Directorate General of Foreign Trade

Grievance Cell

 

Minutes of the Grievance Committee Meeting held on

19th October, 2006 at 1500 Hours

 

 

The following were present in the meeting:-

 

1.†† Shri K.T. Chacko, ††††††††††††††††††††† 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 S.K. Samal, Jt. DGFT

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

 

Case No.1†††† M/s. Sarita Handa Exports P. Ltd., New Delhi.

File No. 01/60/162/115/AMí07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

††††††††††† The representative of the firm appeared before the Committee for personal hearing and expressed their grievances in details.The status certificate No.B-0002254 dated 6.12.05 was issued by the O/o Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi with the validity period w.e.f.1.4.2005.According to the firm, the validity of this status certificate should be from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009.They had applied for correction in the certificate to CLA but their request was turned down stating that the applicant had not submitted the original copy of the application dated 28.2.2005. The representative of the firm clarified that the server of DGFT was not working on the day of submission of application and were issued an uncomputerised receipt No.1262 dated 28.2.2005 by the O/o Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi and accordingly, they were eligible for Export House Certificate w.e.f.1.4.2004 (instead of 1.4.2005 ) based on their original application dt.28.2.2005. After deliberating on the facts available in the representation & placed before the Committee during personal hearing, the Committee decided that Zonal Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi should check their records for the documents i.e.original application, Uncomputerised Receipt, counter signature of Dealing Hand etc.personally so as to cross verity the claim of the firm and sort out the grievance at their end.

 

 

Case No. 2††† M/s. Sarita Handa Exports,New Delhi.

File No. 01/60/162/114/AMí07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

The representative of the firm appeared before the Committee for personal hearing and expressed their grievances in details.The status certificate No.B-000274 dated 15.12.05 was issued by the O/o Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi with the validity period w.e.f. 1.4.2005.According to the firm, the validity of the status certificate should be from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009.They applied for correction in the certificate to CLA but their request was turned down stating that the applicant had not submitted the original copy of the application dated 28.2.2005.The representative of the firm clarified that server of DGFT was not working on the day of submission of application and were issued an uncomputerised receipt No.1263 dated 28.2.2005 by the O/o Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi and accordingly, they were eligible for Export House Certificate w.e.f.1.4.2004 (instead of 1.4.2005 ) based on their original application dt.28.2.2005. After deliberating on the facts available in the representation & placed before the Committee during personal hearing, the Committee decided that Zonal Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi should check their records for the documents i.e.original application, Uncomputerised Receipt, counter signature of Dealing Hand etc.personally so as to cross verity the claim of the firm and sort out the grievance at their end.

 

 

Case No. 3 †† M/s. Rusan Pharma Ltd., Mumbai

File No. 01/60/162/128/AM07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

The Committee considered the request of the firm for extension in export obligation period against Advance License No.0310110641 dated 19.11.2001 by waiving of the composition fee. The Committee found no merit in the grounds for grievance and decided to reject the request of the firm.

††

 

Case No.4†††† M/s. Hindustan Udyog Ltd., Kolkata

File No.01/60/162/137/AMí07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

The Committee considered the request of the firm and noted that the firm, which had obtained EPCG Licence No. P/CG/2134780 dated 10.12.1993, had claimed to have sent the relevant documents for fulfillment of export obligation vide their letter dated 7.7.2006 for redemption of the licence.However, the concerned EPCG Section of DGFT, HQs did not seem to have received, these documents, as reported by the Section. Therefore, the Committee directed Export Commissioner to give a personal hearing to the firm and find out whether the firm had submitted the documents or not.If the firm had furnished the documents, then suitable action would be taken to dispose off the matter expeditiously.

 

 

Case No. 5††† M/s. Milkfood Ltd. New Delhi

File No.01/60/162/133/AM07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

The Committee considered the request of the firm regarding grant of VKUY License for the year 2004-2005 against the Export of Skimmed Milk Powder.The Committee noted that the request of the firm is not covered under the then Policy provisions, for which the request has been made.Therefore, the Committee decided to reject the request of the firm.

 

 

Case No.6-†† M/s. Tatia Intimate Exports Ltd., Chennai

File No.01/60/162/172/AM.07/EFGC

 

††††††††††† The Committee considered the request of the firm for extension of E.O. period and regularization of exports made upto 2.08.2006 against the EPCG Licence No.2133681 dated 25.11.94 and for condonation of procedural lapse of not mentioning EPCG licence No. and dated on the shipping documents pertaining to third party exports effected between 1.4.2006 to 10.8.2006 for FOB value of US$ 1242326.The Committee noted that the export obligation extension for the licence would be governed by the then policy provision unless otherwise stated/relaxed.Therefore, the request to grant them benefit of export obligation extension under para 5.11 of Current Handbook of Procedure can not be accepted. Accordingly, the Committee did not find any merit in the grievance and rejected the request of the firm.

 

 

 

Case No. 7††† M/s. Abdul Wajid & Co., Moradabad.

File No.01/60/162/135/AMí07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

The Committee considered the request of the firm and noted that DFIA application was rejected by Jt. DGFT, Moradabad on the ground that they have not effected the shipment as per para 4.60.01 of the current Hand Book of Procedure Vol. I. and para 4.4.2 of Foreign Trade Policy. They effected their export shipment only after getting EDI generated file No. dated 2.5.2006. The Committee decided that the RLA, Moradabad should be directed to accept the EDI generated file No.for counting of exports against the said DFIA application from the date of EDI generated file No. and accordingly take suitable action for disposing off the grievance at their end.

 

 

 

Case No.8†††† M/s. Modern Denim, Ahemedabad.

File No. 01/60/162/132/AM07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

 

The Committee considered the request of the firm as detail given in the agenda and noted that the adjudication Order has already been passed against the firm for non fulfillment of export obligation against Advance Licence No. 03015716 dated 22-01-1997. Since it is quasi judicial matter, it is out of the purview of the committee.Therefore, the request of the firm was not acceded to.

 

 

 

Case No. 9††† M/s.Sri Ram Mills, Hyderabad.

File No.01/60/162/126/AMí07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

††††††††††† The representative of the firm appeared before the Committee for personal hearing and represented their case for clubbing of advance license No. 21400986 dated 29.12.1993 with the another expired advance license No. 0327177 dated 22.9.1994, 0327164 dated 22.09.1994 and 0328635 dated 28.10.1994.The Committee noted the fact that the firm had no right to transfer the raw material imported against the licence issued with Acutal User Condition and violated the condition of the Scheme itself.†† Hence, the Committee directed the firm to pay the applicable Customs Duty alongwith interest for the duty free imported inputs not accounted for exports and accordingly the Committee decided to reject the request of the firm.

 


 

Case No.10- M/s.Team Impex, Ludhiana.

File No.01/60/162/100/AMí07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

The Committee considered the request of the firm and noted that the firm got the DFRC License No. 3010033128 dated 29.4.2004 which was transferred†† to M/s. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai and the goods were got cleared by them from Mumbai customs. After clearance,M/s Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. received a notice from the Mumbai customs to return the said license on the ground that the said DFRC was issued wrongly by RA inspite of the fact that RCMC was neither valid on the date of exports or on the date of filing application for DFRC.The Committee observed that since the firm had cleared all the dues of the Export Promotion Council thereafter and hence decided to direct RA, Ludhiana to regularize the case and restore the above said DFRC.

 

 

Case No. 11 -M/s.Siel Limited, New Delhi.

File No.01/60/162/98/AMí07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

The Committee considered the request of the firm regarding release of BG Bonds upon full compliance by Siel Aircon Ltd., the final order No. 38/2004-Cus dated 13.09.2004 passed by the Honíble Settlement Commission, Mumbai relating to EPCG License No. 2133794 dated 9.1.1995 issued in favour of the Company.†† The Committee also noted that since subsequent to the filing of grievance application by the firm, the original Bank Guarantee had already been released to the firm on 25.09.2006 and the case had been redeemed. Therefore, the Committee did not take any further cognizance of the matter.

Case No.12†† M/s. Oswal Fabrics, Ludhiana.

File No.01/60/162/127/AM07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

The representative of the firm appeared before the Committee for personal hearing and explained that they had already completed 79% export obligation against EPCG Licence No.3030000111 dated 21.07.2000 alongwith the stipulated average export obligation within less than half the export obligation period and requested to redeem their licence as per the new provision (Notified on 1.4.2005) of para 5.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy.The Committee noted that the above said Policy provision related to fast track incentive could not be applied to the licence issued during 2000-01 and there was no provision in the Policy for condonation of average export obligation for old licences.In view of the facts, the Committee decided to reject the request of the firm.

 

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

Case No.13- M/s. Vital Health Care Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

File No.01/60/162/162/AM07/EFGC (Gr.Cell)

 

The Committee considered the request of the firm for clubbing of Advance Licence No.0310146530 dated 9.7.2002 and No.0310244013 dated 26.12.2003 issued for the export of Quinine Sulphate.The Committee noted the ALC decision that the Advance Licence No.0310146530 dt.9.7.2002 had already been redeemed and so no clubbing was possible. The Committee also noted the clarification of the firm that the Advance Licence No.310146530 was valid for imports when they applied for Bond waiver/EODC.†† Committee members could not find any reason as to why one of the licence was redeemed. In view of the facts, the Committee decided to refer the matter to ALC for re-examination of the reason of bond waiver/EODC pending request for clubbing of the licences.In case the RA had redeemed the licence based on the earlier request of the firm and request for clubbing had been filed subsequently, then the matter could be considered.

 

 

 

Case No.14 - M/s.Sri Krishna Spinning & Weaving Mills P. Ltd., Bangalore File No.01/60/162/140/AM-07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

The Committee considered the request of the firm for†††† relaxation of time limit for three months under DFRC scheme for deemed export supplies made to 100% EOU after 1.5.2006.†††† In view of the facts the Committee felt that such problems faced by the exporter during that transit period is common Policy issue and decided to refer the matter to Policy Division for examination for making suitable provision.

 

 

Case No.15- M/s.Satyam Rasayan Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

File No.01/60/162/141/AMí07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

The Committee considered the request of the firm for extension in E.O.P. against EPCG License No. 02500164 dated 30.11.1998.†† The Committee decided to direct to RA, Kolkata to extend one year export obligation period from the date of expiry of original export obligation period subject to the condition that the request of the firm was covered under the provision of Public Notice No.54 dated 07-02-2001 issued for relief to exporter suffered during the Gujarat earthquake.

 

 

Case No.16 M/s. Gad Fashions (India) Pvt.Ltd., Jaipur

File No.01/60/162/142/AM07/EFGC (Gr.Cell)†††

 

The Committee considered the request of the firm as per details given in the agenda and decided to direct the RA, Jaipur to check whether the name of the licensee alongwith the name of third party exporter were mentioned in the shipping bills and BRC was in the name of ultimate exporter only and to furnish the report accordingly, Since the firm had also requested for Personal Hearing in the next meeting.The Committee deferred the consideration of the case.

 

 

Case No. 17- M/s. DSM Anti-Infectives India Ltd., Gurgaon.

File No. 01/60/162/144/AMí07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

The Committee considered the request of the firm and noted that the firm had filed 6 applications (F.No.03/84/040/0239/AM06 dt.17.8.2005, F.No.03/84/040/0257/AM06 dt.24.8.2005, F.No.03/84/040/0258/AM06 dt.24.8.2005, F.No.03/84/040/0260/AM06 dt.24.8.2005, F.No.03/84/040/0261/AM06 dt.24.8.2005 and F.No.03/84/040/0291/AM06 dt.14.9.2005) for issuance of advance licences for deemed export which were rejected by the Zonal Licensing Authority, Mumbai, on the ground that the SION entry No. A-58 relating to various inputs under product group ďChemicals and Allied Products ďhad been deleted vide Public Notice No. 55 (RE :2005)/2004-2009 dated 19.9.2005. The firm had mentioned that the SION was very much in existence under the relevant product group on the day on which licensing authority received these applications. The Committee deliberated upon the matters and decided to direct the RA, Mumbai to the effect that the SION prevalent/available on the date of export should be considered for the purpose of arriving at the entitlement.

 

 

Case No. 18 M/s. H.J.S.Spun Silk Mills P. Ltd., Bangalore

File No. 01/60/162/150/AMí07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

The representative of the firm appeared before the Committee for personal hearing and represented their grievance.They had obtained EPCG License No. P/CG/2132914 dated 9.5.1994 with CIF value of Rs. 1,75,03,940/- and E.O. stipulated US$ 58,24,000/- out of which they utilized CIF value of Rs. 1,16,98,740/- (USD370800) and prorata EO to 4 times of utilized Cif value USD 14,83,200/- had fulfilled within the permitted EOP but they could not complete the entire export obligation within the original EO due to globalization, liberalization, increase of price and ban on export of silk waste. Therefore, the factory incurred huge loss and requested for extension of EOP up to 31.3.2003 to regularize their exports beyond the export obligation period allowed under policy provision. The Committee found no documentary evidence justifying the grounds for relaxation and no merit in the grievance. Therefore, the Committee decided to reject the request of the firm.

 

 

Case No. 19 M/s. Sleek Fashions, Tirupur

File No. 01/60/162/156/AMí07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

The Committee considered the request of the firm regarding condonation of fulfillment of export obligation on pro -rata basis.The Committee noted that the firm had obtained EPCG License No. 2124485 dated 10.12.1999 with CIF value of USD 76032 and imported Embroider Machine under 10% EPCG Scheme with the E.O. of USD 451539.50. The†† firm could not fulfill the pro-rata export obligation during first four years of the EOP and only fulfilled the EO of USD 438043.80 in the last year i.e. fifth year. In view of the facts placed before the Committee, the Committee decided to recommend the case to the EPCG Committee for sympathetic consideration.

 

 

Case No. 20 M/s. Rina Granites (P) Ltd., Bhavnagar

File No. 01/60/162/167/AM07/EFGC (Gr. Cell)

 

The Committee considered the request of the firm to settle their claim for DEPB. The Committee noted that the DEPB claim of Rs. 4,868/- under S/B No. F008905 dated 27.03.2002 & the DEPB claim of Rs. 19,734/- under S/B 0292812 dated 14.12.2001 were rejected by the office of Jt. DGFT, Rajkot, as time barred. The Committee directed the Policy Division to write to the firm for furnishing the relevant documents i.e. copy of the application, Shipping Bill, BRC for verification of the facts and rejection would be sustained until sorting out of the grievance.

 

*******