DGFT Committee Minutes
MINUTES OF EPCG COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 14.5.2008 AT 2.30 P.M UNDER CHAIRMANSHIP OF DR. SHYAM AGARWAL, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE ……….. EPCG Committee Meeting was held on 14.5.2008. The following officials participated: S. No. Name and Designation 1. Dr. Shyam Agarwal, Addl. DGFT, Chairman 2. Shri S.K. Samal, Joint DGFT 3. Sh. V.C. Aggarwal, Industrial Adviser, Deptt. of Heavy Industry 4. Sh. P.V.K Raja Sekhar, OSD, Deptt. of Revenue 5. Sh. S.K.Jain, DIPPl 6. Sh. S.S. Tak, DIA, M/o Steel 7. Sh. Ishwar Singh, Dy. DGFT 8. Sh. S.K.Panigrahi, FTDO (EPCGI) 2. EPCG Committee took following decisions after deliberations: 2.1 Case No.1: Prevail Casting Pvt Ltd., Rajkot (EPCG Lic. No. 2430000054 dated 29.4.2003 CIF Value Rs.8,704,972.00, EO Rs. 52,229,832= US$ 1,091,532.53) Nexus was approved as per DIPP’s U.O. No. IPP/6/216/2003/TSW/836 dated 11.11.2003 (copy supplied vide UO of even number dated 17.1.2008) subject to export product being ‘Machined Castings’. 2.2 Case No.2: Galaxy Surfactants Ltd, Mumbai (EPCG licence No. 0330003039 dated 3.01.2003 Cif Value Rs.13,13,098.94, EO Rs. 65,65,494.60 = US$ 1,39,070.00) Nexus was approved as per DIPP’s U.O. No. IPP/6/6/2008/TSW/40 dated 3/4.2008 and Department of C&PC’s letter No. 14010/122/2007Ch.II dated 11.4.2008. 2.3 Case No. 3: Ramco Ceramic Ltd., Rajkot
(EPCG licence No. 2430000126 dated 31.10.2003 CIF Value/Duty saved Rs. 74,86,033, EO Rs. 5,98,88,264 Equal to US$ 12,51,583.36) Representative of DIPP asked for a copy of the application alongwith other documents for their examination. The same were given in the meeting itself. Case was deferred. 2.4 Case No. 4: Essar Steel Ltd., Vishakhapatnam (formerly Hygrade Pellets, Mumbai) (EPCG licence No. 01500622 dated 10.7.2007 CIF Value Rs. 65,07,03,986, EO US $ 9,40,37,459) Committee observed that the EPCG Committee had approved three requests of the firm, namely: (i) transfer of export obligation in the name of Essar Steel Ltd., (ii) permission for fulfillment of export obligation through the exports of iron ore pellets made by the firm prior to the date of installation of the imported Capital goods for the beneficiation plant at Krandul and (iii) condonation of delay beyond 6 months for submission of installation certificate. However, while acknowledging the plea of firm that CGs could not be installed due to a ban imposed by the Supreme Court on felling of Trees in Chhatisgarh, Authenticated copy of the application made to the Empowered Committee set up by the Supreme Court and its decision in the matter was asked for. Committee noted that firm has submitted requisite documents. It was decided that same may be examined and decision taken on file. 2.5. Case No. 5 Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Ltd., Hyderabad. (EPCG Licence No. 0196283 dated 17.2.2000 CIF Value Rs. 13,82,00,000/, EO US $ 1,03,01,325) Committee rejected the requests for (i) extension of time for installation of Capital good and (ii) extension in Export Obligation Period for five years in view of the fact that firm has neither installed CG even after a period of eight years. in view of the fact that firm has neither installed the capital goods nor made any exports even after a period of eight years.
Necessary implications as per rule may follow. 2.6 Case No.6: Indian Handicrafts, New Delhi Lic.No. Date Cif value (in Rs) Original Revised E.O. (in US $) Original. Revised 097697 6.11.1998 1,07,75,285/ 1,32,83,190/ 1510554/ 353226/ 0530130903 28.4.2000 16,52,876/ 1,89,550.00 Representatives of firm, namely, Shri Vijay Manchanda, General Manager and Shri Lalit Upadhaya, Export Manager appeared before Committee. They submitted that firm had submitted its licence to CLA, Delhi on 15.2.2000 for endorsement of additional machinery and that CLA, Delhi informed the firm only on 4.5.2000 about rejection of request. Committee asked firm to submit authenticated copies of its application dated 15.2.2000 made to CLA; reply of CLA, Delhi; and any other correspondence between firm and CLA, Delhi during Feb,2000 till May, 2000. After the same the case may be examined and put up for a decision. Meeting ended with thanks to all participants.
Verbatim extracted text (OCR/PDF). Older scans and tables may show extraction artifacts — verify against the original for anything you act on.
No analysis has been generated for this document yet.