IN FORCE Advance Authorisation

DGFT Minutes

Reliability

In force — no superseding record on file.

Document text

TRADE

GENERA DIRECTORATE L OF FOREIGN DESI SECTION

winuTES OF THE NORMS COMMITTEE:

' 05.09.2023 MEETING No .NCIZ/MEETISe 1202324/40 Offline Cases DATED

i. For informationNote: of exporters, Norms Committee-l! handles all cases pertaining to fixation/ratification of norms for Export Products falling under ITC (HS) Chapter 72 to 76, 78 to 80 & 85. Communications In respect of cases/pertaining to NC-II may be sent to email address: ne2.dgft@nic.in
ii. In certain cases the decision of the Norms Committee refers to the Recommendations! Observations/Deficiencies received from the concerned Technical Authority. Wherever applicable, a scanned copy of such document has been placed at the end of the Minutes, in running serial orders. The concerned applicanticompany may go through
iii, theThe Norms same and Committee respond accordingly. has taken decision only with respect to technical aspect/wastage norms. While redeeming the applications, RAs should check that the applicant has fulfilled all requirements as prescribed in policy/procedure including those in Policy Circulars issued from time to time or any other provisions under FTP/HBP for EODC.
iv. Wherever the Committee has fixed Norms, the concerned RA may ensure that AA is issued on the wastages/consumption as ratified by the Committee or as per wastages claimed in the application, whichever is less. Meeting No.NC/2/IMEET/Sep/202324/10 (Offline Cases)of Norms Committee-l! for the year 2023-24 held on

as ratified by the Committee or as per wastages claimed in the application, whichever is less. Meeting No.NC/2/IMEET/Sep/202324/10 (Offline Cases)of Norms Committee-l! for the year 2023-24 held on

05.09.2023 under the Chairmanship of Shri Hardeep Singh, Additional Director General of Foreign Trade to consider the following applications for ratification of norms in respect of Advance Authorizations under Duty Exemption Scheme (Chapter-4) of Foreign Trade Policy 2023. The following members were present in the meeting:-

Please Note:

==> picture [506 x 161] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- SI, No. _| Name & Designation Shri S. K. Jain, Consultant, DPIIT ; Mio Sha Shaish Kumar, Consultant (TEC-1) ee ee a Shri V.C. Agarwal, Consultant (TEC-3) a... ome me Shri T.R. Choudhary, Scientist E mea: Sve In attendance ----- End of picture text -----

Minutes of the cases discussed in the meeting are as under:

==> picture [147 x 61] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- mar OUDEY esi Fe ee rerporeign oc? uty Director Gener Ceorerettern Dit ectorere Generet _ofCommerc? ----- End of picture text -----

MEETING NUMBER: NC/2/MEET/Sep/202324/10 (Offline Cases) MEETING

DATE: 05.09.2023

Applic ant's Name1 AA ssoe No. Case History Decision Status No. DC,eee ee 5S re ee a awe baie! from CSEZ vide letter dated 03.11.2017, followed by representation dated 29.03.2018 Deferred the applicant, had requested for fixation of scrap/wastage norms for the manufacture and export of Sheet Metal Pressed Components made of iron and steel, copper, brass and such other metals/alloys. The matter was considered in M. No 01/81 dated 10.04.2019 and on the advice of Consultant (TEC-3), some information was sought from the applicant via email dated 25.05.2019 followed by reminder on 12.07.2019. The email reply dated 13.11.2019 was referred to Consultant (TEC-3) via email dated 14.11.2019. The case was considered in M. No. 20/81 dt. 08.01.2020.

25.05.2019 followed by reminder on 12.07.2019. The email reply dated 13.11.2019 was referred to Consultant (TEC-3) via email dated 14.11.2019. The case was considered in M. No. 20/81 dt. 08.01.2020. The Committee noted that the written comments dated 01.01.2020 of Consultant (TEC-3) as under: 1. Nash Industries, an EOU, had requested for fixation of wastage norms for export product ‘sheet metal pressed components for UPS & other industrial use’. 2. Applicant has informed that they are manufacturing 1000 parts & components & have submitted some details for 6 components. 3. Components are manufactured from iron & steel, Cu & Al sheets. 4. Wastages claimed is in the range of 38% to 50% which is average of vide range of 1.5% to 98.4% 5. As range of wastage is very wide and number of components very large, it is not possible to work out wastage of every component. In view of the above, the Committee decided to call the applicant for PH. As per NC decision, an email dated 25.02.2020 was sent to the applicant to attend PH on 04.03.2020. The case was considered in M. No. 22/81 dt. 19.02.2020 as per agenda and noted that the applicant vide email dated 28.02.2020 has sought another date for personal hearing on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, the Committee decided to give one more opportunity to the applicant for personal hearing to explain the case before Norms Committee. During personal hearing held in Meeting No. 05/81 on 28.07.2020, applicant's representatives asked to furnish following information: 1.

or personal hearing to explain the case before Norms Committee. During personal hearing held in Meeting No. 05/81 on 28.07.2020, applicant's representatives asked to furnish following information: 1. To submit details by making Subgroup of items manufactured in the limited range of wastages as there is wide variation in the wastage of items manufactured i.e., 1.5% to 98.40%. D/L was sent to the applicant on 22.09.2020. The case was considered in M. No. 8/81 dated 29.09.2020 and decided to grant last opportunity to the applicant to furnish the requisite information. The applicant's reply dated 03.11.2020 was sent to Consultant NASH (TEC-3) via email on 10.11.2020. The case was considered in M. No. 11/81INDU ALC2/2020 dated 24.11.2020 (Held on 01.12.2020) and decided to remind Consultant = Corniiline STRIE (TEC-3) for expediting the comments. Reminder issued to Consultant (TEC-3) on sidered’ th S | 01/80/16 | 11.01.2021. Spralgrsange slg (|) | 2/00302/ | The case was discussed in M. No. 01/81 dated 21.05.2021 and the Committee noted PS hol Pas og yi PRIVA | AM18/ | that Consultant (TEC-3) via email dated 11.02.2021 had requested for the hardcopy of aiy hang Pathe : LIMITTE 1/11/2015:EOU: || submitthe originalthe same.application.The applicant'sTherefore,replythe wasCommitteereceived ondecided27.07.2021to askandthetheapplicant same wasto es mittee as Disttied BENGED, CSEZ/1 | forwarded to Consultant (TEC-3) on 10.08.2021. 51.10.2022in the: mesting9 dated ALUR 476/ The case was discussed in M. No.

21to askandthetheapplicant same wasto es mittee as Disttied BENGED, CSEZ/1 | forwarded to Consultant (TEC-3) on 10.08.2021. 51.10.2022in the: mesting9 dated ALUR 476/ The case was discussed in M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jul/202122/2 (Offline Cases) dated f°°'*: : U 03.09.2021 and the Committee noted that Consultant (TEC-3) via email dated 02.09.2021 had requested for physical file along with hard copy applicant's reply of the case. Therefore, the Committee decided to send the same to Consultant (TEC-3) for examination of the case. A letter was issued to the applicantfor all relevant documents on 18.10.2021. The case was discussed in the M. No. 07/81 (Offline Cases) dated 16.11.2021 and the Committee noted that the information from the applicant is yet to be received. However, the Committee decided to refer the matter to DPIIT for examination & comments as per advice of Consultant (TEC-3). The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jan/202122/8 dated 03.02.2022 and the Committee noted the comments of DPIIT vide U.O. No. P-4701 4/37/2021-TSW dated 31.12.2021 wherein DPIIT has requested to send a copy of ad-hoc scarp norms fixed by DC, CSEZ, Bangalore and copy of DL along with reply raised by Consultant (TEC-3). As per NC decision, a DL was issued to the applicant. The applicant's reply and relevant documents was sent to DPIIT on 14.03.2022 for examination of the case. The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Mar/202122/11 (Offline Cases) dated 30.03.2022 and the Committee decided to wait for the comments from TE. The case was discussed in the M. No.

he case. The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Mar/202122/11 (Offline Cases) dated 30.03.2022 and the Committee decided to wait for the comments from TE. The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jun/202223/8 (Offline Cases) dated 27.07.2022 and the Committee decided to remind the TE, DPIIT for expediting the comments. As per NC decision, the reminders were issued to DPIIT on 05.07.2022, 05.09.2022 & 06.10.2022 for expediting the comments. The case was last discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Oct/202223/14 (Offline Cases) dated 21.10.2022 and the Committee noted the comments given by DPIIT vide U.O. No. P-47014/37/2021-TSW dated 10.10.2022. The matter was deliberated in the meeting and the Committee decided to constitute a Special Committee as per advice of TE, for fixation of wastage norms for disposal of scrap by EOUs as in such cases involving a large number of components/item (s) of manufacturing. The Special Committee shall consist with TE, DPIIT, Consultant (Tech-3), Consultant (SKB) and DDG (SKD). The Special Committee shall visit the site, if required and submit its report within 4 weeks of time. The Special Committee shall also examine and advise in respect of all other similar cases pending for fixation of wastage norms for disposal of scrap arising out from production process by EQUs/SEZ units. 2 | MEETING NUMBER: NC/2/MEET/Sep/202324/10 (Offline Cases) MEETING DATE: 05.09.2023

g for fixation of wastage norms for disposal of scrap arising out from production process by EQUs/SEZ units. 2 | MEETING NUMBER: NC/2/MEET/Sep/202324/10 (Offline Cases) MEETING DATE: 05.09.2023

! KASEZ, vide letter No. KASEZ/100%EOU /II/969/00-01/6116 dated 27.09.2017 Deferred forwarded a copy of application for fixation of scrap/wastage norms on regular basis for manufacture and export of Industrial Valves and Industrial Valve Parts. The DC stated [The Committee that the wastage norms had been fixed on ad-hoc basis up to 31.03.2003 subject to considered the case final fixation of norms-by-Norms Committee in DGFT. The case was considered in M. as per agenda and No. 4 /81-Pt.ll dated 03.10.2018 and noted that case was referred to DIPP for decided to wait for the comments and reminded on 27.09.2019. The case was considered in M. No. 20/81 dt. report of the Special 08.01.2020, the Committee noted that DPIIT was not reminded for expediting the Committee as decided comments & also the main file was not traced out by the section. Therefore, the jn the meeting dated Committee decided to remind DPIIT and directed the section to trace out main file 21.10.2022. immediately. The case was considered in M. No, 23/81 dt. 04.03.2020, the Committee noted that DPIIT has not yet been reminded for expediting the comments & also main file is not yet traced out by the section. Therefore, the Committee decided to remind DPIIT & and directed the section to trace out main file immediately.

nded for expediting the comments & also main file is not yet traced out by the section. Therefore, the Committee decided to remind DPIIT & and directed the section to trace out main file immediately. Since, main file is not traceable in the section, complete set of documents have been sought from KASEZ vide email dated 16.07.2020. The documents received from KASEZ was forwarded to DPIIT vide email dated 20.07.2020 for examination & comments. An email was sent on 22.09.2020 to DPIIT for expediting the comments. The case was considered in M. No. 8/81 dated 29.09.2020 and decided to seek again from the applicant to furnish following information as per comments given by DPIIT vide U. O. No. P-47011/108/2020-TSW dated 10.08.2020 as the applicant's reply was deficient: 1. A copy of ad-hoc norms fixed by the Development Commissioner, Kandla SEZ for the items under consideration. Lubi ie No. 3, 4,5 & 11 of the Standard Deficiency Format. Elactic As per NC decision, D/L was sent to the applicant via email on 12.11.2020. ae 01/81/06 The case was considered in M. No. 11/81-ALC2/2020 dated 24.11.2020 (Held on Limited 1/00022/ 01.12.2020) and decided to remind the applicant for furnishing the requisite Ahmeda AM18/ information. As per NC decision, reminders were sent to the applicant on 11.01.2021 & = peter The08.04.2021. case was discussed in M. No. 01/81 dated 21.05.2021 and the Committee noted Referre | OU/II/96 that the applicant did not furnish the reply of DL.

the applicant on 11.01.2021 & = peter The08.04.2021. case was discussed in M. No. 01/81 dated 21.05.2021 and the Committee noted Referre | OU/II/96 that the applicant did not furnish the reply of DL. Therefore, the Committee decided to d by 9/00-01/ | issue a final reminder to the applicant for furnishing their comments within 15 days’ pc time. The applicant's reply received vide email dated 19.08.2021 and the same was KASEZ forwarded to DPIIT on 23.08.2021. The case was discussed in M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jul/202122/2 (Offline Cases) dated 03.09.2021 and the Committee decided to wait for comments. The case was discussed in the M. No. 07/81 (Offline Cases) dated 16.11.2021 and the Committee decided to ask from the applicant to furnish certain information as per comments of DPIIT vide U. O. No. P-47011/17/2021-TSW dated 01.10.2021. As per NC decision, a DL was issued to the applicant on 28.12.2021. The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jan/202122/8 dated 03.02.2022 and the Committee decided to send a reminder to the applicant for furnishing the requisite information within 15 days. As per NC decision, a reminder was issued to the applicant on 10.03.2022. The applicant's reply was sent to DPIIT on 28.03.2022 for examination of the case. The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Mar/202122/11 (Offline Cases) dated 30.03.2022 and the Committee decided to wait for the comments from TE. The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jun/202223/8 (Offline Cases) dated 27.07.2022 and the Committee decided to remind the TE, DPIIT for expediting the comments.

t for the comments from TE. The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jun/202223/8 (Offline Cases) dated 27.07.2022 and the Committee decided to remind the TE, DPIIT for expediting the comments. As per NC decision, the reminders were issued to DPIIT on 06.07.2022, 05.09.2022 & 06.10.2022. The case was last discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Oct/202223/14 (Offline Cases) dated 21.10.2022 and the Committee decided to constitute a Special Committee as per advice of TE, for fixation of wastage norms for disposal of scrap by EOUs/SEZ units. The case was approved in M. No. 03/81-ALC2/2018 dated 14.08.2018 with wastage of Deferred 5% with the condition that RA should call for weight of Phenolic Moulding Compound in the export product and take necessary consequential action accordingly. The case was again considered in M. No. 06/81 dated 11.08.2020 held on 25.08.2020 INJEC and rejected by NC due to non-submission of composition fee. TOPL However, the applicant vide letter dated 06.11.2020 requested again for reviewing of AST ad-hoc norms stating that it is taking AA for manufacturing resultant product "Brush PVT. 01/81/05 Box Made Out of Phenolic Moulding Compound" under 4.7 HBP and being granted M-3 0/00363/ 11.88 Grams raw material Phenolic Moulding Compound for manufacturing to one he Committee LTD. AM18/ piece "Brush Box Made Out of Phenolic Moulding Compound" on each and every AA. decided 06100 06/24/04 Hence, the applicant requested to allow 11.88 Grams per piece. ; _ fo remind again the 38682 The representation was referred to DPIIT on 18.11.2020.

ound" on each and every AA. decided 06100 06/24/04 Hence, the applicant requested to allow 11.88 Grams per piece. ; _ fo remind again the 38682 The representation was referred to DPIIT on 18.11.2020. The case was considered in authority for Dated yoy M. No. 11/81-ALC2/2020 dated 24.11.2020 (Held on 01.12.2020) and decided to wait expediting 29.08. for the comments. A reminder was issued to DPIIT on 12.01.2021. DPIIT via email dt. the comments. 2017 05.02.2021 had requested that the application may be referred to Dio C&PC. Hence, the case was referred to Consultant (TEC-1) on 07.04.2021 for examination & comments. The case was considered in M. No. 01/81 dated 21.05.2021, the Committee decided to senda copy of application to Consultant (TEC-1). As per NC decision, a copy of application sent to Consultant (TEC-1) on 09.07.2021. The case was considered in M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jul/202122/1 (Offline Cases) dated 3 | MEETING NUMBER: NC/2/MEET/Sep/202324/10 (Offline Cases) MEETING DATE: 05.09.2023

==> picture [532 x 743] intentionally omitted <==

ed in M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jul/202122/1 (Offline Cases) dated 3 | MEETING NUMBER: NC/2/MEET/Sep/202324/10 (Offline Cases) MEETING DATE: 05.09.2023

==> picture [532 x 743] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- 16.07.2021 and the Committee decided to ask from the applicant to furnish following information as per comments of Consultant (TEC-1): 1. made)Drawing of the mould with complete specification of mould (out of which export is 2. Past production and consumption data duly certified. As per NC decision, an email was sent to the applicant on 19.08.2021. The applicant's reply dated 31.08.2021 was forwarded to Consultant (TEC-1) on 01.09.2021 for examination of the case. The case was discussed in M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jul/202122/2 (Offline Cases) dated 03.09 2021 and it was decided to wait for comments. The case was discussed in the M. No. 07/81 (Offline Cases) dated 16.11.2021 and the Committee noted that Consultant (TEC-1) informed that as per the details furnished by the applicant, the export item is made from 4 cavity moulds where sprue & runner weight is around 53% of components weight. The item is made out of phenolic moulding compound which is thermosetting resin and it cannot be recycled. However, the Committee noted that DPIIT vide their email dated 05.02.2021 had suggested to refer the case to D/o C&PC. Therefore, Committee decided to take opinion from D/o C&PCC&PC onalso02.02.2022.before taking a final view. As per NC decision, the case was referred toD/o The case was discussed in the M.

&PC. Therefore, Committee decided to take opinion from D/o C&PCC&PC onalso02.02.2022.before taking a final view. As per NC decision, the case was referred toD/o The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jan/202122/8 dated 03.02.2022 and the Committee decided to wait for the comments. A reminder was also issued to D/o C&PC on 15.03.2022 for expediting the comments. The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Mar/202122/11 (Offline Cases) dated 30.03.2022 and the Committee decided to send a reminder to TE, D/o C & PC. As per NC decision, a reminder was issued on 21.04.2022. The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/May/202223/4 (Offline Cases) dated 30.05.2022 and the Committee decided to decide to send again a reminder letter 25.07.2022.by post to TE, D/o C & PC. As per NC decision, a letter was sent toD/o C & PC on The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jun/202223/8 (Offline Cases) dated 27.07.2022 and the Committee decided to wait for comments. The case was last discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Oct/202223/14 (Offline Cases) dated 21.10.2022 and the Committee decided to remind the authority for the comments. As per NC decision, a reminder was issued on 07.12.2022 & on 02.02.2023. However, no comments have been received as yet. Reminder Sent on 11.04.2023 and 04.08.2023. The case was rejected in M. No. 11/81-ALC2/2018 dated 30.01.2019 due to non- Deferred submission of reply of deficiency letter.

n received as yet. Reminder Sent on 11.04.2023 and 04.08.2023. The case was rejected in M. No. 11/81-ALC2/2018 dated 30.01.2019 due to non- Deferred submission of reply of deficiency letter. The applicant via email dated 13.08.2020 The Committee furnishedreferred toaDPIITreply onand02.12.2020.requested to ratify the ad-hoc norms. The representation was | considered the case The case was considered in M. No. 12/81dated 15.12.2020 held on 22.12.2020 and | decidedas per agendato sendanda decided to wait for the comments. DPIIT via email dated 05.01.2021 inform that the | reminder to the firm. case may be refer to MSME. The case was forwarded to MSME on 07.04.2021. The case was considered in M. No. 01/81 dated 21.05.2021 and the Committee noted that MSME via email dated 20.05.2021 informed that, as per Certificate of Analysis submitted by the applicant, the percent of lead in import is 96.43% which works out to DIAC be less than the export quantity. Therefore, the Committee decided to ask from the ita applicant to furnish the following information as per comments of MSME as under: ICALS 1. Tooverallprovideaverageaverageleadleadpercentagepercentageof import.of each batch imported and provide the & As per NC decision, a deficiency letter was sent to the applicant on 14.07.2021. PiGM | 01/81/05 The case was considered in M. No.

gepercentageof import.of each batch imported and provide the & As per NC decision, a deficiency letter was sent to the applicant on 14.07.2021. PiGM | 01/81/05 The case was considered in M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jul/2021 22/2 (Offline Cases) dated ENTS | 0/00108/ 03.09.2021 and decided to send a reminder to the applicant for furnishing the requisite PRIVA AM19/ information. ear 02/24/04 The case was discussed in the M. No. 07/81 (Offline Cases) dated 16.11.2021 and the ED 0/00192/ Committee noted thatthe applicant's reply was sent to MSME on 16.11.2021 for — AM18/ examination of the case. Hence, the Committee decided to wait for the comments. dated The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jan/202122/8 dated 03.02.2022 13.03 and the Committee noted that MSME informed via email dated 03.02.2022 that the 20 1 8 c aseomments was deferred.could be provided after finalizing the report on lead scarp. Therefore, the The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Mar/202122/11 (Offline Cases) dated 30.03.2022 and the Committee noted that the report on lead scarp has not been finalized yet. Therefore, the Committee decided to defer the case. The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jun/202223/8 (Offline Cases) dated 27.07.2022 and the Committee noted that the report on lead scarp is under finalization. Therefore, the Committee decided to defer the case. The case was last discussed in the M. No.

s) dated 27.07.2022 and the Committee noted that the report on lead scarp is under finalization. Therefore, the Committee decided to defer the case. The case was last discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Oct/202223/14 (Offline Cases) dated 21.10.2022 and the Committee decided to ask from the applicant to furnish the following information: 1. Certificate of Analysis (CoA issued by Custom Authority or Custom Authorized 4 | MEETING NUMRER: NCO MEET ican narssin cnc —— ----- End of picture text -----

Laboratory on the total net content of lead including lead oxide & lead sulphide in the Lead scraps (Rains/Rails/Rents/ Radio/ Ropes/ Relays/Re-melted Lead Ingots). 2. Percentage of recovery of material other than Lead Scrap and value thereof in terms of INR. 3. Environment clearance certificate, issued by MoEF&CC/CPCB/SPCB on the import of Lead scraps for processing into Lead Ingots/Lead Alloy Ingot etc. As per NC decision, DL was issued to the applicant on 07.12.2022 & on 02.02.2023. However, no reply has been received as yet. Reminder Sent on 11.04.2023 and 04.08.2023. The case was rejected in M. No. 11/81-ALC2/2018 dated 30.01.2019 due to nonThe Committee [Deferred submission of reply of deficiency letter. The applicant via email dated 13.08.2020 & | considered the case 17.08.2020 furnished a reply and requested to ratify the ad-hoc norms. The | as per agenda and representation was referred to DPIIT on 02.12.2020 & 31.12.2020. decided to send a The case was considered in M. No. 12/81dated 15.12.2020 held on 22.12.2020 and | reminder to the firm.

er agenda and representation was referred to DPIIT on 02.12.2020 & 31.12.2020. decided to send a The case was considered in M. No. 12/81dated 15.12.2020 held on 22.12.2020 and | reminder to the firm. decided to wait for the comments. A reminder was issued to DPIIT on 02.02.2021. Further, the case was referred to MSME on 20.05.2021 for examination & comments. The case was considered in M. No. 01/81 dated 21.05.2021 and the Committee noted that MSME via email dated 20.05.2021 informed that, as per Certificate of Analysis submitted by the applicant, the percent of lead in import is 97% which works out to be less than the export quantity. Therefore, the Committee decided to ask from the applicant to furnish the following information as per comments of MSME as under: 1. To provide average lead percentage of each batch imported and provide the As overall average lead percentage of import. per NC decision, a deficiency letter was sent to the applicant on 14.07.2021. The DIAC Case was considered in M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jul/202122/2 (Offline Cases) dated H 03.09.2021information. and decided to send a reminder to the applicant for furnishing the requisite ip The case was discussed in the M. No. 07/81 (Offline Cases) dated 16.11.2021 and the & Committee noted that the applicant's reply was sent to MSME on 16.11.2021 for PIGM examination of the case. Hence, the Committee decided to wait for the comments. ENTS 01/81/05 | The case was discussed in the M. No.

that the applicant's reply was sent to MSME on 16.11.2021 for PIGM examination of the case. Hence, the Committee decided to wait for the comments. ENTS 01/81/05 | The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jan/202122/8 dated 03.02.2022 PRIVA 0/00040/ | and the Committee noted that MSME informed via email dated 03.02.2022 that the TE AM19/ comments could be provided after finalizing the report on lead scarp. Therefore, the LIMIT 02/24/04 | case was deferred. ; ED 0/00122/ | The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Mar/202122/11 (Offline Cases) AM18/ dated 30.03.2022 and the Committee noted that the report on lead scarp has not been 02102 finalized yet. Therefore, the Committee decided to defer the case. 07970 The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/May/202223/4 (Offline Cases) dated dated 30.05.2022 and the Committee noted that the report on lead scarp has not been 10.11 finalized yet. Therefore, the Committee decided to defer the case. are The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jun/202223/8 (Offline Cases) dated 27.07.2022 and the Committee noted that the report on lead scarp is under finalization. Therefore, the Committee decided to defer the case. The case was last discussed in the M. No.

line Cases) dated 27.07.2022 and the Committee noted that the report on lead scarp is under finalization. Therefore, the Committee decided to defer the case. The case was last discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Oct/202223/14 (Offline Cases) dated 21.10.2022 and the Committee decided to ask from the applicant to furnish the following information: 1 Certificate of Analysis (CoA) issued by Custom Authority or Custom Authorized Laboratory on the total net content of lead including lead oxide & lead sulphide in the Lead scraps (Rains/Rails/Rents/ Radio/ Ropes/ Relays/Re-melted Lead Ingots). 2. Percentage of recovery of material other than Lead Scrap and value thereof in terms of INR. 3. Environment clearance certificate, issued by MoEF&CC/CPCB/SPCB on the import of Lead scraps for processing into Lead Ingots/Lead Alloy Ingot etc. As per NC decision, DL was issued to the applicant on 07.12.2022 & on 02.02.2023. However, no reply has been received as yet. PRANIT The case was rejected in M. No. 38/81 dated 22.12.2009 (actually held on 29.12.2009) Deferred A due to non-submission of reply of the deficiency letter raised by DIPP. Subsequently, ENGIN the case was placed in M. No. 44/81-ALC2/2009 dated 02.02.2010 and withdrawn. EERIN The applicant vide letter dated 11.11.2019 furnished reply with a request to fix the adG hoc norms and also asked for personal hearing. SOLUTI The applicant's representation was forwarded to DPIIT on 31.01.2020. In M. No. 22/81 | The Committee ONS | 01/81/05 | dt. 19.02.2020, the Committee decided to wait for comments.

sonal hearing. SOLUTI The applicant's representation was forwarded to DPIIT on 31.01.2020. In M. No. 22/81 | The Committee ONS | 01/81/05 | dt. 19.02.2020, the Committee decided to wait for comments. Comments of DPIIT D/L | decided to give all M-6 0/00026/ | received vide email dated 23.04.2020. DPIIT’s D/L was sent to the applicant on | the documents [PRIVAT | AM10/ | 07.07.2020. The case was considered in M. No. 04/81 dt. 09.07.2020 and decided to pertaining to case to E wait for reply of the applicant. A reminder was sent to the applicant on 27.08.2020. Consultant (Tech-3) LIMITE | 07/24/04 | The case was considered in M. No. 07/81dated 08.09.2020 and decided to remind | for re-examination D 0/00039/ | again the applicant for furnishing the requisite information. As per NC decision, a | and comments. 071006 AM10/ reminder was sent to the applicant on 22.10.2020. The applicant's reply received via 4492 email dated 17.11.2020 was forwarded to DPIIT on 17.1 1.2020. The case was dated considered in M. No. 10/81 dated 10.11.2020 held on 17.11.2020 and decided to wait 04.05.2 for the comments. A reminder was issued to DPIIT on 23.12.2020. The case was 009 referred to MSME on 06.01.2021 on the advice of DPIIT. The written comments was received by MSME via email dated 07.01.2021. The Committee noted the case was rejected in M. No. 38/81 dated 22.12.2009 RI MPETING NIIAADED. NON mami nnane scien =H -

; ;

==> picture [2 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- ; ----- End of picture text -----

2009 RI MPETING NIIAADED. NON mami nnane scien =H -

; ;

==> picture [2 x 9] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- ; ----- End of picture text -----

(actually held on 29.12.2009) due to non-submission of reply of the deficiency letter raised by DIPP. Subsequently, the case was placed in M. No. 44/81-ALC2/2009 dated 02.02.2010 and withdrawn. The applicant had applied for review after a lapse of approx. 10 years. It is not known whether the case was considered by the NC in any meeting during this period. Hence, the Committee decided to seek a report from concerned RA about present status of norms fixation including any pending ECA action. A letter was sent to RA, Bangalore on 08.04.2021 in this regard. The case was considered in M. No. 01/81 dated 21.05.2021 and the Committee decided to remind RA, Bangalore for furnishing the requisite information. As per NC decision, an email was sent to RA, Bangalore on 20.07.2021. The case was considered in M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jul/202122/2 (Offline Cases) dated 03.09.2021 and decided to remind again RA, Bangalore for expediting the comments. Reminder was issued to RA, Bangalore on 09.11.2021. The case was discussed in the M. No, 07/81 (Offline Cases) dated 16.11.2021 and the Committee decided to wait for the requisite information from RA, Bangalore.

ssued to RA, Bangalore on 09.11.2021. The case was discussed in the M. No, 07/81 (Offline Cases) dated 16.11.2021 and the Committee decided to wait for the requisite information from RA, Bangalore.

The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jan/202122/8 dated 03.02.2022 and the Committee decided to remind again RA, Bangalore for expediting the comments. As per NC decision, reminder was issued to RA, Bangalore on 10.03.2022 for expediting the comments. The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Mar/202122/11 (Offline Cases) dated 30.03.2022 and the Committee decided to remind again RA, Bangalore for expediting the comments. As per NC decision, a reminder was issued to RA, Bangalore on 24.05.2022. The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/May/202223/4 (Offline Cases) dated 30.05.2022 and the Committee noted that RA, Bangalore’s comments received via email dated 27.04.2022. Therefore, the Committee decided to take further necessary action in the subject matter. The case wasdiscussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jun/202223/8 (Offline Cases) dated 27.07.2022 and the Committee noted the information received from RA, Bangalore. However, RA, Bangalore did not mention about any pending ECA action against the firm in its email dated 27.05.2022. Further, the matter was deliberated in the meeting and after due deliberation, the Committee decided to seek information regarding any pending ECA action against the firm from RA, Bangalore. As per NC decision, an email was sent to RA, Bangalore on 14.09.2022. The case was last discussed in the M. No.

seek information regarding any pending ECA action against the firm from RA, Bangalore. As per NC decision, an email was sent to RA, Bangalore on 14.09.2022. The case was last discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Oct/202223/14 (Offline Cases) dated 21.10.2022 andthe Committee noted that this is a very old case and has not been deliberated in any of the meetings. The RA, Banglore's reply is also not clear. The firm's representation has also not been received afterwards. Hence, Committee decided to reminder RA Bangalore for ECA related clear information. As per NC decision, a reminder was issued on 07.12.2022. However, no information has been received as yet. It has been decided to refer the case to Consultant (Tech-3) for reexamination and comments.

The case was rejected in Meeting No. 12/81-ALC2/2018 dated 13.02.2019 due to nonApproved submission reply of deficiency letter. The Committee Now, the applicant vide email dated 25.03.2021 & 21.04.2021 has furnished reply of considered the case deficiency letter with a request to fix the ad-hoc norms. It is further mentioned by the as per agenda and applicant that the Lead content in the import item “Re-melted lead ingot” is 96.5%. decided to ratify the The applicant's representation was forwarded to DPIIT on 23.09.2021 for examination jad-hoc norms as per & comments. omments of The case was considered in M. No. NC/2/MEET/Sep/202122/3 (Offline Cases) dated Consultant (SKB) 29.09.2021 and the Committee decided to wait for the comments. A reminder was dated 05.09.2023, as issued to DPIIT on 21.10.2021 for expediting the comments.

/3 (Offline Cases) dated Consultant (SKB) 29.09.2021 and the Committee decided to wait for the comments. A reminder was dated 05.09.2023, as issued to DPIIT on 21.10.2021 for expediting the comments. nder: Mis The case was discussed in the M. No. 07/81 (Offline Cases) dated 16.11.2021 and the POCL ; Committee considered decided to wait for the comments. DPIIT vide U.O. No. P- ENTER HQ File | 47014/22/2021-TSW dated 13.12.2021 had informed that the case may be referred to PRISES :01/81/0 MSME for comments. Accordingly, the case was referred to MSME on 15.12.2021 for LTD 50/0052 | examination & comments. : 4/AM18 M-7 Lic.No/ The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jan/202122/8 dated 03.02.2022 Date:04 RLA File | and NC/2/MEET/Mar/202122/11 (Offline Cases) dated 30.03.2022 and the Committee ¢ :04/24/0 | deferred the case as the report on lead scarp is not yet finalized. 101838 || 40/0019 20.122 0/AM18/ | The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jun/202223/8 (Offline Cases) dated 017 27.07.2022 and the Committee noted that the report on lead scarp is under finalization. Therefore, the Committee decided to defer the case. This case was referred to Consultant (Tech-1). The case was last discussed in the M. No.

noted that the report on lead scarp is under finalization. Therefore, the Committee decided to defer the case. This case was referred to Consultant (Tech-1). The case was last discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Oct/202223/14 (Offline Cases) dated 21.10.2022 and the Committee noted that the following informationwas asked to furnishfrom the applicant: 1: Certificate of Analysis (CoA) issued by Custom Authority or Custom Authorized Laboratory on the total net content of lead including lead oxide & lead sulphide in the Lead scraps (Rains/Rails/Rents/ Radio/ Ropes/ Relays/Re-melted Lead Ingots). 2. Percentage of recovery of material other than Lead Scrap and value thereof in terms of INR.

6 | MEETING NUMBER: NC/2/MEET/Sep/202324/10 (Offline Cases) MEETING DATE: 05.09.2023

% :

==> picture [499 x 706] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- 3. Environment clearance certificate, issued by MoEF&CC/CPCB/SPCB on the import of Lead scraps for processing into Lead Ingots/Lead Alloy Ingot etc. However, the applicant submitted the reply on the above queries on 21.10.2022 and the same were forwarded to Consultant (Tech-1) for comments. A reminder was also sent to Consultant (TEC-1) for expediting the comments.

bmitted the reply on the above queries on 21.10.2022 and the same were forwarded to Consultant (Tech-1) for comments. A reminder was also sent to Consultant (TEC-1) for expediting the comments. As per advice of Consultant(Tech-1), the applicant has been called for PH in the forthcoming meeting and attended by them. ra Export Item ITEM OF IMPORT Quantity TO BE ALLOWED 1 LEAD INGOTS PURITY | REMELTED LEAD INGOTS WITH 1.02 KGS/KG ON THE NET 99.97% MIN LEAD CONTENT 98.01% CONTENT OF THE LEAD IN THE EXPORT PRODUCT. RA concerned may take suitable consequential action accordingly M/s The case was ratified in Meeting No. 03/81 dated 14.08.2018 on repeat as approved | The Committee | Approved ONSOL for AA No. 0510399348 dated 03.08.2016. The norms were again revised in Meeting considered the case IDATED | HQ File: | No. 05/81 dated 16.07.2020 held on 28.07.2020 on the basis of study group report as per agenda and COIN | HQRNO | dated 21.02.2020 as adopted by the Committee in the Meeting No. 24/81 dated decided to ratify the COMPA | RMREV | 18.3.2020. The Norms were recommended with 41% wastage for Copper Scrap, 8% ‘ad-hoc norms as per NY \wo0014_ | wastage for Nickel Full Plates & 8% wastage for SHG Zinc Ingots. Now, the applicant comments of PRIVATE! 6549AM | has again requested to review the ad-hoc norms. onsultant (DPIIT) LIMITED | 22/ The applicant's representation was forwarded to DPIIT on 23.09.2021 for examination dated 22.08.2023, as & comments. inder: ic. No.: | 05/23/04 | The case was considered in M. No.

LIMITED | 22/ The applicant's representation was forwarded to DPIIT on 23.09.2021 for examination dated 22.08.2023, as & comments. inder: ic. No.: | 05/23/04 | The case was considered in M. No. NC/2/MEET/Sep/202122/3 (Offline Cases) dated 0510405 | 0/00457/ | 29.09.2021 and the Committee noted that the applicant had requested for revision of B10 AM18 earlier ratified norms. The representatives of the applicant also attended personal dated hearing and explained their case before Norms Committee. Thereafter, the case was 07.03.20 discussed amongst the technical members in the meeting and the Committee decided 8 to refer back the matter to DPIIT & Consultant (TEC-3) for their opinion on the subject matter. As per NC decision, the case was referred to DPIIT & Consultant (TEC-3) on 41.11.2021 for examination & comments. The case was discussed in the M. No. 07/81 (Offline Cases) dated 16.11.2021 and the Committee decided to wait for the comments. The case was again discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jan/202122/8 dated 03.02.2022 and the Committee noted that the comments was received from DPIIT vide U. O. No. P-47011/62/2019-TSW dated 02.12.2021. However, comments of Consultant (TEC-3) were still awaited. Therefore, the Committee decided to remind Consultant (TEC-3) for expediting the comments. The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Mar/202122/11 (Offline Cases) dated 30.03.2022 and the Committee noted that a Committee was constituted to review the ad-hoc norms cases of the applicant.

s discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Mar/202122/11 (Offline Cases) dated 30.03.2022 and the Committee noted that a Committee was constituted to review the ad-hoc norms cases of the applicant. However, the report of Committee is awaited. Therefore, the Committee decided to defer the case. The Committee noted that the report of the Study Group has been received and decided to refer the case to DPIIT. DPIIT’s comments received now. 4. Quantity of import item at SI. No. 1 (Copper Scrap Millberry) may be allowed as 1.1351 Kgs./Kg. content in the export item. 2. Quantity of import item at SI. No. 2 (Nickel Full Plates) may be allowed as 1.1381 Kgs./Kg. content in the export item. 3 3. Quantity of import item at SI. No. 3 (Zinc Ingots) may be allowed as 1.1292 Kgs./Kg. content in the export item. RA concerned may take suitable consequential action accordingly /s The case was rejected in Meeting No. 26/81-ALC2/2010 dated 28.09.2010 as per | The Committee Deferred EDANT written comments of Ministry of Mines vide OM No. 4/(16)/2010-Metal-lll/L dated | decided to give all the A IMITED File 17.09.2010. The Applicant had represented on 14.02.2019 with a request to fix the ad- | documents pertaining Formerly No.01/8 hoc Norms. The case was considered in the NC-II Meeting No. 13/81 scheduled for | to case to Consultant /s. 4/050/00 43.12.2020 and held on 08.01.2021. Consultant (TEC-3) informed vide comments | (Tech-3) and remind Sterlite O55/AM dated 29.12.2020 that the applicant has given composition of imported material i.e.

.12.2020 and held on 08.01.2021. Consultant (TEC-3) informed vide comments | (Tech-3) and remind Sterlite O55/AM dated 29.12.2020 that the applicant has given composition of imported material i.e. Cu | M/o Mines for the ndustries 11 whichConcentrate,again containwhich containgold & goldsilver &insilverppm.inGoldppm.& ExportSilver areproductneitheris Copperbeing importedAnode, | comments. India) indendently nor being exported, as such, after refining. In view of above wastage of imited these items cannot be ascertained. Earlier also, Department of Mines had rejected the 7 | MEETING NUMBER: NC/2/MEET/Sep/202324/10 (Offline Cases) MEETING DATE: 05.09.2023 ----- End of picture text -----

: ‘

, proposal. Therefore, the Committee decided to reject the applicant's request of fixation AP of ad-hoc norms. 0.35100 830450 The Applicant has requested for review of the earlier decision of NC-II and submitted dated that review application cannot be filed through online mode as the name of the firm has 03.06.20 been changed and IEC Code has also been changed. 10

The Applicant vide their e-mail dated 01.12.2021 has submitted following justification for this review:-

(i) Both the import item and the export item are standard industry items. Copper Concentrate is the industrial raw material for the copper Anode manufacturing process by using the standard manufacturing process by the Copper Industry all across the world.

industry items. Copper Concentrate is the industrial raw material for the copper Anode manufacturing process by using the standard manufacturing process by the Copper Industry all across the world.

(ii) The gold & silver are impurities which naturally occur in the copper concentrate. The norms are not required to be fixed for gold & silver. The norms are required to be fixed for copper concentrate (import item) and the export item which is Copper Anode. Gold & Silver are naturally occurring impurities in the copper when copper is extracted in the mines. They are not artificially added. The naturally occurring impurities cannot be extracted and therefore no wastage is required to be fixed for Gold & Silver as they are naturally occurring.

(iii) The manufacturing flow chart & manufacturing process is once again enclosed for your ready reference.

(iv) The Import and Export Items under subject authorization are same as our Advance Authorisation for annual requirement viz. 3510030590 dated 15.06.2010 and norms in respect of this Advance Authorization have been ratified by the norms Committee vide its meeting dated 30.06.2015 under Case No. AR- 3 Meeting No. 06/81 for same import & export product (Refer Line item SI. No. 8 i.e. Import item: Copper Concentrate Containing Gold & Silver and our Export item: Copper Anode containing Gold & Silver).

ting No. 06/81 for same import & export product (Refer Line item SI. No. 8 i.e. Import item: Copper Concentrate Containing Gold & Silver and our Export item: Copper Anode containing Gold & Silver).

Earlier, the Committee had considered the case wherein Consultant (TEC-3) had informed vide comments dated 29.12.2020 that the applicant has given composition of imported material i.e. Cu Concentrate, which contain gold & silver in ppm. Export product is Copper Anode, which again contain gold & silver in ppm. Gold & Silver are neither being imported indendently nor being exported, as such, after refining. In view of above wastage of these items cannot be ascertained. Earlier also, Department of Mines had rejected the proposal. Therefore, the Committee decided to reject the applicant's request of fixation of ad-hoc norms. The case file has been referred to Consultant (TEC-3) on 25.07.2022 for examination and comments. The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jun/202223/8 (Offline Cases) dated 27.07.2022 and the Committee decided to wait for the comments of TE. Further, the reminders were issued to Consultant (TEC-3) on 13.09.2022 & 06.10.2022 for expediting the comments. Communication being sent to M/o Mines. The case was last discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Oct/202223/14 (Offline Cases) dated 21.10.2022 and the Committee decided to wait for the comments of the TE. Further, a reminder was issued to Consultant (TEC-3) on 28.11.2022 for expediting the comments. It has also been decided by the Committee to obtain the comments of Ministry of Mines also.

of the TE. Further, a reminder was issued to Consultant (TEC-3) on 28.11.2022 for expediting the comments. It has also been decided by the Committee to obtain the comments of Ministry of Mines also. Accordingly, case is also being forwarded to M/o Mines. M- The case was ratified in M. No. 01/81 dated 10.04.2019 as per written comments given | The Committee Deferred 10 by Consultant (TEC-3). The applicant vide letter dated 06.06.2019 requested for | decided to give all the revision of ratified norms. The case was considered in M. No. 12/81 dt. 18.09.2019 and | documents pertaining decided to refer the case to Consultant (TEC-3) for examination. The case was | to case to Consultant M/s referred to Consultant (TEC-3) on 06.12.2019. The case was considered in M. No. | (Tech-3) and remind VEDANT 21/81 dated 22.01.2020, Consultant (TEC-3) informed that the applicant has requested | M/o Mines for the A for wastage on gold & silver for which there is no justification. Therefore, the | comments. LIMITED HQ File Committee decided to call the applicant for personal hearing to explain the case before (Formerly 01/81/17 Norms Committee in the forthcoming NC meeting. After, Personal hearing which was M/s. 4/00019/ held on 25.08.2020, on the advice of Consultant (TEC-3), the Committee directed the Sterlite AM16/ representatives to furnish following information: Industries 1. Specific item of import, its quantity & copy of bill of entry. (India) 35/24/03 2. Specific item of export, its quantity & copy of shipping bill. Limited 9/00003/ 3.

lowing information: Industries 1. Specific item of import, its quantity & copy of bill of entry. (India) 35/24/03 2. Specific item of export, its quantity & copy of shipping bill. Limited 9/00003/ 3. Certificate of analysis of total quantity of import & export. AA ‘AM15/ 4. Is there any by-product in the process? If yes details thereof. INo.35100) 2sea The applicant's reply dated 15.10.2020 was sent to Consultant (TEC-3) on 26.10.2020. 44672 The case was concluded during NC-I] Meeting No. 12/81 schedule for 15.12.2020 and dated held on 22.12.2020. The Committee considered the case as per the agenda and 17.02.20 Consultant (TEC-3) informed via e-mail dated 14.12.2020 that the applicant in its reply 15 dated 15.10.2020 has proposed to import Cu anode & Cu blister which contain traces of gold & silver. The export product is also anode slime containing minor quantities of gold & silver. Accordingly, gold & silver are neither the direct import items nor export items & therefore wastage norms cannot be fixed for these items. Therefore, the Committee decided to reject the applicant's request of revision of ratified norms.

8 | MEETING NUMBER: NC/2/MEET/Sep/202324/10 (Offline Cases) MEETING DATE: 05.09.2023

Now, the applicant informed that their firm has merged with Vedanta Limited therefore they are not in a position to submit the review application in online mode and requested to review application offline mode.

Further, the applicant has submitted justification for review vide their e-mail dated 01.12.2021:-

o submit the review application in online mode and requested to review application offline mode.

Further, the applicant has submitted justification for review vide their e-mail dated 01.12.2021:-

(i) Both the import item and the export item are standard industry items. Copper Anode/Unrefined copper Blister are the industrial raw material for the Copper Cathode manufacturing process.

(ii) The raw material are subjected to refining process for cathode production and “Anode Slime” is generated as a by — product during this process.

(iii) The by — product viz.

“Anode Slime” is used in the Precious Metal Industry and it is used for manufacture of value added product such as Gold and silver.

(iv) The gold & silver are impurities which naturally occur in the Copper anode and the by — product viz. Anode Slime. During the smelting & refining process there is a process loss and the gold & silver being natural impurities cannot be extracted.

(v) Since both the import item & the export item are standard industry products and the process of extracting Anode Slime from refining process is a standard manufacturing process, we hereby request you to kindly ratify the norms and allow nominal industry standard wastage.

(vi) The manufacturing flow chart & manufacturing process is once again enclosed for your ready reference.

reby request you to kindly ratify the norms and allow nominal industry standard wastage.

(vi) The manufacturing flow chart & manufacturing process is once again enclosed for your ready reference.

(vii) Please also note that the Import and Export items under subject authorization are same as our Advance authorization for annual requirement viz. 3510030590 dated 15.06.2010 and norms in respect of this Advance Authorization have been ratified by the norms Committee vide its meeting dated 30.06.2015 under Case No. AR-3 Meeting No. 06/81, for same import & export product (Refer Line Item SI. No. 8 i.e. Import item: Copper Anode Containing gold & silver, Unrefined Copper Blister Copper Containing gold & silver our Export item: Anode Slime containing Gold & Silver) copy of above NC Decision is enclosed herewith for your ready reference.

(viii) Wastage is required to be fixed for copper Anode & Copper Blister & not for Gold & Silver.

(ix) Grant of PH to explain the case personally.

Earlier, the Committee had considered the case as per comments of Consultant (Tech3) dated 14.12.2020, it was stated that the applicant in its reply dated 15.10.2020 has proposed to import Cu anode & Cu blister which contain traces of gold & silver. The export product is also anode slime containing minor quantities of gold & silver. Accordingly, gold & silver are neither the direct import items nor export items & therefore wastage norms cannot be fixed for these items. Therefore, the Committee had decided to reject the applicant's request of revision of ratified norms.

direct import items nor export items & therefore wastage norms cannot be fixed for these items. Therefore, the Committee had decided to reject the applicant's request of revision of ratified norms.

The case file has been referred to Consultant (TEC-3) on 25.07.2022 for examination and comments.

The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jun/202223/8 (Offline Cases) dated 27.07.2022 and the Committee decided to wait for the comments of TE. The case was last discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Oct/202223/14 (Offline Cases) dated 21.10.2022 and the Committee noted that the case was erroneously sent to DHI on 13.09.2022 for examination & comments. Therefore, the Committee decided to refer the case to concerned TE, Consultant (TEC-3) for examination & comments. As per NC decision, the case was referred to Consultant (TEC-3) on 28.11.2022 for examination & comments. As per advice of Consultant (Tech-3), a DL has been sent on 03.02.2023 to the firm for submission of required documents. /s. AuthorizationSubject: RelaxationNo. (i) of0310795248 Cap of 5% FOBdatedValue13.04.2015 on import(ii) 0310798953of varnish againstdated 18.09.2015,15 Advance | Consultant (Tech-1) Deferred Ram (iii) 0310798975 dated 21.09.2015, (iv) 0310799291 dated 08.10.2015, (v) | Committee decided to Ratana Meeting | 0310799280 dated 08.10.2015, (vi) 0310804606 dated 11.05.2016, (vii) 0310804607 | refer the file to ires No. dated 11.05.2016, (viii) 0310804609 dated 11.05.2016, (ix) 0310804763 dated | Consultant (Tech-1) imited.

d 08.10.2015, (vi) 0310804606 dated 11.05.2016, (vii) 0310804607 | refer the file to ires No. dated 11.05.2016, (viii) 0310804609 dated 11.05.2016, (ix) 0310804763 dated | Consultant (Tech-1) imited. | O7/AM23 | 18.05.2016, (x) 0310804920 dated 23.05.2016, (xi) 0310804936 dated 24.05.2016, | for examination and dated (xii) 0310804935 dated 24.05.2016, (xiii) 0310808025 dated 23.09.2016, (xiv) | comments. 21.06.2022) 0310808024 dated 23.09.2016 and (xv) 0310818559 dated 17.01.2018 for redemption . No. case / EODC purpose. 01/60/1 jreferred by 62/435/ PRC This is a referred case of PRC Meeting No. 07/AM23 dated 21.06.2022 as PRC has AM21/P discussed the matter at length and decided to refer the issue to NC-2 for its RC examination and resolution. The applicant stated that the subject authorizations have been issued against SION Serial No. C-206. Due to sudden instructions from their 9 | MEETING NUMBER: NC/2/MEET/Sep/202324/10 (Offline Cases) MEETING DATE: 05.09.2023

the subject authorizations have been issued against SION Serial No. C-206. Due to sudden instructions from their 9 | MEETING NUMBER: NC/2/MEET/Sep/202324/10 (Offline Cases) MEETING DATE: 05.09.2023

buyers they had no other way except to import the said input Varnish in higher quantity resulting in exceeding the cap of 5% of FOB value. Further, it was submitted that the said excess quantity imported by them beyond the cap value is fully utilized in the manufacturing of export product and not even a fraction of said quantity of the input namely Varnish has been diverted in the local market and has been utilized in manufacturing of the export product by way of doing work of coating / polishing of more than one layer. All the quantity so imported has been accounted for in the export document specifically in the shipping bills. Hence, requested that the excess quantity of input namely Varnish imported by them beyond cap limit of 5% of FOB value may kindly be relaxed so that the above case may be regularized / EODC / Closure purpose. Earlier on 05.05.2022, PRC section was provided following comments in this case on the basis of comments received from Consultant (TEC-3) (vide his mail dated 20.04.22) is as under: "The firm has applied for relaxation of policy to PRC for import of varnish in excess of 5 % of fob value as per SION C206.Quantity of varnish applied on the bare conductor depends on the thickness of insulation . While it is possible to calculate the qty. of varnish required for a given thickness, it is difficult to convert this qty.

rnish applied on the bare conductor depends on the thickness of insulation . While it is possible to calculate the qty. of varnish required for a given thickness, it is difficult to convert this qty. to value, as price is a variable factor depending on its source, volatile matter in it etc.”

As referred by PRC, the case was forwarded to Consultant (Tech-3) on 25.07.2022 for further examination and comments.

==> picture [540 x 377] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- The case was discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Jun/202223/8 (Offline Cases) dated 27.07.2022 and the Committee decided to wait for the comments of the TE.Further, DL raised by TE was sent to the firm on 11.08.2022. The case was last discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Oct/202223/14 (Offline Cases) dated 21.10.2022 and the Committee decided to send a reminder to the applicant for furnishing the reply of deficiency letter.The firm's reply was received on 06.12.2022 and the same was forwarded to Consultant (TEC-3) on 07.12.2022 for examination & comments. However, no comments have been received as yet. The Committee Deferred Mis considered that case Modis as per agenda and on The cases were approved by NC in its Meeting No. 9/81-ALC2/2020 dated 20.10.2020 | noted the comments Metal as per comments of DHI. of MHI dated Limite Now, the applicant vide letter dated 28.04.2022 has requested for reviewing the ratified | 24.08.2023. After d ad-hoc norms.

ed the comments Metal as per comments of DHI. of MHI dated Limite Now, the applicant vide letter dated 28.04.2022 has requested for reviewing the ratified | 24.08.2023. After d ad-hoc norms. Also, the applicant has informed that they tried to apply for review | detailed deliberation, Mame HQ File | through DGFT Portal but could not fill the review application on DGFT Portal due to | the Committee ai No.: technical glitches. decided to grant a PH AA /000295/01/81/05 || Thecomments.case was referred to Consultant (SKB) on 17.10.2022 for examination & | inmeeting,the forthcomingto the . No AM20 applicant to explain 031 08 The case was last discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Oct/202223/14 (Offline Cases) | the case in detail with 32497 dated 21.10.2022 and the Committee decided to wait for the comments. A reminder | justification, if any. z dated was also issued on 28.11.2022 for expediting the comments. However, no comments 30.10 have been received as yet. 2019 M- /s F. No.: M/s Sterlite Technologies Limited has requested for fixation of norms against Advance Deferred 13 Sterlite 01/81/17 | Licence No. 0310732320dated23.4.2013. The firm in their letter mentioned that they echnol | 1/0005/ had obtained the aforesaid license on a self-declaration basis from Mumbai, RA in the | The Committee ogies AM23/D | year 2013 but till date, the norms were not fixed for the said licence.

1/0005/ had obtained the aforesaid license on a self-declaration basis from Mumbai, RA in the | The Committee ogies AM23/D | year 2013 but till date, the norms were not fixed for the said licence. They had sent | considered that case imited ES-Il letters dated 09.03.2022 & 11.07.2022 to NC-II for considering their application for | as per agenda and fixation of norms. In this regard, Norms Committee couldn't find any record regarding | decided to issue a AA No. this case in the Section. As Norms Committee is considering only the application | reminder to the firm for 031073 receiving through DGFT’s Portal and the application for this case is neither on the | furnishing complete 2320 portal nor on email or hard copy, NC requested the firm to apply through DGFT'’s | documents and the DL dated portal. reply if received, may 23.4.20 The firm, vide letter dtd.11.07.2022, informed NC that they had tried to upload the | be sent to Consultant 13 documents in the DGFT’s portal, but they found difficulty. They had sent various letters | (Tech-3) for to RA, Mumbai requesting to send the entire records to DGFT Hars to get the norms | examination and fixed. As they didn't receive any response from RA, Mumbai, they had submitted an | comments. RTI application seeking such information. After 30 days of the stipulated period, the firm submitted an appeal in the Appellate Authority. ----- End of picture text -----

comments. RTI application seeking such information. After 30 days of the stipulated period, the firm submitted an appeal in the Appellate Authority. ----- End of picture text -----

In response to the appeal, RA, Mumbai has forwarded the documents in r/o the Advance Licence No. 0310732320 dated 23.04.2013 to Norms Committee |! vide letter dated 27.06.2022. As this case is very old and the firm is facing huge pressure from the customs department to submit EODC in relation to said licence, they have requested to file this case as offline cases.

The case was referred to Consultant (TEC-3) on 18.10.2022 for examination and comments.

The case was last discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Oct/202223/14 (Offline Cases) dated 21.10.2022 and the Committee decided to wait for the comments of the TE. Further, a reminder was also issued on 28.11.2022 for expediting the comments.

10 | MEETING NUMBER: NC/2/MEET/Sep/202324/10 (Offline Cases) MEETING DATE: 05.09.2023

. °

==> picture [542 x 742] intentionally omitted <==

ssued on 28.11.2022 for expediting the comments.

10 | MEETING NUMBER: NC/2/MEET/Sep/202324/10 (Offline Cases) MEETING DATE: 05.09.2023

. °

==> picture [542 x 742] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text ----- case as Offline cases. The case was referred to Consultant (TEC-3) on 18.10.2022 for examination and comments. The case was last discussed in the M. No. NC/2/MEET/Oct/202223/14 (Offline Cases) dated 21.10.2022 and the Committee decided to wait for the comments of the TE. Further, a reminder was also issued on 28.11.2022 for expediting the comments. $s F. No. M/s Weatherford Drilling & Production Services (l) P. Limited vide their representation | The Committee Approved eatherf| 01/81/05 | dated 12.03.2022 & 17.01.2023 has stated that they had obtained Advance Authorization considered the case as ord O/489/A | No. .3410020553 dated 07.01.2008 from RA, Vadodara. The case was rejected in per agenda and heard Drilling & | M- Meeting No. 17/81 dated 12.11.2013 due to non-submission of reply of deficiency the party in PH. The Productio| O8/DES- | letter. However, the applicant vide letter dated 16.05.2017 furnished the reply with a firm’s representatives services ll request to fix the ad-hoc norms. The applicant's reply was referred to DH! on 30.01.2018 explained the case in India) & 15.07.2019 for examination of the case. As per decision of meeting no. 11/81 dt detail. They have Pvt. 04.09.2019, the party was called for PH. The Decision of committee produced the sample imited meeting dt.

examination of the case. As per decision of meeting no. 11/81 dt detail. They have Pvt. 04.09.2019, the party was called for PH. The Decision of committee produced the sample imited meeting dt. 16.10.2019 vide case No. R5 (offline) is as export product, which AA under:- as disassembled and No. The Committee considered the case and the applicant's representative explained the Showed to the 8410020 case before Norms Committee during personal hearing. The Committee noted that the Committee members 553 Authorization was issued in 2008 and the case was rejected in 2013 as the party failed to uring the meeting. TE, dated submit the required information. The Committee after a careful consideration decided not to MHI has expressed that 07.01.20 reopen such old case." a similar case [AA No. 08 8410022116 dated After that the firm has been trying to file the case for review through email and other 21.08.2008] of the firm communications. They had raised help desk ticket to transmit the application for online was approved in the since March 2022, but till date unable to do transmit due to technical reason (Help NC-1 meeting on Desk Ticket #202203141351 dt 26.03.2022 showing Audit Logs). 24.11.2009 in which The import of consumables firm has further stated that they had been reminding for this pending case for long were restricted to 2% of time. Due to reason beyond control as the case was rejected and re-opened more than FOB value of export and once.

they had been reminding for this pending case for long were restricted to 2% of time. Due to reason beyond control as the case was rejected and re-opened more than FOB value of export and once. As per the direction they have submitted all the previous correspondence for the components were reason of pendency at the counter on the same day. Also the composition fee of Rs, allowed under GN-4 of 5000/- paid online vide Payment Receipt Challan No. 0003166442 dt. 05.03.020 and ngineering product. subsequently sent the copy of challan to him by email. After due deliberation The and in line with the they applicant has further explained that immediately after the pandemic COVID 19 , earlier comments, the could ommittee decided to not visit to follow up the matter as even DGFT office was not functioning and fix the ad-hoc norms as officers were operating online from home due to lock down conditions. However, they had per comments of MHI continuously followed up the matter by emails and telephonic conversation. Thereafter, dated 05.09.2023, as the firm also sent number of mails to the NC to explain the matter. nder: The firm has stated that they had already fulfilled the export obligation fully both quantity wise and value wise and completed the imports against the authorization. The firm also stated that they have obtained a number of Advance Authorizations/EPCG authorization and successfully complied with the export obligations and received EODCs except the above authorization.

stated that they have obtained a number of Advance Authorizations/EPCG authorization and successfully complied with the export obligations and received EODCs except the above authorization. The firm has requested to consider this case in offline mode as filing on online mode is not possible for them and to ratify the norms and to enable them to close the case at RA Vadodara. Accordingly, the case is listed in offline mode. This case is sent to DHI for examination and comments. in the last meeting, the applicant was granted a PH to explain their case in the forthcoming meeting. 1. The items at SI. Nos. 1 to 9 and 14 to 26 being components may be allowed under GN-4 on net-to-net basis with accountability clause. 2. _ Import of consumables such as brazing flux, brazing wire at SI. Nos. 10 to 13 may be restricted to 2% of FOB value of the export product. RA concerned may take suitable consequential action accordingly /| : puNey 4 = “i aa se DONE ea ENS Trad oonay Aearet Of EPComneneree : ‘orate poer®, AM cy aii of oat Seana? Seale ire eet OGSeo aa 1 Rawrweres are eee ee ewe we owe ee ee «air ae ” ----- End of picture text -----

Verbatim extracted text (OCR/PDF). Older scans and tables may show extraction artifacts — verify against the original for anything you act on.

Analysis

No analysis generated for this document yet (analysis runs over brief docs + on-demand). Run build_analysis.py --ids 6925 --apply.