Directorate General of Foreign Trade
Minutes of the Grievance Committee Meeting held on
The following were present in the meeting:-
1.†† Shri B.S. Meena, DGFT†††††††††††††††††††††††† - Chairman
2.†† Shri N. K. Gupta, Addl. DGFT†††††††††††††† ††† - Member
3.†† Shri Sanjay Rastogi,†††† EC††††††††††††††††††† ††† - Member
4.†† Shri Tapan Mazumder, Jt. DGFT††††††††† - Member
5.†† Shri Ramanand Meena, Dy. DGFT†††††† - Convenor
The following were also present:-
1.†† Shri A.K. Singh, Jt. DGFT
2.†† Shri Amitabh Jain, Jt.DGFT†††††
2.†† Shri S.K. Samal, Jt. DGFT
3.†† Shri M.K. Parimoo, Jt.DGFT††††
4.†† Shri A.M. Kumar, F.T.D.O. (Gr. Cell)
M/s. Gad Fashions (
[File No.01/60/162/142/AM07/EFGC (Gr.Cell)]
The representative of the firm M/s. Gad Fashions (
Case No: 2†† M/s. Mohanlal Raichand & Sons, Mumbai
[File No. 01/60/162/166/AM07/EFGC(Gr.Cell)]
The Committee members noted that the High Court in its Judgment dated 12.10.94 in petition No. 2263 of 1994 directed the department to re-consider the application of the firm for Premium on merits in the light of REP Circular No. 9/94 dt. 17.05.94. As per the Courtís Order, department considered their case and issued Premium against their two licenses covered under W.P.No.747 of 1985 during Feb., 1999. As regards the other two licences covered in W.P.No. 747 of 1985, the original licenses were submitted to the department (RA, Mumbai) in 1986, but the premium could not be settled by RA because those two licences were not traceable in the department.
In view of the facts stated above, members decided that for want of original licences, the Regional Authority should take immediate appropriate action for getting legal opinion †in the matter urgently in view of Honíble High Courtís direction to consider the case.
Case No: 3† M/s. Ole Fine† Organics, Mumbai
[File No. 01/60/162/159/AM07/EFGC (Gr.Cell)]
The Committee considered the request of the firm and noted that the firm had applied for EODC to the O/o Jt. DGFT, Mumbai on 25.08.2005 against their Advance License No.0310202939 dated 20.5.2003, but the EODC was issued by JT.DGFT, Mumbai only on 18.11.2005, i.e. merely one day before the expiry of the license. The Committee noted that the matter related to relaxation of the existing provision of the Handbook and did not strictly fall within the purview of grievance, so the committee decided to refer the case to NC for examination and if required, recommendation to PRC for their consideration.
Case No: 4† M/s. Ole Fine Organics, Mumbai
[File No. 01/60/162/160/AM07/EFGC (Gr.Cell)]
The Committee considered the request of the firm and noted that the firm had applied for EODC to O/o Jt. DGFT, Mumbai on 26.05.2005 against their Advance License No. 0310180036 dated 23.01.2003 but the EODC was issued by JT. DGFT, Mumbai only on 21.09.2005, i.e. after a lapse of nearly 4 months by which time the license expired. The Committee noted that the matter related to relaxation of the existing provision of the Handbook and did not strictly fall within the purview of grievance, so the committee decided to refer the case to NC for examination and if required, recommendation to PRC for their consideration.
Case No: 5† M/s. Ole Fine Organics, Mumbai
[File No. 01/60/162/161/AM07/EFGC (Gr.Cell)]
The Committee considered the request of the firm and noted that the firm had applied for EODC to O/o Jt. DGFT, Mumbai against their Advance License No.0310180605 dated 27.10.2003. The License was revalidated by O/o Jt. DGFT, Mumbai on 26.06.2005.† They could not utilize the license for import for the other input† ĎStearic Acidí for want of amendment in the description of this input. They have sought the amendment from ALC and the same was approved by ALC only on 14.10.2005. In the meantime, the license was expired.† The Committee noted that the matter related to relaxation of the existing provision of the Handbook and did not strictly fall within the purview of grievance, so the committee decided to refer the case to NC for examination and if required, recommendation to PRC for their consideration.
Case No: 6
M/s. Guala Closures (
[File No. 01/60/162/154/AM07/EFGC (Gr.Cell)]
The Committee considered the request of the firm and noted that the firm had obtained Advance License No. 710000257 dated 24.05.2002 and No. 1710000404 dated 28.01.2003 against the specific export order for exporting of Non-refillable Plastic Closures. The Committee members noted that the firm had completed the export obligation much before the expiry of the validity of these licenses but SION could not notified for their product & only adhoc norms were fixed by ALC. †In view of the facts, the Committee decided to refer the case alongwith the representation received from the firm to Norms Committee for fixation of regular norms. (notified SION).
Case No: 7 M/s.† Rama Handicrafts, Jaipur
[File No. 01/60/162/181/AM07/EFGC (Gr.Cell)]
The representative of the firm appeared
before the Committee and presented their case. They submitted that though the
office of Jt. DGFT, Jaipur
claimed to have despatched DEPB No. 1310016405 dated
Case No: 8 M/s.† JVH MET-CUT (P) Ltd., Chennai
[File No. 01/60/162/165/AM07/EFGC (Gr.Cell)]
††††††††††† The representative of the firm appeared before the Committee and presented their case.† The Committee observed that the request of the firm for extension in Export Obligation Period upto 30.6.2006 against their EPCG Licence No. 04500221 dated 18.3.1997 could not be accepted in absence of any enabling policy provisions. However, the Committee noted that EPCG Licence No. 04500221 dated 18.3.1997 which was issued† under 15% EPCG Scheme was governed by the Policy Provisions of 1996-97 and the subsequent Public Notice No.9 dated 22.5.2003 ( wherein it was provided for general extension upto 31.3.2004,† subject to fulfillment of conditions as laid down therein including furnishing of† Bank Guarantee before 22.8.2003).† The Committee also noted that since the firm had already submitted Bank Guarantee to the RA in terms of PN No.9 with a marginal delay of a few days and the same was subsequently accepted by the RA and it was lying with the RA only, the benefits of PN No. 9 should be granted to the firm. Accordingly, the Committee decided to direct EPCG Division to seek the present status of the Bank Guarantee from RLA, Chennai and then place the case before the PRC for granting the benefits to the extent available under PN No. 9 to the firm.††
Case No: 9† M/s.† Caryaire Equipments India Pvt. Ltd.,Noida
[File No. 01/60/162/182/AM07/EFGC (Gr.Cell)]
The Committee considered the request of the firm and noted that the firm had applied for refund of Terminal Excise Duty against Invoice pertaining to 59 supplies pertaining to the period November, 2004 to April, 2005 and 6 supplies during January, 2005. The Committee members noted that during 2004, there was a facility of Option in HBP under para 8.6(ii) & 8.6.1 for filing application upto 30.09.2006, which was withdrawn vide Public Notice No.32 dated 14.12.2004. After change in policy, the firm were not required to opt for a periodicity for supplies under para 8.2(c).† Accordingly, the Committee decided that in all those invoices where supplies had been made on or prior to 14.12.2004, the TED should be refunded with 10% late cut if the application was filed after 30.09.2006 and in respect of those invoices where the supplies had been made after 14.12.2004, the request for TED refund should be examined as per the prevalent Foreign Trade Policy.††††††
Case No. 10 Kandagiri
Spinning Mills Ltd. Unit-I,
[File No. 01/60/162/183/AM07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)]
††††††††††† The Committee considered the request of the firm and noted that the firm obtained an Advance License No. 3210014738 dated 03.07.2003 for import of cotton to supply the yarn manufactured by them to 100% Export Oriented Units. The firm had stated that due to change in policy, mills were permitted to remove cotton yarn without payment of duty from 09.07.2004 onwards, because of which, most of the EOUs de-bonded their status and became DTA units. The licensee was unable to locate suitable alternative EOUs for sale of their manufactured yarn. Therefore, they could not fulfill their export obligation. The Committee noted that the assertion made by the firm can not be accepted since it was a business risk and did not deserve any relaxation under policy. Accordingly, the Committee rejected the request of the firm.
Case No. 11 M/s. Green Dot Electric Corporation,
(File No. 01/60/162/188/AM07/EFGC (Gr.Cell)
The Committee considered the request of the firm and
noted that the firm obtained an Advance Licence No.
0510057334 dated 22.04.2002. The firm exported but could not import against the
said license. Therefore, they applied to the Jt.
Case No. 12† M/s. Vippy Industries Ltd., Dewas
(File No. 01/60/162/194/AM07/EFGC (Gr.Cell)
The representative of the firm appeared before the
Committee and presented their case.† The
Committee noted that the firm obtained an Advance Licence
No. 1110009164 dated 27.08.2004 for import of Crude Degum
Soyabean Oil. At the time of issuing advance licence, import of Crude Degum Soyabean Oil was freely importable and subsequently it was
brought under restricted category. The firm imported Crude Degum
Soyabean Oil when it was freely importable and after
value addition supplied the resultant product to the ultimate exporter against
the said advance licence. The Committee noted that
the pre-export condition prior to import was notified vide Public Notice No.
44(RE:2005)/2004-2009 dated 26.08.2005, whereas†
the firm completed both exports and imports much before the said PN No.
44 was notified. So, the Committee members concluded that the condition of
pre-export vide the said PN can not be made applicable in the present case
provided both the exports and imports have taken place before the announcement
of the PN No. 44. Accordingly, the Committee directed that the O/o Jt. DGFT,
Case No. 13 M/s. H&R Johnson (
(File No. 01/60/162/192/AM07/EFGC (Gr.Cell)
The representative of the firm appeared before the Committee and presented their case.† The Committee noted that the firm obtained an EPCG license No. 1500541 dated 16.10.1996. The EO imposed under the license was US$ 54.17 Million. The firm could complete export obligation to the extent of of US$ 12.83 million only before re-fixation of EO based on duty saved amount and after re-fixation of EO to the extent of US$ 22.08 million, the firm could make additional export of only US$ 1 million . The Committee noted that the firm could not fulfill export obligation inspite of having sufficient time for fulfillment of EO and also after allowing re-fixation of EO with significantly reduced EO. Accordingly, the Committee did not find any merit in the case and decided to reject it.
Case No. 14† M/s. Euro Vistaa Trading Co. Ltd., Mumbai
(File No.01/60/162/186/AM07/EPCG (Gr.Cell)
The Committee considered the request of the firm and noted that the request of the firm is for condonation of delay in filing DFRC application. Since the matter requires relaxation in policy provisions, the Committee directed Grievance Cell to forward the representation to the concerned Norms Committee for examination of the matter. If there is merit, then the case may be placed before PRC.