Minutes of 135th meeting of Board of Approval for SEZ, held on 30th December, 2025

No. K-43o 16 I 16 I zozS-SEZ Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry Department of Commerce (SEZ Section) Vanijya Bhawan, New Delhi Dated the rgtt January, 2cl26 OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: 135th Meeting of the Board of Approval on Special Economic Zones (SEZs)

held on 3oth December, zoz5- Reg. Please find enclosed herewith Minutes of the r35th meeting of the Board of Approval for SEZs held on 3oth December, zoz5 for information and necessary action. 2. The Development on the directions of BoA. Commissioners are requested to take urgent necessary action, tw,t leA, (Prateek Bajpai) Under Secretary to the Government of India Tel:23039939 Emai I : prateekbajpai.moca@nic. in To

1. Central Board of Excise and Customs, Member (Customs), Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. (Fax: zgo9z6z8).
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Member (IT), Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. (Telefax: zgogzroT).
3. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Banking Division, Jeevan Deep Building, New Delhi (Fax: 233444621235662gil.
4. Joint Secretary, Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. S. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Transport Bhawan, New Delhi.
5. Joint Secretary (E), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
6. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Plant Protection, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
7. Ministry of Science and Technology, Sc 'G' & Head (TDT), Technology Bhavan, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi. (Telefax: z686zSrz)
8. Joint Secretary, Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, lh Floor, Block z, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 11o oo3.
9. ro.

auli Road, New Delhi. (Telefax: z686zSrz) 9. Joint Secretary, Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, lh Floor, Block z, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 11o oo3. 10. ro. Additional Secretary and Development Commissioner (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Scale Industry), Room No. 7or, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi (Fax:23o623$). I

11. Secretary, Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Electronics Niketan,6, CGO Complex, New Delhi. (Fax: z4363ror)
12. Joint Secretary (IS-I), Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi
13. Joint Secretary (C&W), Ministry of Defence, Fax: 2SorS444, South Block, New Delhi. L4. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Pariyavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, New Delhi - 11ooo3 (Fax: 24363577)
14. Joint Secretary & Legislative Counsel, tegislative Department, M/o Law & Justice, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. (Tel: 23387095).
15. Department of Legal Affairs (Shri Hemant Kumar, Assistant Legal Adviser), M/o Law & Justice, New Delhi. t7. Secretary, Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi rB. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. rg. Chief Planner, Department of Urban Affairs, Town Country Planning Organisation, Vikas Bhavan (E-Block), I.P. Estate, New Delhi. (Fax: zgoTZ6ZBlzSSZgrgT)
16. Director General, Director General of Foreign Trade, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi. 2L.

ng Organisation, Vikas Bhavan (E-Block), I.P. Estate, New Delhi. (Fax: zgoTZ6ZBlzSSZgrgT) 20. Director General, Director General of Foreign Trade, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi. 2L. Director General, Export Promotion Council for EOUs/SEZs, 8G, Sth Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi - 11o oor (Fax: zz3gzg7Zo) 22. Dr. Rupa Chanda, Professor, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, Bennerghata Road, Bangalore, Karnataka 29. Development Commissioner, Noida Special Economic Zone, Noida. 24. Development Commissioner, Kandla Special Economic Zone, Gandhidham. 25. Development Commissioner, Falta Special Economic Zone, Kolkata. 26. Development Commissioner, SEEPZ Special Economic Zone, Mumbai. 27. Development Commissioner, Madras Special Economic Zone, Chennai zB. Development Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Special Economic Zone, Visakhapatnam 29. Development Commissioner, Cochin Special Economic Zone, Cochin. 30. Development Commissioner, Indore Special Economic Zone,Indore. 31. Development Commissioner, Mundra Special Economic Zone,4th Floor, C Wing, Port Users Building, Mundra (Kutch) Gujarat. 32. Development Commissioner, Dahej Special Economic Zone, Fadia Chambers, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 33. Development Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Special EconomicZone, SEEPZ Service Center, Central Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 4oo 096 54. Development Commissioner, Sterling Special Economic Zone, Sandesara Estate, Atladra Padra Road, Vadodara - 39oo12 35.

micZone, SEEPZ Service Center, Central Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 4oo 096 54. Development Commissioner, Sterling Special Economic Zone, Sandesara Estate, Atladra Padra Road, Vadodara - 39oo12 35. Development Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Special Economic Zone, Udyog Bhawan, 9th Floor, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam - 3 36. Development Commissioner, Reliance Jamnagar Special Economic Zone, Jamnagar, Gujarat 37. Administrator (IFSCA) International Financial Services Centres Authority znd & 3rd Floor, PRAGYA Tower, Block t5, Zone r, Road 1C, GIFI SEZ, GIFT City, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 38. Development Commissioner, Surat Special Economic Zone, Surat, Gujarat 39. Development Commissioner, Mihan Special Economic Zone, Nagpur, Maharashtra 40. Development Commissioner, Sricity Special Economic Zone,Andhra Pradesh. 4r. Development Commissioner, Mangalore Special Economic Zone, Mangalore.

42. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Principal Secretary and CIP, Industries and Commerce Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad Sooo22. (Fax: o4o- 445289$.
43. Government of Telangana, Special Chief Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Telangana Secretariat Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana.
44. Government of Karnataka, Principal Secretary, Commerce and Industry Department, Vikas Saudha, Bangalore - 560001. (Fax: o8o-zzz5g87o)
45. Government of Maharashtra, Principal Secretary (Industries), Energy and Labour Department, Mumbai - 4oo o3z.
46. Government of Gujarat, Principal Secretary, Industries and Mines Department Sardar Patel Bhawan, Block No.

shtra, Principal Secretary (Industries), Energy and Labour Department, Mumbai - 4oo o3z. 46. Government of Gujarat, Principal Secretary, Industries and Mines Department Sardar Patel Bhawan, Block No. 5, 3rd Floor, Gandhinagar - 382oro (Fax: o79- zSzSoB44). 47. Government of West Bengal, Principal Secretary, (Commerce and Industry), IP Branch (4th Floor), SE,Z Section, 4, Abanindranath Tagore Sarani (Camac Street) Kolkata - Too oL6 48. Government of Tamil Nadu, Principal Secretary (Industries), Fort St. George, Chennai - 6oooo9 (Fax: o44-2SgZo822). 49. Government of Kerala, Principal Secretary (Industries), Government Secretariat, Trivandrum - 695oor (Fax: o47t-zgggorT). 50. {!. Government of Haryana, Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary), Department of Industries, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh (Fax: orTz-z74ogz6). 51. 50. Government of Rajasthan, Principal Secretary (Industries), Secretariat Campus, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur - 3o2oo5 (ot4r-2227788). 52. 51. Government of Uttar Pradesh, Principal Secretary, (Industries), Lal Bahadur Shastri Bhawan, Lucknow - 226ooL (Fax: o5zz-zz39z55). 53. 52. Government of Punjab, Principal Secretary Department of Industry & Commerce Udyog Bhawan), Sector -r7, Chandigarh- L6ooL7. 54. 59. Government of Puducherry, Secretary, Department of Industries, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry. 55. g{. Government of Odisha, Principal Secretary (Industries), Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneshwar - 751oo1 (Fax: o67r -5g6819 I 24o6299). 56. 55.

partment of Industries, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry. 55. g{. Government of Odisha, Principal Secretary (Industries), Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneshwar - 751oo1 (Fax: o67r -5g6819 I 24o6299). 56. 55. Government of Madhya Pradesh, Chief Secretary, (Commerce and Industry), Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (Fax: o7S5-2SSgg74) ST. 56. Government of Uttarakhand, Principal Secretary, (Industries), No. 4, Subhash Road, Secretariat, Dehradun, Uttarakhand S8. 57. Government of Jharkhand (Secretary), Department of Industries Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi - 834ooz. 59. 58. Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Dadra Nagar Haveli, Secretary (Industries), Department of Industries, Secretariat, Moti Daman 396zzo (Fax: oz6o-22goZ7S). 6o. 59. Government of Nagaland, Principal Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce), Kohima, Nagaland. 6t. 6o. Government of Chattishgarh, Commissioner-cum-Secretary Industries, Directorate of Industries, LIC Building Campus, znd Floor, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Copy to:- PSO to CS / PPS to AS(AB) / PS to JS CVA)/ ST.PPS to Dir (GP).

mmissioner-cum-Secretary Industries, Directorate of Industries, LIC Building Campus, znd Floor, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Copy to:- PSO to CS / PPS to AS(AB) / PS to JS CVA)/ ST.PPS to Dir (GP).

Minutes of the 13dh meeting of the Board of Approval for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) held on 30Ib December, 2025 The One Hundred and Thirty-Five (13dh; meeting of the Board of Approval (BoA) for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) was held on 30th December, 2025. through hybrid mode. The list of participants is at Annexure-|. The item-wise decisions taken by the Board are as below.- Agenda ltem No. 135.1: Ratification of the minutes of the 134h meeting ol the Board oI Approvat lor Special Economic Zones (SEZs) held on 20th & 26th November, 2A25. The Board ratif ied the minutes of the 134h meeling of the BoA for SEZs held on 20th & 26th November. 2a25. Agenda ltem No.135.2: Appeal [5 cases: 135.2(i) - 135.2(v)] 135.2(i) Appeal dated 29.04.2A25 filed by M/s. Varsur lmpex Pvt. Ltd. in KASEZ under the provision of Section 15(4) ol the SEZ Act, 2005 against the decision of 212th UAC meeting held on 28.03.2025 conveyed vide email dated 09.04.2025. The appeal was f iled under Section 15(4) of the SEZ Act. 2005 and Rule 55 of SEZ Rule 2006, by tvl/s.

ainst the decision of 212th UAC meeting held on 28.03.2025 conveyed vide email dated 09.04.2025. The appeal was f iled under Section 15(4) of the SEZ Act. 2005 and Rule 55 of SEZ Rule 2006, by tvl/s. Varsur lmpex Pvt Ltd, a Warehousing Unit in Kandla Special Economic Zone. The appeal was filed against the decision taken vide Agenda Point No 212.2.11 during the 212th meeting of Unit Approval Commitlee of Kandla Special Economic Zane (KASEZ), heid on 28.03.2025. The request of the said Unit for inclusion of additional items in the approved list of LOA issued on 10.04.2021 for warehousing activities was considered during the 2121h meeting of UAC vide Agenda Point No 212.2.11 and permission for certairt sensitive items were denied. Being aggrieved with the said decision, the Unit filed an appeal on 29.04.2025. The Board in its 135th meeting held on 30.12.2A25, heard the appellanl virlually and the brief submission made by appellant are as follows. i. None of the provisions of SEZ law or instructions mandates that an FTWZ Unit or warehousing Urrit in SEZ is required to take item/CTH wise approval from the UAC or Development Commissioner. ii. Rute 18(2) and Rute 1B(5) of SEZ Rules,2006 are not applicable in the present case, as the proposal does not relate to setting up of a new Unit or submission of a fresh warehousing proposal. Similarly, Proviso to Rule 19(2) V

f SEZ Rules,2006 are not applicable in the present case, as the proposal does not relate to setting up of a new Unit or submission of a fresh warehousing proposal. Similarly, Proviso to Rule 19(2) V

has no relevance' since there is no request for broad-banding or any change in the approved service activity of the Unit. in the absen"" "or any enabling provision under the sEZ framework, the Unit Approval committee has exceeded its delegated powers by introducing a permission requirement not contemplated under law. iii' lnstruction No. 117 of Department of commercehas been misapplied. especially regarding the stage at which KyC/lrR documents must be submitted. iv' The UAC has alfegedly acted with bias, selective approach, and withoul citing legal provisions for rejection. v' Any statutory provision for rejection has not been cited and is therefore non- speaking and is contrary to basic principles of administrative fairness. vi Examples of other sEZsi FTWZs was cited where all non-prohibited items are generally permitted. The DC, KASEZ made following submissions in response to the contentions of the appellant: i' DoC's lnstruction No. 117 dated 24.0g.2a24 lays down guidelines for the operation of FTWZ and sEZ warehousing unlis.

SEZ made following submissions in response to the contentions of the appellant: i' DoC's lnstruction No. 117 dated 24.0g.2a24 lays down guidelines for the operation of FTWZ and sEZ warehousing unlis. Jir*.iirig Dts to strictly monitor high-risk commodities and restric'i dealings irr sensitive items, if necessary, with periodic review by the UAC. ii' ln this instant ga.se gnly, sensitive items *r rejected for storing in FTWZ as there is hiqh risk of diversion of these itemi in orn oue io [J nign imporr duty. iii The minutes of the zlzrh r{c- meeting were uproaded on the KASEZ website and the email dated 0g.a4.20t25 fuas-issue'O onrvlo-inrorm the Unit and ensure compliance with the UAC's decision; lvlore, non-r"nritiu; it;;' permitted to, be stored by other warehousing uniis "i uiio"ii"nted to the appellant subject to submission of clrents' KYt and iTR, while sensitive items :ych as cigarettes were denied by the UAC. - iv' The appetlant's contention thaf approuilr are granted arbitrarily is nol correct' ln the 116th UAC meeting held on 1g.07.I017, it wis oecioed that warehousing units in KASEZ Tyiseek prior permission tor inctusion of any new items and submit ctient KYC beforb waienousing.

correct' ln the 116th UAC meeting held on 1g.07.I017, it wis oecioed that warehousing units in KASEZ Tyiseek prior permission tor inctusion of any new items and submit ctient KYC beforb waienousing. rurtrei-it was also submitted that the .fPProval Committee -is Juiy empowered under the first proviso to Rule 1g(2) of the sEZ Rules, 2006 19 "ripro* .i]rnges in items and activities, and the UAC's decision ir-ft,"r"tore rn accordance with the said Rules. v' Further, prayer of lhe appellant requires to be summarily rejected and no relief of any kind be granted to them and the decision of the UAC is a well reasoned as per past approval of not approving the sensitive items such as cigarettes, etc. Sensitive items (e.g., cigarettes) have been disallowed by Board of Approvar (BoA) rn past cases. /BBrh BoA meeting hetd on 25'02.2019 in the case of ftfi/s. Zest frtlarine Servrces pvt. Ltd., KASEZ and in the 74th BoA meeting hetd on 06.01.20t2 in the case of Mis. A One Duty Free Pvt. Ltd.l The Board, after detailed deliberations, made the following observations: u

ne Servrces pvt. Ltd., KASEZ and in the 74th BoA meeting hetd on 06.01.20t2 in the case of Mis. A One Duty Free Pvt. Ltd.l The Board, after detailed deliberations, made the following observations: u

i. SEZs are foreign territory for Customs purposes and they are prone to circumvention of duty in respect of high risk and high duty value commodities. ii. DC has been authorised to recognize the risky commodities and deny permission for warehousing of such commodities. iii. KASEZ in its 1 1dh meeting of UAC set up a procedure whereby warehousing units in KASEZ must seek prior permission for inclusion of any new items and submit client KYC before warehousing which has been accepted by the appellant while accepting LoA. iv. DoC's lnstruction No. 1'17 also empowers UAC/DC to keep a stricl watch on high risk commodities. v. The decision taken by UAC in the instant case is within the ambit ol proviso to Rule 19(2) of SEZ Rules, 2006. Accordingly, the Board, after taking into consideration the above submissions, upheld the decision of the UAC, KASEZ and rejected the above appeal of tM/s. Varsur lmpex Pvt. Ltd. 135.2(ii) Appeal of M/s. Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division) against the decision of 213rd UAC meeting held on 30.04.2025 -reg. The appeal was f iled under Section 15(4) of the SEZ Act. 2005 and Rule 55 of SEZ Rule 2006, by M/s. Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division).

decision of 213rd UAC meeting held on 30.04.2025 -reg. The appeal was f iled under Section 15(4) of the SEZ Act. 2005 and Rule 55 of SEZ Rule 2006, by M/s. Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division). a Warehousing Unit in Kandla Special Economic Zone (KASEZ) The appeal was filed against the KASEZ's Order Letter No. KASEZ/lA1 lFTWZi1l 12011-12lVol-11859 daled 22.A5.2025 communicating the decision taken during the 213th meeting of Unit Approval Committee (UAC) of KASEZ. held on 3A.04.2025, rejecting the request 1o warehouse cigarettes. The request of the appellant f o r permission to warehouse cigarettes (CTH 24022090) on behalf of their foreign client at KASEZwas considered in 21dtr meeting of UAC held on 30.04.2025 and rejected on the ground that the item being sensitive commodity and prone to diversion. Being aggrieved with the decision, the said Unit has f iled an appeal on 27.05.2025. The appellant is engaged in activity of warehousing services and trading activity of all the items except restrrcted and prohibited. The appellant commenced its authorized operations on 2810412014. The LOA of the appellant is valid up to 28t04t2029. The Board in its 1351h meeting held on 30.12.2425, heard the appellanl virtually and the brief submissions made by appellant are as follows: i. The appellant intends to warehouse super slim cigareltes imported from South Korea. The appellant undertakes that the goods shall be dispatched exclusively to the DTA on payment of applicable customs duties and taxes, or physically exported, in accordance with applicable laws and regulalions. ii.

undertakes that the goods shall be dispatched exclusively to the DTA on payment of applicable customs duties and taxes, or physically exported, in accordance with applicable laws and regulalions. ii. The original Letter of Approvat (LOA) granted to the appellant permits V

warehousing and trading of all goods, except those classified as restricted or prohibited, without imposing any ilem-specific restriction. iii The authority failed to appreciate that cigarettes falling under CrH 24a220g0 are classified under the Free rmport category As per the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), various varieties of cigarettei covered under CTH 24OZ are freely importable by any importer in lndia. iv' The apprehension of UAC that cigarettes are a sensitive commodity and prone to diversion is baseless, as multipfe entities in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) are importing the same as the item is in free list. Therefore, putting restrrction on SEZ Unit is unjustified, arbitrary, and unwarranted. v.

s, as multipfe entities in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) are importing the same as the item is in free list. Therefore, putting restrrction on SEZ Unit is unjustified, arbitrary, and unwarranted. v. The appellant is engaged exclusively in the business of providing warehousing services, and therefore treating the commodity as prone to diversion in the appellant's case is not justified. The DC, KASEZ made the following arguments against the contentions of the appellant: i' The UAC's decision in its ll6ttrmeeting held on 1g.07.2017 mandates that warehousing units in KASEZ must seeli prior approval for each new item to be warehouse.d, along with submission of'Know Vour Custorur txic) details for clients' This requirement was introduced to unrrr* compliance with SEZ regulations and to mitigate risks associated *it, sensitive commodities. These conditions welq accepted Uv tne-iripellant in their renewat of LOA dated 30.04.20'19 and U.AS.2AZ4. ii The UAC's relection of the appellant's request is based on the current risk perception of cigarettes, which are prone to diversion and mis-declaration. The appellant's past activities do not confer an aulomatic right to continue warehousing such items under the updated regulatory framework. iii The appellant's argument that cigarettes arl freeiy importable under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and thus should be permitted for warehousing is not valid in the context of SEZ regulations. Although cigarettes may be freely importable under the FTP in the DTA, SEZ units are governed under the SEZ Act.

us should be permitted for warehousing is not valid in the context of SEZ regulations. Although cigarettes may be freely importable under the FTP in the DTA, SEZ units are governed under the SEZ Act. 2005 and SEZ Rules, 2006, and under the first proviso to Rule l g(2). the UAC is empowered to approve or reject inclusion of such rtems based on compliance with Rule 18, inciuding risk and regulatory considerations. iv' The UAC's decision to deny perir.issio.n to.clgirettes is within its statutory authority and is consisteni with the ood;J guiderine. on high,risk commodities, refrecting a precauti?n{.v approach"io-;i;k ;itljation even where DTA imports ,l* fermitted. The 6dLnt's contention that the apprehension of diversion is unfounded is ,j'it"nioi", ;; ti;'Department's concerns are drly suppo,rted by lnstruction No. .117 dated 24.og.rli4, which explicitly identifies sensitive commodities like cigarettes as high+isk due to potential diversion and mis-declaration v' The appellant's undertaking to diipatch cigarettes to the DTA market only upon payment of applicabfe customs duties and taxes, or through physicil export, does not mitigate the inherent risks associated with warehdusing such sensitive commodities. vi. The decision of the 213th _uAC meeting and the Deveiopment Commissioner's letter dated 22.05.2a25 be uph6ld. No relief of any kind be granted to the appeilant, as the UAC's decision is rawfur and based on V

sion of the 213th _uAC meeting and the Deveiopment Commissioner's letter dated 22.05.2a25 be uph6ld. No relief of any kind be granted to the appeilant, as the UAC's decision is rawfur and based on V

established guidelines and precedents The Board, after deliberations, observed that - i. DC has been authorised to recognize risky commodities and deny permission of warehousing of such commoditres. DoC's lnstruction No. 117 also empowers UAC/DC to keep a strict watch on high risk commodity. ii. KASEZ in its 1 16{h meeting of UAC set up a procedure whereby warehousing units in KASEZ must seek prior permission for inclusion of any new items and submit client KYC before warehousing which were acknowledged by the appellant while accepting LoA. Accordingly, the Board, after taking into consideration the above submissions, upheld the decision of the UAC. KASEZ and rejected the above appeal ofM/s. Flamingo Logistics (Warehousing Division). 135.2(iii) Appeal dated 17.07.2025 filed by M/s Diligent Logistics Solution Pvt. Ltd. in NSEZ under the provision of Section 15(4) of the SEZ Act,2005 against the decision of UAC meeting held on 05.06.2025. The appeal was f iled under Section 15(4) of the SEZ Act. 2005 and Rule 55 of SEZ Rule 2006, by lVls Diligent Logistics Sotution Pvt. Ltd. a warehousing Unit in Free Trade and Warehousing Zone (FTWZ) developed by Arshiya Northern FTWZ Ltd. at Khurja, District Bulandshahar. Uttar Pradesh.

06, by lVls Diligent Logistics Sotution Pvt. Ltd. a warehousing Unit in Free Trade and Warehousing Zone (FTWZ) developed by Arshiya Northern FTWZ Ltd. at Khurja, District Bulandshahar. Uttar Pradesh. under the jurisdiction of Noida Special Economic Zone (NSEZ) The appeal was filed against the NSEZ's lt/inutes of lVeeting of Unit Approval Committee (UAC) bearing No. 10i0612022-SEZl5305 daled 19.06.2025 communicating the decision of UAC not approving the request of warehousing additional items (33 previous and 52 new items) in LOA dated 03.10.2024 The request of appellant wasrejected taking into account the serious nature of fraudulent transactions by tt//s Diligent Logistics Solution as Customs House Agenl (CHA). Being aggrieved with the decision. the said Unit has filed an appeal on 17.07.2025. The appellant is engaged in activity of warehousing services with following activities as Authorised Operations. Service, Warehousing, Trading with or without labeling, packing & re-packing without any process, Assembly of Completely Knocked Down or Semi Knacked Down in respect of items under following HS Cades, excluding {hose items Restricted' &'Prohibited' for imports & exports:- HS Code: 2202, 2209, 27t 4, 2715, 2934, 321 .0, 39L4, 3822, 3903, 3904. 3905, 3906, 3907, 3908, 3909.... The Board in its 135th meeting held on 30.12.2A25, heard the appellanl virtually and the brief submissions made by appellant are as follows: i. Diligent Logistics Solutions. operating as a CHA, is a proprietorship firm and is completely separate in law and fact from the Appellant i.e. Diligent

ubmissions made by appellant are as follows: i. Diligent Logistics Solutions. operating as a CHA, is a proprietorship firm and is completely separate in law and fact from the Appellant i.e. Diligent

ilt IV Logistics solutions pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the companies Act,2013 and registered as a Unit at Arshiya Northern FTWZ Ltd. There is no criminal, civil or quasi-judicial proceeding pending against the Appellant. No show-cause notice has been issued to the Appellant under any provision of the SEZ Act, sEZ Rures or the customs Act. The refusal to allow legitimate business operations by denying inclusion of additional items is wholly disproportionate. Rejection was passed without issuance of any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. The Appellant has consislently complied with all provisions of the SEZ Act, customs Act and the operalional rules of Arshiya'riwz. There is no record of non-compfiance. evasion or procedural lapses against the Appellant. The arbitrary refusar to ailow the incrusion or -new items'causes grave financiat toss and operarionar disruprion to rhe npp*riarll, ;,.,;;;;rl ti "rro prejudices the credibiiity of the Appellant before' its clients and partners, damaging its commercial standing. The decision of the UAC vide 1g.0o.eozs may be quashed and ser aside and the application for inclusion of the additionaiir"rnr'isi previous + 52 new) in the LoA of the Appellant be approved. The DC' NSEZ made following submissions in response to the conterrtions of the appellant:

ication for inclusion of the additionaiir"rnr'isi previous + 52 new) in the LoA of the Appellant be approved. The DC' NSEZ made following submissions in response to the conterrtions of the appellant: i' The CHA along with the DTA importer used fake documents wilfuily mis- stating the Country of Origin of impugned goods as Afghanistan in the subject Bill of Entry filed, with intent to evade" puy'i"ni ot Cusiomr ortv n fake Bank Guarantees were also submitted. cHA along with the DTA importer is engaged in manipulation, forging the documents and submitting lake documents to the department oniy f"or the puipor" of evading pavment of due customs duties on removar of their goods into DTA. ii' lvr' Rakesh rrikha is also the ploprietor oi tr''. cHA "Diligent Logistics Soluttons", directly implicated in' ploviding-fake COos ano"lorgeo bank guarantees. iii' A draft SCN has been forwarded by Noida Customs and no formal SCN has yet been served, however. the specified officer,s r.*po.t provides independent and credible documentary verification of misconduct. iv The grounds rarsed by the Unit i.e. separate identity, absence of SCN service.

d, however. the specified officer,s r.*po.t provides independent and credible documentary verification of misconduct. iv The grounds rarsed by the Unit i.e. separate identity, absence of SCN service. discriminalion, and financial hardship do not dislodge the Committee's prevenlive, reasoned stance as action of UAC under proviso of Rule 19 (2) of SEZ Rule, 2006- "Provided that the Approval Cammittee also approve proposals for broad-banding, diversificatian, enhancement of capacity of produclion, change in the items of manufacture or service activity, if it meets lhe requirements of Rule /B'1 Further, Section .147, Customs Act, 1962 makes both imporler and CHA/Unit liable tor otr"n.er .ornl.,irt"o. The Board, after deliberations, observed thal only adraft Show Cause Notice (scN) has been forwarded by Noida cusromi ,nJ'no formar sCr.r r,is yet been served' A draft SCN cannot bti a basis ior iu.ri'pieinptive'penal action. Further no V

punitive action has been taken yet against the CHA itself. Also, the SEZ Unit (a private limited company) and the alleged CHA (proprietorship concern) are distinct legal entities. Accordingly, the Board, taking into consideration of above submissions.remanded the matter back to the UAC, NSEZ for reconsideration. 132.(iv) Appeal filed by M/s. Pfizer Healthcare lndia Limited, an SEZ Unit in VSEZ, under Section 16(4) of the SEZ Act, 2005, against the order passed by Unit Approval Committee in its 2O1st meeting held on 25.12.2A24. This appeal was filed under Rule 55 of SEZ Rule 2006 by lVl/s.

, under Section 16(4) of the SEZ Act, 2005, against the order passed by Unit Approval Committee in its 2O1st meeting held on 25.12.2A24. This appeal was filed under Rule 55 of SEZ Rule 2006 by lVl/s. Plizer Healthcare lndia Limited, an SEZ Unit in Visakha Pharmacity Ltd (erstwhile Ramky Pharma City) SEZ, Parawada, Anakapalle under jurisdiction Visakhapatnam Special Economic Zone (VSEZ). The said Unit is engaged in manufacturing medicaments (HSN 30049099) holding LOA dated 25.06.2010, procured food services from itl/s Sodexo lndia Pvt Ltd. (SAC 996333) claiming zero-rated supply under LUT. The Unit Approval Committee (UAC) in ils 201si meeting held on 25.12.2A24 rejected inclusion of Other Contract Food Service (SAC 996337) as authorizedlzero-raled on the ground that services to employees are not zero-rated under GST. Being aggrieved with the decision of UAC the Unil filed an appeal against the rejection on 20.01 .2025 The Board in its"135lh meeting held on 30.12.2A25, heard the appellant virtually and the brief submissions made by the appellant is as follows: i. The services provided by Sodexo to the Appellant in relation to food supply qualify as outdoor caterer services, which form pail of the defaull authorized services included in the uniform list of services approved by the Department of Commerce (F. No. D.12!19!2A1201 3-SEZ dated 02.01 .2018), and exemption cannot be denied on this basis. ii. The conlract for supply is exclusively between the Appellant and Sodexo, and there is no privity of contract with the employees.

dated 02.01 .2018), and exemption cannot be denied on this basis. ii. The conlract for supply is exclusively between the Appellant and Sodexo, and there is no privity of contract with the employees. Consequently, the Appellant is the recipient of the service. and not the employees. consistent with the legal principle that the contractual party and not the ultimate beneficiary is the correct service recipient for tax purposes (as upheld in Vodafone lndia Ltd. v. Union of lndia 2022 (66) GSTL 63 (Bom.)). iii. ln terms of Section 16(1)(b) of the IGST Act,2017, supplies of services to a SEZ Unit for its authorized operations are treated as zero-rated supplies, and since the services are received by the $EZ Unit for authorized operalions. they qualify for zero-rating under GST; the ultimate fact that employees benefit from the food services is immalerial to the eligibility for exemption. iv. The UAC's reliance on lnstruction No. 95 dated 1 1 .06.2019, which prescribes conditions for creating or operating facilities like cafeterias under Rule 1 1(5) of the SEZ Rules is not applicable lo the present case, as no separate request was made to creale such facilities under thal Rule, and the inslruclion V

facilities like cafeterias under Rule 1 1(5) of the SEZ Rules is not applicable lo the present case, as no separate request was made to creale such facilities under thal Rule, and the inslruclion V

cannot curtail benefits beyond the parent SEZ Actr'Rules (which provide zero- rating for supplies to SEZ units). v. Even if the services are not explicitly listed with a specific SAC in the default list, the default authorized services list should be interpreted broadly to include all outdoor caterer services (including those classified under SAC 996337), and subslantive benefits cannol be denied on a mere technical non- mention of a specific SAC when the nature of service ciearly falts within the authorized operations. vi. The appellant also placed reiiance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in vodafone lndia Ltd. v. Union of lndia, zozz (66) GSTL 63 (Bom.), wherein il was categoricaily held that a "customer's customer" cannot be treated as lhe service recipient in the absence of privity of contract. The Court affirmed that where services are rendered to a third party at the behest of the contractuat counter-party, and consideralion flows from-such counler- party, the recipient of service remains the contractual customer and not the ultimate beneficiary. Applying this settled principle, since there is no privity of contracl between the employees and sodexo, the employees cannot be regarded as recipients of supply, and the Appellant alone qualifies as the recipient of services provided by Sodexo. vii.

privity of contracl between the employees and sodexo, the employees cannot be regarded as recipients of supply, and the Appellant alone qualifies as the recipient of services provided by Sodexo. vii. Appellant submitted that the same benefits were easily accessible to the appeilant prior to GST regime and mere category classification with tacks of clarity created hurdle under new regime. viii. The appellant prayed that the Board of Approval set aside the decision communicated vide the impugned order to the extent it is prejudicial to the Appellant and allow the appeal in full with consequential relief, if arry. And approve the proposal for inciusion of other contract food service under SAC 996337 as authorized service. DC, VSEZ made following submissions against the contentions of the appellant i The services provided by lVlis Sodexo lndia Pvt. Ltd. to the SEZ Unit are in the nature of canteen / other contract food services, classifiable under SAC 996333 / 996337, which are distinct and separate from "outdoor caterer services" (SAC 996334) included in the default list of authorised services. As per the explanatory notes to Notification No. 11l20l?-CT (Rate) dated 28.06'2017 and SEZ lnstruction No. 79, outdoor catering services are event- based and occasional, whereas the impugned services are continuous, recurring and nreant for daily consumption by employees. ii. The request of Unit for inclusion of other conlract food service as authorized service is not tenable as it is not present in the default list of services for SEZs. iii.

consumption by employees. ii. The request of Unit for inclusion of other conlract food service as authorized service is not tenable as it is not present in the default list of services for SEZs. iii. lt was further submitted that employees are not SEZ units or developers, and supply of food to employees constitutes a persCInal benefiLrincentive forming part of perks or salary, which does not qualify as authorised operations under the SEZ Act and Rules. Accordingly, such services are not eligible for zero- rated lreatment or SEZ exemptions under Sections 7 or 26 of thl SEZ Act. iv. DoC's lnstruclion no.95 dated 11.06.2019, inter-alia, stipulates that the units shall not be eligible for any exemptions. drawback, concessions or any other t

benefit available under Section 7 or Section 26 of the SEZ Act, for creating or operating facilities under proviso to Rule 1 1(5) of SEZ Rules, 2006. v. The decision of the UAC rejecting inclusion of "Other Contract Food Services" under SAC 996337 as an authorised service is therefore legal, justified and in conformity with the SEZ Act, SEZ Rules, relevant instructions and GST classification, and the appeal may be rejected. The Board, after deliberations, observed that: i. While units are permitted to operate canteens for their employees, such services do not qualify for GST exemptions or zero-rated benefits. ii The extant provisions of instructions issued by the Department of Commerce, including SEZ lnstruction Nos. 79 and 95.

oyees, such services do not qualify for GST exemptions or zero-rated benefits. ii The extant provisions of instructions issued by the Department of Commerce, including SEZ lnstruction Nos. 79 and 95. form the basis for determining the authorized services, and under these instructions, food supplied to employees-whether directly or through DTA vendors-cannol be trealed as part of authorized operations lor GST benefit. The Board, after taking into consideratiotheof above submissions and based on its above observations. upheld the decision of the UAC, VSEZ and rejected the above appeal of M/s. Ptizer Healthcare lndia Limited. 135.2(v) Appeal filed by M/s. Proteam Computer reg. against the order No. NSEZ/03/05/2005-Proil5259 dated 21.A6.2024 issued by Assistant Development Commissioner, NSEZ The appeal was filed under the provisions of Rule 55 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 by lrlls. Proteam Computer, a Unit in Noida Special Econornic Zane (NSEZ). The appeal was filed against the decision of the Unit Approval Committee (UAC) conveyed vide letter dated 21.06.2024 (impugned decision), whereby the request of the appellant for allowing export of B|S-cefiified reengineered and upgraded lT/Telecom/electronic items to Taiwan, Hong Kong. and the UAE.

ated 21.06.2024 (impugned decision), whereby the request of the appellant for allowing export of B|S-cefiified reengineered and upgraded lT/Telecom/electronic items to Taiwan, Hong Kong. and the UAE. as well as deemed export into the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) under Rule 53A(i) of the SEZ Rules, was partially approved, permitting physical exporls to overseas markets while expressly disailowing sales in the DTA. The appellant has requested to consider the appeal after condoning the delay in filing the appeal as the appellant was under the process to get its products BIS fMark which is a primary and mandatory requiremenl before getting approval from BIS Lab of re-engineering and remarking of computer peripherals/ products. The said approval was received on 26.11.2024 therefore the appellanl could nol file his appeal within the prescribed limit. The Board in its 135th meeting held on 30.12.2A25. heard the appellant virtually and the brief submissions made by appellant are as follows: i. The Appellant is engaged in the busirress ol technology up gradation and refurbishmenl ol second-generation hardware. All such re-engineered arrd upgrade.d producls are q

ppellant are as follows: i. The Appellant is engaged in the busirress ol technology up gradation and refurbishmenl ol second-generation hardware. All such re-engineered arrd upgrade.d producls are q

certified by lhe Bureau of lndian Standards (BlS), thereby ensuring compliance with prescribed standards of safety. qualily, and performance. ii. The Appellant submitted that restriclion of exports to overseas markets while expressly disallowing sales in the DTA, is contrary to Notification No. fii}A24-2025 dated 20.05.2024 rssued by the DGFT, lVinistry of Commerce and lnduslry, which permits such transactions. The impugned restriction has exposed the Appellant to substantial financial loss due to lhe inability to execule confirmed export and domestic supply orders. iii. The Appellant submits that BIS-certified re-engineered or upgraded products are equal to, and in many cases superior to. new products and do not cause any adverse environmental impact. tv. The decrsion of the UAC is arbitrary. suflers {rom non-application of mind. and is in violation of the principles of natural lustice. lt causes grave prejudice not only to rhe Appellant but also to lndian consumers, who are deprived ol access to affordable BIS- certified products. The UAC has faited to appreoate that there rs sustained dornestic and international demand {or upgraded and second-generation lechnology products and that uninterrupted access to such markets is essential lor the Appellani's business viability and growth. Accordingty, the impugned decision warrants review and reconsideration. v.

ology products and that uninterrupted access to such markets is essential lor the Appellani's business viability and growth. Accordingty, the impugned decision warrants review and reconsideration. v. The appellant requested to review the impugned decision by removing the restriction of sate of BIS certified reconditioned, repaired. re-engineered or upgraded products in DTA market after condoning the delay in filing the appeal beyond 30 days. T h e DC, NSEZ made appellant: following submission against the contentions of the i. The UAC denied permission for DTA sate of goods because Rule 1B(a)(d) of the SEZ Rules, 2006 strictly requires thal any imported items broughi'in for reconditioning, repair. or re-engineering must have one-to-one export-import correlation, and all such goods, including scrap. must be exported. No DTA sale or destruction rs allowed. ii. A DGFT Notification No. 13,2A24-25 dated 20.A5.2024 amended para 2.31 ot the Foreign Trade Poticy (FTP) regarding import conditions for electronics requiring BIS registration. However, this amendment does not change SEZ Rules. including Rule 18(4Xd). iii. Therefore, DGFT's relaxation for B|S-compiiant imports does not permit SEZ units to sell such goods in the DTA. Further, the Unit was only permitted to import goods for re-engineeringr'upgradation on lhe condition t'hat all finished products are exported (no DTA clearance). iv. Rule 53 (A) (i) on deemed exports under Advance Authorisation does not appiy to these goods; the Unit's claim is invalid. The Board, after deliberations, observed that: r.

ted (no DTA clearance). iv. Rule 53 (A) (i) on deemed exports under Advance Authorisation does not appiy to these goods; the Unit's claim is invalid. The Board, after deliberations, observed that: r. Al the very outset the Board observed that the Unit has failed to file the appeal within ][e_trme prescribed under the provisions of Rule 56(l ) and q6-(2) of the SEZ Rules. However, after hearing the appellant as weli as the DC, the Board condoned the delay in filing thd appedt'within the prescribed time, in accordance with the proviso to section t s(sl of the sEZ Act. ii DC has followed, tfrq due diligence as prescribed in'the nure Gt+l(d) of SEZ Rules, 2006 .and rightly put the condition that exports shatl have one to one correlation with imports and all the reconditioned br repaired or re-engin*eieU V

or upgraded products and scrap or remnants or waste shall be exported and none of these goods shall be allowed to be sold in the Domestic Tariff Area or destroyed. iii. Further, appellant contention regarding BIS certification citing DGFT Notification does not necessarily implies change in SEZ Act and Rules. iv. lt appears that appellant is trying to take benefit of non-BlS standard imports in SEZ and then clearing finished goods as BIS certified to DTA. v. The UAC has already permitted Unit to export to overseas market ensuring one-to-one correlation with import. in-line with the overall purpose of SEZs.

aring finished goods as BIS certified to DTA. v. The UAC has already permitted Unit to export to overseas market ensuring one-to-one correlation with import. in-line with the overall purpose of SEZs. lf the goods are ultimately meant for the DTA, they could be directly imported into the DTA instead of routing them through an SEZ by taking policy arbitrage. Accordingly, after taking into consideration the above submissions, and relying on the provisions of Rule 1B(4Xd) of the SEZ Rules which govern the import of used goods for recycling by an SEZ Unit and exporl thereof, the Board rejected the appeal and upheld the decision of the UAC, NSEZ. Agenda ltem No. 135.3: Request for extension of LoA of SEZ Unit [4 proposals - 135.3(i) - 135.3(iv)] 135.3(i) Request ol M /s. Envopap Private Limited in Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority SEZ at Maharashtra lor the Extension of the Letter of Approval (LOA) for further period of one year i.e. 12.1A.2026. DC SEEPZSEZ informed the Board that the Unit has not yet starled operatiorrs but has assured commencement within the extended period. The Developer, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority (JNPA). has issued No Objection Certificates (NOCs). corrfirming that tv1/s Envopap has completed soil testing and received approval for construction permission, which will be formally issued upon submission of a valid LoA.

jection Certificates (NOCs). corrfirming that tv1/s Envopap has completed soil testing and received approval for construction permission, which will be formally issued upon submission of a valid LoA. tt was informed that the LOA was issued on 13.10.2021 and delay in commencemenl of operation resulted from pending approvals, documenlation issues, and unforeseen challenges including excavation difficulties. monsoon disruptions, funding delays, and statulory clearances, The basic PEB structure is ready, remaining work will take 5 to-6 months. and operalions are planned to begin by August 2A26 in compliance with SEZ regulations. After consideration of the reasons for the delay. substantial activities undertaken and investment made, the Board being satisfied that it is necessary and expedienl in pursuance to Rule'19(4) of SEZ Rutes.2006.$ranted exlension of validity of LoA for a further period of one year, i.e. upto '1214.2026. 135.3(ii) Request of M/s. Wockhardt Ltd in Wockhardt lnfrastructure Development Ltd.-SEZ, Multi-Product SEZ at Shendra, Aurangabad, Maharashtra for the Extension of the Letler ol Approval (LOA) for further u period of one year i.e. 24i4.2426.

ockhardt lnfrastructure Development Ltd.-SEZ, Multi-Product SEZ at Shendra, Aurangabad, Maharashtra for the Extension of the Letler ol Approval (LOA) for further u period of one year i.e. 24i4.2426.

DC SEEPZ'SEZ informed the Board that the initial LOA was issued on 13 10.2021 and 11 extension have been given which was valid till24.1A.2OZS. An inspection of Unit-lll of Al/s Wockhardt Limited was conducted on 23.10.2A25, during which the progress of work at the Unit was found to be satisfactory. The Unit has reported that there is no change in physical progress, as construction activities have been completed and the plant and machinery are fully installed. However, commercial operations have not yet commenced due to pending approval from the USFDA. The Unit has been regularly applying for USFDA inspection and has paid the requisite registration fees for all years Ltp to 31.12.2025. It was also informed that the Unit is in lhe process of preparing applications for obtaining necessary statirtory licenses from various countries, witn the approval process being pursued on a priority basis to enable commencement of production. The Unit has further committed to making the facility operational within ihe nexf 1g lo 24 months and is taking steps to achieve this by appiying for phased broad- banding approvals for new products in due course. Accordingly, the Board being satisfied with the recommendation of DC SEEpZ- SEZ that it is necessary and expedient in pursuance to third proviso to Rule 1g(4) of SEZ Rules, 2006, granted- extension of validity of LoA for a further period of one

he recommendation of DC SEEpZ- SEZ that it is necessary and expedient in pursuance to third proviso to Rule 1g(4) of SEZ Rules, 2006, granted- extension of validity of LoA for a further period of one year, i.e. upto 24.10.2026. 135.3(iii) Request of M/s. RMIH Technology lndia private Limited, a Unit in Mahindra World City, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu for extension of LOA upto 22.A8.2026. DDC' lvlEPZ-SEZ informed the Board that the Letter of Approval (LoA) was issued to lVl,'s RIVIH Technology on 23.08.2022 has been extended twice and was valid up lo 22.08.2025. lt was infornred that layout design has been finalized, soil testing has completed and domestic and internationai vendors for machinery have also been finalised. The on-site civil construction activity has also .o**"r.ed. lt was added that the Unit is an established entily with exisiing EOU and DTA units having satisfactory performance. The proposal of extension has been submitted for consideration of the Board since zl3fi ol the work has not been compleled. The Unit has contended that the ripple effect of COVID-1g affecting the global and local supply chain, labour availability. and logistical coordination diirupted the Unit ability to mobilize construction resources and initiate groundwork as scheduled. Further, changes in U.S. import/export tariffs, particularly those aflecting EIVS Sectors and related equipment have introduced unexpected f inancial and procurement uncertainties. The Unit is currently evaluating these revisions to assess their long-term impact on sourcing of international cJstomers.

quipment have introduced unexpected f inancial and procurement uncertainties. The Unit is currently evaluating these revisions to assess their long-term impact on sourcing of international cJstomers. machinery, packaging materials, and other essential infrastructure components. Accordingly, the Board being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient and in v

pursuance to third proviso to Rule 19(4) of SEZ Rules, 2006, granted extension of validity of LoA for a further period of one year, i.e., upto 22.48.2426. 135.3(iv) Request of M/s Y R Dynamic Warehousing Services LLP in Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority SEZ at Maharashtra lor the Extension of the Letter ol Approval (LOA) for further period of one-year upto 27.06.2026. The DC, SEEPZ-SEZ informed the Board that the Letter of Approval (LoA) was issued to lV/s Y R Dynamic Warehousing Services LLP JNPA SEZ on 28.06.2023 and has been granted two extensions, the current validity being upto 27.06.2025. The Unit has now requested the 3d extension of the LoA for a further period of one year, i.e., from 28.06.20251o27.06.2026, in terms of Rule 19(4) of the SEZ Rules, 2006, citing delay in commencement of operations. ll was informed that the delay occurred mainly due to the time taken in the adjudication process and in obtaining development permission from JNPA, which is presently under review by the JNPA Architect. The proposal is also under process with the Chief Fire Officer for issuance of Provisional Fire NOC.

obtaining development permission from JNPA, which is presently under review by the JNPA Architect. The proposal is also under process with the Chief Fire Officer for issuance of Provisional Fire NOC. The Unit has assured that construction activities will commence immediately upon receipt of the Commencement Certificate from JNPA. The Board was also informed that the Specified Officer. JNPA SEZ. conducted a site visit and observed that conslruction activities have not yet commenced. Further. the Developer, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority (JNPA). has issued a No Objection Certificate and stated that soil testing has been completed. Construction permission has been approved by the competent authority and will be formally issued upon submission of a valid LOA. JNPA has conveyed no oblection to the extension of the LOA. Accordingly. the Board being satisfied that it is necessary and expedienl in pursuance to third proviso to Rule 19(4) of SEZ Rules.2006, granted exlension of validity of LoA for a further period of one year. i.e., upto 27.06.2426. Agenda ltem No. 135.4: Request for extension of LoA (ln-Principle approval) of SEZ [1 proposal - 13s.4(i)l 135.4(i) Proposal of M/s. Dahej SEZ Limited, requesting for 4th extension of validity in respect of their'!n-Principle Approval' granted for setting up of a Multi Sector SEZ at Pakhajan, Tal. Vagra, Dist. Bharuch, Gujarat over an area of 650 Ha - reg. The DC informed the Board that the ln-principle Approval for setting up of tt/ulti Sector SEZ was granted on 03.11.2021.

at Pakhajan, Tal. Vagra, Dist. Bharuch, Gujarat over an area of 650 Ha - reg. The DC informed the Board that the ln-principle Approval for setting up of tt/ulti Sector SEZ was granted on 03.11.2021. There is a delay in obtaining possession of land from the State Government authorily: however, Dahej SEZ Limited (DSL) u

has been actively following up with the concerned authority to expedite possession of the remaining government land. The total investment in the project stands at approximately t56B.1B crore as of 30.09.2025. The Board observed that DSL has already obtained 647 Ha and there is considerable delay in obtaining possession for only a small parcel of land (3.56 Ha). However, DSL has sufficient land in possession to be notified as SEZ and start activity for commencement of operation. lt was submitted by the DC that although the land already acquired is more than the minimum threshold of 50 Ha required for notifying an SEZ, however until the remaining four land parcels are acquired, the land to be notified as SEZ will not be contiguous. Therefore, the Board advised that the DC, in the meanwhile, may also follow up with the concerned authorities for early notification of the sEZ. Accordingly. the Board being salisfied with the written explanation/justification submitted by Developer and recommendation by DC, Dahej SEZ, in pursuance to proviso to Rule 6(2)(b) of sEZ Rules, 2006, granted extension of validity of the ln- principle Approval for a further period of one year. i-e., up to 02.11_2026. Agenda ltem No.

SEZ, in pursuance to proviso to Rule 6(2)(b) of sEZ Rules, 2006, granted extension of validity of the ln- principle Approval for a further period of one year. i-e., up to 02.11_2026. Agenda ltem No. 135.5: Hequest lor full/partial de-notification ol sEZ [2 proposats 135.5(a)- 135.5(ii)] 135'5(i) Request of M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions lndia private Limited, Developer for full de-notification of 2.56 Ha. of IT/ITES sEZ at plot No. 24' 25 &26, survey No. 1'lsl1, 11sr24, 11sr2s,, 11sr26 and 155/30, Nanakramguda viilage, seriringampaily Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. DC, VSEZ informed the Board that tV/s. Cognizant Technology Services private Limited was issued the Letter of Approvit on 21.04.2016 which was has lapsed/expired on 20.a4-2019. The Deveioper has not soughtr,approached Oio DC for further extension of Formal Approval. No activities/development work done for implementing the SEZ has been done. It/is. Cognizant Technology Services Private Limited vide its letter dated -15'10'2019 requested for full de-notification. The Government of Teiangana vide letter dated 02.09.2024 has recommended for consideration of the proposal and informed that the de-notified land will conform to the land use guidelines/master plan of the Government. The Board was informed that there are no units in the SEZ.

consideration of the proposal and informed that the de-notified land will conform to the land use guidelines/master plan of the Government. The Board was informed that there are no units in the SEZ. Further,the Developer has not availed any TaxlDuty benefits under the SEZ Act/Rules, in rlo of the land being de-notified. The Board, being satisfied in pursuance to first proviso to Rule B of SEZ RuleE approved the full de-rrotification of lhe entire area of 2.56 Hao f tt//s. Cognizant Technology solutions lndia Private Limited. |T/ITES sEZ at ptot No. 24, 25 &26, Survey No. 1'1511 , 11524, 115t25, 115126 and 1S5i30, Nanakramguda Viltage, Serilingampally rVrandar, Ra,ga Reddy District. Terangana. V

135.5(ii) Proposal of M/s. State lndustries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, Developer for partial de-notification ol 1.214 Ha out of 55.841 Ha of Multi Sector SEZ at SIPCOT lndustrial Park, Perundurai, Erode District, Tamil Nadu. The Board was informed that the reason for instant partial de-notification proposal is to convert 1.214 Hectares from SEZ into DTA in Plot No. S-1 Pt.1 (surrendered by lV/s. Wipro lnfrastructure Engineering Pvt. Ltd.) for allotment to potential buyers. Site inspection has been carried out by DDC, NIEPZ along with Specified Officer and lMandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar.

. Wipro lnfrastructure Engineering Pvt. Ltd.) for allotment to potential buyers. Site inspection has been carried out by DDC, NIEPZ along with Specified Officer and lMandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar. lt has been confirmed that there are no Units in the area proposed to be de-notified in the SEZ. The area remaining after the proposed partial de-notification is contiguous meeting alt the requirements of built-up area in terms of SEZ Act and Rules and without any public thoroughfare. Further, DC certifies that Developer has not availed of any Tax/Duty benefits under the SEZ Act/Rules. in respect of the land being de-notified and State Govt. has provided its 'No Oblection'. The Board, being satisfied. irr pursuance to first proviso to Rule B of SEZ Hules, 2006 approved the partial de-notif icalion of 1.214 Ha out of 56.841 Ha of tM/s. State lndustries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited. of lVulti Sector SEZ at STPCOT lndustrial Park, Perundurai. Erode District, Tamil Nadu. Agenda ltem No. 135.6 Request for conversion of Processing Area into Non-Processing Area under Rule 11(B) I 1 proposal - 135.6(i)l 135.6(i) Request of M/s. BSR Builder LLP - IT/ITES SEZ, Survey No. 135, 138,'141 &142, Nanakramguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad State, for demarcation of SEZ Processing Built-up area (3,885.39 sq.mtr.) as Non-Processing Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules, 2006 -reg. The Board, after deliberations, germfile-d the demarcation of the following area as Non Processing Area in terms of Rule 1 1B of SEZ Rules, 2006.

g Area in terms of Rule 11 B of SEZ Rules, 2006 -reg. The Board, after deliberations, germfile-d the demarcation of the following area as Non Processing Area in terms of Rule 1 1B of SEZ Rules, 2006. - Block No.lFloor Area in Sq. Mtr Block 2 ll st Ftoor 3,885.39 TOTAL 3,885.39 Sq.Mtrs ln addition to above, the Board stated that the responsrbility to ensure that all the extant provisions relating to demarcation of processing area lo non-processing area are implemented in letter and spirit, shall lie with the concerned DC. Further, the DC concerned shall also ensure that all the applicable duty benefits have been calculated in toto and the same has been fully repaid. \

Agenda ltem No. 135.7: Request for cancellation of co-Developer status [1 proposal-13s.6(i)] 135.7(i) Request for cancellation of Co-Developer status - M/s. DLF Power & Services Ltd, Co-Developer in M/s. DLF Limiteo at plot No. ll-F/.|, Block-ll-F, Action Area-ll, New Kolkata Township, Rajarhat, Kolkata, west Bengal. DC, FSEZ informed the Board that [/i's. DLF Power & Services Ltd. was issued the Letler of Approval as a Co-Developer for undertaking the Building Operations & lvlaintenance (O&Ml) Services at SEZ developed by IM7s. DLF Limiied SEZ at ptot No. ll-F/1, Block-ll-F, Action Area-ll, New Kolkata Township, Rajarhat. Kolkata, West Bengal. Now. it has requested for cancellation of Co-Developer stalus as the Developer is in process of re-structuring the management of its SEZ and henceforth developer itself will take care of the Building bperation & fr/aintenance (O&fv1) Services.

-Developer stalus as the Developer is in process of re-structuring the management of its SEZ and henceforth developer itself will take care of the Building bperation & fr/aintenance (O&fv1) Services. The Co-Developer has submitted following documents:- i. "No Objection Certificate" issued by lM/s DLF Limited, the Developer for cancellation of Co-Developer stalus. ii. "No Due certificare" issued by the specified officer. Accordingly, the Board, after deliberations, approved the proposal for canceliation of co-Developer status issued vide order no. F.2.43/2006-sEZ dated 05.12.2016. of lV/s DLF Power & Services Ltd in the SEZ developed by il//s. DLF Limited. Agenda ltem No.13,5.8: Miscellaneous [1 proposal: 135.g(i)] 135'8(i) Proposal for consideration of renewal ol Letter ol Approval (LOA) of M/s. Afcan lmpex Pvt. Ltd., a worn/used clothing Unit in KASEZ- Reg. DC' KASEZ briefed the proposal to the Board and submitted that the proposal is basically for revival of the sick unit. lt was informed that the unit underwent insolvency proceeding and Corporate lnsolvency Resolution process (ClRp) was initiated before Hon'ble NCLI Ahmedabad. The Successful Resolutiorr Applicant (SRA) of lV/s Afcan has referred to the Hon'ble NCLT order dated 30.09.2025, wherein lA No. 69712021 (renewal of LoA) and lA No.

ed before Hon'ble NCLI Ahmedabad. The Successful Resolutiorr Applicant (SRA) of lV/s Afcan has referred to the Hon'ble NCLT order dated 30.09.2025, wherein lA No. 69712021 (renewal of LoA) and lA No. 1l1At20Z3 (renewal of Lease Deed) were disposed of with a direclion to the Developrnenl Commissioner, KASEZ to take appropriate action for renewallextension of LoA and Lease deed expeditiousfy, upon settlement of KASEZ's admitted dues under the approved Resolution Plan. Clause 6.3.3 ("Revival of Business Operations") of approved Resolution plan, inter. alia, provide that in order to revive the business operations as going concern, following steps would be taken immediatety afler effective dale by"the Resolution V

Applicant acting through corporate debtor- i. Upon approval of this resolution plan, all the non-compliances, outstandtng dues. penalties. legal proceedings towards LoA and lease deed pertaining to the period prior to eflective date, whether matured or unmatured. crystallised or uncrystallised shall stand abated and terminated. ii. ln case KASEZ ALrthorily fails to honour the reqLrest made by AP for renewal of LOA, RA shall request lhe Development Commissioner. KASEZ for renewal of LOA subject to payment of entire outstanding dues till effective date as per clause 6.1 of resolution plan and any other dues that may be applicable as per LoA, lease deed and applicable laws lor period after effective date iii.

ire outstanding dues till effective date as per clause 6.1 of resolution plan and any other dues that may be applicable as per LoA, lease deed and applicable laws lor period after effective date iii. Approval ol this resolution plan and compliance with above 2 clauses shall be treated as sufficient compliance for all the purposes pertaining to LoA and lease deed, and Development Commissioner, KASEZ shall be under obligation to renew the LoA and Lease deed in order to enable the RA to revrve lhe operations of corporate debtor and implement this resolution plan. iv. RA may identify the target customers for revival of inrpex business arrd RA may also explore reviving lhe existing orders." ln this connection, the Board, took note of following commenls of DGEP i. all dues have not been paid and directions of 104h BOA are not complied ii. DC has not certified that the previous infringements of the applicant are duly laken into account in light of Rule 19(68) of SEZ Rules. 2006 iii. DC has not certified that the new "beneficial owners" adhere to the guidelines as per Rule 1B (4) of the SEZ Rules, 2006 ln view of the above, the Board after deliberalions on several points of proposal including the order of NCLT and minutes of 104th meeting of the Boardheld on 28.05.2A21, deferred the proposal as the proposal needs detailed examination of all aspects. hence, directed DC to submit a detailed factual report with the ground position along with his recommendations. SupplementaryAgendalat-ttrei}dh-mesttxgolthe*E.sAlp.l--$Ez Agenda ltem No.

l aspects. hence, directed DC to submit a detailed factual report with the ground position along with his recommendations. SupplementaryAgendalat-ttrei}dh-mesttxgolthe*E.sAlp.l--$Ez Agenda ltem No. 135.9: Request lor partial/full de-notification ol SEZ ['l proposal 134.9(i)] 135.9(i) Proposal ol M/s. DLF Limited, Developer for partial de- notification of 7.'1826 Ha out of 10.4813 Ha o{ lTllTES SEZ at Plot No. ll-F/1, Block-ll-F, Action Area Il, New Kolkata Township Rajarhat, Kolkata, West Bengal. DC, FSEZ informed the Board that IT/ITES SEZ developed by l\r1ls DLF Limited at Plot No. ll-Fi'l, Block-ll-F. Action Area ll. New Kolkata Township Rajarhat, Kolkata. West Bengal was issued LOA vide letter No. F.2/43I20A6-EPZ dated 16th June, 2006 and the reasons for instant partial de-notificalion proposal is most tenants in SEZ are multinational companies, and they perceive limited advantage of operating in SEZs post the direct tax sunset clause. Heavy restrictionsl compliance remains 0

lion proposal is most tenants in SEZ are multinational companies, and they perceive limited advantage of operating in SEZs post the direct tax sunset clause. Heavy restrictionsl compliance remains 0

tn_place for operating in such facilities, resulting in subdued demand for tTllTES SEZs and rising vacancies. Post pandemic, ?ue to the government's liberal relaxation to allow c_ompanies to operate work from home haJfurther subdued the demand for lT/lTes SEZ. The instant proposal was earlier considered in 134h meeting of BoA, whereby the BoA directed the concerned DC to resubmit the proposal w]th compiete tabulated details of time and quantum of duty beneiits' availed and 'duty benefits returned/repaid. DC submitted the desired information and briefed to Board. The DC has certified that there are no Units in the area proposed to be de-notified in the SEZ and arq? . remaining after the proposed pirtiat de-notif ication is contiguous meeting all the requirements of Ouiit-uit area irr terms of SEZ Act and RLrles and without any pr"rblic thoroughfare. Furlher. the DC has cerlified that the Developer has not availed of any taxlDuty benefits under the SEZ Act/Rules, in respect of the land being de-notified. The State Government of West Bengal vide its letter dated 15.09.2025 has conveyed its no-objection for the proposat o'i partial denotification and informed that any ihange in future use of suin cje-notified land shatl.

t of West Bengal vide its letter dated 15.09.2025 has conveyed its no-objection for the proposat o'i partial denotification and informed that any ihange in future use of suin cje-notified land shatl. be upon prior approval of the-approfiriate authority of the State Government and in adherence to all the stipulationi'ot irre stale Govt. The Board, being satisfied, in pursuance to first proviso to Rule I of SEZ Rules, 2006approved the partial de-notification of 7.1826 Ha out of 10.4813 Ha ofi/is. DLF Limited, of IT/ITES SEZ at Plot No. ll-F/1, Block-tl-F, Action Area il, New Kolkata Township Rajarhat, Kolkata, West Bengal. Agenda ltem No.135.10 Request for cancellation of co-Developer status [1 proposal - 135.10(i)] 135.10(i) Request for cancellation of Co-Developer status - M/s Sri channakeshava Tech park, co-Developer in shyamaraju & company (lndia) Private Limited (formerly Divyasree Technopark) sEZ, Bangalore.' DC, CSEZ informed the Board that tr/is Sri Channakeshava Tech park was issued Letter of Approvat No.F.2/'l z\pao4-EpZ dated z1th February 2009 as a co- Developer for providing infrastructure facilities in an area of 4.76 Ha in the SEZ developed by tt//s Shyamaraju and Company (lndia) Private Limited at Kundalahalli Village, Krishnarajapuram, Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore Dist., Karnataka. The Co-Developer has constructed a building (C0i ) adireasuring an area of 97494-90 sq.mtr. in the allotted space.

Village, Krishnarajapuram, Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore Dist., Karnataka. The Co-Developer has constructed a building (C0i ) adireasuring an area of 97494-90 sq.mtr. in the allotted space. Due to lack o{ demand for SEZ space, the same built-up area was demarcated as non-processing area as per Rule 1 1B of SEZ Rules 2006, by the Developer with the consent of Co-Developer. which was approved by the BoA in its l2gtt meeting held on l8tf,June ZAZ4. While submitting the proposal for demarcation of built-up space as Non processing Area, the Developer has refunded an amount 120,58.27,061/- (Rupees Twenty crore fifty eight lakh twenty seven thousand sixty) towards the duty/tax exemptions availed for the building including common facilities (Built-up area. <20,46,g2,461r- & common facilities: t1 j,44,600/-)

Now, it has requested for cancellation of Co-Developer status as despite efforts to have the building designated as NPA and offer il to the lTllTeS sector, prevailing economic uncertainity and recession have hindered the sector growth. Consequently, the demand for office space in lT/lTeS Sector decreased, leading many small and medium companies to adopt a cautious "wait-and-watch' approach. Further, the Co-Developer has been exploring the possibility of relinquishing its Co-Developer status to diversify the build use beyond lT/lTeS industries, aligning with the Technopark denotification process. ln the light of the current uncertainity and subdued market conditions, their management has decided to surrender the Co-Developer status in SEZ.

aligning with the Technopark denotification process. ln the light of the current uncertainity and subdued market conditions, their management has decided to surrender the Co-Developer status in SEZ. The Co-Developer has submitted following documents:- i. "No Objection Certificate" issued by tt//s Shyamaraju and Company (lndia) Private Limited, the Developer for cancellation of Co-Developer status. ii. "No Due Certificate" dated 24.03.2025 issued by the Specified Officer. Accordingly, tThe Board, after deliberations, approved the proposal for cancellation of Co-Developer status - tt//s Sri Channakeshava Tech Park, in [t//s. Shyamaraju & Company (lndia) Private Limited (formerly Divyasree Technopark) issued vide order no. F.2112012004-SEZ dated 27 .02.2009. Agenda ltem No.135.11 : Miscellaneous [ 1 proposal: 135.11(i)] 135.11(i) Proposal of M/s. wipro Limited, Developer for approval of 'Restricted' item to carry on authorized operations in the lT/ITES SEZ at Plot No.2,3 & 4, Sector-Knowledge Park !V, Greater Noida (U.p.)- Reg. The Board, after deliberations, approved the proposal of lV/s. Wipro Limited, duty free procurement of restricted item'500 Kg'Relrigerant Gas (R-134a) - HS Code 29034500" tor operation incidental to Authorised Operation: Air conditioning of processing area as as per proviso to Rule 27(1)of SEZ Rules, 2006, subject to the condition that the DC may ensure that allowed items are actually used by the applicant for setting up of inf rastructure facility for carrying on authorised operations u

Rules, 2006, subject to the condition that the DC may ensure that allowed items are actually used by the applicant for setting up of inf rastructure facility for carrying on authorised operations u

Annexures- I List of Participants for the Meeting of the Board of Approval for SEZ hetd on 30th December, 2025 under the Chairmanship of Commerce Secretary, Department of Commerce.

1. Shri Rajesh Agarwal, Chairman & Commerce Secretary, Department of Commerce
2. Shri Ajay Bhadoo, Additional Secretary, and DG, DGFT, Department of Commerce
3. Shri VimalAnand, Joint Secretary, DoC
4. Shri Gaurav Pundir, Director, DoC
5. Shri D.B. Patil, Development Commissioner, SEEPZ-SEZIKASEZ
6. Shri Srinivas Muppaala, Development Commissioner, VSEZ
7. Shri D.B Singh, Development Commissioner, FSEZINSEZ
8. Shri Paras Mani Tripathi, Joint Development Commissioner, NSEZ
9. Shri Lokesh H.D., Development Commissioner, Reliance SEZ
10. Shri Vinay .M, Development Commissioner Customs, VSEZ I l. Shri Kiran Mohan, Deputy Development Commissioner, NSEZ
11. Shri Darshan Gattani, Deputy Development Commissioner, KASEZ
12. Shri Prabu Kumar K, Deputy Development Commissioner, MEPZ-SEZ List of participants connected with Video Conferencing: - l. Shri Rajkumar, DG, DGEP, CBIC
13. Shri Ranjan Khanna, Pr. ADG, DGEP, CBIC
14. Shri Hardev Singh, DCIT (OSD), ITA-1, CBDT
15. Smt. P. Hemalatha, Development Commissioner, CSEZ
16. Shri Anupam Kumar, Development Commissioner, Dahej SEZ
17. Shri Abhimaniu Sharma, Development Commissioner, Surat SEZ
18. Dr. Praveen Kumar, Development Commissioner, Mihan SEZ
19. Smt.

ssioner, CSEZ 5. Shri Anupam Kumar, Development Commissioner, Dahej SEZ 6. Shri Abhimaniu Sharma, Development Commissioner, Surat SEZ 7. Dr. Praveen Kumar, Development Commissioner, Mihan SEZ 8. Smt. Dona Ghosh, Development Commissioner, Mangalore SEZ 9. Shri Abhishek Sharma, JDC, RA Indore 10. O/o EA, DPIIT I l. Shri Neeraj Rawat, Deputy Legal, D/o Legal Affairs 12. Shri O P Sharma, Tech. Consultant, Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals, 13. Shri Lal Chand Dabaria, Assistant Legal Adviser, Legal Affairs