Minutes of the 7th SEEPZ-SEZ Authority Meeting held on 21 July 2010

‘Tg fee

fos Je

oes

Bt |

a a | MINUTES OF THE 774 MEETING OF THE SEEPZ ~SEz AUTHORITY | ae o , HELD ON 21.07.2010. mot a ‘ Present: _ _ a Z eee -v -»* 1. Development commissioner, SEEPZ-SEZ ! Chairperson > a5 ' | . < °1, Gent SEEPZ-SEz, Development. Commissioner,: | o,f Meripers juee) Bi | rae a 7 tel | : ~ ; 3. Shri Amar Kothari, wa : Member: -. ° Seo ot i “ M/s.'Intergold India Ltd. . ‘ . 3.’ Managing Director, : he Fy cae ae i pews © mt ~ Uy | ~~ : 4: ManagingShri Rajiv Sheth,Director | | ; Member , iv a - ee M/s. Tara Ultimo. — =k oe . | 7 , : ie od Bes Shri P.S. Raman, - | ' i Secretary" ~ ao 7 ee. Dy. Development Commissioner . a * | . 4 _ , . | 6. Mrs, M.J. Kulkarni, oe yg 2 Manager (Estate) . | _,. Asstt. Development Commissioner. . . tg i PB Sy" aeAgenda Item No.1:‘theBudgy e tar and2010-11. work lan of the Authority for ; Pa a i . a wake iy | o _- The Budget for the year 2010-11 was approved by..the Authority | | envisaging Operational income of Rs.2413 lakhs, operating expenditure of. | rir 7 pen /Rs.446,22 lakhs, programme of capital works of Rs.1700 lakhs and asurplus = y 1 .: Of Rs.266.78 lakhs. , | mrad! . : cet eke 2. Creation of posts for Authority ‘ _ oie | -. . It was noted that Ministry’s communication No.A-2/2/2010-SEZ-dated | tag 18.6.2010 specifies that SEZ Authorities are required to submit proposal to - 7 Sna “Ministry for ‘creation of posts in the Authority to facilitate deputation‘of oy . _ 7 existing, employees of the Zone to the Authority. It has also been stated in - aioe this communication that in case of non availability of qualified Engineer ‘to. : . _ look after the Estate function, other option. needs to be explored however,.a a , . uniform’ Management in this regard is. to be made in all 7 Authorities with - | _ the approval of the Ministry. = . qu ee u-

|

-The Authority directed that proposal may be submitted to Ministry for creation of the following posts in‘ the Authority:, .

, ‘

,

;

==> picture [1 x 2] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> .<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

==> picture [1 x 1] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> .<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

No. ; es Posts. -_ [S__[Sterearepner | 1 [Re 3.300 = 3a,a00 + REA,200 ; _ It was decided that outsourcing of services of four Executive Assistants approved earlier may not be outsourced since approval of the Ministry is . . i required for creation of the posts in the Authority. — : :

|

| 3. Work projects to be taken up out of Authority funds — 1% , | a. Wellness Centre, créche and wholesale price shops for a . employees. . The Authority noted that presently there are 293 units operating in SEEPZ employing nearly 85,000 persons, 40% of which comprises of female: A. employees. It was also noted that at present there is no dispensary facility. available in the Zone for healthcare and a large number of workers in the . units are receiving wages on an average, only at the level of minimum wages prescribed by the Government and therefore, providing the facility of a wholesale price shop in the zone would greatly help them and would bea ! ‘measure towards their welfare. It was noted that the estimated expenditure for a block with a built-up area of 255 sq. mtrs. for housing the Wellness ~ , Centre, Créche facility and wholesale price shop for employees, works out to Rs.48.15 lakhs. ae | mii ) ,! . Mr. Rajiv Sheth, Managing Director, M/s. Tara Ultimo stated that his . company would be willing to operate the integrated facility of Wellness Centre, Créche and Wholesale price shop if permitted by the SEEPZ | Authority. He said that alternative offers can also be explored.so that the facility is run in the best possible manner. | | is\ Decision: The proposal was approved and the expenditure to be met | from the Authority fund. - ~ ; ; Mag

| ~:"b. Renovation of Type-c SEEPZ Quarters, oa | Paant cer ane Mage’ | | It was noted that repairs of C-Type quarters were carried out /> in the | 7 : “4past during 1999-2000 and at present, thé six C- type quarters required... J _- "urgent repairs.’ ‘It was noted that the estimate relating to repair of quarter. i No.t & 2 (where CGHS Dispensary is located), has already been approved. | te - Tt was further noted that the estimated expenditure for repair of remaining4 = i C-type, quarters is approximately Rs.25 lakhs. It was noted that the Staff | : . Quarter is located outside the Zone and the Authority Rule’ provides a for - at pe expending the Authority Fund for creation and maintenance infrastructure in - fo the Zone. =] fore | a an ) i Decision: The Authority held the view that the expenditure may be os | pl ge considered -for incurring under the M&R Fund since the Staff quarter De “4B ; arg located outside the Zone Complex. ; . , | ; : -- . Cs Development of parking spaces in SEEPZ . ¢ | Shs, | mt afi pouty | “0 ~~ “Tt was noted that the existing parking space is grossly inadequate and | - there is need for creating proper parking facility for 3000 2-wheeler vehicles. 1, Fy | |The Authority directed that the parking places for development may be °°... : ‘Identified keeping in view the suggestions in the Disaster Management Plan: - jue | “Tt was noted that the estimated expenditure for’the work is Rs.40 lakhs... ae oa _ *.écision: The proposal was.approved and the expenditure to be met } ‘8 . | . from the Authority fund, re : jase AF g| et Renovation of SDF-V. x," | . a 7 ag Fe | oe ere It was noted. that SDF-V premises require urgent renovation.. The | | “Authority. was informed ‘that considering the urgency, the MIDC has been ioe) i asked. to initiate Tender procedures in view of urgency in the matter. The \ | . estimated expenditure is Rs.50,02,000/-. The Chairperson stated: that some: . ) Sy Softhe units located in the building have in the recent meeting suggested | || _” ~ that-otheritrepairwouldworks.be better. to strengthen| the structure and thereafter take up: ° ~~ | . | 7 ok _- It was noted that for carrying out the work strengthening of structure. | ahd other repairs, the expenditure involved would be much more. it | : |

.

a : ~ }

—

; . :

7

Decision: The Authority directed that stability audit of the structure may be carried out and estimate may be got prepared for carrying out comprehensive & proper renovation of SDF-V and its structural strengthening. -

==> picture [1 x 2] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> .<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

e. Providing Speed breakers in the internal road within the Zone Complex.

| It was noted that the proposal is for providing speed breakers within the Zone Complex in 34 locations at an estimated cost of Rs.1,03,39,000/-.

Decision: The number of locations should be reviewed and reduced. _ A representative of Industry Associations may also be includedin the team for carrying out the review.

4. Proposal for revision of penalty charges for delay in. | execution of Lease Agreement.

It was noted that the proposal is for increasing the penalty for non- | execution of Lease Agreement from existing Rs.1/- per sq.mtr. per year to Rs.100/- per sq. mtr. per year for delay in execution of Lease Agreement. i

==> picture [1 x 1] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> .<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

.

Decision: The Authority approved the proposal. It was also decided that a one time moratorium will be provided till 15.08.2010 for payment on the existing rate. |

==> picture [23 x 58] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> _<br>)<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>

5. Transfer of Hotel Heavens by Indian Coffee Workers’ Cooperative Society Ltd.

_ It was noted that M/s. ICH which is Co-operative institution and have _ been running common canteen facility for the workers of SEEPZ units in the Zone since 1978 have sought permission for transfer of premises in respect — | ' Of Hotel Heaven. The Authority was informed that M/s. ICH have been ) : leased built-up premises for running the canteen facilities in SEEPZ at the token rent of Re.1/- per sq.mtr. per month and this benefit is passed on by | 7 them to the employees of the Zone units by way of reasonable rate for their - articles of food as compared to Restaurants outside the Zone. | It was also noted that the plot No.A-1 in the SEEPZ++4 where M/s. ICH © * have constructed’ Hotel Heaven out of their own fund, was allotted to them © by the. MIDC against ‘the Tender Notice published by them. M/s. ICH is .

_ 7: Cooperative venture and employ nearly 400 workers including contract h. ) orl Fy E _ employees. M/s. ICH. have stated that they have been incurring loss and’as : co i “per the C.A.: certified documents submitted by them, they. ‘halve can . ) a _# accumulated liability of RS.6.29 Crores as on 31.3.2010.: Their Proposal isto _ a | | ey ae ‘transfer the premises of Hotel Heaven, which is a self-built premises, to M/s. seo Phe ; oo Sun, City Hotel, and to pay up the entire liabilities out of the transfer eS | . : proceeds and thereafter -to strengthen the existing Canteen facilities in ye | r l ~. SEEPZ'in the leased premises. ih i ae i, Sw y i . : ~ cd eee Committee noted that as per the Guidelines for transfer of a - . premises, only manufacturing units are covered and M/s. - Hotel Heaven ~ | a _ .being in the nature of a utility is not evened in the Guidelines. It. was also - : | eg noted that the Lease Agreement executed by them provides for transfer of | ' z i of premises ‘with the consent of the Development Commissioner, as isthe case - et . ,inthe-Lease Agreement in respect of units: Suet } a | ‘ ean After detailed discussion on the subject, considering ‘that (i) M/s. ICH 24H | a a Cooperative institution, (ii) they have. been serving asa common eT | .. : oe canteen: facility for the employees of the unit since: 1978,(iii) the Lease» ' f aa _os Agreement provides for transfer of premises with the consent of the Zone | ‘ 7 “Administration and (iv) the premises of Hotel Heaven are constructed ‘by _ : 3 < M/s. ICH’ out of their own fund and that. the plot A-1,-SEEPZ++, on which ee 9g | . %s- the superstructure is constructed have been allotted to them -by the MIDC *. f 4 against: Tender procedures, . the view held was that the request may be | ; Pend “< considered ensuring the clearance of existing dues and further that balance oe | ~ amount should also be utilized for improving the existing canteen facilities in. ee | ah ‘the SDF premises. oe oe or Pe ca). . | foal Decision: ‘The Committee approved the proposal subject to following : tie | “2 ‘conditions: , , oo ae | - oy i 13" The payment will be released by M/s. Sun. City in three < Ue | _ J Ft * installments. fe 7 Teak mh ti | Rig oe | | - . 2>°' ‘The 1% installment will be the amount equivalent. to the he . 7 etaloa, «gel . wage dues of employees including employees who had ' ay4 i ? resigned / superannuated. The payment will be disbursed to. 7 7 . git “the employees concerned in the presence of a representative a ie Geshu agg SEEPZ Administration. , 7 By ‘ab Le

|

|

|

3> The 2™ installment will be the amount equivalent to the bank dues and vendors dues which will be cleared by M/s. , ; | _ ICHthereofwithinshouldseven daysbe fromsubmittedthe receiptto of paymentthe Developmentand proof Commissioner. | ) , . _4> The 3 and final installment will be released after utilization i 5 of the amount of 1° & ane instaliments as stated above. M/s. * os ICH will also submit to SEEPZ Administration proposal as to a 4 how they plan to utilize the 3 installment amount for: > improving the existing common canteen in SDFs and for welfare of their their employees. |

improving the existing common canteen in SDFs and for ‘ welfare of their their employees. | 6. Re-development plan for SEEPZ-SEZ —Identification of _ _ SDFs/G&J Buildings for re-allocation. . The Committee noted that there is requirement of additional space for | expansion of the existing units and also for new units. It was also noted. ° that as the possibility for allotment of additional land from the adjoining ’ Aarey Milk Colony has been getting delayed due to procedural difficulties, _ the other option would be to go in for re-development which is possible since SEEPZ has an unutilized FSI of 55.00,000 sq.mtrs. available. This issue also 4 came up for discussion during the recent visit to SEEPZ of the Minister for: Industries, Government of Maharashtra, and also in the meeting the Hon’ble . | Minister for Industries, held recently at Mantralaya with the Additional _ | Secretary, MOC&I. : : .

The MIDC has prepared a Plan for the re-development of SEEPZ . envisaging an estimated expenditure of Rs.1200 Crores for construction of 8 ‘ Towers, over a period of 8 years. The re-development can only be taken up in a phased manner so that inconvenience to the existing units is minimized and the investment requirement can also be phased out. It was noted that. he SDF-I, SDF-II & Gem & Jewellery Complex No.1 are the buildings which a” 2 in bad condition and shouldbe considered for re-development in the al phase. | - : on: The Authority held the view that initially one Tower witha —s ‘ area Of 25,000 sq.mtrs. may be taken up, in which the “Us illottees of one building could be shifted. It was decided . & Jewellery. Complex No.1 should be taken up for re=_

.

id development initially as the condition of the building isvery bad. The 7 | ein a” ey Authority directed that proposal in this regard may be submitted to the Ministry ‘seeking funds from the ASIDE Scheme, -- fae| OY| . - The Committee noted that though most of the Gem & Jewellery Units Me ra | |+ have own Refinery, several of them do not conform to the MPCB norms. The | oa . © fire incidents which took place in the past were mostly in the refineries, He). ! ~ ; ‘is, therefore, necessary to have a common: refinery facility, in SEEPZ with nel 3 a Modern technology so that the disposal of septic tank waste / gutter waste . | ee ~~‘ Jewellerycan be takenunits, caresie of;ie apart7 from refinery :requirements of the Gem & . at | | pe ss — im ‘‘@-_ It was noted that a Proposal has been received from M/s. Hoover & . | Sed” . Strong for setting up Of a refinery. in SEEPZ. The concern expressed by. 8 | 7 Es teres of the units has been that whether the technology offered’ by M/s. ° : . | Ping |o Hoover & Strong is the latest and what advantage would accrué to ‘the units .- ~ " ae terms of recovery baw - of precious metal if they switch over to the facility | - proposed to be set up by M/s, Hoover & Strong. The Chairman of the Gem .:-.: | 5 -& Jewellery Association stated that he had discussed the issue of refinery ety | o FP with some of the Members. age" and major Gem & Jewellery units. in the Zone.aape ae : : the view emerged were as follows:bot Jue woe 3 a / oe ts og SUS rit is necessary to have a refinery unit in SEEPZ, _ ad . i . ; ‘| ; “ty 1 Dis It is also necessary to prescribe Guidelines, for levy of charges: by ee | ° . a | the refinery so as to ensure that no unreasonable rate is. charged by a aa! | iL . them.: : 7 “| fa 33 As’a verification Process, sample should also be got tested: from - ;| i * ein i ae Government Mint or any other reputed refinery periodically sO as to . | 4 8 vile * compare the actual. percentage of recovery of precious metal. . . oe ; - ite 4> The units should have’ the option either to utilize the common. | a oe? refining facility or to continue with their Own refinery subject to © °° eF. fs F compliance of MPCB norms. © Par aa ene oe | . , 7 | After detailed discussion, it was noted that there is consensus for - ee. | | Having a common refinery unit in. SEEPZ-SEZ. The Chairman of the SG&JMA ' -. ‘stated that the Association would not be interested in themselves setting up | |

a common refinery facility. He further stated that the requirement of setting, Ey), up of a refinery unit in SEEPZ may be advertised in the Trade Magazine — . which widely read by those in the Industry. Decision: The Authority directed that the following steps may be . taken in this regard:., 4 - £> The proposal given by M/s. Hoover & Strong may be got ; assessed by any International reputed Agencies so as to 3 — . ensure that the. technology offered by them is reasonably — ) latest. | : . 2> The existing refineries in the units should be audited by a 7 reputed agency to ascertain whether they conform to the 2 te MPCB norms. Wherever they do not conform, such refineries should not be allowed to continue. : | 3> The assessment of the existing proposal of M/s. Hoover & | Strongcompletedby anwithinindependent45-days. reputed certification agency to bemn . | 8. Utilization of Business Facilitation Céntre | The Committee noted that the MIDC had fixed the lease rent for BFC | a premises @ Rs.56/- sq. ft. per month. Accordingly, the Zone Administration had floated an integrated tender notice for the various facilities in the BFC | c thatbullding.the leaseHowever,rent fixedno responseby the MIDCwas isreceived.@ Rs.56/-TheperAuthoritysq.ft. perwasmonthinformedand | : I as' per FR46 B, the lease rent works out to Rs. 44/- per sq. ft. per month hao ; whereas the existing highest lease rent charged for manufacturing area is @. Rs.12.31, per sq., ft. per month. - Therefore, the Authority in its 6" Meeting held on 5.5.2010 directed that the lease rent may be calculated in terms of FR 45 B provision and accordingly revised tender may be issued. Further examination of the issue has revealed that the following issues need to be taken into account:POR. 1> The cliental in the Food Courts / other facilities in the BFC will be | limited as clients outside SEEPZ are not permitted to come. | , 2> Only open hall is provided and expenditure for flooring and other . interior works has to be incurred by the allottees. : ;

pe we _ The President, SG&JMA, Chairman, SEEMA, ‘and Regional Director: =: ae | were also invited are to discuss the issue as to whether what would be the best: - + oe ‘course of action to utilized the premises available in BFC building. The , oye Authority ‘noted that the premises have been remaining un-utilized almost -a° 4 te. =a one year and taking into account the Present needs of the Trade, the , | yang utilization of premises can be decided. | - a er See = Pate _ The Authority was informed that M/s. Kaydee Caterers have made a wine | rf request for allotment of canteen space in the BFC stating that they would be’ ~ 4 | je: “willing to. pay double the prevailing lease rent. It was also informed that eS , | ‘M/s.. Kaydee’s were Operating Canteen facility in -the same location WHEE) “os. } the BFC building has been constructed ahdat. the time of their'shifting from the 2 | . -2 location, ‘it was decided by the then Development Commissioner.on file J Paw | ‘Hie « that there should not be any request for preferential allotment or otherwise Dea”. nea in the new complex. The Authority held the view that considering the ~~ ~ ‘need for maintaining proper hygiene and cleanliness in the Premises 4 oS and performance of the Kaydee’s in the. past, M/s. Kaydee Caterers Lar oie i | 1; ‘ may not be allotted canteen space in the BFC. Pe Do ak! ee a oF 7 7 Decision: - After detailed discussion on the subject with the Industry =. | |: et,may representatives,be taken: erthe Authority directedSER:that theMat following measureso2 8.4K a- a «| Nol. > . | available in| Authority | . “velit =a oe / tn . . . | @ach floor Pea ET, zoe ae | : oe ale _..| (Built-up area) rgt wy hk Pee ‘y , |. [Ground 471.18 -sq.mt.: Offers may be invited. ftom er peu] | - is leading. hospitality te 2" Po, | service ; - . | f ro i | providers so that what is the}. ms . | , . ee | “a best offer coming forward can | . a IP Ea, ite Vi, P be. known. The rent to be . tee Se i | a * | charged. cai be decided based; . | | 7 an or #8 7 on the response. received and |. ee ol. nae , ard | also the rents arrived at as per |. at yg | gi | | FR 45-8. ‘ eae | Pao First ‘| 461.65 sq. mt..'| May be allotted to Banks if they | | ; ; |4 : "| Be Second 461.65 Sq.Mt. A. Circular may be issued to all ; |

.

=

a

8 | | | | |

| . , oF

' = a )

oa

r

an

i .

' ~ . | | ; . ~ , . | “|

.

a

|||||||||||facility ofBoard Room, banquet<br>hall, convention centre, etc.<br>is};||||=|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||||||||||||||,|
|||||||||||available<br>in the BFC and the|||||~|
|||||||||||rent payable is @ Rs.15,000/-|||||
|||||||||||for eight (8) hours.||||7|
|||Third|||355.65 <br>,||sq.|mt.|||Part of the area<br>is already||||,|
||||||)|||,||allotted to the EPC & SGaJma.||||||
||||||||||.||The remaining space may be||||||
|||||||||||considered<br>for<br>allotment<br>to||||,|
|||||||||:||SEEPZ<br>Energy<br>Saving||||oe|
||||||ni|||||Association<br>and<br>any<br>other||||||
|||||||||||service provider.<br>a|||||
|||Fourth|||Gym<br>ci ia<br>.|—-|239.83|||||Offers may be invited<br>from<br>leading<br>Gym<br>Operators<br>for|||||
|||||||||||running the facility.|:||||
|||||||||||The rent to be charged can be|||||
|||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||decided based on the response||||||
||||||||eo|||received.|||||
|||||||||||||||,|
|||||||||)|||||||
||||”||a||Aa0.ES <br>.|||If this area-is not required by<br> the Gym Service Provider, it<br>may be allotted for a Design|||||
|6.|||Fifth|||385.91||sq.mt.||_||Centre forJewellery.<br>| Offers<br>to<br>be<br>invited<br>from||||a|
|||.|=,<br>.|||‘2||||-|leading<br>hospitality<br>service<br> |providers for running the Guest|||||
|||||||||||House facility.<br>Depending on||||oa|
|||||||||||the<br>response<br>received,<br>lease|||||
||||:||||||'||rent and charges for using the|||||..|
|||||-<br>'||||.||:|guest<br>house<br>facility<br>to<br>be<br>decided.|||||

The Meeting ended with vote of thanks to the Chair,

9

Chairperson-cum; _» Development Commissioner SEEPZ-SEZ Authority.

==> picture [33 x 53] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----<br> igle<br>| .<br>----- End of picture text -----<br>