Meeting No-10 dated 08.06.2005.pdf - Directorate General of ...

http://serverdgft:8100/dgft/PrintServ?mode=0&id=2005-09-22%2013:01:27.5000029 of 17 22.09.05 12:58 PM21Case No.:2/42/82-ALC1/2004HQ File :01/82/050/01715/AM05/Party Name:EMAMI LIMITED,RLA File :02/24/040/00235/AM05/Meet No/Date:10/82-ALC1/200508.06.2005Lic.No/Date:021007401114.01.2005Status:CaseRejectedDefer Date:Decision :The committee considered this case for fixation of I/O Norms for the export product Himani Gold Turmeric Saffron Soap underPara 4.7 of HBP as per agenda.The Committee noted that information had been sought from the firm vide letter dt. 15.3.05 and that reply from the firm had not beenreceived. In the absence of the information called for from the firm, it was not possible for the Committee to work out the I/O norms. TheCommittee accordingly decided to reject this case.RLA concerned may take further necessary action including cancellation of licence under Para 4.7 of HBP as per above decision of theCommittee.22Case No.:9/1/82-ALC1/2005HQ File :01/82/050/01726/AM05/Party Name:DIVIS LABORATORIES LTD.,RLA File :09/24/040/00323/AM05/Meet No/Date:10/82-ALC1/200508.06.2005Lic.No/Date:091002156518.01.2005Status:Defferedand Re-indexedDeferDate:13.07.2005Decision :The committee considered this case for fixation of I/O Norms for the export product Carbidopa under Para 4.7 of HBP as peragenda.The representative of PI Division requested for sending him a copy of the application of the firm again. The Committee decided to send onemore copy of application to PI Division and deferred the case for four weeks.23Case No.:3/42/82-ALC1/2004HQ File :01/82/050/01749/AM05/Party Name:EMAMI LIMITED,RLA File :02/24/040/00244/AM05/Meet No/Date:10/82-ALC1/200508.06.2005Lic.No/Date:021007421620.01.2005Status:CaseRejectedDefer Date:Decision :The committee considered this case for fixation of I/O Norms for the export product Boroplus Skincare Cream under Para 4.7 ofHBP as per agenda.The Committee noted that information had been called for from the firm vide letter dated 15.3.05 and that reply from the firm had not beenreceived. In the absence of the information called for from the firm, it was not possible for the Committee to work out the input outputnorms. The Committee accordingly decided to reject the case.RLA concerned may take further necessary action including cancellation of licence under Para 4.7 of HBP as per above decision of the