynents agreement. 1E -.t .i' d We confirm that we have obtaiued reimbursement in an approved manaer. Strike out whichever is ioapplicable. een received in uon.convertible rupecs or rmder FOT CEMRAL B ANK OF INDIA t b.Je/ o .--)n?-A7i thorised sigDotfr vi rg (Foreign Business) Q.lame aad Designatrou) (Address) )

F ti ri . Qfupg7-# ffilrerl'l ({tf{t€ttr@) @ugffi* I A Irr-o 218157 OT'R REF. NO RRo-r

• a) tu tLc bcocfsiary lvtl6. T 6 Go,qrttri orh.fa ftd€rt tdre, Ofica: |l}{ira r Poh, .aOllZl. I Braach Dare ltlt4 o2y (ERIIFICATE OF FOREIG:N INWARD REMTITANCE wc cortify rtrat we havc rcccivcd thc following rcmittancc and procecds t[crcof wcrc paid p. (lanc ad&ss) qtr E By cash I ByPay<rdcr ! ry Ocair to OrrcclSwiagrcaO Grdit Accoulr q,ith ushdrh frr bcac&iry''s rccout ' fq credit ofbac6ciary lvlls r b) no

Bak, _or (nrc od addcss) 'sAcc@ Name ad placc of residencc of the rtmiter : h? n I _n {r'hr., |-J l-- a Name and saldl6ss of remiting bank : pw-tL t DD/TI^ffJNo, -.- Dated Rpee equivalent Rs. o Foreign GtlB* culr€ncv 0^^r' rd pupose of remittanoe asstated reEiter+ We coufrm that we have obtaiaed reimbrusement in an approved maD-o€r tstike out whichEvcr is inapplicable. We also certifr that the payment thcreof+ has / has oot been any special trade or pa)/trl€ats agreeDlmt received in non-convertible rupees or under For CENTRAL B{tlK OF INDIA 0 o./ J.S.Oar*on D.778 CouDtersigned I (Name aad Desioation) Y;r, r^l (Address) Itc-01 iart r}f{EEh{c BANY. I'L,tzrll 49. ctiE t:ot'iT TIN A' IETH oo0o@ ag. lr'' r:' )

tF W@agflflanx {u ({Ifi[lEtEnEri[EO dffic: a Ns z2o6ot =#'#' ( oov.rmEn o, hda{rlddlatho) Cd{EI Ofico : clE rr.rlttt(lNahl rfdt trlrrH -{Xroet. OURREF.NO. ?tep ile Oaa e,,t+ata,e c, Btlrl& D.te CERTIF]ICATE OFFOR.EIGN INWARD RUVI,IrTAI\ICtr' Wc ccrtify t[at T,c havc rcccivcd tlc followi[g rcEittracc and proccods thcrcof wcre paid . r) o rlc bcocrficiry }vf/s C (nac ar&€ss) (!r tr Etr By Cad B.y Pa:rordcr 'By Gcdn.o G-tfsaviug/C5sh GcditAc€oEltwift.us^rih our ^tE.dn. ryr4..l.F-4.4 ; O6cc frr baGfaiarJds rccod I b) ro Bek, frr qedit of bcocfrnry lf/s- _ (nmc rad addrcss) tAccouut {rn Nme.andplacc ofresideoce of the rcmitter : .Nac od addrcss ofraiiciag bai& Foreign cuuency amormt r cE-r) F.E-L (f.Dpees Favourbg R eppliod purpose of e w 1lalna' fupec equivslcut Rs. 2oT Dn tr-l as stated byre.mitter+rbeoefi ctsy ddw- e +o -9ypl\eA.e? We also certi& tha the payme,tt &ereoF hrs / has not b€cn rcceived in non-convertrAle nrpees or rmder aay spaial trade or payncnts agreemeft We coEfiIm that we have obtained reimbursement i[ an approved Dantrer. +Srike out whichcvcr is inap,plicable. FoT CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v r,s.D"f,?t Countersigued SigDarory (F inass) Designation) ) o

,-r_<r-iF .r@q!r-Erra-,? AN9 Qtus-db IfEF' {qrtrrGmlafaEf,) affiq: 247533 H',fl# @ @fifuaank {+ ( Gorrrmddffi tirrdtr€) .Oqlr., Ofica: Cftand€rfHt laft.n Point lrltd -{ro tPt. ouRREF.No. frR? sz3 l9e . Vr.n,_, Bramh Datr lc. I 2. CERTIIICI\TE OF FOREIGN IIYWARD REII'ITTANCE We certify thal wc havc rcccivcd lhc following rcEittancc and procccds thcrcof wcrc paid ,d , " thc b<ncficiary 1"1/s. a,,. ,4 So,.^n, rPJ LIJ (uac s(ldrlss) oD I Bycasb ! ByPay.cdcr El BJCrEdh ro C\tIrtor/swhSr'C.ash Gedit Accouat with ushvitt our for bcoc6ciriy's rcpottrrt N'rqaea4rnorl 'b) to B@t, oa for crcdn of bcocfciary l"l/s. (nznc md addrtss) I Accoud Name aad placc ofresidence ofttre rtmitcr : F'[D L, f.Jz.q-q"-,c,lq1 /Orr<,a, Namc md ad&css of reuitting bark : J-?. t4o t9ar1 DD/TIylv[T./No. Dated ltl .3- o Foreig (Rrpecs tl.('P s 66', Rrryee F, F' urilg Rate ryIrfied to , purpose of rcmiiance as stated by rcmitter+ Eryt>qrs We also certi! that fte payment thereof has / has not been received in non-convertible nrpecs or rmdcr a8y spccial trade or pa)ments agr€efoEnt. We confirm that we have obtained reimburscmeut in ao approved manner. Stike out whichever is inapplicEble. For CENTRAL B{NK OFII{DIA R.fi^)f o) J.S TryIH. Lta tl.ttt- L ,ao .Dzlrzr;rt E.178 T.ANB^tis d Sigtratory (Foreign Business) Coutersigned (Name and Designation) (Addrcss)

-7 1 a \natvsls olErport Vai; OB V.lrr rtlght r0uarnca oltr[Lilon Lcauot th.r Dad0c{o.r. SHIPPING EIII.FOREXPORT OF DT'TYFREE GOODS {{ C.d-.flc. .rr .TiflEEr EOET Rdo H3 OIE.,tffiEED,!A Amoui{ lr r Currrcv EEF:: L ,! 0 a aafo.fb ltrr.ffi?.rrEfq, ?tu OHft'&Da. q.arrE fftsrE**i $rE lll$rECra]l!.., l| ,{r t .E,arfQ I4.r-..: JTt f- l L, Tt T.' II tt I tI I !r dr- Fru otre*a- ,ana{/hoL FB .tIf. tffirth * Arou{ rryrq& Clrltoq tntdr k arport yallE.OR rit& llc ,.€.rgh.ta4 $lctarFlt r b E& ncafvt qPacs d td. 9o9d. :LAMTION For MAMnHao-/c t rl Eg{nhrc-c -:J -'-'!'! I;'.-:t -t -.1 (

06 O'tr @fiffiank (AGot rrErd,hd. l,d@ttu) C.oHC&: Chand..ffftl !{-hr; F*a ,*tttd-iaflt@t- rF--q+k {e k#z@Ct tqdrrwrymc) ffi: eilg 220162 Esffi, ounnrr.No. }.4Xt J , Bre.t Oil. Wc ccrtify thlt wc hlvc rcccivcdtc followiog rcEittancc alrd procccds tbcteof yctcpcid

• t) to thc bco€ficiry }f/& ("*c td&Ess) @ E Bycssh .Q ByPry-udcr E gyqedto manScviagrc.$ q,e<titAcco wi6 us/nrirh our for bcoc,fciary's rcco .b)to EI_L -- fc eodit of bcocftiry lillr (n-"'c aad ad&cs) I\Iaoe od flacc of rcsidcncc of thc rcoitcr : Z Naoe od addrcss ofErriting bot : ForcigD sulracy @ormt DD/f[nf,f./].Io. -....- Darcd (Rrpees Rrpce equivalcnt Rs. Favouriag R applicd purpose.of reuiittance as stdcd by rcmitcr+ d otr irAccom ) 1 We also cciti8,, rh'rlhc payEc[t thereoff has / has not becn receivcd in non-convertible nryees or under any special tradc or p8)tEcats agrE€xreot We con-firrn that we.have obtaincd rcimbursemcnt iD atr aplrroved EaDner .Strike out whichever is inappliceblc. FoT CENTRAL BANK oF INDIA J5.D Countersiged 0 $O SigDatory Bnsincss) 1" (Address) #lr I I T I I

ffiTErG n_ q.t t,,tr, frtq oa'nffi#^. dfurq furr;, fu@rr aryd * & riq fre)ry ffiq dz, &w€, qtrgde - siw sfr ffis{afu aryad tttr*tra ffi frrga 6, fuf,'*s Goveflrrrrent.of lndio, .Ministryof Commerce ond lnduslry, Deporlrnenl of Comrnerce. Of6@.of the Develapmenl Commisioner, MDPZ SPBg^AL ECON()MIC ZOIIE & @OUs in Tardl Ndl, Poudichcr4r, Aailr-an & Nicoblrlshad Adriiriistrolive Offi ce OunOihg. Notionol llighwoy-4S, Tom 015 No.88012003/SEZ To [iUs. Quest Life Sciences Pvt. Ud., SDF{II, I'EPZSEZ, Chennai.r600{X5. Sir, Sub: { ) a ItgtiTpl gomed for setting up? service unit in MEpZ-SEZ in the treld of BE/BA Clinicat Bio-Analytical statis{icsrData fvlanagemenl Report of unauthorized ac1fut_g Siiornr Cause Notice_ ngg - [us. Qrest Lifie scienes (p) Ltd., in MEpZ-sEZ, Tambaram, chennai{S hereinafrer referreri to es 'unit' rvas -granted pemiission ,to set up a seMe unit in JrlEpZ- SEZ vide "lerfrer of permission -ilo.8 FlO2ftW$A. dakt'rl2{l,flf21}3 fu the ?evelo.nment commissioner. trEpz€Ez for generating dinicar bio anaryticar statisfi; and data -managemenl The Danelopment commissioner issued sholv cause Notice vide F'No-8I30t2€DUSa. dared ,zsrogtoS to the 'unit' for.nor carrying o,t sustained elportir.rg actiwy from the sEZ and for tr:ansfuning seMces/knowredge to the Domestic Tariff area for a varue Rs.1.62 crores, by which the 'units' ilregar Domestic Tariff Area sares without proper intimation tdcustoms and without payment of required duties came to right. 2. The Development Commi ssioner adjudicated the case and imposed a penalty of Rs. Five Lakhs vide order in F.No.8l30l2O03lSEZ dated.21 lO2t2OO6 under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and concluded that the unit is guilty of many offences during 04-05 viz exporting services without filing the shipping bills or the softex forms and transfening services into DTA without obtaining appropriate permission from the competent authority. Further, as a sequel to the Developmenl Commissioner,s order dt.21t02t06 MEPZ_SEZ. customs issued a Show Cause Notice for dr.rty on the goods illegally transfened from the SEZ into the DTA for the financiat years 04_05 & 0!06 under the Customs Ad 1962 and the case is pending with Commissioner (Appeals) Custom House Chennai. The amount invol Email ; info@mepz,gov.in nf ved is R 48 lakhs with mandatorv enrltv Phone.: 044-226232201 22628}05 Fax : 91_044 _2262 AZuA Internet- http: / /www.meoz,sov.in

(2) ',EU SPECTAL ECONOMIC zot{E Continuatron Sht.,. g Rs.24.48 latdrc. TIE ,unlt. epeded a€rdns{ tte Devet crated 2.r.o2.06 to r,e. ^peerde "ril; ;ffi=:":ff:t ff]ffLffr#:: commiai'',t o'&r $de ,cppefiEte !ile,r in F.No..12013/ 14t2006-ADJlACdated 10h Aprll 2007. The Appdlate Commlftee vide order dt.10.4.0? hr. ;;;;",;;:. stilr violating the raws and rures in force ttespite the facl that DC has pointed out these lapscs ujdeihb oder tLZIlOZJrtr.. o o dt.31/i,0/0/,thEurftnas asked to-Lhowr""usq1g,t"-Fyd@mer{ CArqnlsdoner, g6pg- sEZ for the radaori afu iroi na idi notiring requingoo<pon doouments for he totar export.I.{r,p,,of 200},06 and 2006-07 rcgtarl h ,'e.IpRs nfaA.6V Sidm and for tran@ng sgrrrigts t9.pra gtrirg 20ffi'rE (i1fu.9.2$6) udho,t obtiiniing appropriate permission frgm the cornpebnt atrfrrorrty- ln nre repry given by the urrit vide refter dt'01/1z0l !o--thq sfgy gqgse Nstice, rhere qya6.no defenoe bythe un-rt on both counts on not filiqg pgDort dodmenb to.cover trre mcovered trgures of Rs. 19.g7 rakhs for the period 200s06 and for Rs.34.s3 rakhs forthe period 2006{7 as given by the ApR for the respective period and for.transfening servioe' into DTA without pemiission for oso6 (upto 9.2.2006.) 3. lnspfte of ttre above adion taken by DC, MEPZ_SEZ and the MEpz4ustoms, E!3 enumerated in para 2 lhe unft repeatedly commlted the same violi6rb tif oxportng seMces wfthout f,ling ehlpping bfls or the eoftex forms for 0$.06 & 06{7 anO transfening services into DTA rivlftrout ohining permission from the competent authority (u@ 92:2006). Further the unlt didrrot adhere to ,the plredues lairJ doum .for clearing of gfA?s-laiddou,ra in Ghryta )(A qrsto-ms /rd 1962and under Rule 48 SEZ Rules 2@6. MEFZ€EZ o.rst6rirs issued ordsrB demarding dgty for the lllegafiy tranBfened goods into DTA for the finandal year06{7 andthe drry ls R825.43 lakhs and mandatory penalty is R6.2S.43 bkhs. Ihis ,ii b befor sre,p{qte ar#rorig under the Oustonit Ad 1I.€:' 0546a00ry/rs t:r -.=,.'lr:. S9!.r #oqe, Qb€nrrair,ta &rthe !,!al3'OlO5, for aill theee{rei'lihand.n yfu ri tle'rilft has bem tvod<.brfteDTA sendingtdbDdstad< into the DTA whidr bll-usl+el 9{ w 7.1zlq.,,lElP-oa{7 prior6 ot comrireirieilent otffi ,ea e4gergrg anfrarieulng:tukt a, of SE' RdtEs Uft''efud from 10.2.?M.. tJence vide tfiis offioe-Shor Gause NoEce

(3) 4' rn addition to the violations indicated in panas 2 & 3 above, atterilion of the unit .is drawn to lhe condltions given in the LUT executed prior to the Strz Rules & Act and the conditions given in the Bondcum-Lur executed under the sEZ Rures & Act. under the 'LUT €xecuted prior to the su unlts vide dause 4 there has been a vioraiion in the manner of DTA sales effected, and under the Bond-ctm_LuT executed under the SEZ Rures there has been an vioration of crauses g & 1 1. Further there is a dear vioration of condition X read with (i) in L.O.p No. Lr. Bt3OtzOI3tSi:g dated 24.1 1 -2003. {t a 5' The above viorations crearry show that the unit has not furfifled the conditions of the L.PTLUT and Bond-cum-LUT executed with Deveropment commissione r, MEpz for the last three financiar years despite Deveropmerrt commissioner clearry indicding it so to the unit vide his order F. No. 8B0/2O09SEZ ddt€d 21.2.6. Henoe fie Approval cornmittee for MEpZ€EZ finds that you are persisten y .cortrave ing fie terms & conditions of the Lop/ LUT and Bond-c,m-LUT exearted under the Foreign Trade PoliqylSE. Ad., 2005 & Rutes,2006. 6. Under the abo\€ circumstances, you are therefore directed to show cause as to why action shourd not be initiated under section 16(1) of the sEz Act,2005. Repryto this show Gause Notice shourd reach the undersigned befote zgto2rog, fairing whifi it fi, be presumed that you are accepting the charges and the action as deemed fit wifl be taken :by the Approval Committee. Yours faithfully, (c.R. KA!-AVATH#| ASST. DEVELOPMENT GOMMISSIONER For DEVELOPMENT coMI,IIssoNER
)'K?-

{-
ftar1e7.t. -j @ $o ow se Notice No A3ODN3ISEZ dll4l02l2fi)8 of The Devd t Commi sflotrefr '2" Chennai. SEL The captioned notice has been issued to our unit by.the Development commissioner, I'EPZ-SEZ in view of the following :- i) Uait PemJizd by Development Conrmissioner vide order in F.No 8B0n0B/ ' SEZ dt 2t/02/2OO6 for the offence of exporting services without filing shipping bills or softex forms during 2004-05 and t"ansfrrring services into DTA without obtaioing qppropriale permission from the competeat authority' ii) Above order upheld in appeal vide Appellate order in F -No l2Ol3/14l2OOG ADJ/AC dt l0/Mt2N7 rqnrding that unit is still continuing the violatioos pointed out by the Development Commissioner. iii) In adtlition for a1l:these three financial years ending lgr'lrh 31103/2007 UDithLs beeo iloi4g,iob wcik for the DTA companies and seodirig the goods -b-ackinto the DTA which is in violation of para'7 .12(d) of FTP 0247 prior to 10/O212006 md cort-avening Rrile 43 of SEZRules witr effect from.! UOU2N6 iv) lle.nce mofter..Show Cause Notice datd 3l/102007 was issued for violation of FIDR Act, for not"-ling required export documents for the total expotfigues of 200fr6 d 200610':- rprted in the APRs (i.e for rmcovered Portion Rs, 19.97 lac for 200546 and Rs 3433 lac for 200G07) and fort'msferriag services to DTA dudng 200 5-M (ryto92/2006) without obtaining 4ppropriate pemission from the conpetent authority to which the Unit in their rcply 01ll2l2N7 offYtd no defense v) The above also meao violation of a) clause 4 ofLUT executd prior to SEZ Act & Rules rqgarding DTA sales b) clause 9 & I I ofBoud+um-LUT executed rmder SEZ Rules c) Condition Xrlw(i) in LOP NO 8/30/20O3/SEZdated24/1112003 vi) Custoos levied duty ofRs 24.48Lac and penalty ofRs - 24.48lac for financial yean 2004-05 & 2005-06 and duty of Rs 25.43 lac and penalty of Rs. ?5.43 lar for financial year 2006-07 on goods illegally traruferred hto DTA.[ Botr these orders are under challenge by the Unit before Commissioner (Appeals)l vii) Above violations show that the unit has not.[ulfilled the conditions ofthe LOP/LW and Bond-cttn-L{ITJor the last threefinancial years ending with 3l/03/2007 despite Development Commbsioner clearly indicating it so to the unit vide his order F.No 8/30/2003-SEZ dt 2l/02/2006 viii) Hence the approval Committee for MEP-SEZ fintls thal the unit is Persistently contrauening the terms & conditions of thc LOP/LUT and Bond-cum-LUT executed under the FTP/SEZ Act,2005 & Rules,2006 To sum up. the nces alleeed asainst the unit are i) exDorts without lin" dDort a ! t documents, ii) sale into DTA without Daymeltt of apolicable duty and for oeriod uoto 09/02/2006 also without a,DDroDriate Dermission frctm comDetent authoritv and iii) Sent DTA units rrvinp oul iob +vork on thc Foods suoolied b' back sood-s into DTA for exports afler ca ) u! ,- ..^.e l , .,-] ) , :- ,/ ii

ffinFi@FlE< R E-/ €t Refcrring to the abov this Notice issued the el e, Commissroner. MEPLSEZ is asking the Unit to show cause whv action should not be of SEZ agrinsl the UEit for pqsistentlv contravenino the lruien 1 t, a conditions the LOP/LUT and Bond-cum W exccuted under the A 2005& Rules 2006. Before we proceed to give our responsc we place on record our preliminary objectioos as under l) The notice is iszued by Developm.eat Cornmissioner under his authorili and not on betralf of Approval Cornmittee who are alone competent to initiate action 516(I) of the SEZ Act. Hence this notice is without iurisdicti oru auttrority and ult-a vires and hence void ab initio t 2) No action rmder 5.16(1) lies in respect of above said violations. ) 3) The order 'of Developmant C.ort'nissioner md uncorpected sounds is under challenge in W.P Hon authority on 'ble Madras Itrgh Court and .the recovery of penalty of Ifs 5 hc has.alreatly been stayed. Both these orders ae challenged as being iilegd" a6itra'y and without authorit5z. As such fie,oftrees Itr 6e $owcause aolice ze sub-iudice md carrnot becorne catse 3 of actim-for iaifiatios action .uls 16({i ofSEZAcL 4/ Ihue cennot.be Doutilejeopardy forttre sme act of offetrce. Cause of,action for this show cause aotice is &e Unit's .acb during the three financial yeas eniling with il/03DO07. A+pdlste order in F.No L2OL3/14D006-ADJIAC dt l$MtLWI also avercd the sane acts of the same period. Ilrat a-$p cagself sdioa is'flre some or.lhe Aoaellae oriler aad this s*ow cuse totie.. Appellate order upheld lte original order of the Developro.ent Commissioner onlv because of its fintling that the Unit is .ri11 a6n'ring tre same offeaees. As such a cause of action for which oepalFt bas berrr \ttheld cataot aeain become a cause of adion for initiating ac6on u/s I SEZ Act It may howwer be noted that the findings and orders of troth Development Corrmissioner and Appellate authority are under challenge by the Unit in the writ petition cited supra 5/ Otherwise too the Cause of action is too premahre for initiating action u./s 16(1) of SEZ ACT. 6) There is no violation of an1, lau' or rule in FTP or SEZ Act & Rules or conditions in LOP/LUT/Bond-cum-LUT 7) Unit cannot be asked to explain charges that negate each other and conkadict, more so when there is no identi of views between the orders of Customs and Develo ment Commissioner. 8) Unit fulfilled totally the NFE obligafions and has been al,ays acting bona fide even though assistance and advice never came forth from the office of the Development Commissioner. e) There has been NO misrepresentation or suppression of fact l0) There is NO rayenue loss to the Stae As such the above Show Cause Noticc is baseless. Dremature. withoul outharifi, and 4ot maintainable in lax' and on facts. ') I i

@ {v o Without prejud:ce to our rights and remedies in view of and h respect of ttre above preliminary objections we proceed to give our response to the specific offences alleged in the SCli. l) the rain offence alleged is erport without documents and ttre reason for this conclusion is that there are no shiprping billVsoftex forms to cover tbe entire exchange eamhgs claimed by the urrit on the strength of bank realizarion certificates. The Unit submits thal this shortfall in the export documents is on account of two reasons, - a) kr Clinical Trials, foreip sponsors make payments il advance and not on execution of exports. So Exchange eamings as per bank certificafes represent inward remittances for export coflbacts (Clinical Study Cont-acts) received md not necessarily proceeds on qecution of exports. A study to Ee fjr.ale tlata antl statistical results may take ueaily two months (ar times wen 12 months in case of comolicared molecules) for completion ad only therederlhe elport doormeots by wa;z of strlpping billVsoftex forms ca be filetl As stch there is alqiays a time mismzrtcfo betweeir receipt ofexchauge earnings and acEul e.:cports. Further some strdies oay have to be abantlcmed for techical or medical reasons as per reguldory requirc,Ee,nts n which case there shall be ao exports (of tlatar'statisticd resutts) but eanings would have accrued to the Unit This explains the reasoo for the differe,ace in the emings as per Unit's clairn and the eanings as per export d6grr'nents b) Second reason is that the,rroviso clause to Rrite 46 fl)(a) of SEZRules exemots -liqg of export documents upto export value of US$ 25.000. This proviso clause is reproduced herebelow- Prwiiled lhal there shall be sqnption.from tn GR or SDF tn For,eion Manaoemsnt (Exoort of s and 2000 nofrfied vide Reserye Bank of lndia Notification No: FEMA 2 'B dated 3 Mav, 2OO0 as amended from time to time in re spect of exoorl value up to * us$ lwentv five thousand or for expoi value as mav be notified bv the Reserve Bank of lndia, frcm tirne to time The Unit initially frled shipping bills unaware of ths provision and when it was advised to go by the above provision it did so. But the Unit's going by tlre law was arbitrarily alleged as suppression of fact by the Development Commissioner. The Unit having to work under tle administrative control of the MEPZ-SEZ submitted Shipping bills though not required by law. c) .The shrdy r?orts in respect olthe uncovered portion Rs, 19_97 lac for 2005_ 06 and Rs 34.33 lac for 2006-07 menrioned in the SCN did nor fruciif.r ro warrant filing of shipping bill , as in other cases where the export took place. The working sheet annexed herein also shou,s that there is no discrepancl,. e tf- i

-ra(u 4 As such there is oo violation of any law in respect of submission of o(porl docuE€rlts 2) o 3) Other offence citedE mto atea of for llhe Uait sutrmis .tha the A)Noviolation under trIl? The Unir submits tha there has been no violalion under FTp as shown herein belou'

Para 7.8 ofFTP on

which governed the period prior to 10t02f2006 reads as under:- e ) allasAions lsrthetame a6fs Tihich is not pedissible in law. A charge-has to be ryerificandNOTinlte.zilternalive. llhe uafu is alleged ofhaving madesdles irro DIA adis also allggcd forlhe very same sales as having cadd outjoLwotrfor 'ftports by DTAunits. I trowfer to DTA is eithq sala tuto DTA for domestic mar.lca or transfer for qtort ad it unnot be both 4) The SCN also cit€s the dufy md .penal_f levied 5y CustoEs. Customs have levied the duty ad penalry in terms ofRule 48 of SEZ Rriles antl Ssc 30 of SEZ Act ad reckoning duty uutler Cbapter 49, tirst Schedule to Crmtous Tarif AcL all of qiLich deal only wift Sales ilto DTA srea as an rmport into DTA fom SEZ. The Unit submits that SCN cauot, therefore, rely on Clstoms order I duty and evyng penalty for iryort into DTA but make a diametically opposite allegatioa of Job wort for exporb byDTA uuits in violation ofrules. , 5) TXe Unit sub,mir ftat under Se circunstances, the transfer is either sale into DTA or transfer for exports but not boftr. In the absence of specific aIIegation the Unit canaot be asked to show cause. However the unit proceeds to explain the allegation of sales into DTA rr,ithout payment of duty as it is the coulmon allegation in both the order of Customs and this SCN. There is no bar on sales.into DTA under FTp pnor to 10/2/2006 or under SEZ Act/SF-Z Rules witlr effect tom 10/2/2@6. We submit that there is no maadatory requ[ement to get prior permission from the DC under FTP for bansfer of Services to DTA. condi6ons: ? Sale into DTA 7 exports is the based on Bank realization certifcales. The Unit submits that t[e disctepancy between ApRs aod actual.Foreign Exchaqge Farnings as per bank Ealization certificates is ,because for tre financial year while bank certificates shows actual iaward remittances whether expor.ts [ave.been o(€cuted or'no! as explained hereia above. The woikias sheet lr 's

a
E @ (+ (l) !!Z uait may sell goods, inclurt.ing by_products, and services in DTA in accordarce with the applicable duty. : lmport policy iD force' on P'ymert of . As such no precondition or nost facto condition ofFT? for sale into DTA has beeo violared by the rmir- IhLe is no uolari"rif fr.' '"' "' (2) DTA sde by service/trading ,,nit shall be subject to achieve'ent of positive llFE cumulativlly. Si.ifrA"]* rDIt, undertalcing maaufacardng and serviceV trading ,"tiitil ,grr"t , "irg. LOp, DTA saJe shall be subjea r" tni"r"."ot "i Uff crmulatively. The SCN admits that the Unit is a $e_rvicc unit. Further the SCN,s insisteoce on positive NFE fort-aosr", uutr"rriG6DE;;;;;. "", ro sale of 'service' and not for sale oi poods. If wha ho ;;'ffi;r"d by the Unir is 'sqvice' and not ,goods' thJ -T:,TTgp{,",;**.tg!e ffi" srfi-issim of epori tu-t:g:, d rbrT;;#* uo"ir"rou". T-:: ,Tr.-eur of,positive NFE i, ooiir-aiiliti-' ' "' rnerelsro rcquircuentof aopropr:iate permiission froD competcrrt auftority for sale into DTA. o ffi" effective fom l0/02?f[l6 radas under in respect of sales }Y"ffi;#rf,r$Tf the conditions specified in the rutes made by flre cenrrar (a) aly soods removed frgS I Special Economic Zone to t}re Domestic Tariff (- Area shail be chargeabre ir.arues ;;r-r;;;;lrding antidumping. countervailing and safeguard duties d th; ftr;.s Tariff Act, I975, where appticabl., ". ri"ul" on ,uJ e;olJiii ,npo.tea; B No?ro:la6ot SEZAcr/SFZ SEZ Rules 47. Sales in Domestic Tanff Area.- (l) A Unrt mav sell s and services INcluding rejects or wastes or scraps or re[Lnants or broken diamonds o by-products ansing during the manufacturing process or in connection therew.ith, in the Domestic r Tariff Area on raYDent of Customs du6es under sectron 30. subiect to the followrn g :onditi oDs namely.- (' .?"#T:':Jilfrti::"',:er sub-rure (r), or goods manurachrred bv a unit go,asintoindif ;:;;.ffi ;l,lT,TiX.:r,3,,;"?;:""f;,:Tf ;i.,,il., The Urut submits that tire SCN, never-sard whal has been transferred required anv tmport licence from DTA which irself ,h".-;;r;;.";;#uam,t, what hasleen trairrsferred b,v the Unir inro ore DT; t.;), ;:;il?d not ,eoods,. So rhe .'.,':{1, 5 -,
'. ,' \ii g' a

:.,:BEZG._ f 'service' Eansferred ts not dutiable. Be that so, the unit submits that as aiready explained herein above what has been tansfen€d from the Unit is not dutiable cl ed as 'servi ce' or 'goods'. F'a@, g As such the unit submits that-there -ls -no violation of SEZ ACT/SFz Rules for sales made into DTA' ents can bar what is oeroissible and definitdy ---oa b.. what is mandatory under !w' rn- -fac-ta fi#i ffir;;z.kct .. procedures) Regulations,2ffi3' in its Regn 22 (1) "'I;fi"ffi;;"; l -riOl.t"-","ed to sett goods naaufaotured or produced in il:X";;t;"id'"s 'e,t;;;' '".'P '"'---t" and bv-products slisins out of such production, i, tt".ao.oii uti-f - oo p'yt'ofcustoms duty' in terms of i#X,i-ililrrt"'v t"g'rd" '"q'i th lry-Y:.thatl be allowed o sell in t;;;;;. it i'-"oa"toty to ttlot' SEZ Units to sett if dutv pavab-le is nriil This statrtoryieht "-o;t ;;ienated except without the sanction of law' SEZ ia also does not prohibit Sale into DTA' Without prejutlice to the above conteotion the Unit refirtes tle altegation on the following ffi fuy,o,,,,-.",ff #H:?ttff;il'nT#trJ:1fr ff ,iL-,!,, allowed by ttre compet€nt authority Here the oernission from the clomiltent authority is not required inasmuch tlre provisions "iiiZ tJn"r" ,"itted the Unirdisposal into domestic maet' So there is no violation of clause 4 oi LU-f for the period prior to SEZ Act and SEZ t ): I nuro made there-under It has alreadY been shorvn hereinabove that the with the SEZ Act and SEZ Rules. So there is coming into force of ttre SEZ Act and SEZ Rules made th er Bond.cum{UT rEad.s.3s under Clause 9. We, the obtrgors ffit p'y ttre duties on the goods and services sold in iffir- rJt*f""l"",Jr,,rlii5#ai rconomic Zones Rct. Z0Os and the rules and orders made there-under' ala$;. *;:rf,"-ouf igo'= shall not dispose of goods. and services admitted into the Soecial Economi c Znrle or gooa' t-'zutoted oi services to the Domestic Tariff Area :#Jl ,:;,;'ild;;;;;p;ir"""o-ic Zones Ac( 2005 and therules and orders disposal into DTA has been in conformitv no tiolrtioo of Bond-cum-LUT after the LOP in its clause (v) clause resds as under : (v) You ma-v supply/sell ,ffit"s in the Domestic Tariff Area in terms of t ' - -1f," prori.iorr, of the Speciat Economic Zones Act' 2005 and rules and orders 6 i,i t--
lt.

G r €{ Eence the charge of offence of sales into DTA without PaymeDt of duty.without permission from comPetent au0orify stands disproved On {heoffeoce of Job .workJor.DTA u nits Itr violation of la rules/conditions: The Udt submits the following, in addition to the foregoing, to refute rhis allegation' The Unit is engaged in rendering service in clinical tid studies cliaical Trials studies are rnostly by Drug compatries. The Unit gensates for fees Dat4 Data management and statistical res:ults in clinical trial studies for use of the sponsors who rquire $em for their research or statutory requirenrents. These data aDd results are f,,if"o."a by the Unit to spotrso^ for which palmcot is received in advmce by the urit fiom the sponson. Sponsors can be Iadian or foreign companies. This service is rentlerett to oornpanies abroad as exPorts or P Pry-i{I corqpmies in India as sales;to DTA. I-ndian companies may use the data aad results for statutory Iequirements herr or ribroad That is, service lraasferred to DTA is aot for txports by tbe DTA rmits s but ody to .meet stafrrtory requireme,lrts without c/hich thef will not be able to ga refist-alion for tleir tlrugs aod martet those drugs. The savice t-ansferred to D:fA does not try itselfJead to firrther exPors of fte sae but tte service belps the DTA Etri6 to ultimately m&et ttreir products abroad usmg these dera and resuilts for getting statutory alrproval antt registration ab,road. I-ndian sponsors can also use the data and resdlts for gding domestic registration tod. It N relterated that 'service' tasferred qets reveoue orrlv for the urft 'while for the sponsors the'service' so trmderretl only helps m meefing stahrtory requiremeds for regis!:ation for nadiqg a drug. So fte 'service' is not iob work for rts by Indian sponsors as wrongly conceived in the Show Cause Nodcc This Charge of offence ofjob-work for erports by DTA units stands totally disproved. AII the alleged offences of Export without documents, Transfer of service/goods into DTA against law/rules/conditions and job-work for erports by DTA units stand totally disproved. The above apart, we are advised that the issuance of Show cause of Notice 05109/2005 and imposition of penalry thereon by the Development Commissioner is without authonty and jurisdiction and hence itlegal, and that the Development commissioner is not competenl Adjudicating Authori$ to initiate such action and impose penalty in terms of S13 of FTDR Act. In facr penal actron under FTDR Act lies only after a finding of guilt in respect of NFE or LOP/Bond-cum-LUT bl the Approval Committee in terms of Rule 54(2) of SEZ Rules which reads as under- ln case the ADDroval Commitlee come to the conclusion that a Unit has nol achieved positive Net Foreiqn Exchanqe Earnin or failed to nditions of lhe Letter of Approval or abide bv anv of the lerms and co il I : \ i'..:..' '- .:.1)"-

r b & rn /act p,-al actron under FIDR Act lies onry after a finding of guirt iD respect of NFE or LoPlBond'cum-LUT by the Approvar committee ir tenns ornut s{zj or SEZ Rules which reads as unda- So ttre Penal action by the Development Commissioner without the Approval Commitee's conclusion as above and even before the matter being head by G the Approval Committee is without authoriW. iurisdiction and ulta vlres. be issued- If the uegative perlormance conti.oues till the 56 Y€f, Developirent Comrissioner shall inifiate penel ection as provided under the rule25- As such only if the negative performancc continues till 56 year the Development Commissi oner can initiate penal action under FTDR Act u terms of Rule 25 of SEZ Rule. But the Unit is showing positive NEE and the Ilait has not reached even its second year when pe.nal action was initiated by lthe Development comrnissioner. Hence we submit that the action of the ment ioner was without . iurisdicti on and Annerure to Rule 54 of sEZ Rures reads as urder on criteria for mouitoring perfcirmace:- Srow Cause Notice: If a Unit continues to be Net Foreigtr Exchange aegative bytre end of3d year, a Show Cause Notice shall ) 5.16. (1) of SEZ Au reads- The Approval Committee mav, at ary trme, if i1 has any reason ' or cause to believe that the entrepreneur has persistently-E-ntravened any of the ter,s and conditions or its obligations subject to which the letter of approval *"s gr"nt"a toG entrepreneur, cancel the letter of approval So it is not vioiation ofar and every undertaking executed by the unit but onry vioration of LoP and thal too nor alr and every rerm.a.ud condition or obligation in tl. r-orlur o-ory tt-oJ. condittons and obligations subject to whjch the Lop was ffited would athacr action ,nder S.t6(t) and that roo only by the Approval Committee. I { n -i 8 the lo has ved lhe of without prejudice to the may be taken under any otherlaw for the time being in of that a lJnit or action that force, tIrc It is not granted_ has been established that the Unit violated condrtiors or The onJl obligation after commencemenr is to obligations subject to whrch LOp was achieve positive NFE wtuch the unir te es CI s and the always achieving. So has I au

..!F#=-- 7,5 -^-'r @ 6s, Further Rule 54(1) on Monitoring of performance reads as - (1) performance of the Unit shall be monitored by the Approrral committee as per the guidelines given in Annexure appended to these rules. The Annexure is reproduced herebelow ANNEXU (See Rrde 54) GUID,'ELINES FOR ANNU,4L M' 'NNG OF PERFO'RMlNCE O'F UN|IA IN SPECIAL EC,ONOMIC ZONES tr (l) The annual rcview of performance of llit and compliance with the conditions of approval shall be underta&en by Approval Comoittee on the basis of ArururJ Pqformarce Report (in Form I) duty ccrtifieil by an independent C'haficrcd Accomtant before thc cnd of the first quarter of the following fi nancial year- (2) UliE, whict trvc Dot coEpl€ted o[c ye.r of operaaioa froD f[e drte of commclcellclrt of productiou, wiu not be [oritor.ed- In case a Ulit has coDpl€{cd less tha trvc yc€rs Aom the date of comm€ncqDcnt ofpnxfuction, it will te monitored for lhc nurnb<r of complerd )€ars. A-olsal monitoring in the cases ofold units wtict have complcted rDore thur frve;rears will be undertaleo for only such numbcr ofycars which fall in the subscqu€nt blocl/s of trve years. CRITERIA FOR ANNUA! MONITORING: i)- Units with regrtir,c Net Foreigo Ercheuge ia .t[e l" aod 2- yeer shrll be placed under the Wltah List to wrtch their perforEtDcc. ii) Show Cause Notice; lfa ljoit continucs to be Nd Foreign ErchaEge regalivc rd by the end of 3 ya4 a Show Cause Notice shsll be issuod. If tbe negadve al performrrce cortitrles aill the 5 yerr, Deyelopmetrt Commissioner shel iDitiate p€Drl action rs provided under tte rule.,25. ln view of the above no cause ries for initiating penar action against the unit u,/s l6(t) ofthe SEZ Act or under FTDR Act or under any other law. It is therefore established that the sCN is arbitrary, baseress and racks merits. That apart, we are advised that even the earrier pena.r action taken by the Deveropment Commissioner and upheld by the Appellate autlority and by Customs i, arbit ary, ii;gJ and ultra vires. while requesting you therefore to drop further proceedings under the SCN we take this opportunity to request you to redress our grrevances anJ render justice- sEZ units are golden egg laying hens which should not be killed by penal action as a source ofrevenue. clinical rrial is a very sensitive activity where human lives are rnvolved whire it offers rfilmense scope for research and revenue. It requires meeting the requirement of ruaro -r*gulatory authonties here and -abroad. rt is arways ,nde, [. rvatchfur eyes of several 9

r F@ €1 humm rights groups. It is a new technology activity. Added to il sEZ itself is a new concept. tn fact cus cIR NO29/2003 DATE O3l04nN3 on EOU/EHTP/STPI SEZ Schemes-Amendments in E m Policy and Ilandbook of Procedures Yol-,j200L

• 2O07 saYs as under - I am directed to refer to ChaPter 6 of the revised Exim Policy { 2002-2007 and Handbook ofProcedures, Vol-l .

2. The changes made therein have necessitated amendments in the notifications governing duty fr.ee importfurocurerueots of goods by EOU/EIITP/STP/SEZ uoits. Over the last few years, the numbs of notifications governing EOUIEFIP/STP Schernes has become very large and therE were about 40 notifications
3. Implementation dnd undersundilg of such a large numbet of notifi.cdiots was provtng to be dificukfor the trade and industt!' as well.as Dqaraaenlal ofiiczrs. ... \trIhen srch is the open adnission by the gov€rnment itself about the difficulty in understeiting the nofificdions by their own offcers Units likers have genuine difEcufties in graspiag vaious laws. The least we eq)ect fiom MEPZSEZ is educatiou and not erriction. We expected the Develo'pment Commissioner to educate.us to get us ido business aod not to be h5per-technical to drive us out into oblivicn. Instead of acting as a facili&rtor to help our unil develo,p the authority loses no opportunity to hurt and hmper us. This latest SCN has become the proverbial straw to break our spirit. At this juncture we are, therefore, consEained to hrghtight that when Custo.ms waot clarificdion from the .respected Development Comnissioner on whether sales i[to DTA \ is an authorized actMty and are refirsing to accept bill of entrv for Sales into bTA for ' want ofclarification &om DC which h-ll alate is not forthcoming It appeam rhat Custons and all officials are rnder instmctions Dot to extend any service, assistance or advice to , our Unit though we have been making total disclosure, Dositive NFE and have not ' caused any revenue loss to the exchequer- Be that so, it has been established that the Urut commifted no offence whatsoever more specifically the unit has not committed the offences of Export without documents, Transfer of Service/goods into DTA against ladrules/conditions and job-work for exports by DTA units. AII alleged offences stsnd totally disproved Inasmuch the SCN's allegation has been proved baseless and vindictive the unit humbly requests the Approval Committee to pass orders to drop further proceedings and pass such or further orders to render justice. Fo, 0U|ST Lli! il':li T. LTD. iit .-, t, ..,,,:,.: .t. __ T- M s. ir.ls li,^N:1A R l0 dr.d Uin, Director cS

t OUEST LIFE SCIENCES PVT LTD: MEPZ SEZ CHENNAI ? t eNIrI#URE: , the unit aPPlied for setting up a Clinical Research Organisation to undertake dinical trials ;;;;;"

• well as to conduct bio equiralence aud bio analvticul studies' Yide letter 'lateil L4.Lo-2oo3-After due process' the letter of permission dated z4'rr'zoo3 was issued by the Joint DeveloPment Commissioner' A cliEical rrial (clinical research) is a research study in human volunteers to answer specific health questions' Carefully conilucted clinical trials are the fastest aud salest way to find treauteDts that work in people and ways to improve health lntewentional Eials deterEiDe whether experimental reatnents or Der'Y ways of using hown tlerapies are safe and effective under coutrolled environments' Obsenrational trials address health issues in large groups of people or populations in natural settings' Clinical trials that are well-dtsigned anil well-ocecuted€re the best aPproach to gain access to iffi EJffi'"*-ents More-thev are wide}l' arzilable' An clhica] trials have guiderires about rtrio can participat€. using indusion/ exdusion criteria is an important principle of medical research that helps to produce reliable results' These criteria are based on such factors as age' gentler' ttre tpe and stage of a disease' previous teatment history, and other medical conditions The criteria help ensure that researchers will be able to answer the quetions ttrey plan to study' ' The ctinical trial process depends on the ki-ncl of trial being conducted' The dinical trial team includes doctors and nurses as well as social workers and other health care professionals' They check the health of the participant at the begi-uning of the trial, Eive specific instructions for particiPatinB in the trial, monitor the participant carefully during the trial and stay in touch after the trial is comPleted' The ethica] and lega,l codes that govern medical practice also apply to clinical trials. In addition, most clinical research is federally regulated with built in safeguards to protect tre participants. The trial follows a orefully controlled protocol' a study plan which details what researchers will do in the studl ' Ir , ai,,,.-,^ .:i, ".
  r lil ! ,,| .,, i I i

• ..., ,.,, Vt 1 c ";

/ 4t { /- " 'I"rrs or medical device to see i{ it is a Ifaclinica]Iesearchstud),invoh,estestilgorstudyingadrugorr ;;;;;;," trea,men, T*#I:;:t ;;:ampre' a c'Iinica'I tria'I mav test the effectiveness ofa ne* dn her's lab' and to be safe and Many new medic,.* u.|1T-'JJH:':[T',;I; ,, be sare and effective ror effective in animal tess'. But.l;;" can approve tlem and doctors car prescnlbe them' people before ": ": y,,.]i.r, r**. ",t"ica] trials are conductdr Th" Gou"'om"'t has strict rules rheamounrorroreigu**i'.fi :"ffi :l[::J:..I;fffi ":T;i#T,"'#ffi';: stuily completion' "" ':Ti'rong the Forex remittances receiveil iluring the period' FIRCs issued by tle Bank represenuub uL r "'-' rhes,uiryof tlemo,ecule/lT1;iTf J:#;JJ#;:rff;":"Ti;I; literature search, protocol'desigr recruitment, IEC APProval' etc' ltus the foreign retdttatrce receiv'ed as adsances and relorted'to MEYZ is €xPort inctime; the H;",;T-,TH,,"#",,;;:ff.-"I;#trT*: This timing difference beveen tie reauz"":--:-::^*"ed- resulting in these procdinBs' has, unfortunately' not been clarifieil correctly or appreciate4 res 20 04-o s i rh ere a re .th re:,:'J: ;:,T::1, tI "[i. llli j :'",'#'':"::; forex remittance received was t(S' 'to''' ';^ .^,;a'r" FIRC's from banks were "-.n""n"differenceandbankcharges.Therelative submitted to MEPZ una utr'lot"Ogta Uy tft"rn' Shipping bills were filed for Rs. 6.87 lacs The '"rnu'n'nn u-ount for USD 26000 equivalent to Rs' 11'59 lacs' received from Vista *ur."utl'"'tu'' inc USA vide FIRCs dated 5'8'2004 and 24.6.7005,as advance """"t for the studies to be undertaken for their group of companies' *"nt" n' 'n''Pinq bilt was filed; however foreign inward ff ilri';ll'Jn'"IH; X':'' "'"'u" represents the invoices raised ror orders contracted' 4 2 lr, s I'r'r { I ..1 I .i

(l @ .) s ShiPPing ?> ( Brll no 2766 dated 13.03.2006 For Rs' 11'35 lacs is filed after completion of the resPective study Rs. 5a819O,/- is covered by shiPping Bill no 6346 dated 24.A.2004 ' The remaining amount of of Forex remittance of P's' 74 '22 lacs relates to inv no 00landoo4onaccount.ofEMs,Brazil.Thestudydidnotfructifyduethefailure -of thd statutory Audit by ANVISSA' Brazil' and no report was made or shipped' Hence, no export documents were filed with the customs since there was no physical exPorB made' During 2rio6-r,7, Rs' 31'23 lacs represents the value of Expo( invoices raised for orders contracted' Shipping bill no' 5421 daled 22'5 '2OO5 for USD 25643 for Rs' ll.5llacsisfiledcoveringinvno.ll'12'13forcompletedstudies'otherstudy reports completed have since been filed' while the remittances received, including advances are invoiced and duly reportedtoMEPZ,thecompletionofthestudyandsendingofreportsandfilingof related dodjments, takes palce after a length of time, depending on various factors. The erroneous finding and consequent levy of penalty by the .Development cornmissioner on this non existent offence had crept in due to the commUnicationgapanduncommunicatedasuumptionSandpresumPtions. RevisedAPRforzooffiThasbeendulysubmitted(afterourintemalaudit)to MEPZ on 20h June 2007. Theappellatecommittee,MinistryofCommerc-e,NewDelhividetheirorders datedl.ll.2006,whilecondoningtheseprocedurallapses'orderedtheunitto torectifythd.sameobservedbytheDevelopmentcommissioner,Viz.filingof applications for permission for DTA Sales within a month's time and report lo them. The same was complied with by ihe unit and all pending applications werefiledonlineandhardcopiessubmittedtotheDevelopment Commissioner as well as the appellate committee' 'l ,
) c

!" flrtne"r-E €-e-qq qfd DaiP.ii,i BvFaxlBvSoeed Post Srr ca-!(r16.. ,,,.1"1\ t l fr respecl of rhe W 1,. fil LOA gy 1li5 office . T cl,i 6)t ( 'hl;;y;g,,.,. B. vUayan,;e s Deve oprnen i Comrnissioner z1- - tl" Darcdl5. I L2006 ned rder shall be ke IN uest Life -Scicnces priyaIe l_irDired at Yours faith fu ll EIrgz, "?-rEFrq errPtq ==a.r= 3-3lk 3lr+u, zh, arryra, d <s. 13 iii_JlZ, lt" # 8uii,..: T;i?J" ;Orr:borcrir, C.)eancr _ fCl Cz-S Lr.No 8.rj 0/200 j/SEZJI T.he.Secreral n Gotl. ol ltdie / l\1trtst) 01 Commer;e & It:dusrn. rrepa:?n teol of Commerce l--1dvog BIte van \c^ L)elhi-li1;) 0l I i:i,?:3i:'ff; ?;i:ii i.lr..:i:.?| y"9:,: For.. arcinB Vs. DC, MEpZ.Si vuesl Lrfe Sciences Priratelimirc<l Jn contirruation of rh ls office letter <ii 5 I 1.2008. pleasc find enclosed a cop), of rhe order passed b,v the iligh Courr of Madras dr li, J 008 (received bv this office on i4 I I 2008) ln he Court has di ed b_v M/s. Quest Liie Scjerccs priv6ls 1;1i;tcd asainst rhc cancellation of -. of recejpt of a appclia te authori ApprovalS m tr shall dispose the appeal on merirs wirhi smrsscd tl]e Writ peririon fi led by them and ordered that lhc n a period of four weeks frorn rhe dare cop-1, of this order and t al)et,ancc ln vierv pf rh" o.a"r, eettng to dispose of thc oassed 91, appeal filed by M/s. e lhc Court, Minrslry may convene the BoarJ of e. e the eariiesl Copl to:.Shri R Copa jan. LA.S. ^ .,, - DEVELOrMENT CO Lrdyog Bharan. N"I o"ii;;,-fi o''o Aool secretaD (SEZ), Minisrr-1 ot Comn:er.ce& -- --l \ )-{ (8. VIJAYAN) MMISSIONEi Industry, A i, g x.tri Ow- ll a-L ?,,,'. 1z..:'..-: t \lr J---/- n r rRG\ '7'"1 h*" -.-__ _ . ,'4,'' :)::,-77_52 g2rr- E,l,a l / t \y.. , -'1!: -..:av t L 11 1d L.,!qb .a." 9cV \A) : !]r_rL:.: t v. t

IN :rtlll lfrgtt (:(,IST (,!' l,r,f,,TGATI,^E /r'T ll'rl?ltit DATED: 3]' ' 1D. EODB coR fi rHE HOH' BtrE HR. JUGTICE N. PATI! VASAMT?HAKI'MAR g. P-.No- l.?B?B of 2OOB and l{. P. No. L of 20OB v6. 1-The Developftent cornrnlssi one rr l{adras ExPor t ProceEsj-ng Zone. Special Econonic Zoner I{inietry of cororerce ond InduBtry, Govern$ent of India. TeltlbErarlr chenn6.i - 45- 2 - Chnirman. unit ^ppprovE-' cormritt€Er Hadras &rpbrt Processing Zone. Special Eccno$ic Zone. Itinistry of comn8rce and InduBtryr Government of India. TErrrbaram. chcnnai - 45. Ouest l.ife Sciences (p) Ltd' t roP' 'by j.ts Uanallng DirBctor t.6.JsiEhsnker PGtitione r RGgPond',e nt 6 Constitlrtion Pf cailing foi th8 J-mpugned orde r tha rcspolldBntE 6ubmittod ths petitioner hEE fi]ed an on 20,06.2008 End th€ Fsid petition filed rrnder Artiels ?,26 of fhe India pruvlng io issue B rrit of, certiorEri recolds of the t€Epondcnts and quash thc No -8/3a/2o03l6EZ deted 23 -O5 -2oO8, For petitiono r Hr.P.H.rrvind Pandion For ReBpoDdent6 Hr , K- K, E6nthlilnathan' Sr. g€ntr€1 Govt. StErding cqunGa I ORDEB Thc pr4yer ln thc srl.t Petl.tl.on 16 to quaeh the ordsr datsd z3 - 05 -zoo8 - 2"r,eErnsd counael EPPgErlnq for ,- ^ rhst ea ag€inDt lhs very €Erne ordar. Eppesl- before th€ ePPe]-l-et€ Euthority appB01 iE still P€ndiDg- z- l.^- / a'^' lilJlLr-j- zc, ,Ja9v:92 6661 'Z 'uef ETZEZ9ZZ P'Z I 'ON XV! Z=5 Zd=rJ '- t a'. ,,,-i-\ :e 1)

;:::il:l.i;ln";it"'l#;:"iiiit'$.iit13t'F-;i"i:* I;" Pett-tloner hae EPFed a ' 4 . r n v i e * o,

• r lu j:;JjJ J"",o Ir']' J" Tr'ifi r'Jt'. ";;T;J;:'X : -consequ entlY Hi!i:,{;:"t""?,,-"f '",-i::T*-,tmT:";'ryii"",tli meritsr :,:^5': Iri..- Tilf 6uch trner L a coPY ot r-ls- - - kePt in abBYE$ce ' mI /truB coPY/ sd/ AsGt. RBgi-Et r€ r ) But' AEEI j \9 ReS ratrdr ,.,Ii,?il"HEl:l",::H::l;";:;", x::lx"tsF#'?31" 1{-:::::' ' 1""[-r"''" "t of rndi6' ltamb, rErl' chennai - 45' ''-XirililTllh'o'''i""' ::'::;";' Enoort Procestsing uongt f-q;im"i:1#*:"''

• 1 cc to t{r' P" 1{'
• 1 cs-to Hr' K' K' Hlfil,,.,oo, arvindh Pandianr SsDthi].YGlanr Er AdvgcatG ER No' 60950 CEEC Sn No' 609?l f.P.xo,1?8?8 of 20oE 30 540 ,d rldLt i9z 6661 Va 'uef etr?Bzg?e VtA ON rXU
  .i zls za=r:, : rDd