DRI 2014.pdf

of 111
D I R E C T O R A T E O F R E V E N U E I N T E L L I G E N C E
13, SIR VITHALDAS THAKERSEY MARG,
OPP PATKAR HALL, NEW MARINE LINES,
MUMBAI 400 020
PH: 022-22010115, 022-22010116
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F.No.DRI/MZU/CI-224/(APML/APRL)/2013 Date :15-05-2014
Subject: Gross over-valuation in the import of goods by M/s Adani
Power Maharashtra Limited (APML) and M/s Adani Power
Rajasthan Limited (APRL), subsidiary companies of Adani
Power Limited in connivance with intermediary invoicing
entity M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE - Show Cause Notice
under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 – reg.
1.1 Intelligence developed by Mumbai Zonal Unit (MZU) of Directorate
of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) indicated that various entities of Adani group
were indulging in gross over-valuation of imported goods (zero or low duty
rated) to siphon off money abroad from public listed companies. The modus-
operandi followed was that for power sector imports (power generation - zero %
duty and power transmission - 5% Basic custom duty), while the goods from
various vendors (mostly South Korean and Chinese) are shipped directly to
India, documents are routed through an intermediary entity created by them in
the UAE i.e M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE, who raised invoices with inflated
value (inflating several times the value of original invoices of OEMs) on the
Indian companies, against which money is remitted to Dubai. The activities of
M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE are apparently controlled and managed by the
Adani Group through one or more of its representative firms and/or personnel.
Intelligence further suggested that from UAE, while the actual invoice value is
remitted to respective OEMs, the extra amount is routed to the Mauritius
account of the parent company of Electrogen Infra FZE i.e M/s Electrogen Infra
Holding Pvt. Ltd.
1.2 On the basis of the said intelligence, enquiries were initiated into
import of goods on the basis of invoices raised by M/s Electrogen Infra FZE,
UAE (here-in-after referred to as ‘EIF’ also) which were found to have been
imported and cleared, inter-alia, in the name of Adani Group companies
engaged in the power sector business viz. M/s Adani Power Maharashtra
Limited (here-in-after referred to as ‘APML’) and M/s Adani Power Rajasthan

of 111
Limited (here-in-after referred to as ‘APRL’ ), both having their registered offices
in Ahmedabad. Both these companies APML (IEC: 0807015229) and APRL
(IEC: 0809029201) are subsidiaries of Adani Power Limited which itself is a
subsidiary of Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL), the flagship company of the
Adani Group.
1.3 APML have set up a coal based thermal power plant of 2 x 660 MW
(Unit No. 4 & 5) at A-1 MIDC, Tiroda, District-Gondia, in Maharashtra. For
setting up the project, they entered into a supply contract dated 05-11-2009
with M/s Sichuan Machinery and Equipments FZE (the erstwhile name of EIF
and here-in-after referred to ‘SME’ also) for supply for equipments and
machinery. This supply agreement was for USD 736 Million covering Boiler-
Turbine-Generator (BTG) supply.
1.4 APRL have also set up a coal based thermal power plant of 2 x 660
MW at Village Kawai in District Baran of Rajasthan. For setting up the project,
they also entered into a supply contract dated 02-04-2010 with EIF for supply
of equipments and machinery. This supply agreement was for USD 790 Million
covering BTG supply.
1.5 APML and APRL registered the respective supply contract for
assessment under the customs tariff heading 98.01 seeking benefit of
concessional rate of duty (NIL) under the Project Import Regulations, 1986.
Imports made by APRL and APML, on the basis of invoices raised by EIF, as
project imports are relevant to the present investigation regarding their over-
valuation. All the imports have been cleared at ‘NIL’ rate of duty, with majority
of the import clearances having been effected through Nhava Sheva Port and
Mundra Port by APML and APRL respectively.
2.0 DOCUMENTS FROM BANKS
During enquiries, it was gathered that documents relating to
transactions involving import of goods (on invoices raised by EIF) by one or
more of the Adani Group companies in India had been negotiated by EIF
through certain Indian banks having their branches in the UAE. Accordingly,
pursuant to ascertaining the names of some of the banks, correspondence was
initiated with Axis Bank and ICICI Bank having their branches in Dubai
International Financial Centre (DIFC), Dubai as well as with Bank of Baroda,
Dubai Main Branch, Bur Dubai, through three separate letters dated 30-04-
2013 (RUD/C-1). Gist of the information/documents called for from the banks,

of 111
through the three identically worded letters addressed to the banks, is given
below -
“1. Investigations under the Customs Act, 1962 are underway in respect of goods imported
into India wherein the supplier on record is a company named M/S.ELECTROGEN INFRA FZE,
having its registered office at Sharjah, besides interalia having branch offices at Dubai and other
places. The cargo is understood to have been shipped to India from various overseas ports. It is
also understood that documents relating to transactions involving sourcing of goods by
M/S.ELECTROGEN INFRA FZE from various overseas suppliers and its onward supply/shipment
from the port of loading, in its capacity as a supplier and/or at its behest have been
faciliatated/negotiated by/through your branch. For the sake of illustration, documents typically
handled/negotiated in such a transaction (Ascertained upon scrutiny of documents forwarded by
other banks based in the middle-east towards the ongoing investigation) would interalia include
:-
(i) Copy of the invoice raised by the original supplier in the name of
M/S.ELECTROGEN INFRA FZE alongwith corresponding packing list and Bill of
lading,
(ii) Copy of the back-to-back invoice/packing list subsequently raised by
M/S.ELECTROGEN INFRA FZE on one or more Indian importers, together with the
corresponding bill of lading thereof.
2. All documents/transactions negotiated/facilitated by your bank for and on behalf of
M/S.ELECTROGEN INFRA FZE are required in connection with the ongoing investigations. The
names of few of the importers in India to whom such goods have been supplied is given below to
facilitate quick identification.
i) M/S. PMC PROJECTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD
ii) M/S. ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD.
iii) M/S. ADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA LTD.
iv) M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISES LIMITED
v) M/S. ADANI HAZIRA PORT PVT. LTD
vi) M/S. ADANI RENEWABLE ENERGY LLP
3. You are required to furnish complete details of all such transactions which should
necessarily include submission of self-attested photo-copies of the following documents:-
a) Copies of invoices, packing lists & bills of lading, for both sets of transactions illustrated
at (i) & (ii) of para 1 above together with any other documents submitted/lodged with your
bank to facilitate the negotiation/transaction.
b) Copies of individual Letters of Credit covering such transactions.
c) Copies of the agreements/contracts/purchase orders, finding cross-reference in the
documents mentioned at (a) or (b). (Invoices, Packing lists, Bills of lading, Letters of Credit
etc.)
4. You are also requested to submit complete details of the nature/type of account held by
M/S.ELECTROGEN INFRA FZE with your bank, account number, date of opening of the account,
self attested-copy of the application made for opening an account/self-attested copy of the
account opening form furnished while opening the account together with self-attested legible

of 111
photo-copies of all the supporting documents submitted to the bank in support of the
application/all enclosures (self attested) to the account opening form/application form, self
attested copies of the bank account statements since inception of the account till date.
5. In case the transactions in question have been negotiated through some other middle-east
based branch of your bank, complete details thereof may be provided. You may also nominate a
responsible officer from your Corporate/Head office based in India to liase with this agency on
the above matter, whose details (Name, designation and mobile number, address) may be
communicated to this office forthwith. “
2.1 DOCUMENTS FROM AXIS BANK (First Lot)
2.1.1 Axis Bank, Mumbai had earlier provided certain documents
through their letters bearing reference no. AXIS/CO/IBD/2013-14/35 dated
18-04-2013 (RUD/D-1) and AXIS/CO/IBD/2013-14/44 dated 25-04-2013
(RUD/D-2) in response to enquiries relating to import of goods by M/s PMC
Projects (India) Private Limited, a contractor for one of the Adani Group
companies viz. M/s Maharashtra Eastern Grid Power Transmission Company
Limited (MEGPTCL) in relation to goods imported for their transmission line
project. The name of Shri Jatin Shah, as a representative of EIF, was found
consistently appearing in majority of the invoices/packing lists raised by one of
the OEMs viz. M/s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., South Korea on EIF
wherein goods were shipped directly to M/s PMC Projects (India) Private
Limited in India. On discreet enquiries regarding Shri Jatin Shah, whose name
was appearing in many of the OEM invoices/packing lists, as a representative
of EIF, it was gathered that he was an active member of Adani Group, visiting
Ahmedabad regularly to participate in meetings held by the Adani Group. It
was also gathered that in the past, he had worked in the capacity of ‘Finance
Controller’ for Adani Power Limited. Accordingly, summons under Section 108
of the Customs Act, 1962 bearing F.No. DRI/MZU/CI-224/2013/3928 dated
30-04-2013 (RUD/C-2) was issued seeking his appearance on 06-05-2013 with
all agreements/contracts entered into/executed by the Adani Group or its
subsidiaries with the Hyundai Group, based on specific inputs that the
Hyundai Group had in the past signed a contract with the Adani Group for 100
units of high voltage transformers.
2.1.2 M/s Adani Power Limited, vide its reply bearing Ref:
APL/DRI/Mundra/088/RR/2013 dated 06-05-2013 (RUD/D-3), while
acknowledging receipt of the summons issued to Shri Jatin Shah, informed in
the letter that Shri Jatin Shah was no longer working with them since 2009.
They further informed that Adani Power Limited or its subsidiaries had not
entered into any agreements/contracts with the Hyundai Group. In view of the
information provided by M/s Adani Power Limited, it was confirmed that Shri

of 111
Jatin Shah of EIF, at some point of time in the past, was an employee of Adani
Power Limited.
2.1.3 Shri Rajiv Rustogi, signatory to the aforesaid letter dated 06-05-
2013, was summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 through
summons issued under F.No. DRI/MZU/CI-224/2013/4112 dated 06-05-2013
(RUD/C-3) to produce contracts relating to purchase/import of transformers
with service records of Shri Jatin Shah (designation & period when employed),
date of relieving and copy of relieving letter/resignation letter.
2.1.4 Shri Rajiv Rustogi, General Manager (Accounts), through his reply
bearing Ref.APL/DRI/Mundra/xxx/RR/2013 dated 09-05-2013 (RUD/D-4)
responded stating that due to personal reasons, he was unable to remain
present in person. He provided certain information and documents under cover
of the said letter. On import of the transformers by M/s Adani Power Limited or
its subsidiary companies from the Hyundai Group, South Korea, he declared
on behalf of the company that Adani Power Limited or its subsidiaries had not
entered into any agreement/contract for transformers with Hyundai Group,
South Korea.
2.1.5 From the employment details of Shri Jatin Shah, as provided in
the above said letter, it appeared that he worked for M/s Adani Enterprises
Limited as Manager (Finance) in 2002, for Adani Port Limited as Senior
Manager (Finance) and Deputy General Manager between 2003 and 2006 and
finally as a General Manager with Adani Power Limited in 2008 before
resigning in August, 2009. As per the documents submitted, it appeared that
Shri Jatin Shah submitted his resignation on 19-08-2009, which was accepted
by the company M/s Adani Power Limited on the same day while
communicating to him that he would stand relieved from the services of the
company with effect from 31-08-2009.
2.1.6 It, therefore, appears that M/s Jatin Shah, representative of the
UAE based company EIF had, in the past, been closely associated with the
Adani Group by way of being employed in different capacities in various Adani
group companies for eight consecutive years from 2002 through August, 2009.
2.2 DOCUMENTS FROM ICICI BANK LTD (First Lot)
2.2.1 Since there was no response to the letter dated 30-04-2013 (para
2.0 above) written to ICICI Bank, a reminder was sent on 10-06-2013 (RUD-
C/4).
2.2.2 The ICICI Bank’s Corporate office in Mumbai forwarded certain
documents under cover of their letter bearing reference no. NIL dated 19-06-

of 111
2013 (RUD/D-5) as received by them from their DIFC Branch, in Dubai. The
documents, inter-alia, included details of the account held by EIF with their
DIFC Branch in Dubai; KYC (Know Your Customer) verification documents;
account opening form; details of inward and outward remittances into and
from the account of EIF; and certain import/export bills, as described in the
letter dated 10-06-2013 of the ICICI Bank’s DIFC, Dubai branch(RUD/D-6).
Documents found relevant to the investigation are discussed in the following
paras.
2.2.3 As per letter dated 26th April 2012 (RUD/D-7), written by EIF
addressed to the ICICI Bank Ltd., DIFC, Dubai Branch, informing the bank
about the shareholding pattern of EIF. Relevant contents of the letter,
apparently signed by Shri Jatin Shah, are reproduced below -
“Please find below the shareholding pattern of Electrogen Infra FZE:
i) Electrogen Infra FZE is 100% owned by Electrogen Infra Holding Pvt. Ltd.
ii) Electrogen Infra Holding Pvt. Ltd. is 100% owned by Asankhya Resources
Pvt. Ltd.
iii) Asankhya Resources Pvt. Ltd. is owned by Eagle Holding Ltd., which is a
nominee shareholder in Asankhya Resources Family Trust.
iv) In Asankhya Resources Family Trust, Mr. Vinod Shantilal Adani is the
settler.
From the above information given to the Bank by EIF, it appears that Shri
Vinod Shantilal Adani had a direct control over the activities of EIF through the
Asankhya Resources Family Trust.
2.2.4 Scrutiny of Audited Financial Statements (stated in US Dollars)
including Directors’ Report of ElectroGen Infra Holding Pvt. Ltd. (here-in-after
referred to as ‘EIH’ ) for the year ended 31-03-2011 (RUD/D-8), which
containparallel data for the year ended 31st March 2010, revealed as under.
i) EIH was incorporated in Mauritius on 16 July 2009 as a private
company.
ii) In the Corporate Data, Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah has been
listed as a Director of EIH with the date of his appointment as
Director shown as 12th January 2010. Other directors with their
dates of appointment and resignations are indicated as under :-
Name Appointed Resigned
Giandeo Reemul 16 July 2009 08-March 2011

of 111
Navind Beeharry 16 July 2009 08 March 2011
Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli 16 July 2009 01 October 2009
Chang Chung-Ling 01 October 2009 12 January 2010
Vinod Shantilal Shah 12 January 2010 N/A
Note: Name of Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli, who was appointed
Director from the date of incorporation of the company
and who resigned few months i.e on 01-10-2009 before
Vinod Shantilal Shah became a Directoron 12-01-2010,is
noteworthy.He was the initial subscriber on 16-07-2009
i.e when the company was incorporated in Mauritius to
the whole of equity capital of USD 1000 divided into 1000
shares of USD one each of EIH and was thus the sole
share-holder of the company. These shares were thereafter
transferred to Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah on 12-01-2010,
after Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah became the sole share-
holder and owner of EIH. Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli was also
the initial subscriber to equity capital of AED 1,50,000
divided into one share of AED 1,50,000 of M/s Sichuan
Machinery & Equipments FZE (name changed to EIF on
04-01-2010) on 07-07-2009, when the company was
registered in the UAE.The whole of this equity was
transferred and sold to EIH on 29-03-2010 after which EIF
became wholly owned subsidiary of EIH.
iii) The Directors’ Report of EIH appears to have been signed on
30-05-2011 by Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah by order of the
Board of Director of EIH. Balance Sheet of EIH as on
31stMarch 2011 and its profit and loss account for the year
ended 31st March 2011 was also approved on 30-05-2011 by
Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah on behalf of the Board of
Directors of EIH. Incidentally, Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah was
the only Director of EIH as on 31-03-2011 as is clear from
sub-para (ii) above.
iv) As on 31st March 2010, EIH had paid-up share capital of
USD 1000 divided into 1000 shares of one USD each which
was increased to USD 1,00,000 divided into one lakh shares
of one USD each by issue of 99,000 shares of one USD each
during the Financial Year 2010-11.

of 111
v) EIH had an investment of USD 40,872 as on 31-03-2010 in
shares of an unquoted company which went upto USD
14,81,390 as on 31-03-2011. This investment was in EIF,
which was its wholly owned subsidiary.
vi) EIH received dividend income of USD 53,850,954 during the
Financial Year 2010-11.Since EIH had investment only in
EIF, which was its wholly owned subsidiary, this dividend
income was also received from EIF only.
2.2.5 Scrutiny of Financial Statements of EIF for the year ended 31st
March 2011 (RUD/D-9), which included parallel data for the year ended 31st
March 2010, revealed as under :-
i) EIF was a Free Zone Establishment with limited liability
registered in Sharjah Airport International Free (SAIF) Zone,
Sharjah. It was incoroporated on 08-July-2009.
ii) EIF had subscribed, issued and paid-up share capital of AED
1,50,000 divided into one share of AED 1,50,000. The
subscribed issued and paid-up share capital was raised during
the financial year 2010-11 to AED 54,00,000 divided into 36
shares of AED 1,50,000 each.
iii) In the Notes to the Financial Statements, in Note No. 7, it is
mentioned that Share Certificate for share capital as on 31st
March 2010 and 31st March 2011 was in the name of EIH. In
the Manager’s Report also, it is mentioned that as on 31st
March 2011, the entire share capital of AED 54,00,000 divided
into 36 shares was held by EIH, Mauritius.
iv) The Manager’s Report as on 31st March 2011 was signed by
Shri Jatin Shah. Financial Statements were also signed by him
as Manager of EIF.
2.2.6 Scrutiny of the application for opening of the account revealed that
it was made on 14-09-2011 signed by two persons, namely; Shri Jatin Shah,
an ex-employee of the Adani Group and Shri Mehul Jani, both apparently
Indian nationals. As per the business details provided to the Bank while
opening of the account, the applicants had declared nature of their business to
be ‘General Trading’ and the country where major business is carried out as
‘India’. Other information declared in the form was annual turnover of AED 512

of 111
Million. The purpose of opening the relationship was declared as ‘Loans’
(RUD/D-10).
2.2.7 In the Signature Card, the above named two individuals had
declared themselves as Authorised Signatory 1 and Authorised Signatory 2,
respectively (RUD/D-11). Scrutiny of Annexure A to ICICI Bank’s application
form (RUD/D-12), which deals with information relating to Directors, Major
Shareholders, Partner etc., the name of Shri Jatin Shah was found mentioned
as a Director, while the name of Shri Mehul Jani was found mentioned as an
Authorised Signatory. From the permanent residential addresses declared by
the two individuals representing EIF, it appears that they were residents of
Ahmedabad and Vadodara (earlier Baroda), respectively.
2.2.8 Scrutiny of a two-page document titled ‘Addendum to
Memorandum and Articles of Association of EIF. Scrutiny of the Addendum
reveals that SAIF Zone authorities have acknowledged the amendment made on
29-03-2010 to the Memorandum and Articles of Association dated 07-07-2009
of EIF. As per the amendment, Shri Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli, a UAE national
holding Passport no. A1811119, who was the owner of EIF’s entire paid-up
share capital of one share of AED1,50,000 only sold, transferred and assigned
fully and wholly, the said one share of EIF to EIH. The Addendum is signed by
Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah as representative of EIH. After execution of the
Addendum, EIH has been described as the ‘owner’ substituting Mr. Nasser Ali
Shaban Ahli. With this sale, transfer and assignment, EIF became wholly
owned subsidiary of EIH with effect from 29-03-2010 (RUD/D-13). This was
the second amendment to the Memorandum and Articles Association dated 07-
07-2009 of EIF. The first amendment was made on 04-01-2010 to change
name of the company to EIF (para 2.3.4 below) and the third amendment was
made on 17-06-2010 to increase share capital. (para 2.4.12 below)
2.2.9 As per copy of ‘Share Certificate No. 4107’ dated 21-06-2010
issued by Government of Sharjah, SAIF Zone, it is certified that EIH,
incorporated in the Republic of Mauritius, is a registered holder of 36 shares of
AED 54,00,0000 of EIF which is stated to be a limited liability establishment
incorporated and licensed at SAIF-Zone with paid-up capital of Dhs 54,00,000
divided into 36 shares with a value of Dhs 1,50,000 each (RUD/D-14).
2.2.10 As per copy of Global Business Licence No. C211017320 dated 21-
01-2011 granted by the Government of the Republic of Mauritius to EIH, it is,
inter-alia, mentioned that the company shall not offer its shares or otherwise
raise capital from the public. (RUD/D-15)

of 111
2.2.11 Copy of Certificate of Incorporation on Change of Name issued on
08-01-2010 by the Registrar of Companies, Republic of Mauritius certifies that
the name of M/s Sichuan Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Co. Ltd
have by special resolution changed its name and is now incorporated under the
name of M/s ElectroGen Infra Holding Pvt. Ltd (RUD/D-16).
2.3 DOCUMENTS FROM BANK OF BARODA
2.3.1 Bank of Baroda, Dubai Main Branch vide their letter Ref. No. CE:
Compliance: 1612/2013 dated 05-11-2013 (RUD/D-17), referring to DRI’s
letter bearing F.No. DRI/MZU/CI-224/2013/3928 dated 30-04-2013 therein,
forwarded documents pertaining to EIF’s transactions to their corporate office
located at Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai, which were retrieved by the officers
of DRI on 18-11-2013.
2.3.2 These documents included, inter-alia, account opening form with
related documents and statement of account in respect of the USD account
bearing no. 90010200008259 held by EIF with BOB, Bur Dubai Branch. The
above account was initially opened on 06-07-2009 in the name of Sichuan
Machinery and Equipments FZE. As per copy of Memorandum and Articles of
Association made on 07-07-2009 at SAIF Zone, UAE, this company was
incorporated with Shri Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli, a UAE national, as the ‘owner’
holding the entire authorised and paid-up capital of one share valued at AED
1,50,000 (RUD/D-18). The Bank was authorised to honour cheques/bills of
exchange and promissory notes drawn, accepted or made on behalf of the
company singly byShri Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli. As per the copy of the Licence
Certificate issued by SAIF Zone authorities on 07-07-2009, (RUD/D- 18A) the
company was licensed for ‘general trading’.
2.3.3 Perusal of copy of document titled ‘Board Resolution of M/s
Sichuan Machinery & Equipments FZE dated 19th November 2009 (RUD/D-19)
reveals that the purpose of the resolution was to open and operate accounts
with any bank in the UAE in the name of M/s Sichuan Machinery &
Equipments FZE, and to avail all types of banking facilities in the company’s
name. It was resolved, inter-alia, to add the name of Shri Jatin Shah, holder of
Indian Passport No. H3015351, as an the authorized signatory in the bank
accounts of M/s Sichuan Machinery & Equipments FZE;to authorise Shri Jatin
Shah to open, operate & close banking accounts with any bank of the UAE and
authorized to sign singly on Bank Mandate documents relating to use of
electronic distribution channels, undertakings, indemnity/security
documents/guarantees/agreements and any Finance Documents on behalf of
the Company excepting cheques and cheque book request forms which could

of 111
only be signed by Mr. Naseer Ali Shaban Ali singly. Accordingly, specimen
signature card with specimen signature of Shri Jatin Shah, stating that he
could operate the account singly, was submitted to the bank on 21-11-2009
(RUD/D-20).
2.3.4 As per copy of Addendum to the Memorandum and Articles of
Association dated 07-07-2009 of EIF, an amendment made on 04-01-2010 to
the Memorandum and Articles of Association was acknowledged by SAIF Zone
authorities (RUD/D-21). As per the amendment, name of the company was
changed from Sichuan Machinery & Equipments FZE to EIF with same owner
i.e. Shri Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli. This Addendum (amendment) to the
Memorandum and Articles of Association dated 07-07-2009 of EIF is
immediately prior to the second Addendum as discussed in para 2.2.8 above.
Accordingly, SAIF Zone authorities also changed the name of the Licence
holder in the Licence Certificate no. 01-01-07314 on 14th January 2010
(RUD/D-22). EIF also intimated change of name to BOB, Bur Dubai vide its
letter dated 04-02-2010 (RUD/D-23).
2.3.5 From the facts narrated above, it is evident that day to day work
relating to Sichuan Machinery & Equipments FZE was being handled by Shri
Jatin Shah, (an employee of Adani Group till 31-08-2009), since November
2009 even before the company was taken over on 29-03-2010 by Shri Vinod
Shantilal Shah through EIH.
2.4 KYC DOCUMENTS FROM AXIS BANK (Second Lot)
2.4.1 AXIS Bank, DIFC Branch, Dubai further submitted certain
documents vide their letter bearing Ref.No. AXIS/DICF/1229/2013-14 dated
18th December 2013 (RUD-D/24). It was, inter-alia, conveyed by the bank in
its letter that EIF held a current account bearing no. 912020200000514
opened on 20-07-2010 and that EIH was the parent company of EIF. The
documents forwarded by the bank included copies of account opening form
alongwith supporting KYC documents submitted by EIF; copies of the bank
account statement since inception of the account till 12-12-2013 and copy of
the shareholding pattern of EIF. Documents relevant to the investigation are
discussed in the following paras.
2.4.2 As per Section I for stating Client Details, Analysis &Consent
Form, EIF have declared the name of Bank of Baroda, Bur Dubai, Main Branch
as their principal bankers. In the information provided regarding accounts held
with other banks, they have declared the names of Bank of Baroda and

of 111
Standard Chartered Bank. With regard to the declaration of their business
activity, it was declared that it was a new company and incorporated with the
object of trading in power equipment. Regarding the declaration on source of
funds, EIF has declared that their promoter was EIH, who would be
bringing equity as and when required from their own sources. On the
reason for applying for opening of the account, they have declared “asset
handling”. The application appears to have been signed by Shri Jatin Shah on
10-07-2010 (RUD/D-25).
2.4.3 As per Section II for details of Authorised
Signatory/Director/Beneficial Owner, the name and other personal details of
Shri Vinod Shah and Shri Jatin Shah were found declared. While employment
details in terms of occupation and corporate title were not filled in for Shri
Vinod Shah, Shri Jatin Shah’s occupation was declared as ‘service’ and his
corporate title as ‘Manager’ (RUD/D-26).
2.4.4 As per resolution dated 10-07-2010 of the Board of Directors of
EIF, available in the records of the bank, it was resolved that a bank account
be opened in the name of EIF and Shri Vinod S Shah &Shri Jatin C Shah be
designated as authorized signatories to operate the account and sign
documents without any limit (RUD/D-27).
2.4.5 From letter dated 10-07-2010 of EIF addressed to Axis Bank, it is
certified by Shri Jatin Shah as Chief Financial Officer of EIF that Shri Vinod
Shantilal Shah, Shri Moreshwar V. Rabade and Shri Jatin C Shah were
Directors of EIF (RUD/D-28).
2.4.6 The documents included a copy of the Licence Certificate No. 01-
01-07314 dated 14-01-2010 issued to EIF by SAIF Zone authorities, which was
also found in the records of the documents pertaining to Bank of Baroda, Bur
Dubai (para 2.3.4 above)(RUD/D-29).
2.4.7 As per copy of Resolution dated 19-05-2011 passed by the Board
of Directors of EIF, it was resolved, inter-alia, that Shri Vinod Shah
wasauthorized to operate the account of EIF singly without any limit and that
any two of the three persons viz. Shri Jatin Shah, Shri Mehul Jani and Shri
Mitesh Jani, could operate the account jointly without any limit (RUD/D-30).
2.4.8 As per letter dated 14-10-2012 submitted by EIF to Axis Bank,
Shri Jatin Shah and Shri Moreshwar V Rabade had been certified as Directors
of EIF (RUD/D-31).

of 111
2.4.9 In letter dated 23-10-2012 addressed to the Bank, EIF informed
the Bank about the resignation of Vinod Shantilal Shah as a Director of their
holding company-EIH w.e.f. 31-05-2011(RUD/D-32).
2.4.10 In another letter dated 23-10-2012 addressed to the Bank, EIF has
confirmed the names of Shri Jatin Shah, Shri Mehul Jani and Shri Mitesh Jani
as the authorized signatories of EIF and the names of its directors as Shri Jatin
Shah and Shri Moreshwar Rabade. This letter also reitereated that 100% of the
equity capital of EIF was held by EIH (RUD/D-33).
2.4.11 Copies of the amended License Certificates issued by SAIF Zone
authorities as of 07-08-2012 and 19-06-2013 show EIF as a firm engaged in
“general trading” activity & owned by EIH with Shri Jatin Shah as the manager
(RUD/D-34). EIF was also holding a Trading Licence issued by Jumeirah Lake
Tower authorities bearing Licence No. JLT-65859, as a Branch office, having
address Unit N. 2707, Jumeirah Business Center 5 Plot No.W1, Jumeirah
Lakes Towers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (RUD/D-35). The copy of the said
Trading Licence shows Shri Jatin Shah as the Manager and activity
undertaken by the company as Trading in Equipment related to power lines,
ports and transmission lines.
2.4.12 The documents include copy of the Addendum to the
Memorandum & Articles of Association dated 07-07-2009 of EIF. Vide this
addendum, SAIF Zone authorities acknowledged amendment made on 17-06-
2010 to the Memorandum & Articles of Association of EIF for increasing the
share capital from AED 1,50,000 to AED 54,00,000 (RUD/D-36). The
Addendum was signed by Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah as a representative of EIH.
This is the third Addendum to the Memorandum & Articles of Association of
EIF dated 07-07-2009, the other two being dated 04-01-2010 for change of
name and 29-03-2010 for transfer of ownership as discused at para 2.3.4 and
2.2.8 above respectively.
2.4.13 The documents include a copy of Register of Members of EIH
certified on 25-01-2010 by Shri Giandeo Reemul, for and on behalf of Trustlink
International Limited, Company Secretary (RUD/D-37). A scanned image of the
Register of Members is reproduced below for ease of appreciation -

of 111
2.4.14 Perusal of the Register of Members shows that on 16-07-2009 i.e
the date when EIH was incorporated in Mauritius, 1000 shares of USD 1 each
(which was the entire authorised and paid-up capital of EIH as on 16-07-2009)
with distinctive numbers from 0001 to 1000 was allotted to Nasser Ali Shaban
Ahli. The same shares were transferred on 01-10-2009 from Nasser Ali Shaban
Ahli to Chang Chung Ling and further transferred to Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah
on 12-01-2010.
2.5 Documents from ICICI Bank Limited (2nd Lot)
2.5.1 In response to letter dated 27-03-2014, ICICI Bank, Singapore
through letter dated 02-04-2014 (RUD/D-38) conveyed that they had provided
Advance Payment Guarantee (APG) facility to EIF; that EIF did not accept and
that the facility was, therefore, not availed by EIF. The Bank also conveyed that
no documents had been lodged by EIF with the Singapore Branch. Therefore,
the issue was taken up and pursued with officials of ICICI Bank’s corporate
office at Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai. ICICI Bank, vide their letter dated
07-04-2014 (RUD-D/39), forwarded certain documents, which appeared to be
documents submitted by EIF to the Bank authorities while applying for the
APG facility. Documents relevant to this investigation are discussed in the
following paras.
2.5.2 From the documents forwarded by the Bank, it appeared that while
applying for APG facility, EIF had provided on 09-04-2010 a background of
itself in a document titled ‘Brief Background’ (RUD-D/40), wherein they had
stated that the company was established with SAIF Zone in July 2009 in the
name and style of Sichuan Machinery and Equipments FZE and with effect
from 04-01-2010, the name was changed to EIF.
2.5.3 In the said documents, EIF also disclosed to the bank on 09-04-
2010 that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of EIH, registered in Mauritius,owned
by Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah. The names of Shri Vinod S Shah, Shri
M.V.Rabade and Shri Jatin Shah have been mentioned as Board Members of
EIF.
2.5.4 ICICI Bank further submitted certain documents vide their letter
dated 16-04-2014 (RUD/D-41), which included a document titled ‘Details of
Director’ provided by EIF to them at their specific insistence (RUD/D-42). This
document provides names and other particulars of Shri Jatin Champaklal

of 111
Shah and Shri Moreshwar Vasant Rabade, as Directors of EIF.Moreshwar
Vasant Rabade appears to be full name of ‘M.V.Rabade’ listed as one of
members of the Board of Director of EIF in the document titled ‘Brief
Background’ referred to at the foregoing paragraph 2.5.3 above. The documents
also include a certificate dated 01-06-2010 by Shri Jatin Shah as Chief
Financial Officer of EIF certifying that as on that date, Shri Vinod Shantilal
Shah, Shri Moreshwar V.Rabade and Shri Jatin C. Shah were members of the
Board of Directors of EIF (RUD/D-43).
3.0 Visit to the offices of Adani Group companies in Ahmedabad
and summons issued to various persons of the group including those
connected with EIF.
3.1 The supplier on record for many of the Adani Group companies
including APML and APRL was the UAE based firm EIF, which appear related
to the Adani Group as brought out elsewhere in this notice. Efforts were,
therefore, made to obtain documents covering transactions between EIF and
overseas based OEMs/actual suppliers, in the case of shipments where the
goods were eventually supplied to one or more of the Adani Group entities. The
officers of MZU visited offices of the following group entities of the Adani Group
in Ahmedabad office on or about 25-09-2013, in an attempt to procure
OEM/actual supplier documentation with M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE
under the reasonable belief that such documents would be stored in the said
offices. Shri Nayan Rao, Vice President, Corporate Affairs, of the Adani Group
voluntarily came forward and agreed to co-operate with the officers during the
course of their visit by supplying the documents required by DRI. During the
course of their visit, the officers visited the following premises accompanied by
Shri Nayan Rao, Vice President of the Adani Group and directed him to
produce specific documents required by them in exercise of the power
conferred by Section 107 of the Customs Act, 1962:-
i) M/s Adani Power Limited, Achalraj Building, Ahmedabad
ii) M/s Adani Enterprises, Adani House
iii) M/s Adani Enterprises, Shikhar Building
iv) Adani Group’s server room, Fortune House.
3.2 Certain documents/electronic data as specified in the visit report
dated 25-09-2013 (RUD/C-8) were handed over by Shri Nayan Rao, Vice
President, in co-ordination and consultation with concerned officials at the
above offices, to the officers of DRI during the course of their visit, in response
to the requisition under Section 107 of the Customs Act, 1962. However,

of 111
documents pertaining to transactions between M/s Electrogen Infra FZE and
one or more overseas based OEMs/actual suppliers and other entities, in the
form of OEM/actual supplier invoices and/or copies of agreements/contracts
between the OEM and M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE were not produced on
the ground of non-availability.
3.3 Summons bearing F.No. DRI/MZU/C.I.-224/2013 (RUD/C-2)
under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued in the name of Shri
Jatin Shah, who is described variously as authorised signatory, Manager, Chief
Financial Officer and Director of M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE, to his known
addresses, seeking his presence on 14-10-2013 to give evidence and produce
specific documents listed at Annexure A to the said summons, relevant
extracts of which are produced below:-
1. Self attested copies of all the agreements/contracts entered into with
various overseas based original equipment manufacturers/entities/firms
for sourcing of goods of foreign origin from them for eventual supply/sale
to M/s PMC Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd, India and/or one or more firms of the
Adani Group based in India.
2. Self attested copies of the invoices raised on your firm (M/s Electrogen
Infra FZE), by overseas firms/entities in respect of goods supplied/to be
supplied to M/s PMC Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd, India and/or one or more firms
of the Adani group based in India.
3. Details of the payments made to various foreign firms/entities against
procurements from them invoice-wise in respect of goods eventually
supplied to M/s PMC Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd, India and/or one or more firms
of the Adani group based in India
4. Name and address of the bank and branch through which
remittances/payments referred to at sr. no. 3 were made.
3.4 M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE, vide a letter bearing reference no.
NIL dated 11-10-2013 (RUD/D-44) forwarded by FAX, responded in
acknowledgement of the summons stating that Shri Jatin Shah was on his
annual leave and they would revert on his return.
3.5 Another summons was issued under F.No. DRI/MZU/C.I.-
224/2013 dated 15-10-2010 (RUD/C-2), under Section 108 of the Customs
Act, 1962 seeking his presence on 28-10-2013 to give evidence and produce
specific documents as per Annexure A to the summons. Summonses under

of 111
Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were also issued in the names of the two
Indian nationals Shri Mitesh Dani and Shri Mehul Jani, who appeared to be
working for M/s Electrogen Infra FZE in the UAE, seeking their appearance on
29-10-2013 and 30-10-2013 (RUD/C-6), respectively, with documents in
respect of the activities of M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE.
3.6 M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE, in its response dated 28-10-2013
(RUD/D-45), sent vis FAX, acknowledged the summons issued in the names of
three of its employees viz. Shri Jatin Shah, Shri Mitesh Dani and Shri Mehul
Jani. As per the letter, Shri Jatin Shah, who was claimed to be aware of the
matter, was stated to be on leave. The letter further stated that he was
expected to join duty by the end of November 2013 and that they would revert
accordingly.
3.7 Since none of the employees of M/s Electrogen Infra FZE,
responded to the summons seeking their appearances on various dates,
summons bearing F.No. DRI/MZU/CI-224/2013 under Section 108 of the
Customs Act, 1962 was issued in the name of Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah, (sole
shareholder and Director of the parent company of EIF viz. M/s Electrogen
Infra Holding Pvt. Ltd. and promoter shareholder in Adani Enterprises Limited)
to his known addresses seeking his presence on 11-11-2013 (RUD/C-7) with
specific information/documents listed at Annexure A to the said summons.
Details of the information/documents sought from him at Annexure A is
identical to the information sought from Shri Jatin Shah and other employees
of M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, in Annexure A annexed to the summonses issued
to them, relevant contents of which are as reproduced at para 3.3 above.
3.8 In response to the summons, Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah forwarded
a letter dated 11-11-2013 (RUD-D/46) by fax. In the said response, he stated
that he was neither a Director nor a Shareholder of the said company i.e M/s
Electrogen Infra FZE, at any point of time. He further stated that he was the
Director in Electrogen Infra Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Mauritius, (holding company of
M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, Sharhah) for the period from January, 2010 to May,
2011; that as a director of the parent company, he was not involved in the
business of M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, Sharjah or day to day operations
thereof. In view of these submissions, he further stated that he did not have
access to the records of M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, Sharjah and that he would
not be in a position to submit/furnish/provide the details/documents sought
by DRI. He concluded the letter by making a request to withdraw the summons
issue in his name.

of 111
3.9 In view of his response, another summons bearing F.No.
DRI/MZU/CI-225/2013 dated 11-11-2013 (RUD/C-7) was issued to Shri
Vinod Shantilal Shah seeking his presence on 18-11-2013. He was informed
that he had been empowered to sign any documents for and on behalf of M/s
Electrogen Infra FZE, as per Resolution passed the Board of Directors of M/s
Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE on or about 19-05-2011 (RUD/D-30). It was
accordingly conveyed that by virtue of the said resolved capacity as ‘Authorized
Signatory’ for Electrogen Infra FZE, he was liable to honour the summons by
appearing on the designated date and time with the information/documents
requisitioned from him.
3.10 In response thereto, Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah while
acknowledging receipt of the said summons, inter-alia, conveyed vide his letter
dated 18-11-2013 (RUD/D/47), that he had ceased to be the Director of M/s
Electrogen Infra Holding Pvt. Ltd., Mauritius (parent company of M/s
Electrogen Infra FZE ) more than two years ago; that he, therefore, was not in
possession of the documents required by DRI, and that he had noticed that the
DRI had directly written to M/s Electrogen Infra FZE also for providing
necessary documents/information. With regard to the Board Resolution, he
stated that since he did not have access to the records of M/s Electrogen Infra
FZE, he was not aware about which Resolution the DRI was referring to. He
requested for being provided with a copy of the resolution to enable him to
revert.
3.11 From his response, it was observed that Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah
did not produce any evidence to refute the documented fact that he had been
empowered to sign any documents for and on behalf of M/s Electrogen Infra
FZE as per Resolution passed the Board of Directors of M/s Electrogen Infra
FZE, UAE on or about 19-05-2011, Under the circumstances, and in view of
his resolved capacity as Authorized Signatory for and on behalf of M/s
Electrogen Infra FZE, it appeared that he was liable to honor the summons
issued by the DRI. Accordingly, while conveying these aspects to him, another
summons bearing F.No. DRI/MZU/CI-224/2013 dated 20-11-2013 (RUD/C-7)
was issued seeking his presence on 27-11-2013 with specific
information/documents which were specified at Annexure A to the summons.
Since Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah failed to appear on the designated date and
time, another summons bearing DRI/MZU/CI-224/2013 dated 29-11-2013,
(RUD/C-7) seeking his presence on 09-12-2013 was issued. In a letter bearing
reference no. Nil dated 05-12-2013 (RUD/D-48), received via FAX, Shri Vinod
Shantilal Shah, while acknowledging the receipt of both the summonses dated
20-11-2013 and 29-11-2013, stated that he had forwarded the said

of 111
summonses to Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE and that the DRI should deal with
the said company directly. In the letter, he reiterated the stand taken by him in
his letter dated 11-11-2013, stating that he was not in possession of any of the
requisitioned documents. He requested that the matter may be taken up
directly with the company and that DRI should not send any further
correspondence to him.
3.12 In response to the summons issued to Shri Jatin Shah, Shri
Mitesh Dani and Shri Mehul Jani of M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE on 20-11-
2013 and 29-11-2013, Shri Jatin Shah forwarded a letter dated 09-12-2013
(RUD-D/49), by fax. In context of the information sought from each of them
under the summons, he submitted, inter-alia, that Electrogen Infra FZE,
owned by Electrogen Infra Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Mauritius, was a free zone
establishment with limited liability based in Sharjah Airport International Free
Zone and that they had been advised by local lawyers in the UAE that parting
with any of the information/details/documents to authorities outside UAE
would constitute breach of the UAE laws. He concluded by stating that since
the information/documents sought by the DRI contained highly confidential
commercial/business information, Electrogen Infra FZE would not be able to
part with any such information/details/documents.
3.13 Summons under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were again
issued to Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani and Shri Jatin Shah on 10-12-2013
(RUD/C-7 & RUD/C-2 ) seeking their presence on 17-12-2013. Summons were
also issued on the same day i.e 10-12-2013 in the name of Shri Mitesh Dani
and Shri Mehul Jani, seeking their presence on 18-12-2013. (RUD/C-6) Since
they failed to present themselves and join the investigation, fresh summons
were issued to Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani and Shri Jatin Shah on 20-12-2013
(RUD/C-7 & RUD/C-2) seeking their presence on 27-12-2013 and to Shri Shri
Mitesh Dani and Shri Mehul Jani on 20-12-2013, seeking their presence on
30-12-2013 (RUD/C-6).
3.14 A summary of the summons issued from time to time to Shri Vinod
Shantilal Shah and employees of M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE is tabulated
below :-
Table-1
List of summonses issued to officials of M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE
S.N
o
Name of official of
Electrogen Infra FZE,
UAE summoned
F.No. under which summons
issued
Date of issue of summonses and
designated date for remaining present
with information/documents
requisitioned
1. Shri Vinod Shantilal
Shah
F.No.DRI/MZU/C.I.-224/2013 30-11-2013 for appearance on 11-11-2013
11-11-2013 for appearance on 18-11-2013

of 111
2. Shri Jatin Shah F.No.DRI/MZU/C.I.-224/2013 30-04-2013 for appearance on 06-05-2013
3. Shri Mitesh Dani F.No.DRI/MZU/C.I.-224/2013 15-10-2013 for appearance on 28-10-2013
4. Shri Mehul Jani F.No.DRI/MZU/C.I.-224/2013 15-10-2013 for appearance on 28-10-2013
3.15 Despite repeated summons, the aforesaid persons failed to present
themselves to join investigations and also failed to furnish
information/documents that were requisitioned from them, on one plea or the
other.
3.16 Investigations revealed that Vinod Shantilal Shah is another
name of Vinod Shantilal Adani (one of the promoter and shareholders in
flagship company of the Adani group viz. M/s Adani Enterprises Ltd.) as is
evident from contents of copy of a letter dated September 13, 2012 (RUD/D-50)
addressed to, inter-alia, the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited and the National
Stock Exchange of India Limited regarding disclosure under Regulation 31 of
the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011.
The said letter and its annexure have been signed by Shri Vinod Shantilal
Adani clearly stating, inter-alia, that Vinod Shantilal Adani is also known
as Vinod Shantilal Shah. Scanned image of the said letter and disclosure
page is reproduced below :-

of 111
3.17 It is further gathered that Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani, is one of the
five sons of Late Shri Shantilal Adani, his other brothers being Shri
Mahasukhbhai S. Adani, Shri Vasantbhai S. Adani, Shri Gautambhai S.Adani,
and Shri Rajeshbhai S. Adani. Each of the brothers of the Adani family holds a
substantial stake in the flagship company of the Adani Group i.e M/s Adani
Enterprises Limited.
4.0 Contracts between EIF and Shanghai Electric Group Co Limited
(SEC) for Boiler-Turbine-Generator (BTG) supplies for APML & APRL
4.1 ICICI Bank Limited, Singapore had through their letter bearing Ref.
No. 01/BGSIN/26201 dated 03-06-2012 conveyed sanction of Advance
Payment Guarantee (APG) of USD 65 Million to EIF. The letter dated 03-06-
2012 titled as ‘Credit Arrangement Letter’ was obtained from ICICI Bank’s
Corporate office in Mumbai (RUD/D-51). From the said letter, it appears that
the Bank had sanctioned the APG facility to EIF subject to certain terms and
conditions, which were set out in an Annexure to the said letter.
4.2 Perusal of the Annexure reveals as under –
i) The Applicant is EIF and the beneficiaries are APML and APRL.
(clauses at 2 & 3 of the Annexure).
ii) As per clauses 4 & 5, Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah is the promoter of
EIF and a firm named Electrogen Infra Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,
Mauritius is the parent company of EIF, in which 100% of the
equity is stated to be held by Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah.
iii) Clause 6 spells out the abbreviation of ‘SEC’ as ‘Shanghai Electric
Group Co. Limited’,(here-in-after referred to as ‘SEC’ also),a
company incorporated in China.
iv) Clause 12, which deals with Applicant/SEC agreement (i.e.
agreement between EIF and SEC),refers to agreements dated July
15, 2009 and November 06, 2009 between the Applicant and SEC
for supply of steam generators (boilers), steam turbines, generators
and auxiliaries by the SEC to the Applicant.
v) Clause 14 of the Annexure refers to agreements between the
Applicant i.e. EIF and the beneficiaries i.e.APML and APRL.
4.3 It was apparent that agreements/contracts, referred to in the
Annexure to the Credit Arrangement Letter would have been obtained by the
Bank while processing the sanction of the credit facility. Accordingly,
correspondence was initiated under this office letter bearing

of 111
F.No.DRI/MZU/CI-224/2013/ dated 27-03-2014 (RUD/C-9) with the Chief
Manager, ICICI Bank Limited, Singapore, who had conveyed sanction of the
APG facility to EIF, requesting submission of, inter-alia,copies of the
Agreements dated July 15, 2009 and November 06, 2009, between EIF and
SEC,China for supply steam generators (boilers), steam turbines, generators
and auxillaires by SEC to EIF.
4.4 In their initial response, the ICICI Bank Limited, Singapore,
through a letter dated 02-04-2014 (RUD/D-52), conveyed that though they had
provided the APG facility, EIF did not accept it and the APG facility was,
therefore, not availed by EIF. The Bank also conveyed that no documents had
been lodged by EIF with the Singapore Branch. Therefore, the issue was taken
up and pursued with officials of ICICI Bank’s corporate office at Bandra Kurla
Complex. ICICI Bank, vide their letter dated 07-04-2014 (RUD-D/53),
forwarded certain documents, which appeared to be documents submitted by
EIF to the Bank authorities while applying to the Bank for the APG facility.
4.5 Based on information provided by EIF to the Bank in the aforesaid
document, details of certain contracts are tabulated below :-
Table-2
Details of Agreements between EIF and APML & APRL
S.No. Contract between Scope of supply /project Contract Value in
USD
Contract date
1. APML <-> EIF Boiler, Turbine, Generator &
Accessories for power plant in
Maharashtra (2 x 660 MW)
736,000,000 05-11-2009
2. APRL <-> EIF Boiler, Turbine, Generator with
Accessories for power plant in Kawai,
Rajasthan (2 x 660 MW)
790,000,000 Stated to being
finalised
Note: 1. The Contract at Sr.No. 1 was entered into between APML and M/s M/s Sichuan
Machinery and Equipments FZE (earlier name of EIF)
2 . The Contract at Sr.No. 2 was entered into on 02-04-2010
4.6 From the foregoing table, it appears that EIF had undertaken upon
itself the obligation to supply equipment and machinery to APML and APRL. It
further appears from the facts disclosed by EIF to the Bank that in order to
procure the equipment&machinery to be supplied to APML and APRL, EIF
had,inter-alia, finalised M/s Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., (SEC) as one of
the major suppliers, pursuant to a lot of deliberations and negotiations, as
claimed in the document titled ‘Brief Background’. The contracts referred at
clause 12 [refer para 4.2(iv) above] i.e. the contracts between EIF and SEC,
appear to be contracts for supply of equipments to APML and APRL- the

of 111
contracts listed at Table-2 above. This is also corroborated by the information
given at clause 14 [refer para 4.2 (v) above] of the Annexure to the Credit
Arrangement Letter. Based on the above information disclosed to ICICI Bank
and other documents furnished to the Bank, EIF appears to have requested the
bank for sanction Advance Bank Guarantee Limits (USD 160 Million),
Performance Bank Guarantee Limits (USD 40 Million) and Letter of Credit
Limits (75 Million).
4.7 The apparent back-to-back nature of the proposed procurement
from SEC and supply to APML & APRL by EIF is evident in the information
disclosed by it to the Bank in the documents titled ‘Information Memorandum’
dated April, 2010 (RUD/D-54). The information provided in the documents
forwarded by ICICI Bank in relation to various contracts entered into by EIF
with SEC for procurement of goods and for back-to-back supply, under supply
agreements with APML and APRL appear to have been summarised by EIF,
while providing information to the bank, from the contents of individual
agreements to which EIF was a signatory.Particulars of the contracts referred
to in the documents are tabulated below -
Table-3
Details of Contracts between EIF & SEC and the contracts between EIF
and APML & APRL
S.
No
Agreement
Date
Brief of scope of supplies
covered by Agreement
Executing
parties
Consideration
amount as per
Agreement
(USD)
Purpose
1. 15-07-2009 Steam Generator (Boiler)
and Auxiliaries 2x660 MW
Power Project at Tiroda,
Maharashtra
EIF/SME and
SEC
97465318 For supply to APML’s
power project at Tiroda in
Maharashtra
2. 15-07-2009 Turbine, Generator and its
Auxiliaries 2x660 MW
Maharashtra
EIF/SME and
SEC
Maharashtra
178975000 Total for APML power
project
Power Project, Kawai in
Rajasthan
EIF/SME and
SEC
97465318 For supply to APRL’s
power project at Kawai in
Rajsthan
Rajasthan
EIF/SME and
SEC
82679682 +
addition of
7920000 after
amendment
For supply to APRL’s
Rajasthan
188,065,000 Total for APRL power
project
5. 05-11-2009 Boiler-Turbine-Generator
equipment for 2 x 660
(Unit No. 4 & 5) at Tiroda
in Maharashtra
EIF/SME and
APML
736,000,000 For supply to APML’s
Maharashtra
equipment for 2 x 660 at
Kawai in Rajasthan
EIF and APRL 790,000,000 For supply to APRL’s
Rajsthan
Note: 1. The Contracts at SrNo. 1 & 2 were signed on 15-07-2009 by SEC with M/s Sichuan Machinery
and Equipments FZE which itself was registered in the UAE on 07-07-2009 (barely 8 days
prior) and contract 3 & 4 after few months.

of 111
2. The Contracts at Sr.No. 1 & 4 totally valued at over USD 367 Million were signed by M/s
Sichuan Machinery and Equipments FZE when its total paid-up share capital was only AED
1,50,000 divided into one share of AED 1,50,000 owned by one single person.
4.8 From the above, it is apparent that for APML’s power project at
Tiroda in Maharashtra, for supply of BTG equipment, while contracts at Sr.No.
1 & 2 are between EIF and SEC; the contract at Sr.No. 5 was the corresponding
back-to-back contract between EIF and APML. Similarly, for APRL’s power
project at Kawai in Rajasthan, while contracts at Sr.No. 3 & 4 are between EIF
and SEC; the contract at Sr.no. 6 was corresponding back-to-back contract
between EIF and APRL.
4.9 One of the terms and conditions given in the Annexure to the
Credit Arrangement Letter dated 03-06-2012, deals with Contractual Comfort.
The initial clause of the said contractual comfort reads as under :-
The obligations of the NDU Providers shall be supported by a non-disposal arrangement in
respect of shares of Adani Power Limited (APL) and/or Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL)
(“Company Shares”) held by the NDU Providers, for the period during which the Facility is in
existence, to be provided by the NDU Providers in the following manner, subject to application
law’ :
1. Non-Disposal Arrangement (defined below) over Companies’s Shares (“NDU shares”) Non-
disposal undertaking from the NDU Providers over the Companies Shares (NDU)
2. NDU Shares shall be free of any lock inconditions and encumbrances except the one-year
lock-in over APL shares, applicable due to the initial public offer made by APL and are in
dematerialized form. The said lock-in period of APL shares shall end on August 20,2010.
Provided that after the APL shares become free, they shall be continued to be kept free
from any lock-in conditions.
3. NDU Shares will be held in in an escrow dematerialized account (“Demat Account”) of the
NDU Providers to be opened with a depository participant in India acceptable to the Issuer
(“Escrow Arrangement”);
4. The Guarantors shall execute an irrevocable power of attorney and such other
arrangements in relation to the NDU Shares under the Escrow Arrangement in favour of
any persona as may be acceptable to the issuer (“Power of Attorney”). The Power of
Attorney shall include among other rights, the right to operate the Demat account, to sell
NDU Shares in the event of occurrence of an Event of Default and to apply the sale
proceeds towards payment of dues under the Guarantee and/or facility. Proceeds from
the sale of NDU Shares shall be deposited in a designated account of NDU Providers held
with a bank acceptable to the Issuer (“Designated Account Arrangement”.
5. The NDU, Escrow Arrangement, Power of Attorney and the Designated Account
Arrangements shall be referred to as the “Non-Disposal arrangement”.
6. The value of the NDU shares shall be determined daily as per the Valuation Methodology
(as defined below) and the NDU Providers shall ensure that:

of 111
• The value of the NDU Shares is at all times equal to 1.35 times the outstanding
Facility amount (“Threshold Value”); and
• ………
7. …………….
8. The Applicant NDU Providers shall have the flexibility to provide cash cover (Cash
Collatoral) over which ICICI Bank shall have a charge for the Facility anytime during the
APG Tenor. In an event when the Applicant Guarantors has provided Cash Collatoral, top-
up and release of shares shall be based on the outstanding Facility amount calculated as
“outstanding Facility amount – available Cash Collateral”.
9. The Applicant NDU Providers has the right at all times to replace the Cash Collateral
(provided in accordance with the provision above) with appropriate shares as described
above.
The Contractual Comfort shall be created prior to issuance of the first APG under the facility”
4.10 From a sequential and holistic reading of the above conditions in
the light of the sanction accorded and conveyed by ICICI Bank to Electrogen
Infra FZE, UAE, it appears that the Bank has imposed these conditions as a
security measure/security cover in exchange for having extended the APG
facility to the extent of 65 Million USD to Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE. The
security acceptable to the ICICI bank for extending/providing the APG facilities
to Electrogen Infra FZE, appears to be, inter-alia, in the form of equity shares
(1.35 times the facility amount) of Adani Power Limited (the controlling entity
for power sector business of the Adani Group) and/or Adani Enterprises
Limited, (the flagship company of the Adani Group).As per the arrangement,
the ICICI Bank through its nominee (entity/person acceptable to ICICI Bank
/nominated by it, in whose favour irrevocable power of attorney to,inter-alia,
operate the escrow account and sell the shares in the event of default by
Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE resulting in payment of dues by them to the
Bank)should be in a position to recover dues from Electrogen Infra FZE, arising
out of utilisation of funds from the sanctioned APG facility.
4.11 In other words, the aforesaid transaction, which is akin to pledging
of shares of APL/AEL in favour of ICICI Bank and/or its nominee by EIF in lieu
of the APG facility extended by the ICICI Bank, appears to be acceptable to the
Bank. It appears that the ICICI Bank Limited have extended the facility subject
to the condition of pledging of shares of APL/AEL, by considering Shri Vinod
Shantilal Adani as owner of EIF and also that he was a promoter shareholder
in Adani Enterprises Limited (the flagship company of the Adani Group). ICICI
Bank, therefore, appears to have been influenced by the direct relationship
between the Adani Group and Electrogen Infra, through a common entity in

of 111
Vinod Shantilal Adani. Although the APG facility may not have been availed by
Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE, as conveyed by ICICI Bank in its letter dated 02-04-
2014 (para 4.4 above), it would only be reasonable to infer that the issuance of
Credit Arrangement Letter and the terms &conditionsconveyed therein are the
result of mutual negotiations and considerations acceptable to both the parties
i.e EIF and ICICI Bank. ICICI Bank, therefore, appears to be aware of direct
nexus and influence of the Adani Group with Electrogen Infra FZE. This is also
corroborated by the exchange of mails between the officials of ICICI Bank and
Shri Jatin Shah of EIF, UAE, wherein the ICICI Bank has through a mail,
sought details of NDU provider who would be providing cover in the form of
shares of value equal to 1.5 times of the credit facility. Few mails exchanged
between the then officials of ICICI Bank and Shri Jatin Shah, Director of
Electrogen Infra Limited, which apparently led to sanction of the APG facility
on the part of ICICI Bank Limited to Electrogen Infra FZE, for USD 65 Million,
have been submitted by ICICI Bank under cover of their letter dated 16-04-
2014 (RUD/D-55). Shri Vinod Shatilal Adani, being a share-holders of AEL,
appears to be fully aware of his ability to fulfil the NDU condition by way of
arrangement for the required value of shares to be held in the escrow account
in view of his direct relationship with the Group. The Bank as well as
EIF,therefore,appear to be clearly aware of the direct and close nexus between
EIF and the Adani Group.
4.12 Amongst the other enclosures to ICICI Bank’s letter dated 16-04-
2014,is a document titled ‘Details of Director’ provided by Electrogen Infra
FZE, UAE to ICICI Bank Limited at their specific insistence, which provides
names and other particulars of Shri Jatin Champaklal Shah and Shri
Moreshwar Vasant Rabade, as Directors of Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE (RUD/D-
56). Shri Moreshwar Vasant Rabade appears to be full name of ‘M.V.Rabade’
listed as one of the Board Member in the document titled ‘Brief Background’
referred to at paragraph 2.5.4 above. It further appears from a certification
dated 01-06-2010 (para 2.5.4) given by Shri Jatin Shah of Electrogen Infra FZE
that Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah, Shri Moreshwar V.Rabade and Shri Jatin C.
Shah, were members of the Board of Directors of Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE
(RUD/D-57).
4.13 From perusal of the signatures of individuals who had signed the
Contract dated 05-11-2009 between M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE and M/s
Adani Power Maharashtra Limited, for supply of equipments to the 2 x 660
power project at Tiroda in Maharashtra, having aggregate consideration of USD
736,000,000, (Sr.No. 5 of Table-3), it appears that Shri Moreshwar Vasant

of 111
Rabade (Director of Electrogen Infra FZE UAE at one point of time) has signed
the said agreement for and on behalf of M/s Adani Power Maharashtra Limited.
5.1 Vide letter bearing F.No.DRI/MZU/CI-224/2013 dated 17-10-2013
(RUD/C-10) addressed to the Adani Group, information & documents were
sought in respect of every consignment invoiced by EIF,UAE to Adani Group
entities in India (including APML and APRL), starting with the inception of such
supplies. A specific request was made in the said letter for submission of self-
attested copies of the bills of entry filed for clearance together with copies of the
corresponding invoices& packing lists raised by M/s Electrogen Infra FZE,
&relevant negotiable copies of bills of lading/airway bills.A summary of the in-
formation available in the bills of entry was also sought for specific particulars
conveyed to them.
5.2 AEL, vide its letter bearing Ref.AEL/DRI/2013-14/104 dated 30-
10-2013 (RUD/D-58), furnished information and documents, which included
those pertaining to imports by APML and APRL through EIF. Copies of bills of
entry, invoices, packing lists and bills of lading forwarded by AEL, in respect of
various entities of the Adani Group (including APML and APRL),were accompa-
nied by a tabulated chart which appeared to be a billofentry-wise summary of
specific information available in the bills of entry. Subsequently, vide another
letter F.No.DRI/MZU/CI-224/2013 dated 07-11-2013 (RUD/C-11), Adani
Group was requested to submit self-attested photo-copies of ‘Country of Origin’
certificates for individual shipments supplied by EIF to APML and APRL. AEL,
vide their letter bearing Ref : AEL/DRI/2013-14/136 dated 15-11-2013
(RUD/D-59), submitted, inter-alia, copies of some of the Country of Origin cer-
tificates in respect of some of the shipments of goods invoiced by EIF, UAE to
APML and APRL.
5.3 Perusal of the tabulated data providing bill of entry-wise
information revealed that the details were in respect of 301 and 262
consignments imported upto 05-10-2013 by APML and APRL, respectively. As
per the information provided for APML, the 301 consignments were found to
have been cleared through JNPT Nhava Sheva, Mumbai Port and ACC, Sahar.
In the case of APRL, the 262 consignments were found to have been imported
and cleared mainly through Mundra Port, besides some clearances through
Ahmedabad Air Cargo, JNPT Nhava Sheva and Mumbai Port.It, therefore,
prima facie appeared that APML and ARPL have imported 301 and 262
consignments on invoices raised by EIF with an aggregate declared invoice

of 111
value of about USD 721 Million (full contract value -736 Million USD) and
about USD 756 Million (full contract value-790 MillionUSD), respectively.
6.0 Analysis of Invoice numbers and dates on both invoices: OEM vis-a-
vis Intermedairy at UAE (EIF) in respect of supplies from China
6.1 Scrutinyof the invoice numbers of the invoices raised by EIF on
APML revealed that the invoice numbers appearing on the invoices by and large
containedletters and words ‘ÁPML’ / ‘Tiroda’ / ‘Tirora’/ ‘T’ (T to denote Tiroda)
as part of their alpha-numeric numbers, particularly in the case of shipments
from China, apparently to indicate that the supplies covered under the said
invoices were meant for APML’s power project at Tiroda in Maharashtra.
Similarly, in the case of the invoices raised by EIF on APRL, scrutiny of the
invoice numbers revealed that the invoice numbers by and large contained
letters and words ‘ÁPRL’ / ‘Kawai’ / ‘’Rajasthan’/ ‘K’ (K to denote Kawai) as part
of the their alpha-numeric numbers, particularly in the case of shipments from
China, apparently to indicate that the supplies covered under the said invoices
were meant for APRL’s power project at Kawai in Rajasthan.
6.2 The invoice numbering pattern followed by EIF in respect of the
invoices raised by it on APML was not found to be uniform /consistent in terms
of the nomenclature / contents thereof.
6.3 From scrutiny of the invoice numbers available in the tabulated
data pertaining to APML, it appeared that EIF had allotted numbers to the
invoices raised by it on APML, in varying patterns. A large number of
shipments to APML were found to be from Chinese ports.Illustrative examples
of distinct invoice numbering patterns apparently followed by Electrogen Infra
FZE, UAE while allotting invoices numbers to the invoices raised by it for
supply to APML from Chinese ports, identified on the basis of a broad grouping
of commonalities in the numbering patterns,are listed below :-
i) Tiroda-3/Supply/2013/160
ii) T3/141 & 142
iii) T-1 & 2/Supply/2013/046
iv) T/131 & 132
v) Tirora-92
vi) Tirora-B80
vii) Tirora-Phase2-140
viii) Tirora-Phase2-T35TH5
ix) LK-TirodaPh3-20101130

of 111
6.4 Efforts were made to ascertain the reasons and basis of different
numbering patterns so as to identify the parameters based on which distinct
numbering patterns had been followed. Associated import documents such as
bills of lading and country of origin (COO) certificates for the shipments
covered by each class of invoice having a distinct numbering pattern were
examined. The shipments in majority of the cases were from Chinese ports,
and the COO certificates thereof were found to be issued by the China Council
for Promotion of International Trade which indicated,inter-alia, the name of the
exporter as certified by the Council. Tabulated below are names of the
exporters and samples of their invoice numbers & dates as found declared and
certified by the China Council in the COO certificates vis-à-visthe invoice
numbers and dates appearing in the corresponding invoices raised by EIF on
APML:-
Table-4
Matching of invoice No.s & date as raised by EIF on APML vis-à-vis the
OEM/actual exporters’ invoice numbers as mentioned in the COO
Certificates
Sr.
No.
Invoice numbers & dates
appearing on EIF invoices raised
on APML
Exporter as per the
corresponding COO
certificate
Invoice numbers & dates of actual
exporter as indicated on the
corresponding COO at Column 10
thereof
[A] [B] [C] [D]
1. Tiroda-3/Supply/2013/160 dt. 30-
08-2013
APL (Beijing) EXIM Co.
Ltd., China
Tiroda-3/Supply/2013/160 dt. 30-08-
2013
2. T3/141 & 142 dt. 29-05-2013 T3/141 & 142 dt. 29-05-2013
3. T-1 & 2/Supply/2013/045 dt. 13-
11-2012
T-1 & 2/Supply/2013/045 dt. 13-11-
2012
4. T/131 & 132 dt. 22-04-2013 T/131 & 132 dt. 22-04-2013
5. Tirora-92 dt. 19-06-2013
Shanghai Electric Group
Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China
Tirora-92 dt. 19-06-2013
6. Tirora-B80 dt. 11-12-2012 Tirora-B80 dt. 11-12-2012
7. Tirora-Phase2-162 dt. 21-03-2011 Tirora-Phase2-162 dt. 21-03-2011
8. Tirora-Phase2-T35TH5 dt. 05-07-
2012
Tirora-Phase2-T35TH5 dt. 05-07-2012
9. LK-TirodaPh3-20101130 dt 30-11-
2010
Fujian Longking Co. Ltd.,
China
LK-TirodaPh3-20101130 dt 30-11-
2010
Note: The invoice numbers and date in columns B and D are same.
6.5 Similar analysis in respect of imports by APRL revealed the same
pattern as shown in the following Table-5:-

of 111
Table-5
Matching of the invoice No.s & date raised by EIF on APRL vis-à-vis the
OEM/actual exporters’ invoice numbers as mentioned in the COO
Certificates
Sr.
No.
Invoice numbers& dates appearing
on EIF invoices raised on APRL
Exporter as per the
corresponding COO
certificate
Invoice number& dates of actual
exporters as indicated on the
corresponding COO at Column 10
thereof
[A] [B] [C] [D]
1.
Kawai/Supply/2013/135 dt. 29-08-
2013
APL (Beijing) EXIM Co.
Ltd., China
Kawai/Supply/2013/135 dt. 29-08-
2013
2.
K/130 & 131 dt. 29-07-2013 K/130 & 131 dt. 29-07-2013
3.
Kawai/104 & 105 dt. 23-02-2013 Kawai/104 & 105 dt. 23-02-2013
4.
Rajasthan-46 dt. 03-06-201
Shanghai Electric
Group Co. Ltd.,
Shanghai, China
Rajasthan-46 dt. 03-06-201
5.
Rajasthan-T37TH2 dt. 26-09-2012 Rajasthan-T37TH2 dt. 26-09-2012
6. Rajasthan-G22 dt. 27-11-2011 Rajasthan-G22 dt. 27-11-2011
7.
LK-Kawai-20100106 dt. 06-01-2011
Fujian Longking Co.
Ltd., China
LK-Kawai-20100106 dt. 06-01-2011
8.
LK-Kawai-SP-20101225 dt. 25-12-2010 LK-Kawai-SP-20101225 dt. 25-12-2010
Note: The invoice numbers and date in columns B and D are same.
6.6 The strange identicality of invoice numbers and dates in the
invoices of the three Chinese suppliers – the actual exporters who supplied the
goods directly to APML/ APRL in India and the intermediary at UAE i.e. EIF is
not only unusual but exposes the true nature of EIF. This shows that EIF is
not an independent supplier, per-se, but merely an intermediary dummy agent
for invoice copying and value inflation. While the invoice number and date in
the EIF (intermediary) invoices remains the same as in the actual exporters’
invoices, the name of the supplier is changed and value of the same goods
covered by the invoices has been inflated (as would be apparent from
discussion below) for enabling siphoning off of money abroad as a part of the
modus-operandi.
6.7 The three entities figuring as exporters for shipments received by
APML and APRL viz. APL (Beijing) EXIM Co. Ltd., Shanghai Electric Group Co.
Ltd., and Fujian Longking Co. Ltd., China, from whom EIF appears to have
sourced the goods, have been declared and certified as exporters in the relevant
COO certificates.The goods shipped by the respective shippers, on arrival in
India, were cleared by APML and APRL on the strength of invoices raised by
EIF on APML and APRL.

of 111
7.0 SHIPMENTS FROM COUNTRIES OTHER THAN CHINA
7.1 As per the COO certificates for shipments to APML and APRL from
countries other than China,in respect of which also invoices were raised by EIF
on APML or APRL, it was noticed that the exporters by and large were various
Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)/actual suppliers located in
overseas countries from where the cargo was shipped directly to India. Since
the power projects to be set up by APML and APRL were of identical capacity (2
x 660 MW) and were based on same technology (thermal coal-fired power
plants), it appears that the Adani Group have chosen common suppliers for
both the projects. This is clearly evident from the fact that the names of
majority of the exporters/shippers, as indicated in the corresponding bills of
lading/COO certificates in respect of shipments to APML & APRL from ports
located outside China, were common (OEMs/original suppliers who had
shipped cargo to APML for use in the project at Tiroda in Maharashtra were
also found to have shipped cargo to APRL for use in the project at Kawai, in
Rajasthan). The common shippers/exporters identified on the basis of their
names being declared and certified as shippers/exporters in the bills of lading
and/or COO certificatesfor shipments received by APML and APRL and cleared
upon their arrival into India on the strength of invoices raised by EIF on APML
or APRL are given below :-
Table-6
Common shippers/exporters as per the Bills of Lading and COO
Certificates pertaining to shipments imported by APML&APRL from
countries other than China
Sr.No. Name of shipper/exporter as indicated on
the Bill of Lading for imports by APML &
APRL
Name of exporter as indicated on
corresponding COO certificate for
imports by APML & APRL
[A] [B] [C]
1. American Materials Technology, Houston,
USA
Erndtebrucker Eisenwerk GmbH & Co. KG,
Germany
2. Auma Riester GmBH & Co. KG, Germany Auma Riester GmBH & Co. KG, Germany
3. CCI, AG Switzerland CCI, AG Switzerland
4. Dalmine SPA, Italy Dalmine SPA, Italy
5. IBF SPA, Italy IBF SPA, Italy
6. Keonwoo Metals Co. Ltd. , South Korea Keonwoo Metals Co. Ltd. , South Korea
7. Ablan Engineering Corporation China LVF SPA, Italy
8. Parcol SPA, Italy Parcol SPA, Italy
9. Renold Power Transmission Limited, United
Kingdom
Renold Power Transmission Limited,
United Kingdom
10. Maxonic Electric Apparatus HK Limited,
Hong Kong
STI SRL Italy
11 Safe-Fire Inc. , USA Safe-Fire Inc. , USA
12 Samshin Limited, Korea Samshin Limited, Korea
13 Sumitomo Corporation, Japan Sumitomo Corporation, Japan
14 Torishima Pump Mfg. Co. Ltd., Japan Torishima Pump Mfg. Co. Ltd., Japan
15. Tyco Valves & Controls Italia SRL, Italy Tyco Flow Control Hongkong Limited, Hong

of 111
Kong
16. V & M Deutschland GmBH, Germany Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes, Germany
17. Voith Turbo GMBH & Co. KG,Germany Voith Turbo GMBH & Co. KG,Germany
18. Qingdao Wemay Textile Co. Limited, China Guangzhou Yaxiang Trade Co. Limited,
China
19. Zhezhiang Hangxiao Steel Structures, China Zhezhiang Hangxiao Steel Structures,
China
The above analysis is based on scrutiny of the information available in the
import documents viz. bills of lading and country of origin certificatespertaining
to 301 and 262 shipments imported into India by APML and APRL,
respectively, from countries other than China. It is evident from the above that
common entities have been utilised by EIF to supply goods from overseas load
ports to APML and APRL.It may be observed that in majority of the cases, the
shipper as per the bill of lading and the exporter as per the corresponding COO
certificate is the same entity.
7.2 Apart from shippers/suppliers common to both projects, as listed
in Table-6, there were certain shippers/suppliers unique to either of the
projects. The names of such unique Shippers/Exporters, as appearing on COO
certificatespertaining to consignments invoiced by EIF in the names of APML
and APRL, for imports from countries other than China, are tabulated below:-
Table-7
Unique exporters/shippers for shipments to APML as per Bills of Lading /
COO Certificates
Sr.No. Name of shipper/exporter as indicated on the
Bills of Lading
Name of exporter as indicated on COO certificates
A B C
1. Dresser Inc. USA Dresser Inc. USA
2. Dropsa SPA, Italy Dropsa SPA, Italy
3. Longjeng (HongKong) Co. Ltd. Not available
4. Rotork Limited, Hong Kong Rotork Controls Limited, England
5. Stork Thermeq B.V., The Netherlands Stork Thermeq B.V., The Netherlands
6. Suntech Engineering Co. Limited, Hong Kong Wier Valves & Controls, USA
Table-8
Unique exporters/shippers for shipments to APRL as per Bill of Lading /
COO Certificates
Sr.No. Name of shipper/exporter as indicated on the
Bills of Lading
Name of exporter as indicated on COO certificate
A B C
1. Grandcrown Enterprises Limited, Hong Kong Renold Gears, England
2. Cai Engineering Corp USA Copes-Vulcan, Houston, USA

of 111
8.0 Three invoices of Actual Suppliers/OEMs as submitted by
Bank of Baroda
8.1 Documents submitted by Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Bur
Dubai, included copies of certain Letters of Credit and invoices. Scrutiny
revealed that the invoices appear to have been raised by Shanghai Shantra
Trading Co. Limited for supply of goods to APML &APRL and by Reynold Power
Transmission Limited, UK for supply of goods to APML (RUD/D-60). Tabulated
below are particulars of information as available in the invoices raised by these
firms:-
Table-9
Original Supplier/OEM invoices raised for supplies to APML/APRL
S.No. Name of the
shipper/OEM
Invoice No.
/date
Description of
goods
Amount
CIF
LC No. /BL No.
indicated on invoice
Purpose
A B C D E F G
1. Shanghai
Shantra
Trading Co.
Ltd.,
Shanghai,
China
10SDMS01G160
DE dt. 26-01-
2011
“Voith” Hydraulic
Coupling Type
R17K500M-2 sets
, Hydraulic
Coupling Spares
USD
1647395 9001IMPLC00149110/.
CLTU08020030836
For supply to
APML, power
project at
Tiroda in
Maharashtra
2. Shanghai
Shantra
Trading Co.
Ltd.,
Shanghai,
China
10SDMS01G180
IN dt. 04-05-
2011
“Voith” Hydraulic
Coupling Type
R17K500M-
(including spare
parts)- 2 sets ,
(Unit price:
USD823697.50)
USD
1647395
9001IMPLC0012211/
CLTU08020032584
For supply to
APRL, power
project at
Kawai in
Rajasthan
3.
Reynold
Power
Transmission
Limited, UK
50582 dt. 25-
06-2013
Spares for
Regerative APH
(Speed Reducer,
gears, pinions,
shafts,
bearings,clutch,
assembly, fluid
coupling
GBP
54279.68
9001IMPLC0013213/
ISCO61077
For supply to
APML power
project at
Tiroda in
Maharashtra
8.2 Perusal of sr.no. 1 & 2 of Table-9 shows that though the goods
covered by the two invoices are meant for two different projects (APML and
APRL), the description, quantity, value and brand/make of the goods is
identical. Since the projects being set up in India at Tiroda in Maharastra and
Kawai in Rajasthan are of identical capacity (2 x 660 MW), it appears that two
sets of identical goods have been ordered for supply from Shanghai Shantra
Trading Co. Ltd. , China-one meant for installation at APML’s project at Tiroda
and the other for APRL’s project at Kawai in Rajasthan. Perusal of copies of the
corresponding LCs found accompanying the invoices revealed that both the LCs
covering consignments at Sr.No. 1 & 2 were opened by Bank of Baroda,
wherein the applicant’s name was EIF and the beneficiary name was
mentioned as Shanghai Shantra Trading Co. Ltd., thereby implying that EIF

of 111
had applied to Bank of Baroda, Dubai Main Branch, for opening the LCs in
favour of Shanghai Shantra Trading Co. Ltd., China. It, therefore, appears that
Electrogen Infra FZE was to make the payment to Shanghai Shantra Trading
Co. Limited. , China for the aforesaid goods through the mechanism of Letters
of Credit. In respect of Sr.No. 3, pertaining to the invoice raised by Reynold
Power Transmission Limited, UK on the buyer indicated in the invoice i.e EIF
for supply to APML power project at Tiroda, opening of LC appears to have been
ordered on Bank of Baroda by EIF in favour of Reynold Power Transmission
Limited, UK, thereby implying that EIF was to make the payment to Reynold
Power Transmission Limited, UK for the aforesaid goods to be shipped to APML.
8.3 Efforts made to trace the corresponding imports into India on the
basis of the bills of lading numbers reflected in column F of Table-9above
revealed that the aforesaid goods were imported under Bills of Entry Nos.
782555 dt. 25-03-2011, 3900092 dt. 25-06-2011 and 2922349 dated 06-08-
2013, brief particulars of which are tabulated below :-
Table-10
Bills of Entry details for Original Supplier/OEM invoices given at Table-9
S.No. Bill of Entry
No. /date
EIF invoice no. /date EIF’s
invoice
amount
(USD)
Bill of Lading No. /date
A B C E F
1. 782555/
25-03-2011
10SDMS01G160 DE dt. 26-01-
2011
3294790 CLTU08020030836 dt. 05-02-2011
2. 3900092/25-
06-2011
10SDMS01G180 IN dt. 04-05-
2011
3294790 CLTU08020032584 dt. 09-05-2011
3. 2922349/ 06-
08-2013
50582 dt. 25-06-2013 230550 ISCO61077 dt. 03-07-2013
Total
6820130
8.4 It is evident from comparison of the invoice numbers &dates in
column Cof Table-9 with the invoice numbers and dates figuring at Column Fat
Table-10 that EIF continued to adopt invoice numbers and dates of
OEMs/shippers for the invoices raised by it on APML and APRL as it was doing
for the shipments from China. Invoice values available in the two sets of
invoices for the same goods in respect of the above three consignments
imported into India are tabulated below:-
Table-11
Value as per Original Supplier/OEMs invoice vis-à-vis the EIF invoice
Sr.
No.
OEM invoice raised on EIF Invoice raised by EIF on
APML/APRL)
Difference
(USD)
[F] as %
of [C]
A B C D E F G
Inv.No. /date Value (USD) Inv.No. /date Value (USD)
1 10SDMS01G160 DE
dt. 26-01-2011
1647395 10SDMS01G160 DE
dt. 26-01-2011 (on
APML)
3294790 1674395 100%

of 111
2 10SDMS01G180 IN dt.
04-05-2011
1647395 10SDMS01G180 IN
dt. 04-05-2011 (on
APRL)
3294790 1674395 100%
3. 50582 dt. 25-06-2013 85041.22
(equivalent of
GBP 54279.68
converted to
USD)
50582 dt. 25-06-2013
(on APML)
230550 145509 171%
Note: Invoice numbers & dates are same in Columns B and D but corresponding
values in columns C and E are different.
From the figures worked out in the Table-11, Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE
appears to have inflated the invoice price to the extent of 100% over Shanghai
Shantra’s prices in the two back-to-back invoices (Sr.No. 1 & 2) raised on APML and
APRL, respectively, on the strength of which the goods appear to have been cleared in
India. In case the case of goods shipped by Reynold Power Transmission Limited, the
value inflation noticed in the EIF’s invoice (sr.no.3) is to the extent of 171%. It,
therefore, prima- facie appears that the goods cleared on the strength of the EIF’s
invoices raised on APML and APRL have been grossly over-valued by way of inflated
invoices raised by the intermediary-EIF. Scanned images of the two sets of the three
invoices, viz. invoices raised by Shanghai Shantra and Reynold Power Transmission
Limited on EIFand the back-to-back invoices raised by EIF on APML/APRL are given
below for ease of appreciation:-

of 111
8.5 Shri Moreshwar Vasant Rabade has signed the Agreement dated
05-11-2009 between APML and EIF on behalf of APML (para 4.13 refers). The
fact that Moreshwar Vasant Rabade was a Director in EIF, the UAE based
intermediary invoicing agent, is clearly recorded in the documents forwarded
by ICICI Bank (para 2.5.4 refers). A common person working for two different
companies i.e. for APML based in India and for EIF based in the UAE, not only
obliterates the distinction between these two companies as if they are two sides
of the same coin but also establishes commonality of interest.
8.6 As brought out in the foregoing paragraphs, EIF have maintained
the same invoice numbers and dates as those of the OEMs/actual suppliers in
the invoices raised by it on APML and APRL. From scrutiny of invoices and
other documents, it appears that -
i) EIF is neither an independent entity nor a bonafide one.
ii) EIF is only an intermediary invoicing agent for inflating value.
iii) Invoices of EIF are neither genuine nor authentic. For the same
shipment, there are two invoices with identical numbers and dates -
one that of the actual supplier in China or elsewhere, (the USA, the UK
etc.) and the other raised by EIF in the UAE. It is obvious that EIF
could not have raised invoice for same goods on same date with
identical number, when the goods had not even been shipped from
abroad. Perusal of the dates of shipment as per bills of lading for the
three shipments (Table-10) reveals that the dates of the shipments as
per the bills of lading are on dates subsequent to the dates on the
invoices (as is evident from the dates of the bills of lading). Thus, it is
apparent that the second invoice raised by EIF is bogus document - a
nominal paper created for the purpose of siphoning off of money
abroad.
9.1 From the import documents, it appeared that APML and APRL had
opened various Irrevocable Letters of Credits (L/Cs) in favour of their
intermediary invoicing agent i.e Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE for the purpose of
making outward remittances against EIF’s invoices. The details of said L/Cs
are tabulated below :-

of 111
Table-12
Particulars of L/Cs opened by APML and APRL in favour of EIF for
outward remittances
S.
No.
L/C
Applicant L/C No. /date Amount(US$) L/C opening Bank
L/C Advising/Favouring
Bank
A B C D E F
1 APRL
2305FLCDA110081
dt. 27.12.2011 19000000
BANK OF INDIA, Large
Corporate Branch,
AHMEDABAD
Axix Bank Ltd., DIFC Branch,
Dubai, UAE
2 APRL
2305FLCDA110082
dt. 27.12.2011 18000000
Corporate Branch,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
3 APRL
2305FLCDA110083
dt. 29.12.2011 19000000
Corporate Branch,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
4 APRL
2305FLCDA110084
dt. 30.12.2011 18000000
Corporate Branch,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
5 APRL
0415212IM0050028
dt. 03.03.2012 19000000
STATE BANK OF INDIA, CAG
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
6 APRL
2305FLCDA120001
dt. 02.01.2012 4250000
Corporate Branch,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
7 APML
3189FLC0052/2011
dt. 22.12.2011 4500000
CANARA BANK, PRIME
CORPORATE BRANCH,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
8 APML
7050812IM0000004
dt. 04.01.2012 13650000
STATE BANK OF
TRAVANCORE, Mumbai
through SBI NEW YORK
Dubai, UAE
9 APML
IMLC 2011/457071
dt. 01.07.2011 19000000
CORPORATION BANK,
NAVRANGPURA,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
10 APML
IMLC 2011/457072
dt. 06.07.2011 19000000
CORPORATION BANK,
NAVRANGPURA,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
11 APML
IMLC 2011/457073
dt. 06.07.2011 10500000
CORPORATION BANK,
NAVRANGPURA,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
12 APML
3189FLC0034/2011
dt. 17.09.2011 19000000
CANARA BANK, PRIME
CORPORATE BRANCH,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
13 APML
3189FLC0035/2011
dt. 17.09.2011 19000000
CANARA BANK, PRIME
CORPORATE BRANCH,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
14 APML
3189FLC0038/2011
dt. 19.09.2011 19000000
CANARA BANK, PRIME
CORPORATE BRANCH,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
15 APML
3189FLC0039/2011
dt. 20.09.2011 19000000
CANARA BANK, PRIME
CORPORATE BRANCH,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
16 APML
0192911FLU000050
dt. 06.07.2011 6750000
ALLAHABAD BANK, S. P.
NAGAR BRANCH,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
17 APML
0192911FLU000048
dt. 04.07.2011 19000000
NAGAR BRANCH,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
18 APML
0192911FLU000046
dt. 04.07.2011 19000000
NAGAR BRANCH,
AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
19 APML
041510IM0050152
dt. 04.07.2010 185000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI Tokyo
Bank Of Baroda, Dubai Main
Branch,Dubai
20 APML
0415210IM0050110
dt. 06.05.2010 1000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI DUBAI
Branch,Dubai
21 APRL
0415213IM0050009
dt. 11.02.2013 9170100
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI ANWERPEN
Dubai, UAE
22 APRL
0415212IM0050184
dt. 31.12.2012 7616100
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE

of 111
23 APRL
0415212IM0050183
dt. 31.12.2012 2358500
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
24 APRL
0415212IM0050182
dt. 31.12.2012 582100
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
25 APRL
0415212IM0050181
dt. 29.12.2012 2358500
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
26 APRL
0415212IM0050179
dt. 29.12.2012 582100
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
27 APRL
0415212IM0050180
dt. 29.12.2012 582100
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
28 APRL
0415212IM0050175
dt. 28.12.2012 16786100
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
29 APRL
0415212IM0050177
dt. 28.12.2012 2358500
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
30 APRL
0415212IM0050176
dt. 28.12.2012 582100
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
31 APRL
0415211IM0050115
dt. 21.06.2011 582100
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
32 APRL
0415211IM0050114
dt. 20.06.2011 18000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
33 APRL
0415210IM0050214
dt. 24.11.2010 56000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI LONDON
Branch,Dubai
34 APRL
0415210IM0050211
dt. 20.11.2010 19000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI LONDON
Branch,Dubai
35 APRL
0415211IM0050017
dt. 20.11.2010 13000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI DUBAI
Banque De Commerce ET DE
Placements Sa-DIFC Branch
Dubai ultimately to Bank Of
Baroda, Dubai
36 APRL
0415211IM0050018
dt. 18.01.2011 12000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI DUBAI
Banque De Commerce ET DE
Placements Sa-DIFC Branch
Dubai ultimately to Bank Of
Baroda, Dubai
37 APRL
0415210IM0050225
dt. 09.12.2010 75000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI SINGAPORE
Bank Of America, NA,
Singapore ultimately to Bank
Of Baroda, Dubai
38 APRL
0415210IM0050172
dt. 06.08.2010 17000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI LONDON
Branch,Dubai
39 APRL
0415210IM0050168
dt. 29.07.2010 5000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI LONDON
Branch,Dubai
40 APRL
0415211IM0050058
dt. 08.03.2011 18000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI FRANKFURT
Branch,Dubai
41 APRL
0415211IM0050062
dt. 12.03.2011 17000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
42 APRL
0415211IM0050063
dt. 12.03.2011 15000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
43 APRL
0415211IM0050106
dt. 30.05.2011 17000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
44 APRL
0415212IM0050028
dt. 03.03.2012 19000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
45 APRL
0415212IM0050030
dt. 13.03.2012 6700000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
46 APRL
0415211IM0050108
dt. 06.06.2011 15000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
47 APML
0415212IM0050039
dt. 29.03.2012 32900000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
48 APRL
0415212IM0050038
dt. 29.03.2012 14347857
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
49 APRL
0415212IM0050089
dt. 18.07.2012 18505000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
50 APML
0415212IM0050093
dt. 31.07.2012 21500000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI LONDON
Dubai, UAE
51 APRL
0415212IM0050094
dt. 01.08.2012 19000000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE

of 111
52 APML
0415212IM0050116
dt. 11.09.2012 19200000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI NEW YORK
Dubai, UAE
53 APML
0415211IM0050037
dt. 15.02.2011 21500000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI Tokyo
Dubai, UAE
54 APML
0415212IM0050033
dt. 22.03.2012 13150000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
55 APML
0415212IM0050029
dt. 07.03.2012 19600000
Branch, AHMEDABAD
through SBI LONDON
Dubai, UAE
56 APML
000411IML000001
dt. 20.04.2011 19000000
ANDHRA BANK,
ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD
Dubai, UAE
57 APML
000411IML000002
dt. 21.04.2011 19000000
ANDHRA BANK,
Dubai, UAE
58 APML
000411IML000003
dt. 27.04.2011 19000000
ANDHRA BANK,
Dubai, UAE
9.2 From the details provided in Column F of Table-12 above, it
appears that remittances were to be made to two banks in the UAE viz. AXIS
Bank, DIFC Branch, Dubai and Bank of Baroda, Bur Dubai for the benefit of
EIF. Therefore,it appeared that remittances from India by APML and APRL
towards invoices raised by the UAE based intermediary-EIF were to be made to
accounts held by the UAE intermediary in these banks. Discreet enquiries
revealed that EIF had also utilised the services of these two banks for the
purpose of making outward remittances to various overseas firms/entities that
had actually shipped the goods to APML and APRL. Inputs gathered indicated
that substantial amounts of outward remittances have been made by EIF
through these two accounts held by them with AXIS Bank and Bank of Baroda
in the UAE to various overseas entities/firms by way of Outward Telegraphic
Transfer (OTT) using the SWIFT Network. SWIFT (Society for Worldwide
Interbank Financial Telecommunication) is a network that enables
banks/financial institutions worldwide to send and receive information about
financial transactions in a secure, standardized and reliable environment as
well as for transfer of funds. In short, SWIFT enables instant electronic transfer
of funds globally from one account to another.
9.3 In respect of Axis Bank, DIFC Branch, Dubai, a request was made
under F.No.DRI/MZU/CI/223/2013 dated 06-11-2013 (RUD/C-12) to them to
compile a list of all such outward remittances effected by them on the
instructions/directions/orders of EIF to various overseas entities together with
legible photo-copies of the complete SWIFT messagesrelating to such outward
remittanceseffected by the bank from the account of EIF for every outward
remittance made for and on behalf of EIF. Axis Bank, vide letter bearing F.No.
AXIS/DIFC/1154/2013-14 dated 13-11-2013 (RUD/D-61), forwarded copies of
documents for outward remittances made to various entities from the account

of 111
of EIF held with them. Copies of documents forwarded by the Axis Bank was
preceded by a tabulated sheet which was a summary of the outward
remittances made from the said account which, inter-alia, included reference
numberalloted by the bank to each EIF application, amount remitted and name
of the beneficiary.
9.4 Documents forwarded by the Bank were examined. Outward
remittances appeared to have been effected by the AXIS Bank on the basis of
applications for outward remittanaces (here-in-after referred to as ‘AOR’ also)
made by EIF. Such applications were typically found to be one page
applications addressed to the Bank on EIF’s letter head. The applications also
contained the name & address of the beneficiary, beneficiary’s bank&account
number and SWIFT code of the beneficiary Bank. The amount of outward
remittance requested for was mentioned in words and figures. In the details to
be provided under the head ‘Purpose of remittance’, EIF appeared to have made
a mention of certain bills/invoice numbers. Examination of particulars of such
bills/invoices mentioned on many of the AORsrevealed that the invoice
numbers contained the words ‘Kawai’ or ‘Tiroda’ thereby implying that
invoicesnumbers reflected in the AORspertained to the invoices raised by the
beneficiaries on EIF for supply of goods to Tiroda or Kawai power projects i.e.
APML or APRL,as the case may be. The AORs were found to contain sometimes
single and sometimes multiple invoice numbers. In the case of multiple
invoices mentioned in the AORsagainst a single aggregate amount requested
for transfer to the beneficiary, no further invoice-wise break-up of the aggregate
amount was forthcoming in the AORs.It was also revealed that in the case of
AORswith multiple invoices, the invoices pertained to APML as well as APRL. In
such cases, the sole beneficiary was a common entity and payment appeared to
have been made to the beneficiary through the single AOR towards supply of
goods to both APML as well as APRL. It is already observed elsewhere in this
Notice that because of identical specifications of the power projects of APML
and APRL, suppliers of equipments were mostly common. Every AORinvariably
contained the name of single beneficiary though remittance to be made may be
for more than one invoice pertaining to goods supplied to either APML or APRL
or both. In case of multiple invoice AORs, the individual invoice-wise amounts
were not ascertainable.Further scrutiny of the AORsrevealed that Axis Bank
appears to have acknowledged receipt of the said AORsas is evident from the
Bank’s stamp found endorsed on body of the AORs.The Bank’s stamp, inter-
alia, contained space for mentioning Ref.No. & Date. The Bank, pursuant to
receipt of the application, appears to have alloted an alpha-numeric numberto
each application, which was found to be ‘hand-written’ and which appeared to

of 111
be an unique identification number for every AOR. Pursuant to the AORs, the
Bank appears to have effected transfer of the requested amount from EIF’s
account to the beneficiary’s bank and account as indicated in the AOR.
Scrutiny of the bank account statement in respect of
Current Account No. 912020200000514 of EIF maintained with AXIS Bank (as
forwarded by the bank earlier vide its letter bearing Ref.No.
AXIS/DIFC/1299/2013-14 dated 18-12-2013)confirmed that outward
remittances had been made from the said account by debiting the account, as
evidenced by debit entries in the account. Debit entries in the account are
reflected under ‘withdrawal’ column of the account, mostly on the date of the
AORsor sometimes on the subsequent date. Therefore, the bank appears to
have facilitated the outward remittances on behalf of EIF to various
OEMs/firms/entities on request of EIF against invoices (raised by the
beneficiaries on EIF)as indicated on the AORs.
9.5 Examination of the invoice numbers found mentioned on the AORs
prima facie appeared to be identical to the invoice numbers of invoices raised
by EIF on APML or APRL. Since the EIF invoices had same invoice numbers as
those of the shippers of the goods to APML & APRL (as discussed earlier), the
above outward remittances appeared to be the payments made by EIF against
invoices raised on it by the respective beneficiaries for the supplies made to
APML or APRL, as the case may be.
9.6 As per the summary sheet attached to AXIS Banks’ letter dated 13-
12-2013 (RUD/D-62), AXIS Bank, DIFC, Dubai has provided a total of 86
outward remittances effected to various overseas firms on the request of EIF,
as reproduced below :-
Table-13
Outward remittances from EIF’s account with AXIS Bank, Dubai through
SWIFT mode
S.No. Bank Ref. No. AMOUNT CURRENCY BENEFICIARY
1 912OTT100960 26,84,700 USD FUJIAN LONGKING CO LTD
2 912OTT100974 8,25,000 USD LONJING (HONG KONG) COMPANY LIMITED
3 912OTT100985 21,600 USD APL(BEIJING)EXIM CO. LTD
4 912OTT100986 6,14,719 USD HIFETEC INTERNATIONAL(HK) LIMITED
7 912OTT101122 2,30,222.02 USD HIFETEC INTERNATIONAL(HK) LIMITED
10 912OTT101214 14,840.33 USD MULLA & MULLA & CRAIGIE BLUNT & CAROE

of 111
11 912OTT101298 6,641.20 USD HIFETEC INTERNATIONAL(HK) LIMITED
12 912OTT110229 65,32,831 USD HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD.
13 912OTT110390 42,72,403.69 USD APL(BEIJING)EXIM CO. LTD
14 912OTT110417 131,71,077 USD SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO.LTD
16 912OTT110470 42,95,901 USD APL(BEIJING)EXIM CO. LTD
20 912OTT110685 95,23,357.80 USD SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO.LTD
24 912OTT110904 830,00,000 USD ADANI POWER DAHEJ LTD
25 912OTT110941 1037,00,000 USD KUTCH POWER GENERATION LTD
27 912OTT110965 86,71,593.60 USD SHANGHAI ZHENHUA HEAVY INDUTRIES CO LTD
30 912OTT111053 415,00,000 USD ADANI PENCH POWER LTD.
31 912OTT111062 4,97,955 USD HIFETEC INTERNATIONAL(HK) LIMITED
36 9120-U111208 144,87,647 USD SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO.LTD
44 9120-U111459 16,80,640 USD APL(BEIJING)EXIM CO. LTD
45 9120-U111460 81,05,181 USD APL(BEIJING)EXIM CO. LTD
50 912OTT120140 5,93,846.01 USD DALIAN INSULATOR GROUP CO LTD
52 912OTT120150 33,330 USD APL(BEIJING)EXIM CO. LTD
60 912OTT120393 6895,00,000 JPY KOWA CO. LTD
63 912017120574 2,16,274.82 USD SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO.LTD

of 111
65 912OTT120594 6895,00,000 JPY KOWA CO. LTD
68 9120TT120707 3,72,000 USD FIRSTEC MARTITIME LIMITED
69 9120TT120743 16,52,100 USD SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO.LTD
70 9120TT120767 9,99,010 USD APL(BEIJING)EXIM CO. LTD
71 912011120837 40,79,277.50 USD APL(BEIJING)EXIM CO. LTD
72 912011120980 42,19,765 USD APL(BEIJING)EXIM CO. LTD
74 912011120985 18,187.65 USD APL(BEIJING)EXIM CO. LTD
77 912011121235 26,706.00 EUR VOITH TURBO LIMITED
79 912011121349 29,101 USD KNK SHIP MANAGEMENT
80 912011121522 2,39,530.68 USD DALIAN INSULATOR GROUP CO LTD
81 912011130037 470,00,000 JPY KOWA CO. LTD
82 912011130039 99,900 USD SPUR SHIPPING PTE LTD
83 912OTT130103 3,55,960 USD LONJING (HONG KONG) COMPANY LIMITED
84 912011130143 72,678.47 USD HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD.
85 912011130386 11,14,500 EURO LIEBHERR WERK NENZING GMBH
86 912011130499 1,04,209.54 USD
SUZHOU FURUKAWA POWER OPTIC CABLE
CO.,LTD.
TOTAL
1913,983,805
9.7 Beneficiary-wise summary of aggregate amount out of the above
outward remittances made to individual beneficiaries appearing in Table-13
above representing invoice-value of goods invoiced by respective beneficiaries to
EIF (relatable to corresponding invoices raised by EIF on APML or APRL on the
basis of detailed analysis of invoice numbers) is shown in the Table below :-
Table -14
Outward remittances from the account of EIF with AXIS Bank, Dubai:
Beneficiary-wise summary
S.No.
Name of the Beneficiary
Amount of money remitted
in USD
1. APL (Beijing) Exim Co. Ltd. 103,414,857
2. Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. 125,200,767
3. Fujiang Longking Co. Ltd. 3,930,600
4. Lonjing (Hong Kong) Company Limited 1,180,960
5. Hifetec Ineternational (HK) Ltd. 8,184,885
6. Voith Turbo Limited 26,706
Total 241,938,775
9.8 From the above, it appears that outward remittancesthrough
SWIFT mode from the account of EIF held with Axis Bank have been made,

of 111
inter-alia,tosix entities (beneficiariesas per SWIFT) in so far they directly relate
to shipments made to APML & APRL, which were subsequently cleared on
arrival in India on the strength of invoices raised by EIF on APML and APRL.
9.9 In respect of Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Bur Dubai, that the
information/documents sought from the Dubai branch were forwarded to the
Corporate office by the Dubai Branch under a letter bearing
Ref.No.CE/Compliance/1612/2013 dated 05-11-2013 (RUD/D-63) which were
retireved by DRI officers as stated elsewhere. These included copies of the
applications made by EIF to the Bank for outward remitances through SWIFT
mode. Copies of the applications made by EIF to Bank of Baroda requesting for
outward telegraphic transfer of funds thorugh SWIFT mode to various
beneficiarires were also examined (RUD/D-64). Outward remittances appeared
to have been effected by Bank of Baroda on the basis of the applications made
by EIF to the Bank. Such applications, being requests for outward remittances
by way of telegraphic transfer (here-in-after referred to as ‘ORTTs also), were
typically found to be single page typed applications addressed to the Bank on
EIF’s letter heads. The applications also contained the name & address of the
beneficiary, beneficiary’s bank &account number and SWIFT code of the
beneficiary bank. The amount of outward remittance requested for was
mentioned in figures. In the details to be provided under the head ‘Purpose of
remittance’, EIF have made a mention of certain bills/invoice numbers.
Examination of particulars of such bills/invoice numbers found mentioned on
many of the ORTTs revealed that the invoice numbers contained the words
‘Kawai’ or ‘Tiroda’ thereby implying that invoice numbers reflected in the
ORTTs pertained to the invoices raised by the beneficaries on EIF for supply of
goods to Tiroda or Kawai power projects i.e. APML or APRL, as the case may be.
The ORTTs were found to make a mention of single or sometimes multiple
invoice numbers. In the case of multiple invoices mentioned in the ORTT
against a single aggregate amount requested for transfer to the beneficiary, no
further invoice-wise breakup of the aggregate amount was forthcoming in the
ORTTs. It was also revealed that in the case of ORTT with multiple invoices,
they pertained to APML as well as APRL. In such cases, the sole beneficiary
was a common entity and payment appeared to have been made to the
beneficiary through the single ORTT towards supply of goods to APML as well
as APRL. It is already observed elsewhere in this Notice that because of
identical specifications of the power projects of APML & APRL, supplies of
equipments were mostly common. Every ORTT invariably contained the name
of a single beneficiary though remittance to be made may be for more than one
invoice pertaining to goods supplied to APML or APRL or both. In case of

of 111
multiple-invoice ORTTs, the individual invoice-wise amounts were not
ascertainable. Further scrutiny of the ORTTs revealed that Bank of Baroda
appears to have acknoledged receipt of the said ORTT as is evident from the
Bank’s stamp found endorsed on body of the ORTTs. The Bank’s stamp, inter-
alia, contained space for mentioning O.R. No. and the amount to be remitted.
The Bank, pursuant to receipt of the application, appears to have alloted an
O.R.No. (Outward remittance numbers) which was found to he ‘hand-written’
and which appeared to be an unique number for every ORTT. Other
endorsements evidencing the amount of money remitted indicated by hand-
written text against a stamped proforma were forthcoming on the body of the
ORTT. Pursuant to the ORTTs, the Bank appears to have effected transfer of
the requested amount from EIF’s account to the beneficiary’s bank and
account as indicated in the ORTT. Scrutiny of the Bank account statement in
respect of Current Account (General) no. 900102000008259 of EIF maintained
with Bank of Baroda (RUD/D-65) confirmed that the outward remittances had
been made from the said account by debiting the account, as evidenced by
debit entries in the account. Debit entries in the account are reflected under
‘DEBIT’ column of the account, mostly on the date of the ORTT or sometimes
on the subsequent date. Therefore, the Bank appears to have facilitated the
outward remittances for EIF to various OEMs/actual suppliers at the request
of EIF against invoices raised by the beneficiaries on EIF as indicated on the
ORTT.
9.10 Examination of the invoice numbers found mentioned on the
ORTTs prima facie appeared to be identical to the invoice number of invoices
raised by EIF on APML or APRL. Since the EIF invoices had same invoice
numbers as those of the shippers of the goods to APML & APRL (as discussed
earlier), the above outward remittances appeared to be the payments made by
EIF against invocies raised on it by the respective beneficiaries for the supplies
made to APML and APRL.
9.11 Details of the outward remittances effected by Bank of Baroda,
Dubai Main Branch, Bur Dubai to various overseas entities/firms, as per the
information available in the individual ORTT applications and the
corresponding entries in the Bank Statement forwarded by the Bank, are
tabulated below :-

of 111
Table-15
Outward remittances from EIF’s account with Bank of Baroda, Dubai Main
Branch, through SWIFT mode
S.No. Bank Ref. No. DATE AMOUNT (USD) Remitted To
1 9001ORTT0413309 21-07-2009 5000000 Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd.
6 9001ORTT0202310 03-10-2010 2500000 APL (Beijing) Exim Co. Ltd.
7 9001ORTT0340010 20-04-2010 7284000 Fujiang Longking Co. Ltd.
16 9001ORTT0582510 23-06-2010 2739018 Hifetec Ineternational (HK) Ltd.
17 9001ORTT0643410 07-08-2010 460000 Electrogen Infra FZE, Dubai
27 9001ORTT0843810 30-08-2010 2500000 Ghommaz General Trading LLC, Dubai
32
9001ORTT0964410 28-09-2010 12052612
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., for
Bhadreshwar project
33
9001ORTT0964510 28-09-2010 4821045
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., for Pench
project
34
9001ORTT0964610 28-09-2010 9642090
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., for Dahej
project
35
9001ORTT0970510 29-09-2010 11203500
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., for
Bhadreshwar project
36
9001ORTT0970610 29-09-2010 8962800
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., for Dahej
project
37
9001ORTT0970710 29-09-2010 4481400
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., for Pench
project

of 111
53 9001ORTT1189710 23-11-2010 41145 Clifford Chance LLP UAE
66 9001ORTT1247910 12-07-2010 1931175 Fujian Longking Co. Ltd.
69 9001ORTT1262010 12-09-2010 85000 Clifford Chance LLP UAE
86 9001ORTT0048711 01-12-2011 2947050 Lonjing (HK) Co. Ltd.

of 111
107
9001ORTT0235711 21-02-2011 1470000 Electrogen Infra Holding Pvt. Ltd, Mauritius
119
126
129
133
134
135
137
140
142
143
9001ORTT1180711 15-08-2011 12423817 Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.

of 111
145
146
149
150
152
153
154
155
157
160
9001ORTT1598311 11-01-2011 5000000 Assent Trade & Investement Ltd. Mauritius
161
9001ORTT1598611 11-01-2011 100000 Assent Trade & Investement Ltd. Mauritius
162
163
168
170
171
172
174
176
177
178
179
180
181

of 111
182
183
184
186
189
191
195
196
198
200
201
202
204
205
206
207
208
209
210 9001ORTT1191312 06-11-2012 700000 Moreshwar Vasant Rawade
212 9001ORTT1375112 28-06-2012 150000 Moreshwar Vasant Rawade
213
215
216
217
218
219

of 111
220
221
222 9001ORTT1872212 09-06-2012 13819400 Kowa Company Limited
223
224
225 9001ORTT1909112 09-12-2012 71303 KNK Ship Mangmenet
226
227
228
230 9001ORTT1976412 24-09-2012 89440 Spur Shipping PTE Ltd.
232
233
234
236
237
238
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
249 9001ORTT2354412 26-11-2012 87274 VOITH TURBO
252
255
256
257 9001ORTT0362113 25-02-2013 400000 SAL Heavy Lift GMBH

of 111
259
260
261
262
264
265
267 9001ORTT0803113 29-04-2013 7590 DROPSA SPA, Italy
269
271
272
275
9001ORTT1478313 30-07-2013 74408 Asia Star Control System Ltd., Hong Kong
276
277
TOTAL
2503,338,992
Note:- Bank of Baroda, Bur Dubai has certified that outward remittances were
made thorugh SWIFT mode from EIF’s account by way of 277 ORTTs as
tabulated above in an identical table featuring each of the above 277
entries. (RUD/D-66 )
9.12 Beneficiary-wise summary of aggregate amount out of the above
outward remittances made to individual beneficiaries appearing in Table-
15above, representing invoice-value of goods invoiced by respective
beneficiaries to EIF (relatable to corresponding invoices raised by EIF on APML
or APRL on the basis of detailed analysis of invoice numbers) is shown in
Table-16 below :-
Table-16
Outward remittances from the account of EIF with Bank of Baroda, Dubai Main
Branch, Bur Dubai : Beneficiary-wise summary
Sr.No. Name of the beneficiary
Amount of money
remitted in USD
1 APL (Beijing) Exim Co. Ltd. 1411,46,686
2 Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. 2105,31,453

of 111
3 Fujiang Longking Co. Ltd. 410,19,275
4 Lonjing (Hong Kong) Company Limited 47,22,520
5 Dropsa SpA, Italy 7,590
6 Asia Star Control System Ltd., Hong Kong 74,408
7 Hifetec Ineternational (HK) Ltd. 265,31,432
8 Voith Turbo Limited 87274
9 Reynold Transmission 241,012
10 Shanghai Shantra Trading Co. Ltd. 32,94,790
Total 427656440
9.13 From the above Table-16, it appears that the outward remittances
through SWIFT mode from the account of EIF held with Bank of Baroda have
been made only to the eight entities (beneficiaries as per SWIFT- Sr.no. 1 to 8)
in so far as they directly relate to shipments made to APML and APRL, which
were subsequently cleared on arrival in India on the strength of invoices raised
by EIF on APML and APRL. Remittances for Sr.No. 9 and 10 were made against
L/C through the account held with Bank of Baroda, Bur Dubai.
9.14 The overall picture emerging out of analysis of the applications
made for outward remittances by EIF to the two banks i.e AXIS Bank & Bank
of Baroda and the amount of money remitted to various actual
suppliers/OEMs, which are apparently directly relatable to shipments imported
and cleared on the strength of invoices raised by EIF on APML or APRL based
on an in-depth analysis of the invoicing pattern, is given in the Table below :-
Table-17
Total amount of money remitted by EIF to actual suppliers/OEMs through
Axis Bank and Bank of Baroda, Dubai towards shipments made by
respective suppliers/OEMs
(Amt. in USD)
Sr.No. Name of the Beneficiary BOB Axis Total
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E]
1 APL (Beijing) Exim Co. Ltd. 141,146,686 103,414,857 244,561,543
2 Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. 210,531,453 125,200,767 335,732,220
3 Fujiang Longking Co. Ltd. 410,19,275 3,930,600 44,949,875
4
LONJING (HONG KONG) COMPANY LIM-
ITED 4,722,520 1,180,960 5,903,480
5 DROPSA SPA, Italy 7,590 0 7,590
6 Asia Star Control System Ltd., Hong Kong 74,408 0 74,408
7 Hifetec Ineternational (HK) Ltd. 26,531,432 8,184,885 34,716,316
8 VOITH TURBO LIMITED 87274 26,706 113,980
9 Reynold Transmission 2,41,012 0 241,012
10 SHANGHAI SHANTRA TRADING CO. LTD. 32,94,790 0 3,294,790
Total 427,656,440 241,938,775 669,595,215
Note :Refer Table-16 for Column C and Table-14 for Column D

of 111
10.1 A summary of the names of various shippers/exporters, as
appearing in the bills of lading/ COOcertificates covering shipments from
overseas portsother than China,imported into India by APML& APRL,showing
the name of the corresponding beneficiaries to whom payments have been
made by EIF through SWIFT mode(against sourcing of goods from the
respective shipper/exporter as per invoice numbers indicated on
AORs/ORTTsidentified on the basis of analysis of invoice numbers declared on
the individual AOR/ORTT received from the AXIS Bank and Bank of Baroda)is
tabulated below in Table-18 for ease of appreciationof common shippers to
APML & APRL. Similarly, unique shippers to APML & APRL are in Tables-19&
20 respectively:-
Table-18
Names of the common shippers/exportersas per the Bills of lading/COO
Certificates in respect of imports by APML& APRL and the corresponding
beneficiary to whom the remittances were made by EIF through SWIFT
mode
Sr.No. Name of shipper/exporter as
indicated on the Bill of
Lading
Name of exporter as indicated on COO
certificate
Name of Beneficiary of
outward remittances against
shipments made by firms
indicated at (B) & (C)
A B C D
1. American Materials
Technology, Houston, USA
Erndtebrucker Eisenwerk GmbH & Co.
KG, Germany
Hifetec International (HK)
Limited
2. Auma Riester GmBH & Co.
KG, Germany
Auma Riester GmBH & Co. KG,
Germany
Shanghai Electric Group Co.
Ltd., China
3. CCI, AG Switzerland CCI, AG Switzerland APL (Beijing) Co. Ltd.,China
4. Dalmine SPA, Italy Dalmine SPA, Italy Hifetec International (HK)
Limited
5. IBF SPA, Italy IBF SPA, Italy Hifetec International (HK)
Limited
6. Keonwoo Metals Co. Ltd. ,
South Korea
Keonwoo Metals Co. Ltd. , South Korea Hifetec International (HK)
Limited
7. Ablan Engineering
Corporation China
LVF SPA, Italy APL (Beijing) Co. Ltd.,China
8. Parcol SPA, Italy Parcol SPA, Italy APL (Beijing) Co. Ltd.,China
9. Renold Power Transmission
Limited, United Kingdom
Renold Power Transmission Limited,
United Kingdom
Renold Power Transmission
Limited, United Kingdom
10. Maxonic Electric Apparatus
HK Limited, Hong Kong
STI SRL Italy Shanghai Electric Group Co.
Ltd., China
11. Safe-Fire Inc. , USA Safe-Fire Inc. , USA Shanghai Electric Group Co.
Ltd., China
12 Samshin Limited, Korea Samshin Limited, Korea APL (Beijing) Co. Ltd.,China
13 Sumitomo Corporation, Japan Sumitomo Corporation, Japan Hifetec International (HK)
Limited
14 Torishima Pump Mfg. Co.
Ltd., Japan
Torishima Pump Mfg. Co. Ltd., Japan Shanghai Electric Group Co.
Ltd., China
15 Tyco Valves & Controls Italia
SRL, Italy
Tyco Flow Control Hongkong Limited,
Hong Kong
APL (Beijing) Co. Ltd.,China
16. V & M Deutschland GmBH,
Germany
Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes,
Germany
Limited
17. Voith Turbo GMBH & Co. Voith Turbo GMBH & Co. KG,Germany Voith Turbo Limited

of 111
KG,Germany
18. Qingdao Wemay Textile Co.
Limited, China
Guangzhou Yaxiang Trade Co. Limited,
China
Limited
19. Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE Zhejiang Hangxiao Steel Structures Co.
Limited , China
Table-19
Unique exporters/shippers for shipments to APML
as per Bills of Lading / COO Certificates and names of beneficiaries to
whom remittances were made
Sr.No. Name of shipper/exporter
as indicated on the Bill of
Lading
Name of exporter as
indicated on COO certificate
indicated at (B) & (D)
A B C D
1. Dresser Inc. USA Dresser Inc. USA Shanghai Electric Group Co.
Ltd., China
2. Dropsa SPA, Italy Dropsa SPA, Italy Dropsa SPA, Italy
3. Longjeng (HongKong) Co.
Ltd.
Not available Longjeng (HongKong) Co. Ltd.
4. Rotork Limited, Hong Kong Rotork Controls Limited,
England
5. Stork Thermeq B.V., The
Netherlands
Stork Thermeq B.V., The
Netherlands
Shanghai Electric Group Co.
Ltd., China
6. Suntech Engineering Co.
Limited, Hong Kong
Wier Valves & Controls, USA Shanghai Electric Group Co.
Ltd., China
Table-20
Unique exporters/shippers for shipments to APRL as per Bills of Lading /
COO Certificates and names of beneficiaries to whom remittances were
made.
Sr.No. Name of shipper/exporter
as indicated on the Bill of
Lading
Name of exporter as
indicated on COO certificate
indicated at (B) & (D)
A B C D
1. Grandcrown Enterprises
Limited, Hong Kong
Renold Gears, England Shanghai Electric Group Co.
Ltd., China
2. Cai Engineering Corp USA Copes-Vulcan, Houston, USA Shanghai Electric Group Co.
Ltd., China
10.2 Perusal of the names in the above three Tables makes it clear that
though the shipments have been effected by various shippers/exporters, the
corresponding payments by the UAE based intermediary-EIFwere made only to
the entities listed at columns D of Table-18 to Table-20. The AOR/ORTT
invariably make a reference of the invoice numbers against which the requests
for outward remittances were made to the bank, which match with the

of 111
numbers on the invoices raised by EIF on APML,in relation to which the
corresponding shipment documents viz. the bills of lading and the COO
certificates contain the names of shippers/exporters as tabulated at columns
(B) and (C) of Table-18 to Table-20. Therefore, the seven unique beneficiary
firms, whose names are appearing repeatedly at columns D of the three tables
appear to be the actual suppliers who raised invoices on EIF, against which
money was remitted by EIF through SWIFT mode through AXIS Bank and
Bank of Baroda. The aggregate amount remitted to each of theseseven actual
suppliers/OEMs through SWIFT mode by EIF as per AOR/ORTT is
corroborated by debit entries in the bank account statement of AXIS Bank and
Bank of Baroda.
10.3 Reproduced beow are scanned images of sample documents (2 sets
each for APML & APRL) which illustrate the linkages between the invoice
numbers mentioned in the AORs/ORTTs through which remittances made to
the seven entities and related import documents filed before jurisdictional
customs authorities viz. invoice, bill of lading & COO certificates specifically
establish the relationship between the actual shippers of goods specified on the
bills of lading or the COO certificates and corresponding beneficiaries
appearing on AORs/ORTTs to whom the remittances were made through both
the Banks.

of 111
10.4 Efforts were made to ascertain extent of value inflation in EIF’s
invoices where the OEM invoices were not available but amount remitted by
EIF to the actual supplier/OEM for a single invoice was available in the
AORs/ORTTs. Since majority of the AOR’s/ORTTs contained multiple invoice
numbers, the few containing reference to singe invoice number were selected
/identified against which outward remittances were made by EIF to the
concerned beneficiary indicated in the AOR/ORTT. The amount of money
remitted by EIF through a particular AOR/ORTT which bore reference of a
single invoice number, thereby implying remittance made towards value of
goods covered by the invoice, was compared to corresponding invoice value of
back-to-back invoice with the same number and date raised by EIF on
APML/APRL. The results in thesecases are tabulated below:-
Table-21
Imports identified on the basis of single-invoice No.s appearing on
AORs/ORTTs
S.N
O.
BE NO.
/DATE
EIF'S inv. No.
/date
DECLA
RED
INVOIC
E
VALUE
(IN
USD)
ACTUAL
SUPPLIER
AS PER COO
/ INVOICE
PATTERN/
SWIFT
MESSAGE
SHIPPER'
S
INVOICE
NO.
declared
on
AOR/AOR
TT
AOR/ORTT
No. OF
AXIS/BOB
Amount
of
outward
remittanc
e made
by EIF to
OEM/act
ual
supplier
against
invoice at
Col. F
DIFFEREN
CE
BETWEEN
OEM PRICE
& EIF
PRICE
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H] [I]
1
156224/
13-07-
2010
LK-KAWAI-
2010-0413 dt.
13-04-2010
480000
FUJIAN
LONGKING
CO. LTD,
CHINA
LK-
KAWAI-
2010-
0413
BOB-
ORTT03750
10
120000.0
0
360000.00
2
F-
0003144/.
08-09-
2010
APRL-IBF-
C02 dt. 05-
08-2010
845262
0
HIFETEC
INTERNATIO
NAL (HK)
LIMITED
APRL-IBF-
C02
BOB-
ORTT08439
10
259807.7
5
8192812.25
3
F-
0004592/.
27-09-
2010
APRL-IBF-
C03 dt. 02-
09-2010
142692
0
HIFETEC
INTERNATIO
NAL (HK)
LIMITED
APRL-IBF-
C03
912OTT100
986
614719.0
0
812201.00
4
2342310/
19-11-
2010
LK-KAWAI-
2010-0916 dt.
16-09-2010
113854
2
FUJIAN
LONGKING
CO. LTD,
CHINA
LK-
KAWAI-
2010-
0916
BOB-
ORTT09959
10
540000.0
0
598541.96
5
2312932/
09-11-
2010
APRL-SFC-
C01 dt. 26-
09-2010
498554
1
HIFETEC
INTERNATIO
NAL (HK)
LIMITED
APRL-
SFC-C01
912OTT101
122
230222.0
2
4755318.98
6
2624970/
21-01-
2011
APRL-IBF-
C10 dt. 13-
12-2010
313657
6
HIFETEC
INTERNATIO
NAL (HK)
LIMITED
APRL-IBF-
C10
BOB-
ORTT00483
11
1054211.
00
2082365.00
Note : While the invoice numbers at columns [C] and [F] are the same, value of
the same goods in columns [D] and (H) differs.

of 111
The above exercise only reinforces the inference that EIF is not an independent
supplier, per-se, but merely an intermediary dummy agent for invoice copying
and value inflation.As is evident, the invoice numbers and dates remain the
same, the name of the supplier is changed and values have been inflated
[difference at column (I)] for enabling siphoning off of money abroad as a part of
the modus-operandi.
10.5 As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs and brought out in
Table-17, the aggregate amount of outward remittances to the tune of USD
669,595,215 has been made by EIF to various firms/entities listed above for
goods shipped to India, which were subsequently imported & cleared on the
strength of invoices raised by EIF on APML and APRL.
As against the above, the aggregate invoice value of invoices raised by
EIF on APML and APRL towards the same shipments made by the actual
suppliers/OEMs indicated above is shown in the table below (B/E-wise details
are available at Annexure A (APML) and Annexure B (APRL)to this Notice :-
Table-22
Aggregate invoice value of goods invoiced by EIF to APML & APRL for 301
and 262 consignments.
Sr.No. Importer Total no. of invoices Invoice value in USD
1 APML 301 721,653,099.3
2. APRL 262 756,281,170.80
TOTAL 563 1477,934,270
10.6 The difference between the aggregate invoice value of invoices
raised by EIF on APML and APRL (301 + 262 consignments) and the
corresponding aggregate amount remitted by EIF to various actual
suppliers/OEMs for supplies made to APML/APRL, is as under:-
Table-23
Aggregate value of invoices raised by EIF on APML and APRL vis-a-vis
aggregate amount remitted by EIF to various actual suppliers/OEMs for
supplies made to APML/APRL
Sr.No. Aggregate invoice value
remitted to various original
suppliers/OEMs (USD)
Corresponding aggregate
value of invoices raised by
EIF on APML and APRL (USD)
Difference (C-B)
(USD)
Variation {C as % of
B)
([A] [B] [C] [D] [E]
1. 669,595,215 1477,934,270 808,339,055 220%

of 111
10.7 From the gross difference between value of the invoices raised by
EIF on APML and APRL (column C) and the price paid by EIF to various actual
suppliers/OEMs, (aggregate invoice value remittance in column B), it appears
that EIF, in its back-to-back invoices raised on APML and APRL, has grossly
inflated the invoice price of the actual suppliers/OEMs. It appears that the
invoice price of the actual suppliers/OEMs has been more than doubled in the
invoices raised by it on APML and APRL. It, therefore, prima- facie appears that
the goods cleared on the strength of EIF’s invoices by APML and APRL have
been grossly over-valued on the basis of inflated invoices raised by the
intermediary-EIF.
11.0 Comparison of the remittances with Contract Values of BTG supply
contracts of SEC
11.1 EIF had entered into supply contracts with SEC for supply of BTG
to APML and APRL as shown in Table-3, which is repeated below :-
(Table-3)
Details of Contracts between EIF & SEC and the contracts between EIF and
APML & APRL
S.
No
Agreement
Date
covered by agreement
Executing
parties
Consideration
amount as per
agreement
(USD)
Purpose
Maharashtra
EIF/SME and
SEC
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
EIF/SME and
SEC
Maharashtra
178975000 Total for APML power
project
Rajasthan
EIF/SME and
SEC
97465318 For supply to APRL’s
Rajsthan
Rajasthan
EIF/SME and
SEC
82679682 +
addition of
7920000 after
amendment
Rajasthan
188,065,000 Total for APRL power
project
equipment for 2 x 660
(Unit No. 4 & 5) at Tiroda
in Maharashtra
EIF/SME and
APML
736,000,000 For supply to APML’s
Maharashtra
Kawai in Rajasthan
EIF and APRL 790,000,000 For supply to APRL’s
Rajsthan
Note : The above contracts were for supply of Boiler-Turbine-Generator (BTG).
11.2 The aggregate contract value of supplies covered by SEC-EIF
contracts works out to USD 367,040,000 (RUD/D-67). The aggregate outward
remittances made by EIF through its accounts with AXIS Bank and Bank of

of 111
Baroda in the UAE through SWIFT mode works out to USD 335,732,220. This
amount has been worked out on the basis of scrutiny of individual
AORs/ORTTs, where the name of SEC is appearing as a beneficiary and where
the invoice numbers mentioned are clearly attributable to supplies made to
APML or APRL projects. Thus, the amount of USD335,732,220 is the aggregate
payment made to SEC by EIF towards goods shipped to APML & APRL projects.
It appears from these figures that outward remittances have been made strictly
in line with contractual terms &conditions and value thereof is commensurate
with the value of the goods shipped.
11.3 Details of 301 and 262 consignments imported and cleared by
APML and APRL are given at Annexure A and Annexure B, respectively. Out of
these consignments, the consignments where the actual supplier is SEC has
been identified through a scrutiny of corresponding Bills of lading/COO
certificates where SEC’s name has been declared as exporter/shipper and also
on the basis of EIF/SEC’s invoice numbers appearing on AOR/ORTT having
SEC as the beneficiary. The aggregate invoice value of invoices raised by EIF on
APML or APRL where the actual shipper/exporter or beneficiary is SEC in
AOR/ORTT works out USD 633,562,594. The aggregate invoice value of
invoices raised by EIF on APML and APRL in respect of supplies/shipments by
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Limited, China vis-à-vis actual outward
remittances made by EIF to SEC against such supplies and the contract value
as per contract between EIF and SEC ,are tabulated below :-
Table-24
Extent of Overvaluation i.r.o of supplies made by SEC at aggregate level
Sr.
No.
Aggregate value of EIF
invoices raised on
APML and APRL
where the actual
supplier is Shanghai
Electric Group Co.
Ltd., China in USD
Aggregate value of remittance made
by EIF to Shanghai Electric Group
company for supplies to APML &
APRL (USD- based on
AORs/ORTTs)
Difference
(B-C)
Variation [B] as
% of (C)
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E]
1. 633,562,594 335,732,220 297,830,374 189%
11.4 Overall remittances made by EIF to SEC as shown in column [C] is
in proportion to the overall aggregate contract value of the goods covered by
agreements between SEC and EIF, considering the fact that outward
remittances made are commensurate with value of goods being shipped from
time to time. It further appears that more than 90% of the contract price has
been paid by EIF to SEC. As per the schedule of payments agreed between the

of 111
parties in the agreements between SEC and EIF, 5% of the contract price is
payable to SEC upon Taking Over Certification (Taking over by APML or APRL)
and balance 5 % of contract price is payable upon successful Performance
Guarantee Test. Given the fact that these events were yet to occur as of 30-09-
2013, upto which SWIFT payments have been provided by Bank of Baroda and
AXIS bank), it appears that the difference between columns [C] and (D) which
works out to roughly about 10% is attributable to the retention money for the
two events mentioned above. These factors lend credence to the agreements
between SEC and EIF as well as to the fact that payments to SEC have been
made by EIF through the accounts held by EIF with AXIS Bank and Bank of
Baroda only.
11.5 The above Table clearly brings out the value inflation in respect of
goods supplied by SEC. As against the total invoice value of USD 335,732,220
remitted by EIF to SEC through SWIFT mode, it has been inflated by EIF in its
back-to-back invoices raised on APML & APRL to USD 633,562,594 (aggregate
value). Therefore, EIF appears to have raised inflated invoices on APML and
APRL, to the extent of about 189% of the actual value. APML and APRL in turn
appear to have cleared goods on the strength of inflated invoices raised on
them by EIF. Therefore, there appear to be gross over-valuation of the goods at
the time of import.
12.0 REMITTANCE TO MAURITIUS
12.1 Scrutiny of other outward remittances effected by EIF through
SWIFT mode from its current account held with Bank of Baroda, Main Branch,
Bur Dubai indicated that substantial amounts had been transferred to
Mauritius account of its parent holding company i.e. M/s Electrogen Infra
Holdings Pvt. Ltd. toAccount no. MU53 IBBK 1801 2239 0048 3400 000 USD
with Bank Internasional Indonesia, 5th Floor, Barkly Wharf, Mauritius- SWIFT
Code: IBBKMUMU. The purpose of remittances indicated on the ORTT
applications is stated tobe ‘LOAN’ or ‘DIVIDEND’ or ‘ADVANCE’. Further
scrutiny revealed that EIF has also transferred funds to its own account held
with other banks from its account held with Bank of Baroda. The aggregate
amounts transferred to the parent holding company and to its own account
with others banks by EIF is given in Table-25 below (Figures in the Table have
been worked out on the basis of scrutiny of individual AORs/ORTTs and
amounts remitted to the two beneficiaries) :-

of 111
Table-25
Aggregate amounts transferred by EIF through SWIFT mode to other accounts
and to its parent company Electrogen Infra Holding Pvt. Ltd. , Mauaritius
Sr.No. Name of the beneficiary as per
SWIFT application
Total amount
transferred (In USD)
Total number of
ORTT’s under
which transferred
Period during which
transferred
1. M/s Electrogen Infra Holding
Pvt. Ltd. , Mauritius
899,821,161, 87 2011 to 2013
2. Electrogen Infra FZE 225,277,000 32 2010 to 2013
12.2 It appears from the above table that an amount of nearly 900
Million USD have been transferred by EIF from its account in Bank of Baroda
to the account of its parent company –M/s Electrogen Infra Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,
Mauritius during the years 2011 to 2013. The quantum of over-valuation in
respect of supplies to APML and APRL is estimated at USD 808,339,055 (over
USD 808 Million) (refer Table-23). This corroborates the modus-operandi of the
siphoning off of money abroad by inflation of value of imported goods by
creating an intermediary invoicing agent in the UAE. While actual value of the
goods as per the invoice of actual supplier/OEM is remitted by EIF to the said
supplier, the over-valued amount is siphoned off to their own companies in
Mauritius or elsewhere.
12.3 An analysis of outward remittances made by EIF through SWIFT
mode from the account held with Bank of Baroda, Dubai Main Branch shows
that there are many remittances other than those which were clearly not
attributable to remittances for supplies made to APRL or APML. The list of such
other beneficiaries is as under :-
Table-26
Aggregate remittances clearly not attributable to APML/APRL projects.
Sr.No. Name of the Beneficiary as per ORTT application
Aggregate
amount remitted
(USD)
1 Assent Trade & Investement Ltd. Mauritius 5100000
2 Clifford Chance LLP UAE 126144.7
3 Ghommaz General Trading LLC, Dubai 2500000
4 KNK Ship Mangmenet 307557
5 Kowa Company Limited 858050735
6 Moreshwar Vasant Rawade 850000
7 SAL Heavy Lift GMBH 400000
8 Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., for Bhadreshwar Project 23256112
9 Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., for Dahej project 18604890

of 111
12.4 Though substantial amounts have been transferred through SWIFT
mode by EIF to the benefit of Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd., China (Sr.No. 8,
9 & 10), copies of individual ORTT applications in respect of these amounts
clearly indicate the purpose of remittances which is declared for projects
related to Bhadreshwar, Dahej and Pench. It is understood that the Adani
Power Limited is also setting up Power projects at the aforesaid three sites.
Since this show cause notice pertains to supplies made to APML and APRL,
therefore, these payments have not been taken into account for the purposes of
relating the outward remittances to the supplies made to APML and APRL
through SWIFT mode, in the case of outward remittances made by EIF through
Bank of Baroda.
12.5 Similarly, an analysis of outward remittances made by EIF through
SWIFT mode from its account held with AXIS Bank, DIFC Branch, Dubai which
were clearly not attributable to remittances for supplies made to APRL or APML
as under :-
Table-27
Beneficiary-wise aggregate outward remittances by AOR (not attributable
to supplies made to APRL or APML)
Sr.No. Name of the Beneficiary as per AORs Amount in USD
(a) (b) [c]
1 ADANI PENCH POWER LTD. 41500000
2 ADANI POWER DAHEJ LTD 83000000
3 DALIAN INSULATOR GROUP CO LTD 833376.69
4 FIRSTEC MARTITIME LIMITED 372000
5 HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. 6605509.47
6 KNK SHIP MANAGEMENT 29101
7 KOWA CO. LTD 1426000000
8 KUTCH POWER GENERATION LTD 103700000
9 LIEBHERR WERK NENZING GMBH 1114500
10 MULLA & MULLA & CRAIGIE BLUNT & CAROE 14840.33
11 SHANGHAI ZHENHUA HEAVY INDUTRIES CO LTD 8671593.6
12 SPUR SHIPPING PTE LTD 99900
13 SUZHOU FURUKAWA POWER OPTIC CABLE CO.,LTD. 104209.54
TOTAL 1672045031
Sr.Nos. 1, 2 and 8 pertain to payments made in relation to power projects at
Pench, Dahej and Kutch (Bhadreshwar) clearly not related to APML and APRL
10 Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., for Pench Project 9302445
11 Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 35532869.37
12 Spur Shipping PTE Ltd. 89440
954,120,193.1

of 111
as indicated in the SWIFT messages. Payments made Sr nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and
13, areremittances made to the respective beneficiaries (OEMs) from whom
goods appear to have been sourced by EIF for supply to various entities of the
Adani Group (other than to APML and APRL). Other payments appear to have
been made for various services apparently extended by the beneficiaries to EIF.
Therefore, these payments,clearly not being relatable to supplies made to APML
or APRL,have not been taken into account for the purposes of relating the
outward remittances to supplies made to APML and APRL, in the case of
outward remittances made by EIF through AXIS Bank.
13.0 STATEMENT OF THE CEO OF ADANI POWER LIMITED
13.1 Shri Vneet Jaain, Chief Executive Officer of M/s Adani Power
Limited (the holding company of APML & APRL) was summoned for recording
his evidence through a summons bearing F.No. DRI/MZU/CI-224/2013 dated
15-04-2014 (RUD/C-13).Information and documents sought in relation to
contracts entered into between EIF and APML & APRL were listed in Annexure
A to the said summons.
13.2 A statement of Shri Vneet S. Jaain, Chief Executive Officer of M/s
Adani Power Limited was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962
on 24-04-2014 (RUD/D-68). In his statement, he stated,inter-alia, that he
joined Adani Power Limited at Ahmedabad on 4th December 2006 as Vice
President (Commercial); that he was elevated to various positions within the
company over a period of time since 2006; that his first was as Senior Vice
President (Project Execution) sometime in March 2008; thereafter as Joint
President (Project Execution) sometime in 2010; thereafter as President in
2011; and finally as Chief Executive Officer, in 2012, which position he
currently holds. As a CEO, he stated that he was responsible for profit and
loss, power sale arrangement, fuel management, project execution and
operation &maintenance.
13.3 During the course of his statement, he was shown print-outs of the
Bank Account Statement (Pages 1 to 36) of the firm named Electrogen Infra
FZE, UAE whoheld Current Account bearing No. 90010200008259 with Bank
of Baroda, (BOB) Dubai Main Branch, Bur Dubai for transacting its business
in foreign currency (US dollars). These documents had been obtained from
Bank of Baroda’s Corporate Office by visiting the bank in exercise of the power
under Section 107 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 18-11-2013. The transactions
reflected in the account were for the period from 16-07-2009 to 03-08-2013 as
found mentioned in the Bank statement. He was also requested to go through a

of 111
file containing print-outs of applications made by Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE to
Bank of Baroda, Bur Dubai (Pages 1 to 134) requesting the bank for making
Outward Telegraphic Transfers (ORTT applications) i.e outward
remittances/payments through SWIFT mode from the said account to the
firm/entity indicated in the ORTT applications viz. Shanghai Electric Group Co.
Ltd., APL (Beijing) EXIM Co. Limited, Hifetec International (HK) Ltd., Fujiang
LongKing Co. Limited, Longjing (HK) Co. Ltd., Voith Turbo, Dropsa SpA, and
Asia Star Control System Limited, Hong Kong. He was also requested to go
through a tabulated print-out of eight pages, details of which had been
prepared on the basis of information available in the ORTT applications of
Electrogen Infra FZE. During the course of his statement, illustrative bank
account entries evidencing outward remittances in accordance with the ORTT
applications as per dates indicated in the ORTT applications were shown to
him based on which he was requested to carry out a cross-verification of all the
ORTT applications of EIF in the context of outward remittances made to the
beneficiaries with corresponding debit entries in the current account. Based on
cross verification of all the ORTT applications with corresponding entries in the
Bank account statement, he was requested to confirm if the details pertained
to outward remittances made by Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE through the said
account to the various entities whose names were indicated in the ORTT
applications shown to him.
13.4 In response thereof, Shri Vneet Jaain, CEO perused the documents
shown to him viz. Bank Account Statement of Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE for
Account No. 90010200008259 maintained by Bank of Baroda, Dubai Main
Branch, Bur Dubai for transacting in US dollars. After having perused the said
account, he confirmed that the transactions shown in the account were for the
period from 16-07-2009 to 03-08-2013. He also perused individual pages in the
file containing print-outs of applications made by Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE to
Bank of Baroda, Bur Dubai (Pages 1 to 134), wherein M/s Electrogen Infra
FZE, UAE has requested the bank for making Outward Telegraphic Transfers
(ORTT) i.e outward remittances/payments through SWIFT mode from the said
account to various firms/entities indicated in the ORTT applications viz.
Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., APL (Beijing) EXIM Co. Limited, Hifetec
International (HK) Ltd., Fujiang LongKing Co. Limited, Longjing (HK) Co. Ltd.,
Voith Turbo, Dropsa SpA, and Asia Star Control System Limited, Hong Kong.
He also perused the tabulated print-out of eight pages prepared on the basis of
information available in the ORTT applications of Electrogen Infra FZE to Bank
of Baroda. After carefully perusing details in the tabulated sheets, he cross
verified the particulars therein with particulars available in individual ORTT
applications. He also simultaneously traced the relevant entry for the amount

of 111
of ORTT transfer to the concerned beneficiaries in the bank account statement.
Pursuant to a careful cross-verification, between the ORTT application,
tabulated sheet containing details thereof and bank account statement, he
confirmed that the outward remittances had been effected from the account of
Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE as per details shown in the ORTT applications. He
put his dated signatures against each of the 129 entries in the tabulated sheets
giving details of ORTT transfers, copies of individual ORTT applications
available in the file at the page numbers indicated in the tabulated chart. He
also put his dated signatures on the first and the last page of BOB’s bank
account statement shown to him in token of having verified the entries in the
said account with reference to the outward remittances made as per the ORTT
applications/tabulated sheets.
13.5 He was also requested to go through similar set of documents
pertaining to Axix Bank, DIFC Branch, Dubai. He was requested to go through
print-out of the Bank Account Statement (Pages 1 to 59) of Electrogen Infra
FZE, UAE who maintain a Current Account (General) bearing No.
912020200000514 with AXIS Bank, DIFC Branch, Dubai. The transactions
shown in the account were from 27-07-2010 to 01-10-2013 as found
mentioned on the bank statement. He was also requested to go through a file
containing print-outs of applications made by Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE to
AXIS Bank, DIFC Branch, Dubai (Pages 1 to 185) requesting the bank for
making Outward Remittances/payments through SWIFT mode from the said
account to the firm/entity indicated in such AORs viz. Voith Turbo, APL
(Beijing) EXIM Co. Limited, Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., Fujiang
LongKing Co. Limited, Longjing (HK) Co. Ltd., Hifetec International (HK) Ltd.
He was also requested to go through a tabulated print-out of five pages, details
of which had been prepared on the basis of information available in the AORs
made by Electrogen Infra FZE to the AXIS Bank. During the course of his
statement, illustrative bank account entires evidencing outward remittances in
accordance with AORs as per dates indicates in the AORs were shown to him
based on which he was requested to carry out a cross verification all the AORs
of EIF made to AXIS Bank in the context of outward remittances made to the
beneficiaries with corresponding debit entries in the current account. Based on
such cross verification of all the AORs with corresponding entries in the Bank
Account statement, he was requested to confirm if the details pertained to
outward remittances made by Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE through the said
account to the various entities whose names were indicated in the AORs shown
to him.
13.6 In response thereof, Shri Vneet Jaain, CEO perused the documents

of 111
pertaining to AXIS Bank shown to him viz. Bank Account Statement of
Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE for Account No. No. 912020200000514 maintained
with AXIS Bank, DIFC Branch, Dubai. After having perused the said account,
he confirmed that the transactions shown in the account were for the period
from 27-07-2010 to 01-10-2013. He also perused individual pages in the file
containing print-outs of applications for outward remittances made by
Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE to AXIS Bank, DIFC Branch, Dubai (Pages 1 to 185),
wherein M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE has requested AXIS bank for making
Outward remittance/payment through SWIFT mode from the said account to
various firms/entities indicated in such AORs viz. Voith Turbo, APL (Beijing)
EXIM Co. Limited, Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., Fujiang LongKing Co.
Limited, Longjing (HK) Co. Ltd., Hifetec International (HK) Ltd. He also perused
the tabulated print-out of five pages, prepared on the basis of information
available in the applications for outward remittances made by Electrogen Infra
FZE to AXIS Bank, DIFC Branch Dubai. After carefully perusing details in the
tabulated sheets, he cross verified the particulars therein with particulars
available in individual applications for outward remittances. He also
simultaneously traced the relevant entries for the amount of outward
remittances to the concerned beneficiaries in the bank account statement.
Pursuant to a careful cross-verification between the AORs, tabulated sheets
containing details thereof, and bank account statement, he confirmed that
outward remittances had been effected from the account of Electrogen Infra
FZE, UAE with AXIS Bank as per details shown in the applications for outward
remittances. He put his dated signatures on each of the 69 entries in the
tabulated sheets giving details of outward remittances, copies of individual
applications for outward remittances available in the file at the page numbers
indicated in the tabulated chart. He also put his dated signatures on the first
and last page of AXIS Bank account statement, shown to him in token of
having verified the entries in the said account with reference to the outward
remittances made as per the applications for outward remittances/tabulated
sheets.
13.7 He was also requested to go through the two Agreements for Steam
Generator (Boiler) and Auxiliaries entered between M/s Electrogen Infra FZE,
UAE and Shanghai Electric Group Company Limited, China for 2x660 MW
Power Project each at Tiroda in Maharashtra (Agreement dated 15-07-2009 for
consideration of USD 97,465,318) and Kawai in Rajasthan (Agreement dated
06-11-2009 for consideration of USD 97,465,318). He was requested to go
through all pages of the two agreements shown to him, particularly the scope
of supplies. After perusing the two agreements executed by and between
Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE and Shanghai Electric Group Company Limited,

of 111
China for 2x660 MW Power Project each at Tiroda in Maharashtra (Agreement
dated 15-07-2009 for consideration of USD 97,465,318) and Kawai in
Rajasthan (Agreement dated 06-11-2009 for consideration of USD 97,465,318),
he put his dated signatures on every page of the two agreements shown to him
in token of having perused of the contents thereof .
13.8 He was also requested to go through the two Agreements for
Turbine, Generator and its Auxiliaries entered between M/s Electrogen Infra
FZE, UAE and Shanghai Electric Group Company Limited, China for 2x660
MW Power Project each at Tiroda in Maharashtra (Agreement dated 15-07-2009
for consideration of USD 81,509,682) and Kawai in Rajasthan (Agreement
dated 06-11-2009 for consideration of USD 82,679,682 with additional value of
USD 7920000 amended). These agreements at detailed in the Table-28 were
apparently executed by EIF for sourcing goods from the said OEM (SEC) for
eventual supply to APML and APRL (covered in the back-to-back contracts
executed between EIF & APML and EIF & APRL) which were cleared on the
strength of EIF’s invoices upon their arrival in India. He was requested to go
through all pages of the agreements shown to him and the scope of supply
covered by the agreements in particular.
13.9 After going through and perusing the two agreements executed by
and between Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE and Shanghai Electric Group Company
Limited, China for Turbine, Generator and its Auxiliaries for 2x660 MW Power
Project each at Tiroda in Maharashtra (Agreement dated 15-07-2009 for
consideration of USD 81509682) and Kawai in Rajasthan (Agreement dated 06-
11-2009 for consideration of USD 82679682 with additional value of USD
7920000 amended), he put his dated signatures on each page of the two
agreements shown to him in token of perusal of its contents.
13.10 He was shown the following Table-28 giving details of the
agreements entered into between the following entities :-
i) Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE and Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd.,
China (at sr. no 1 to 4 of the Table)
ii) Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE with Adani Power Maharashtra Limited
(APML) & Adani Power Rajasthan Limited (APRL) (at sr.no. 5 & 6 of
the Table)
Table –28
Summary of agreements executed for supply to APML & APRL projects
S.
No
Agreement
Date
Executing parties Consideration
amount as per
agreement (USD)
1. 15-07-2009 Steam Generator (Boiler) and Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE and 97,465,318

of 111
Auxiliaries 2x660 MW Power
Project at Tiroda,
Maharashtra
Company Limited
Project at Tiroda,
Maharashtra
Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE and
Company Limited
81,509,682
3. 06-11-2009 Steam Generator (Boiler) and
Project, Kawai in Rajasthan
Company Limited
97,465,318
Project, Kawai in Rajasthan
Company Limited
82,679,682 +
addition of
7920000 after
amendment
equipment for 2 x 660 (Unit
No. 4 & 5) at Tiroda in
Maharashtra
Sichuan Machinery &
Equipments FZE, Sharjah, UAE
(former name of Electrogen Infra
FZE, UAE) and Adani Power
Maharashtra Limited (APML)
736,000,000
Kawai in Rajasthan
Adani Power Rajasthan Limited
(APRL)
790,000,000
He was requested to go through the scope of supplies of the agreements at
Sr.No. 1 & 2 of the above Table with scope of supplies for agreement at Sr.No.
5. He was also requested to go through the scope of supplies of the agreements
at Sr.No. 3 & 4 of the above table with scope of supplies for agreement at
Sr.No. 6. In the backdrop of the scope perused by him, he was requested to
confirm if the scope of supply covered by the agreement at Sr.No. 5 included
the scope of supply covered by agreement at Sr.No. 1 & 2.He was also
requested to confirm if the scope of supply covered at Sr.No. 6 included the
scope of supply covered by the two agreements at Sr.No. 3 & 4 put together.
13.11 In response thereof, Shri Vneet Jaain he verified particulars
available in the tabulated chart with the information available in copies of the
respective agreements listed in the chart. He also confirmed that the scope of
supply covered in the agreement at Sr.No. 5 included the scope of supply
covered by agreements at Sr.No. 1 & 2 put together. He also confirm that the
scope of supply covered by the agreement shown at Sr.No. 6 of the above table
included the scope of supply covered by the two agreements at Sr.No. 3 & 4 put
together.
13.12 An analysis of the payments made to various overseas
entities (actual suppliers/OEMs) through SWIFT mode through Bank of Baroda
and AXIS Bank as narrated in the foregoing paras clearly revealsthat outward
remittances had been made by EIF to various actual suppliers/OEMs firms
(other than Shanghai Electric Group Co. Limited, China) thereby implying that
goods for projects of APML and APRL were sourced from other OEMs/actual
suppliers also. In the backdrop of these inferences, he was asked to peruse
invoice numbers reflected in the SWIFT applications made by EIF to the Banks.
He was asked to explain whether the equipments and machinery covered for
supply in agreements shown at Sr.No. 5 & 6, (other than those sourced by EIF
from SEC- agreements at 1-2 and 3-4) may have been sourced for supply from

of 111
other firms/entities viz. APL (Beijing) EXIM Co. Limited, Hifetec International
(HK) Ltd., Fujiang LongKing Co. Limited, Longjing (HK) Co. Ltd., Voith Turbo,
Dropsa SpA, and Asia Star Control System Limited, Hong Kong, and such
other firms, if any.He categorically admitted that equipments and machinery
covered for supply in the agreements shown in the above Table-28 at Sr.No. 5
& 6, (over and above those covered by the agreements at 1-2 and 3-4 by M/s
Shanghai Electric Group Company Limited), may have been sourced for supply
from other firms/entities viz. APL (Beijing) EXIM Co. Limited, Hifetec
International (HK) Ltd., Fujiang LongKing Co. Limited, Longjing (HK) Co. Ltd.,
Voith Turbo, Dropsa SpA, and Asia Star Control System Limited, Hong Kong,
besides others, if any.
13.13 He was requested to elaborate the difference in scope of supplies
between the two sets of Agreements i.e (i) between the scope of supplies covered
by Agreements at 1 & 2 of the table above with the scope of supplies covered by
agreement at 5 (ii) between the scope of supply covered by agreements at 3 & 4
of the above table with the scope of supply covered by agreement at sr.no. 6. In
response, he stated that the scope of supply covered by agreements at 1 & 2 of
the table was for proper Boiler-Turbine-Generator and few of its auxiliaries, but
the scope of supply covered by the agreement at Sr.No. 5 of the table included
whole Boiler-Turbine-Generator alongwith all its associated other equipments
and auxiliaries. Similarly, he explained that the scope of supply covered by
agreements at 3 & 4 of the above table, were for proper Boiler-Turbine-
Generator and few of its auxiliaries but the scope of supply covered by the
agreement at Sr.No. 6 of the table includes whole Boiler-Turbine-Generator
alongwith all its associated other equipments and auxiliaries.
13.14 On being asked to state the name of the signatory to the
Agreements dated 05-11-2009 and 02-04-2010 between APML &EIF on behalf
of APML and APRL & EIF on behalf of APRL and the capacities under which the
signatories had signed the respective agreements, he stated that Shri
Moreshwar Rabade was the signatory on behalf of APML for the agreement
between APML &EIF. He also stated the name of Shri K.S.Nagendra, as a
signatory on behalf of APRL in the agreement between APRL and EIF.
Regarding the capacity under which the respective signatories had signed the
the two agreements, he was unable to provide an answer and stated that he
would revert.
13.15 On being asked whether Adani Power Limited, Mundra has entered
into any agreement/contract/purchase order for supply of spares & other
equipments with EIF between 2009 and 2013, he undertook to revert by the
30th April 2014. Vide a letter bearing Ref.: APL/VS/DRI-Mum/02/14 dated 29-

of 111
04-2014 sent under his signature, Shri Vneet Jaain forwarded details of the
orders placed by APL Mundra on EIF, UAE. From the information provided in
the letter, it appeared that two orders were placed for supply of O & M spares
for Mundra Phases 1 & 2 for USD 1614200 and Mundra Phase 3 & 4 for USD
12,039,460/-.
13.16 The deposition made by Shri Vneet Jaain in his statement recorded
under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 24-04-2014 confirms the fact
that outward remittances were indeed made from the account of EIF held with
AXIS Bank and Bank of Baroda, to various actual suppliers/OEMs whose
namesare indicated as beneficiaries in the SWIFT applications. Analysis of the
invoice numbers on the SWIFT applications as brought out in the foreging
paras and the inevitable inference emerging as a result thereof, confirms that
the outward remittances pertained to price paid by EIF to actual
suppliers/OEMs for supply of goods by respective actual suppliers/OEMs
(indicated as beneficiaries in SWIFT applications) which were shipped directly
to India and upon importation in India, were cleared on the strength of back-
to-back invoices raised by the UAE intermediary-EIF on APML and APRL. From
the figures shown in Table-23, it appears that EIF have inflated the invoice
value of actual suppliers/OEMs by nearly about 2.2 times in the invoices
raised on APML and APRL which were used for effecting customs clearance in
India.
14.0 Relationship between ElectroGen Infra FZE, UAE & ElectroGen
Infra Holding Pvt. Ltd. Mauritius on one hand and APML &
APRL on the other through family members of the Adanis.
14.1 As per various documents discussed in the foreging paragraphs,
development and progress of EIF, since its registration on 07-07-2009 as a
company in the UAE, was as under:-
14.1.1 EIF was initially registered as a company in the name and style of
M/s Sichuan Machinery & Equipments FZE in SAIF Zone, Sharjah, UAE. Its
Memorandum & Articles of Association was dated 07-07-2009 and Shri Nasser
Ali Shaban Ahli was its sole promoter and shareholder having subscribed the
entire share capital of AED 1,50,000 divided into one share of AED 1,50,000
(Memorandum and Articles of Association dated 07-07-2009 refer in para
2.3.4).
14.1.2 M/s Sichuan Machinery & Equipments FZE passed a
resolution dated 19-11-2009 authorising Shri Jatin Shah singly as authorised
signatory of its bank accounts to open, operate and close banking accounts

of 111
with any bank in the UAE (para 2.3.3). Shri Jatin Shah is an ex-employee of
Adani Group having resigned as General Manager of Adani Power Limited ony
on 31-08-2009 (para 2.1.5)
14.1.3 The Memorandum & Articles of Association of EIF dated 07-
07-2009 was amended thrice as under :-
i) On 04-01-2010-Changing name of company from M/s Sichuan
Machinery & Equipments FZE to M/s ElectroGen Infra FZE (para
2.3.4)
ii) On 29-03-2010-Transfer of ownership of M/s ElectroGen Infra
FZE from Shri Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli to Electrogen Infra Holding
Pvt. Ltd., Mauritius, thus making the EIF a fully owned subsidiary
of EIH (para 2.2.8).
iii) On 17-06-2010-Increasing share capital of M/s ElectroGen Infra
FZE from AED 1,50,000 to AED 54,00,000/-. (para 2.4.12). The
increase in the share capital was subscribed fully by M/s
Electrogen Infra Holding Pvt. Ltd., Mauritius, which was its
holding company, during the Financial Year 2010-11 (para 2.2.9).
14.1.4 From 29-03-2010, EIF became a 100% owned subsidiary of
EIH [para 2.2.8 & 2.2.5 (iii)]. Further, share capital of AED 52,50,000 divided
into 35 shares of AED 1,50,000 each was infused by EIH between 01-04-2010
to 21-06-2010 (para 2.2.9)
14.2 Similarly, development and progress of M/s Electrogen Infra
Holding Pvt. Ltd. , since its incorporation as a company in Mauritius, as
observed from various documents discussed in the foregoing paras, was as
under :-
14.2.1 It was incorporated as a private company in Mauritius on
16-07-2009 in the name and style of M/s Sichuan Machinery & Equipment
Import & Export Co. Ltd with paid-up equity share capital of USD 1000 divided
into 1000 shares of USD 1 each subscribed wholly by Shri Nasser Ali Shaban
Ahli.(para 2.2.4).
14.2.2 Name of the Company was changed to M/s Electrogen Infra
Holding Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 08-01-2010 by Special Resolution (para
2.2.11).
14.2.3 The entire share capital of the company i.e. USD 1000
divided into 1000 shares of USD 1 each was transferred to Shri Vinod Shantilal
Shah on 12-01-2010 from Shri Chang Chung Ling who in turn had purchased

of 111
it from Shri Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli, the initial subscriber, on 01-10-2009 (para
2.4.13 & 2.4.14). Shri Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli was also the initial subscriber of
share capital of EIF on 07-07-2009 which he sold to EIH on 23-03-2010 (para
2.2.8).
14.2.4 Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah was also appointed Director of the
company on 12-01-2010 i.e. the date when the whole of share capital of EIH on
that date was transferred to him and continued as a Director till he resigned on
31-05-2011 (para 2.4.9)
14.2.5 Paid-up share capital of the company was increase from USD
1000 to USD1,00,000 during the Financial Year 2010-11 (para 2.2.4 above).
14.2.6 EIH took over EIF’s entire paid-up capital of AED 1,50,000
on 29-03-2010 and subscribed to further share capital of AED 52,50,000
between the period from 01-04-2010 to 21-06-2010, because as shown in
share certificate 4107 dated 21-06-2010 (para 2.2.9), EIH is mentioned as
holder as on that date of 36 shares of AED 54,00,000.
14.2.7 Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah was the only owner of EIH as on
12-01-2010. (para 2.4.14). So, when full ownership of EIF was taken over by
EIH as 29-03-2010, Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah became owner of EIF also.
14.3 EIF was the intermediary invoicing agent between the
OEMs/actual suppliers and APML/APRL. EIF was registered in the name and
style of M/s Sichuan Machinery and Equipments FZE on 07-07-2009 in the
UAE with Shri Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli as the sole share-holder holding the
whole of share capital of the company equal to AED 1,50,000 divided into one
share of 1,50,000. Simultaneously, Shri Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli incorporated
another company by name M/s Sichuan Machinery & Equipment Import &
Export Co. Ltd in Mauritius, on 16-07-2009 by subscribing to the whole of its
paid-up capital of USD 1000 divided into 1000 shares of USD one each. EIF,
by way of Board Resolution dated 19-11-2009, authorised Shri Jatin Shah, an
ex-employee of Adani Group, to open, operate and close bank accounts of the
company with any bank in the UAE. Name of the existing company M/s
Sichuan Machinery and Equipments FZE in the UAE was changed to EIF on
04-01-2010. Simultaneously, the name of M/s Sichuan Machinery &
Equipment Import & Export Co. Ltd in Mauritius was also changed to
ElectroGen Infra Holding Pvt. Ltd. on 08-01-2010. Shri Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli
transferred and sold the whole of equity share capital of USD 1000 divided into
1000 shares of one USD each of M/s Sichuan Machinery & Equipment Import

of 111
& Export Co. Ltd, Mauritius (presently EIH) to Chang Chung Ling on 01-10-
2009, who further transferred the said share capital to Shri Vinod Shantilal
Shah on 12-01-2010, who thus became the sole owner of EIH. Thereafter, Shri
Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli also transferred and sold the whole of share capital of
EIF on 29-03-2010 to EIH and thus, EIH became holding company of EIF with
effect from 29-03-2010. Shri Vinod Shantilal Shah has been mentioned in
various documents as Authorised Signatory (para 2.4.3, 2.4.4 & 2.4.7) and
Director (para 2.4.5) in connection with EIF.
14.3.1 EIF’s status as subsidiary of EIH is mentioned in various
documents on various dates such as;-
i) In letter dated 26-04-2012 from EIF addressed to ICICI
Bank, DIFC, Dubai Branch (para 2.2.3)
ii) In letter dated 23-10-2012 from EIF addressed to Axis Bank,
Dubai (para 2.4.10)
iii) Copies of amended Licence certificates issued by SAIF Zone
authorities as of 07-08-2012 and 19-06-2012 (para 2.4.11)
iv) In letter dated 09-12-2013 of Shri Jatin Shah addressed to
DRI (para 3.12)
v) In letter dated 18-12-2013, addressed by Axis Bank,
DIFC,Dubai Branch to DRI (para 2.4.1)
14.3.2 EIF, in its letter dated 26-04-2012 addressed to ICICI Bank,
DIFC, Dubai Branch informed its share holding pattern as under (para 2.2.3
above):-
i) Electrogen Infra FZE is 100% owned by Electrogen Infra Holding
Pvt. Ltd.
ii) Electrogen Infra Holding Pvt. Ltd. is 100% owned by Asankhya
Resources Pvt. Ltd.
iii) Asankhya Resources Pvt. Ltd. is owned by Eagle Holding Ltd.,
which is a nominee shareholder in Asankhya Resources Family
Trust.
iv) In Asankhya Resources Family Trust, Mr. Vinod Shantilal Adani is
the settler.

of 111
Thus, it appears that EIF is owned by Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani
through the above process of layering which is the common and known modus-
operandi for siphoning off of money by masking the actual owners.
14.3.3. Perusal of Financial Statements of EIH for the year 2010-11 (para
2.2.4) reveals that as on 31.03.2010, it had an investment of USD 40,872/- in
an unquoted company, which went up to USD 14,81,390/- as on 31.03.2011.
EIF, registered in UAE, is the only company where EIH was holding equity of
AED 1,50,000/- as on 31.03.2010, which was purchased by it from Shri
Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli on 29.03.2010. Share capital of EIF was increased
from AED 1,50,000/- to AED 54,00,000/- on 17.06.2010, and the increase was
fully subscribed by EIH only, by investing USD 14,40,518/- (equal to AED
52,50,000/-) as is evident from share certificate dated 21.06.2010 (para 2.2.9).
Perusal of the Financial Statements of EIH further reveals that on an amount
of USD 14,81,390/- invested by EIH in EIF, it received dividend income of USD
5,39,50,954/-, [EIF declared a dividend of AED 198 million for the year 2010-
11 as revealed in its financial statement (para 2.2.5) and the whole of these
dividends went to EIH because EIF was a 100% subsidiary of EIH] which
works out to a return of 3641.91%, which is unheard of in any legitimate
business activity.
14.4 APML & APRL are both wholly ownd subsidiaries of Adani Power
Limited which in turn is wholly owned subsidiary of Adani Enterprises Limited,
the flagship company of the Adani Group wherein Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani
(also known as Vinod Shantilal Shah) is a promoter shareholder holding
substantial stake in AEL.
14.5 Therefore, EIF, the intermediary invoicing agent, and APML &
APRL appear to be related to each other through Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani @
Vinod Shantilal Adani in terms of Rule 2 (2) of the CVR, 2007.
14.6 Further, from perusal of imports effected, as listed in Annexure A
and Annexure B, it is seen that imports were made during the period from 14-
06-2010 to 05-10-2013. The Customs clearances in India were made under the
invoices of EIF which was owned and controlled by Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani
through EIH, as brought out above. As shown at Table-3, the four contracts
with cumulative value of USD 367 Million were signed between SME/EIF and
SEC within few days of its creation. That such a nascent company and that too
with such meagre capital base signed such large value contracts of about USD
367 Million is not only incredible but appears to be a colourable corporate plan

of 111
for giving effect to the planned modus-operandi. Even before SME was taken
over by Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani through EIH, employees of the Adani Group
viz. Shri Jatin Shah had been deployed to manage the said entity though on
record it has been made to appear as if he resigned from Adani Power Limited
in India. All this goes to show that creation of SME (later known as EIF) and
signing of contract with OEMs/actual overseas suppliers and its eventual take-
over by Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani were part of overall modus-operandi of
invoice inflation and siphoning off of money.
15.0 REJECTION OF DECLARED VALUE AND RE-DETERMINATION
THEREOF
15.1 A total of 301 consignments have been imported and cleared by
APML under the invoices raised by EIF, UAE. All these consignments have been
cleared through ports in Mumbai viz. Mumbai Port, Nhava Sheva and ACC,
Sahar. Similarly, in respect of APRL, a total of 262 consignments have been
imported and cleared through the ports of Mundra; Nhava Sheva;Mumbai Port;
ACC, Sahar; and Ahmedabad Air-Cargo Complex. As discussed in the
foregoing paragraphs, EIF appears to have inflated the prices in the invoices
raised on APML and APRL which, inter-alia, is evidenced by the following :-
i) For every consignment, there were two sets of invoices. i.e. (1) one
raised by the actual supplier/OEM on the intermediary EIF at the
UAE and (2) the other raised by EIF on APML/APRL. Both the
invoices have same number and date, but different values, as is
evident from three available back-to-back invoices (para 8.0),
single-invoice AOR/ORTT which have been co-related to individual
imports in India (para 10.4) and for the rest, the aggregate
remittance data.
ii) There is huge difference between the aggregate invoice value of
goods invoiced by EIF to APRL /APRL and the aggregate amount of
outward remittances made by EIF to various actual
suppliers/OEMs for supply of goods shipped directly to India to
APML /APRL respectively. (Table-23)
iii) Gross difference in the contract value between two sets of
contracts viz. EIF<--->SEC & EIF<--->APML/APRL - i.e aggregate
consideration amounts covered in the contracts between SEC &EIF
and the aggregate consideration in the back-to-back contractsof
EIF with APML & APRL, which includes/covers the scope of

of 111
supplies covered by the agreement between EIF and SEC.(refer
Para 11)
iv) Three actual supplier/OEM back-to-back invoices as available i.e.
invoices raised on EIF showing the actual value of goods i.e the
actual Transaction Value between EIF <---> OEM vis-à-vis
corresponding back-to-back inflated invoices raised by EIF on
APML and APRL (Para 8)
15.2 Based on the import details provided by APML and APRL,
tabulated charts giving particulars of individual consignments imported by
them from EIF have been prepared which are at Annexure A & B. Particulars
in Column [A] to column [K] of Annexure A & B to this Notice have been
tabulated on the basis of information available in the documents submitted by
APML & APRL at the time of assessment, on the strength of which the goods
were assessed and cleared for home consumption. The inflated invoice
prices,as appearing in the invoices raised by M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE on
the basis of which the assessable values were worked out and declared in the
respective bills of entry,are available at Column [J] in Annexure A & B.
15.3 In the 301 and 262 Bills of entry figuring in Annexures A & B
respectively, it has been held out by the importers that the value declared
therein represents the Transaction Value paid or payable for the goods
imported, which is not correct, legally or factually for the following reasons :-
(i) For each of these consignments, there are two invoices i.e. (1) one
raised by actual supplier/OEM on EIF - the intermediary in the
UAE and (2) the other raised by EIF on APML/APRL. Both the
invoices have same invoice no. and date, but the latter (EIF--->
APML/APRL) has grossly inflated value. The latter invoice raised by
EIF on APML/APRL does not appear to be a bonafide invoice for
following reasons:-
(a) These invoices have same number and date as that of the
actual supplier/OEM. EIF could not have bonafidely
raised these invoices on these dates, as the goods had
not even been shipped by them (as is seen from Table 10
& 11). This phenomenon is universal for all the
consignments imported by APML and APRL as is evident
from the data in Annexure A & B to this Notice.

of 111
(b) While the goods have been supplied directly, the invoices
have been routed through EIF – an intermediary front of
the Adani Group for enabling value inflation.
(c) The latter invoice raised by EIF is not only highly
irregular but does not inspire confidence as it does not
appear to be an independent document in normal course
of international trade. They are contrary to the normal
commercial prudence and due diligence.
(d) They appear to be just notional paper transactions for
fraudulent siphoning off of money by trade mis-pricing.
(ii) Aggregate amount remitted by the UAE based intermediary-EIF to
various actual suppliers/OEMs apparently as per the actual
supplier/OEM invoice-values,is substantially lower in comparison
to the aggregate invoice price of invoices raised by EIF on APML &
APRL, corroborated by three available back-to-back invoices (para
8.0), single-invoice AOR/ORTT which have been co-related to
individual imports in India (para 10.4), the aggregate remittance
data and value of contracts between EIF and SEC (OEM) & back-
to-back contract between EIF & APRL/APML.
(iii) OEM value has been traditionally recognised as more authentic
value which is recognised in law. Rule 11 of the Customs Valuation
Rules (Determination of Value of Imported Goods,2007) (here-in-
after referred to as the CVR-2007 also) lists manufacturer’s invoice
as a relevant document for determination of the value of the
imported goods, particularly when goods are imported from or
through a person other than the manufacturer or producer. The
text of Rule 11 ibid is extracted below for ease of reference :-
“Rule 11 .Declaration by the importer.---(1) The importer or his agent
shall furnish –
(a) A declaration disclosing full and accurate details relating to
the value of imported goods; and
(b) Any other statement, information or documents including
an invoice of the manufacturer or producer of the imported
goods where the goods are imported from or through a
person other than the manufacturer or producer, as
considered necessary by the proper officer for
determination of the value of imported goods under these
rules”.

of 111
Value in the invoices raised by the intermediary EIF vis-à-vis the value in
the available invoices of OEMs show gross over-valuation.
(iv) Without prejudice to above, APML & APRL and EIF, the so called
buyer and seller are related in terms of Rule 2 (2) of the CVR, 2007
as brought out in para 14 above. EIF was only a created front for
acting as an intermediary invoicing agent for inflating the invoice
value as part of the modus-operandi. This is evident from the
foregoing discussions. Hence the declared value is not acceptable
as the Transaction Value as per the CVR -2007 read with Section
14 of the Customs Act, 1962.
15.4 Thus, the transaction between EIF and APML & APRL, being
apparently a sham transaction for reasons set out above, the value declared for
the same is, therefore, liable to be rejected under the provisions of Rule 12 of
the CVR-2007. Rule 11 of Rules prescribes various documents required for
ascertaining the correctness of declared value and one of the prescribed
documents is manufacturer’sinvoice. The Rule 4 of theCVR-2007 provides that
subject to the provisions of Rule 3, the value of the imported goods shall be the
Transaction Value of identical goods sold for export to India and imported at or
about the same time as the goods being valued. In the present case, the goods
in question themselves have been shipped directly by the actual
exporters/original manufacturers (OEMs). EIF has merely acted as an
intermediary for inflating the invoice value. Thus, the invoice value of the
manufacturer (OEM)/actual supplier appears to be the actual value of goods.
Rule 4 refers to value of identical goods being sold for export to India and
imported at or about the same time. The ambit of identical goods covers same
goods as well, being identical in all respects. Therefore, the price available in
such OEM invoices (in respect of three shipments where the OEM price is
available) and in respect of shipments where individual invoice value is
available in singe invoice - AORs/ORTTs, appears to be the actual Transaction
Value of same goods (Identical goods-Rule 4)-being the same set of goods,
covered by two different sets of invoices. Therefore, the value is proposed to be
re-determined under the provisions of Rule 4 of the CVR-2007 read with
Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of these three shipments where
back-to-back invoice values are available and also in the cases of shipments for
which remittances have been made by way of single-invoice AORs/ORTTs,
which represent the Transaction Value of goods.

of 111
15.5 In case of other shipments, where actual supplier/OEM invoices
are not available, the value of the goods in individual consignments cannot be
determined by any of the Rules from Rule 4 to Rule 8. Rule 9 of the CVR, 2007
prescribes that subject to the provisions of Rule 3, where the value of the
imported goods cannot be determined under the provisions of any of the
preceding rules, the value shall be determined using reasonable means
consistent with principles and general provisions of these rules and on the
basis of data available in India. In this case, outward remittances made by EIF
to various actual suppliers/OEMs against invoice numbers mentioned on
individual AORs/ORTTs represent the price of goods charged by the actual
suppliers/OEM to EIF for such invoices mentioned in AORs/ORTTs. The
cumulative total of outward remittances made to respective original
supplier/OEMs by EIF represents the aggregate invoice price for which
payment has been made through AORs/ORTTs. Therefore, this amount
represents the actual Transaction Value of the goods at aggregate level. The
availability of the actual invoice in some of the cases would only go to
corroborate the fact that outward remittances made through AORs/ORTTs are
for values covered by such invoices. Therefore, for the rest of the consignments,
the value is proposed to be determined at aggregate level on the basis of
aggregate outward remittance of invoice values made by EIF to actual
supplies/OEMs. The aggregate amount of outward remittances to the tune of
USD 669,595,215 has been made by EIF to various firms/entities listed above
for goods shipped to India, which were subsequently imported & cleared on
the strength of invoices raised by EIF on APML and APRL. The cumulative
invoice value of such goods invoiced by EIF in the name of APML and APRL
works out to USD 1477,934,270 [USD 721,653,099.30 for APML + USD
756,281,170.80 for APRL ] The actual outward remittance to the extent of USD
669,595,215 also includes actual value of 3 OEM invoices as available and
value of 6 single invoice AORs/ORTTs . Reducing the actual CIF value of the
said 9 consigmnents (6 Single invoice AORs/ORTTs + 3 OEM invoices) i.e. USD
6,354,762 from the aggregate remittance value of USD 669,595,215; the
balance by aggregate value of the rest 554 (563-9) works out to USD
663,240,453 (CIF) which is the actual aggregate transaction value of the said
554 consignments imported by APML and APRL.
15.6 However, for re-determination of value for respective bills of entry,
since actual invoices or invoice-wise value (except for the few cases) of actual
suppliers/OEMs (raised on EIF) is not available for all shipments, the same is
proposed to be re-determined as under :-

of 111
i) The three consignments where invoices of actual suppliers/OEMs
are available (Sr.No. 300 & 310 of Annexure A and Sr.No. 262 of
Annexure B), the value of these goods is proposed to be re-
determined on the basis of said actual supplier/OEM invices. [Rule
4 of the CVR,2007]
ii) In the case of six consignments, theAORs/ORTT (BOB) refer to a
single-invoice for remittance purpose(refer Table-21). The amounts
indicated in the respective AORs/ORTTs represent the invoice
value of actual suppliers/OEMs. Therefore, value of these six
consignments (Sr.No.42, 48,51,52,53 and 72 of Annexure B is
proposed to be re-determined at the respective remittance value
againstinvoice values of actual suppliers/OEMs since these
remittances represent Transaction Value of the same goods. [Rule-
4 of the CVR-2007).
iii) For the rest of the imports, the value of the individual imports is
proposed to be re-determined by reducing the declared value, in
the ratio of inflation i.e since the value of invoices raised by EIF on
APML & APRL have been found inflated by 2.2 times of the
Transaction Value as per invoices of actual suppliers/OEMs raised
on EIF (at aggregate level) eg. If the value declared before Indian
Customs is USD 2200, then the value is being re-determined as
USD 1000 i.e 2200/2.2 [Rule 9 of the CVR-2007]
15.7 The summary picture of the money siphoned off by over-valuation
of the imported goods and proposed value thereof is given in the three tables
below:-
Table-29
Aggregate difference in invoice value of goods as per invoices raised by EIF on
APML/APRL and aggregate remittances made to actual suppliers/OEMs in
respect of the said shipments
Sr.No. Aggregate invoice value
remitted by EIF to various
original suppliers/OEMs
Corresponding aggregate
value of invoices raised by
EIF on APML and APRL (USD)
Difference (C-D)
(USD)/RS
Variation {C as
% of B)
([A] [B] [C] [D] [E]
USD 669,595,215 1477,934,270 808,338,055 220%
In Rs.
terms
3187,61,03,936 71617317119 3974,12,13,183 220%

of 111
Table-30
Proportionate distribution of over-valuation between APML & APRL
(Figures in Rs.)
Sr.no.
Name of
the import-
er
Declared CIF in Rs. Based
on EIF invoices raised on
APML & APRL
Remittances made by EIF
to OEMs (Rs.)
Difference in Rs.(C-D)
A B C D E
1 APML 34690779941 15574421785 19116358156
2 APRL 36926537178 16301682151
20624855027
TOTAL 7161,73,17,119 3187,61,03,936 3974,12,13,183
Table-31
Invoice-wise summary
(Figures in Rs.)
SL. Description APML APRL
Declared
(invoice
raised by
EIF on
APML)
Remitted
(Remittances
made by EIF
to
OEMs/actual
suppliers
Difference
(C-D)
Declared
(invoice
raised by
EIF on
APRL)
Remitted
(Remittances
made by EIF
to
OEMs/actual
suppliers
Difference (F-G)
A B C D E F G H
1
Three OEM
invoices
164888211 80520239 84367972 152099244 76436132 75663112
2
Single in-
voice
AOR/ORTT(
Table-21)
0 0 0 907669854 129610379 778059475
3
Balance
AOR/ORTT
34525891730 15493901546 19031990184 35866768080 16095635640 19771132440
19116358156 20624855027
3974,12,13,183
15.8 Thus, the declared values in the impugned 301 & 262
consignments imported by APML & APRL respectively, totally amounting to Rs.
3469,07,79,940/-CIF (Assessable value of Rs. 3503,76,87,740/-) and Rs.
3692,65,37,178/- CIF (assessable value of Rs. 3729,58,02,550/-),
respectively, declared on the basis of inflated invoice prices of the intermediary
EIF, do not represent the actual value of the goods as has been brought out by
the investigation, as set out above, and the said declared assessable value is
required to be rejected under the provisions of Rule 12 of the CVR-2007 and
re-determined under the provisions of Rule 4 & Rule 9 of the CVR-2007 read

of 111
with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, as may be applicable,on the basis of
:-
i) Actual price available in three OEM invoices for three
consignments.
ii) Single Invoice AORs/ORTTs giving the remittance made to actual
suppliers/OEMs representing actual value of the goods in respect
of six shipments imported by APRL.
iii) Value arrived at by proportionate reduction of the declared value,
in the ratio of inflation i.e 2.2 times [Rule 9 of CVR-2007] in
respect of the remaining consignments imported by APML and
APRL.
16.0 RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISONS
16.1 The legal provisions relevant to the present proceedings are :-
i) Various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 as mentioned
in the notice
ii) The Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported
Goods) Rules 2007 (The CVR-2007)
iii) The Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992
(The FTDR)
iv) The Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993
Some of the specific provisions with particular relevance to the instant case are
discussed below:-
16.2 Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for filing of Bill of
entry upon importation of goods, which casts a responsibility on the importer
to declare truthfully, all the contents in the bill of entry. Relevant portion of
Section 46 i.e. sub-section (4) thereof is reproduced below for ease of reference
:-
“(4) The importer while presenting a bill of entry shall
at the foot thereof make and subscribe to a declaration as
to the truth of the contents of such bill of entry and shall,
in support of such declaration, produce to the proper
officer the invoice, if any, relating to the imported goods
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x”

of 111
16.3 Section 111 of the Customs Act provides for confiscation of
improperly imported goods. The relevant sub-sections (d) and (m) are
reproduced below:-
“111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc.-
The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be
liable to confiscation :-
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
(d) any goods which are imported or attempted to be
imported or are brought within the Indian customs
waters for the purpose of being imported contrary to any
prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other
law for the time being in force;
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
(m) any goods which do not correspond in respect of value
or in any other particular with the entry made under
this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration
made under section 77 in respect thereof, or in the case
of goods under transhipment, with the declaration for
transhipment referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1)
of section 54;
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x”
Since the actual value of imported goods do not correspond with the
declared value of the goods in the Bills of Entry (which were grossly over-
valued) the said goods appear liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of
the Customs Act, 1962.
Confiscation under Section 111(d) is discussed later.
16.4 Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for improper
importation of goods etc.; while 112 (a) and (b) provide for situations, the sub-
sections (i) to (v) provide extent of penalty. Section 112 (iii) provides for penalty
in the case of import over-valuation, relevant text of which is reproduced
below:-
“
“112.Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. –
Any person, -

of 111
(a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any
act which act or omission would render such goods lia-
ble to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing
or omission of such an act, or
(b) who acquires possession of or is in any way con-
cerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring,
keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any
other manner dealing with any goods which he knows
or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under
section 111,
shall be liable, -
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
(iii) in the case of goods in respect of which the value
stated in the entry made under this Act or in the
case of baggage, in the declaration made under sec-
tion 77 (in either case hereafter in this section re-
ferred to as the declared value) is higher than the
value thereof, to a penalty not exceeding the differ-
ence between the declared value and the value
thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the
greater
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx”
From the above specific provision of quantum for imposition of penalty in case
of import over-valuation of goods, it is clear that law specifically seeks to
penalise the over-valuation of the imported goods.
16.5 Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with penalty for use
of false and incorrect material. The relevant provision is reporoduced below:
“114AA. Penalty for use of false and incorrect material. –
If a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs or uses, or
causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or
document which is false or incorrect in any material particular, in the
transaction of any business for the purposes of this Act, shall be
liable to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of goods.

of 111
In the instant case documents, particularly invoices have been manipulated
for the purpose of over-valuation of imported goods. Further false and incorrect
declarations/statements have been made in the import documentation.
16.6.1 As per Rule 11 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993,
inter-alia on the importation into any customs port of any goods, whether liable
to duty or not, the owner of such goods shall in the bill of entry prescribed
under the Customs Act, 1962 state the value, among others of such goods to
the best of his knowledge and belief and shall subscribe a declaration to the
truth of such statement at the foot of such bill of entry.
16.6.2 Further, as per Rule 14(1) of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules,
1993, no person shall make, sign, or use or cause to be made, signed or used
any declaration, statement or document for the purpose of, inter-alia,
importing any goods knowing or having reasons to believe that such
declaration, statement or document is false in any material particulars.
Further, as per Rule 14 (2), ibid, no person shall employ any corrupt or
fraudulent practice for the purpose of, inter-alia, importing any goods.
16.6.3 In this case, value of the imported goods has been over-stated by
the importer for the purpose of siphoning off money from India to their related
entities overseas. The importer and owner of the imported goods has thus
declared value which to the best of their knowledge and belief was incorrect
and was over-stated, as brought out here-in-above. They have also subscribed
a declaration of the truth regarding the statement of value which declaration
appears to be false due to over-valuation of the goods. Also, the importer has
made, signed and used and/or caused to be made, signed and used the
declaration, statement and invoices of EIF for the purpose of importing the
goods knwong or having reasons to believe that such declarations, statement
and invoice were false in respect of the value stated therein. Further, the
importer has employed corrupt or fraudulent practice of over-valuation for the
purpose of importing the impugned goods.
16.6.4 Therefore, the importer appears to have violated the restrictions
and prohibitions as per Rules 11 and 14 ibid. It is a settled point of law that
any restriction is also a prohibition.
16.6.5 In view of the overvaluation of the imported goods as a past
planned modus operandi for siphoning off money abroad as discussed above, it
appears that APML and APRL the owner/importer as the case may be, have

of 111
imported good by declaring the value, which they knew that was not true and
thus imports were effected contrary to the prohibition imposed under the
Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 made under Section 19 of the FTDR
1992. Therefore the imported goods are also liable for confiscation under
Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962(in addition to Section 111(m) as
discussed) elsewhere and the importer is liable to penalty under Section 112(a)
of the Customs Act, 1962.
17.0 SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION
From the foregoing investigation, it appears that :-
17.1 APML, APRL & EIF, various related entities of Adani Group; Shri
Vinod Shatilal Adani; Shri Jatin Shah & Shri Moreshwar Vasant Rabade of EIF
and others have conspired between themselves to execute the planned
conspiracy of siphoning off foreign exchange abroad to and for the benefit of
their related entity. APML and APRL appear to have indulged in Trade Based
Money Laundering by trade mis-pricing by routing invoice through an
intermediary invoicing agent (EIF) in the UAE-a front company of the Adani
Group run and controlled by one of the Adani brothers and assisted by ex-
employees of the Adani Group. EIF in UAE appears to have been created as a
front for siphoning off of money under the guise of outward remittances for
over-valued imports, by indulging in invoice inflation. The Modus operandi can
be diagrammatically described as under –

of 111
17.2 EIF (earlier known as Sichuan Machinery and Equipments FZE)
was acquired by Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani @ Vinod Shantilal Shah through a
Mauritius based Company viz. EIH (earlier known as Sichuan Machinery
Import and Export Company Ltd.). The Mauritius based company EIH is owne
and controlled by Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani @ Vinod Shantilal Shah. Several
ex-employees of Adani Group viz. Shri Jatin Shah and Shri Moreshwar Vasant
Rabade joined to manage the operations of EIF in UAE. Shri Jatin Shah, an ex-
employee of Adani group, himself was made authorised signatory in Sichuan
machinery and Equipments FZE, UAE even before it was acquired by Shri
Vinod Shantilal Shah @ Vinod Shantilal Adani.
17.3 The relationship between EIF and APML and APRL has been
established during the investigation. EIF is owned and controlled by Shri
Vinod Shantilal Adani @ Vinod Shantilal Shah through M/s Electrogen Infra
Holding Pvt. Ltd., Mauritius. Shri Vinod Adani is shareholder in flag ship
company of Adani Group viz. Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL). AEL owns and
controls APML and APRL through its subsidiary company M/s Adani Power
Limited.
17.4 Investigation in the present case has clearly revealed that while the
critical BTG and its auxiliaries from SEC were sourced and shipped directly to
India, the OEM invoices were routed through the above EIF i.e. the
intermediary invoicing agent for inflating the value as a part of modus-operandi
to siphon off money from India. SEC is a world-renowned supplier of BTG. It is
also an undisputed fact that BTG are key components of a power plant and
constitute a substantial portion of the cost of the power plant in terms of the
aggregate value of equipment required for setting up the power plant. As stated
earlier, EIF had entered into four contracts with SEC (the OEM for BTG) for
supply of BTG and its auxiliaries, as summarised below :-
S.
No
Agreement
Date
Executing
parties
Consideration
amount as per
agreement
(USD)
Purpose
Maharashtra
EIF/SME and
SEC
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
EIF/SME and
SEC
Maharashtra
(1 + 2) 178,975,000 Total for APML power
project
3. 06-11-2009 Steam Generator (Boiler) EIF/SME and 97465318 For supply to APRL’s

of 111
Rajasthan
SEC power project at Kawai in
Rajsthan
Rajasthan
EIF/SME and
SEC
82679682 +
addition of
7920000 after
amendment
Rajasthan
(3 + 4) 188,065,000 Total for APRL power
project
GRAND TOTAL 367,040,000
17.5 The aggregate value of all the contracts between EIF and SEC (as
detailed above) put together work out to USD 367,040,000. Investigation has
brought out the fact that goods shipped by SEC to APML and APRL were
invoiced by EIF, the UAE based intermediary invoicing agent to APML and
APRL. Investigation have been able to clearly identify consignments shipped by
SEC to APML and APRL, which were cleared on the strength of EIF’s invoices
by APML and APRL upon importation in India on the basis of combined
analysis of invoice numbers & dates, shippers/exporters as appearing in the
Bills of Lading/COO certificates and AORs/ORTTs showing the name of SEC as
the beneficiary.
The aggregate value of shipments invoiced by EIF to APML and APRL,
wherein the actual shipper is SEC works out to USD 633,562,594 (APML:USD
307147429.72 + APRL:USD-326415164). Analysis of the outward remittances
though AORs/ORTTs to SEC made from the accounts of EIF held with Axis
Bank and Bank of Baroda has revealed a total outflow of USD 335,732,220 for
consignments shipped to APML and APRL on the basis of invoice numbers
appearing on the AORs/ORTTs made by EIF (which were found to match with
invoice numbers of invoices raised by EIF on APML and APRL) to the Banks
requesting for outward remittances through SWIFT mode. The extent of value
inflation is summarised at Table-24 which is repeated below:-.
(Table-24)
Extent of Overvaluation i.r.o of supplies made by SEC
Sr.
No.
Aggregate value of EIF invoices raised
on APML and APRL where the actual
supplier is Shanghai Electric Group Co.
Ltd., China in USD
Aggregate value of remittance
made by EIF to Shanghai
Electric Group company for
supplies to APML & APRL
(USD- based on
AORs/ORTTs)
Difference
(B-C)
Variation
[B] as % of [C]
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E]
1. 633,562,594 335,732,220 297,830,374 189%

of 111
It is evident from above that against the aggregate payments of USD
335,732,220 paid by EIF to SEC for shipments made to APML &APRL, EIF
appears to have raised back-to-back invoices with inflated price aggregating to
USD 633,562,594 thereby leading to an inflation of nearly 189% over the OEM
invoice-value (amounts actually remitted to SEC by EIF).
17.6 Similarly in case of supplies by two OEMs (Shanghai Shantra
Trading Co. Limited, Shanghai, China and Reynold Power Transmission
Limited) as per invoices raised by said OEMs on EIF with the corresponding
back-to-back invoice of EIF on APML & APRL are as Table -11, ibid, whichis
repeated below-
(Table -11)
Sr.
No.
OEM invoice raised on EIF Invoice raised by EIF on
APML/APRL)
Difference
(USD)
[F] as %
of [C]
A B C D E F G
A Inv.No. /date Value (USD) Inv.No. /date Value (USD)
1 10SDMS01G160 DE
dt. 26-01-2011
(Shanghai Shantra)
1647395 10SDMS01G160 DE
dt. 26-01-2011 (on
APML)
3294790 1674395 100%
2 10SDMS01G180 IN dt.
04-05-2011 (Shanghai
Shantra)
1647395 10SDMS01G180 IN
dt. 04-05-2011 (on
APRL)
3294790 1674395 100%
3. 50582 dt. 25-06-2013(
Reynold Transmission)
85041.22
(equivalent of
GBP 54279.68
converted to
USD)
50582 dt. 25-06-2013
(on APML)
230550 145509 171%
The inflation to the extent of 100% and 171% in case of shipments by two
OEMs also corroborates the fact that EIF has resorted to value inflation in the
invoices raised by it on APML and APRL.
17.7 Thus, the declared values in the impugned 301 & 262
consignments imported by APML & APRL respectively totally amounting to Rs.
3469,07,79,940/-CIF and Rs. 3692,65,37,178/--CIF respectively, declared
on the basis of inflated invoice prices in invoices of the intermediary EIF, do not
represent the actual value of the goods as has been brought out by the
investigation. The overall overvaluation to the extent of Rs 3974,12,13,183/-
CIF is summarised in Table below:-

of 111
Table – 32
Proportionate distribution of over-valuation between APML & APRL
(Figures in Rs.)
Sr.no.
Name of
the im-
porter
Declared CIF in
Rs. based on EIF
invoices raised
on APML & APRL
Remittances
made by EIF to
OEMs (RS)
Difference in Rs.
(C-D)
A B C D E
1 APML 34690779941 15574421785 19116358156
2 APRL 36926537178 16301682151 20624855027
TOTAL 7161,73,17,119 3187,61,03,936 3974,12,13,183
17.8 Even looking at the above case from the perpective of normal
commercial prudence and due dililgence, payment of such huge amounts
running into several hundred million US Dollars over and above the actual
value of the goods appears to be unusual and highly irregular. When the
OEM/actual supplier is selling the goods at a much lower value, no prudent
business entity would pay several times the actual value of goods to an
intermediary with no known bona fide value addition. In the instant case, the
goods have been shipped directly to India, from OEMs/Actual Exporter, only
Invoices were routed through EIF. EIF did not even change the original invoice
no. and date of the OEMs/actual suppliers as discussed elsewhere, but have
changed name of the supplier (to himself) and the value which was inflated
grossly. This is apparently a manipulation of the invoice with fraudulent intent.
That, APML and APRL knowing fully well who the actual suppliers were and
where the goods are coming from (as the goods were shipped directly to them),
have chosen to pay such an inflated value and that in such a large scale of
hundreds of millions of US dollars is contrary to all commercial prudence and
due diligence. No prudent business firm/entity can be expected to be paying
such overvalued amounts for goods several times their actual value, (running
into hundreds of millions US Dollars) except by collusion with fraudulent
intent, which is apparent from the overall facts of the case as discussed above.
That APML and APRL have colluded with EIF and have been aided and abetted
by various persons (as discussed elsewhere) to import impugned goods by over-
valuation following a well-planned modus operandi of money laundering is
apparent.

of 111
17.9 The above exercise only reinforces the inference that EIF is not an
independent supplier, per-se, but merely an intermediary dummy agent for
invoice copying and value inflation for enabling siphoning off of money abroad
as a part of the modus-operandi.
17.10 In the guise of import of power sector machinery and equipment,
APML and APRL, the two entities of Adani Enterprises Limited appear to have
indulged in over-valuation of impugned imported goods. The actual value of the
imported goods is Rs. 3187,61,03,936/- , whereas the same have been
invoiced at Rs. 7161, 73,17,119/-, thus leading to an over-valuation Rs.
3974,12,13,183/- which appears to have been siphoned off abroad through
EIF, an intermediary at UAE, which is controlled and managed by Shri Vinod
Shantilal Adani @ Vinod Shantilal Shah, one of the promoters of Adani
Enterprises Limited (flagship company of the Adani Group).
18.0 LIABILITY TO CONFISCATION AND PENALTY
From the foregoing investigations, it appears that :
18.1 APML, APRL and EIF - related entities of Adani Group; Shri Vinod
Shatilal Adani @ Vinod Shantilal Shah, ShriJatin Shah & Shri Moreshwar
Vasant Rabade of EIF and others have conspired between themselves to
execute the planned conspiracy of siphoning off foreign exchange abroad to and
for the benefit of their related entity. APML and APRL appear to have indulged
in Trade Based Money Laundering by trade mis-pricing by routing invoice
through an intermediary invoicing agent (EIF) in the UAE - a front company of
the Adani Group run and controlled by one of the Adani brothers and assisted
by ex-employees of the Adani Group. M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE appears
to have been created as a front for siphoning off of money under the guise of
outward remittances for over-valued imports, by indulging in invoice inflation.
18.2 Even looking at the above case from the perpective of normal commercial
prudence and due dililgence, payment of such huge amounts running into
several hundred million US Dollars over and above the actual value of the
goods appears to be unusual and highly irregular. That, M/s APML/APRL
knowing fully well who the actual suppliers were and where the goods are
coming from (as the goods were shipped directly to them), have chosen to pay
such an inflated value in such scale of over hundreds of millions of USD,
contrary to all commercial prudence and due diligence, indicates at their wilful

of 111
involvement. No prudent business firm/entity can be expected to be paying
such overvalued amounts for goods several times their actual value in such
scale of over hundreds of millions of USD, except by common collusion with
fraudulent intent of money laundering, which is apparent from the overall facts
of the case.
18.3 In view of the overvaluation of the imported goods as a well
planned modus operandi for siphoning off money abroad as discussed above, it
appears that APML and APRL the owner/importer as the case may be, have
imported good by declaring the value, which they knew that was not true and
thus imports were effected contrary to the prohibition imposed under Rule 11
and Rule 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 made under Section
19 of the FTDR 1992. Therefore the imported goods are liable for confiscation
under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Section 111(m) of the
Customs Act-1962 provides for confiscation of any which do not correspond in
respect of value or any other material particular with the Bill of entry.
Therefore, the above imported goods having cumulative declared value of
Rs 7161,73,17,119/- and having actual value of Rs. 3187,61,03,936/-as
under:
Table - 33
are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act-
1962.
18.4 M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE, the created UAE based
intermediary, on their part, knowingly and intentionally arranged for supply of
goods to APML and APRL by raising invoices depicting grossly inflated prices,
which did not represent the actual price of the goods. M/s Electrogen Infra
FZE, UAE, were aware at all material times that actual price of the goods were
available in the invoices raised by various actual suppliers/OEMs in their
name, commensurate with which they had made outward remittances to the
actual suppliers/OEMs as evidenced by the discussions in the foregoing
paragraphs. APML and APRL by virtue of their direct and close relationship
with EIF and sharing common business interest, also appear to have proceeded
to import and clear goods by producing inflated invoices raised by EIF to the
Importer No. of
Consignment
Declare Value
(CIF)
(inRs.)
Actual value (CIF)
(as redetermined)
(inRs.)
APML 301 3469,07,79,941 1557,44,21,785
APRL 262 3692,65,37,178 1630,16,82,151
TOTAL 563 7161,73,17,119 3187,61,03,936

of 111
customs authorities at the time of clearance, being fully aware that the goods
imported by them had been over-invoiced and value declared on the basis of
the EIF’s invoice price did not represent the actual value of the goods. APML,
APRL and EIF have in relation to the goods imported and cleared under bills of
entry detailed at Annexure-A and Annexure-B to this Notice, by their various
acts of commission and omission appear to have rendered the impugned
imported goods of declared value of Rs. 3469,07,79,940/-(CIF) and actual
value of Rs. 1557,44,21,785-(CIF) in case of APML Imports and declared
value ofbRs. 3692,65,37,178/- (CIF)-and actual value of Rs1630,16,82,151in
case ofAPRL importsliable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of
the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, APML, APRL and EIF appear to have
rendered themselves liable to penalty under Section 112 (a) & (b) of the
Customs Act, 1962 and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
18.5 Shri Jatin Shah (ex-employee of the Adani Group) and Shri
Moreshwar Vasant Rabade, both Directors of M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE,
aided and abetted by Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani @ Vinod Shantilal Shah,
appear to have indulged in raising invoices on APML and APRL for supply of
goods knowing fully well that price charged in such invoices did not represent
the actual value of the goods. Such invoices have been raised and issued on
the instructions/directions of these persons from time to time. Despite,
repeated summonses issued to Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani @ Vinod Shantilal
Shah and Shri Jatin Shah seeking their presence with documents
(procurement invoices raised on Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE by various OEMs),
they appear to have deliberately avoided presenting themselves before the DRI
and did not co-operate with the on-going investigations, on one plea or the
other. Being privy to the facts that amount remitted to the actual
suppliers/OEMs were towards the invoice value of the goods charged by such
original suppliers/OEMs, they appear to be fully aware that invoice price in
the invoices raised by EIF from time to time did not represent the actual value
of the goods. Shri Jatin Shah and Shri Moreshwar Vasant Rabade, led by Shri
Vinod Shantilal Adani @ Vinod Shantilal Shah, by their acts of commission any
omission, which has rendered the goods of declared aggregate value of Rs.
7161,73,17,118/- but having actual aggregate value of Rs. 3187,61,03,936/-
(CIF) liable to confiscation under Section Section111(d) and Section 111(m) of
the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani @ Vinod
Shantilal Shah, Shri Jatin Shah and Shri Moreshwar Vasant Rabade appear to
have rendered themselves liable to penalty under Section 112 (a) & (b) of the
Customs Act, 1962.

of 111
18.6 Further as explained above, by knowingly and intentionally making or
causing to make documents particularly inflated invoices depicting false values
for enabling mis-declaration of value of imported goods in India, they also
appear to be liable for penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act’1962
19.1 Out of the 301 consignments, as detailed at Annexure A to this
show cause notice, pertaining to clearances by APML, 235 consignments have
been cleared through Jawaharlal Nehru Port - NhavaSheva, 38 consignments
have been cleared through Air Cargo Complex, (ACC) Sahar, Mumbai and the
remaining 28 consignments have been cleared through Mumbai Port. Howev-
er, as regards the issue of jurisdiction for adjudication, in so far as these
clearances through the above ports, the Central Board of Excise & Customs
(CBEC), New Delhi, have earmarked the respective jurisdiction of the Commis-
sioner of Customs vide Notification No. 15/2002(NT) dated 07.03.2002 as
amended from time to time. As per sr.no.3 of the table to the said Notification,
for the areas falling within the limits of ports of Mumbai, Mumbai Airport and
Jawaharlal Nehru Port, (JNPT NhavaSheva), there is no distinction between the
jurisdiction of Commissioners of Customs, Mulund(CFS &General) Mumbai;
Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai; Commissionerof Customs (Im-
port), Mumbai; Commissioner of Customs (Import) NhavaSheva; Commissioner
of Customs (Export) NhavaSheva; Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Mum-
bai;Commissioner of Customs (Import) Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai; Commis-
sioner of Customs (Export) Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. Further, the Board
has clarified vide letter F.No. 437/107/2009-Cus.IV dated 26.08.2009 that in
such situations, Show Cause Notice could be adjudicated by any one of the
Commissioner of Customs who may be mentioned in the Show Cause Notice
itself. Since in this case majority of imports made by APML covered in this
Show Cause Notice has been caused through JNPT,NhavaSheva:therefore, it is
proposed that even for the consignments by APML imported through Mumbai
Sea Port and through Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Mumbai, also be adjudicated
by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), NhavaSheva having his office Ja-
waharlal Nehru Custom House, NhavaSheva, TalukaUran, Dist. Raigad, Maha-
rashtra 400 707.
19.2 In respect of APRL, out of the 262 consignments as detailed at An-
nexure B to this show cause notice, 194consignments have been cleared
through Mundra Port, 11 consignments have been cleared through Air Cargo
Complex, Ahmedabad, 27 consignments have been cleared through NhavaShe-
va, 29 consignments have been cleared through ACC, Sahar, Mumbai, one
consignment has been imported through Mumbai Port. The adjudication au-

of 111
thority for the imports effected through Ahmedabad ACC, is the Commissioner
of Customs, having his office near All India Radio, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-
380009. The adjudication authority for the imports effected through Mundra
port is the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, having his office at Custom
House, Near Balaji Temple, Kandla-370210. In respect of the remaining 56
consignments of imports, which have all been cleared through various ports in
Mumbai, all the consignments are proposed to be adjudicated by the Commis-
sioner of Customs (Imports), Nhava Sheva having his office Jawaharlal Nehru
Custom House, NhavaSheva, TalukaUran, Dist. Raigad, Maharashtra - 400
707, who has the concurrent jurisdiction as discussed above .
20.1 Now therefore, M/s Adani Power Maharashtra Limited; Adani
Power Rajasthan Limited; Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE; Shri Vinod Shantilal
Adani @ Vinod Shantilal Shah; Shri Jatin Shah & Shri Moreshwar Vasant
Rabade - both Directors/Employees/Representatives of M/s Electrogen Infra
FZE, with respect to goods imported by APML (301 consignements) through
NhavaSheva;ACC, Sahar and Mumbai Sea Port; are hereby called upon to show
cause to the Commissioner of Customs (Import), NhavaSheva having his
office at Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, NhavaSheva, Taluka-Uran, Dist.
Raigad, Maharashtra -400 707:-
(I) M/s Adani Power Maharashtra Limited is required to show cause
to the adjudicating authority as to why:-
(a) the declared value in respect of equipments & machinery imported
under 301 bills of entry, as detailed at Annexure A, having cumu-
lative declared value of Rs. 3469,07,79,940/- (CIF) (individual bill
of entry-wise CIF value shown under column K of Annexure A)
should not be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation
(Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with
Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.
(b) the actual cumulative value of goods at (a) above, should not be re-
determined as Rs. 1557,44,21,785/-(CIF) (individual bill of entry-
wise re-determined CIF valueisshown under column-N of Annex-
ure A), in terms of Rule 4/Rule 9 of the CVR-2007, as the case
may be,read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, as dis-
cussed in para 15 above.
(c) Goods covered under 301 bills of entry, as detailed at Annexure A,
having aggregate declared value of Rs.3469,07,79,940/- (CIF) and
actual value of Rs. 1557,44,21,785/-(CIF), seized under proviso to
Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, vide Order F. No.

of 111
DRI/MZU/CI-224/2013/4380 Dt. 12-05-2014 (RUD/D-69) should
not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of the
Customs Act, 1962.
(d) Penalty under Section 112 (a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962
should not be imposed on them in relation to the above goods.
(e) Penalty under Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 should not
be imposed on them.
II) M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE; Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani @
Vinod Shantilal Shah; Shri Jatin Shah & Shri Moreshwar Vasant Rabade -
both Directors/Employees/Representatives of M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE
are required to show cause as to why: -
a) penalty under Section 112 (a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 should
not be imposed on each one of them in relation to above goods.
b) penalty under Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 should not
be imposed on each one of them.
20.2 Now therefore, M/s Adani Power Rajasthan Limited; Electrogen
Infra FZE, UAE; Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani @ Vinod Shantilal Shah; Shri Jatin
Shah & Shri Moreshwar Vasant Rabade - both
Directors/Employees/Representatives of M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, with
respect to goods imported by APRL (262 consignements) through Nhava Sheva;
Mundra; ACC Ahemadabad are hereby called upon to show cause:-
(A) With respect to goods imported by APRL through Nhava Sheva (57 con-
signements) to the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva having
his office at Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Taluka -Uran,
Dist. Raigad, Maharashtra 400 707:-
I) M/s Adani Power Rajsthan Limited is required to show cause to
the adjudicating authority as to why:-
a) the declared value in respect of equipments & machinery imported
under 57 bills of entry, as detailed at Annexure B (sr.nos. 12 to 41
& sr.nos. 236 to 262), having cumulative declared value of Rs.
72,37,92,427/- (CIF) (individual bill of entry-wise CIF value shown
under column K of Annexure B) should not be rejected under Rule
12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported
Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act,
1962.

of 111
b) the actual cumulative value of the goods at (a) above should not be
re-determined as total value at Rs. 33,29,90,197(CIF) (individual
bill of entry-wise re-determined CIF value shown under column-N
of Annexure A), in terms of Rule 4/Rule 9 of the CVR-2007, as the
case may be, read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, as
detailed in para 15 above.
c) Goods at (a) above having aggregate declared value of Rs.
72,37,92,427/- (CIF), and actual value of Rs. 33,29,90,197 (CIF)
seized under proviso to Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962
vide order bearing F. No. DRI/MZU/CI-224/2013/4381 Dt. 12-05-
2014 (RUD/D-69) should not be confiscated under Section 111(d)
and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
d) Penalty under Section 112 (a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962
e) Penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 should not
be imposed on them.
Vinod Shantilal Shah; Shri Jatin Shah & Shri Moreshwar Vasant Rabade
- both Directors/Employees/ Representatives of M/s Electrogen Infra
FZE, UAE are required to show cause to the adjudicating authority as to
why :
a) penalty under Section 112 (a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 should
not be imposed on each one of them in relation to above goods .
b) penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be
imposed on each one of them.
(B) With respect to goods imported by APRL through Mundra Port (194 con-
signements), to the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, having his office at
Custom House, Near Balaji Temple, Kandla-370210 :-
(I) Adani Power Rajasthan Limited is required to show cause to the
adjudicating authority as to why -
under 194 bills of entry, as detailed at Annexure B (sr.nos. 42 to
235), having cumulative declared value of Rs. 3606,43,43,613/-
(CIF) (individual bill of entry-wise CIF value shown under column
K of Annexure B) should not be rejected under Rule 12 of the Cus-
toms Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules,
2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

of 111
b) the actual cumulative value of goods at (a) above should not be re-
determined as total value at Rs. 1590,65,82,808/- (CIF) (individ-
ual bill of entry-wise re-determined CIF valueisshown under col-
umn N of Annexure B) in terms of Rule 4/Rule 9 as the case may
be of the CVR-2007 respectively, read with Section 14 of the Cus-
toms Act, 1962 as detailed in para 15 above.
c) Goods at (a) above, having aggregate declared assessable value of
Rs.3606,43,43,613/-(CIF), but having actual cumulative value Rs.
1590,65,82,808/- (CIF) seized proviso to Section 110(1) of the
Customs Act, 1962 vide order bearing F. No. DRI/MZU/CI-
224/2013/4381 Dt. 12-05-2014 (RUD/D-69) should not be confis-
cated under Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act,
1962.
be imposed on them.
II) M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE; Shri Vinod Shantilal Adani @ Vinod
Shantilal Shah; Shri Jatin Shah & Shri Moreshwar Vasant Rabade - both
Directors/Employees/Representatives of M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE are
required to show cause to the adjudicating authority as to why:
a) Penalty under Section 112 (a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962
b) Penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 should not
be imposed on them.
(C) With respect to goods imported by APRL through Air Cargo Complex,
Ahmedabad (11consignements) to the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
having his office near All India Radio, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009.:-
(I) Adani Power Rajasthan Limited is required to show cause to the
adjudicating authority as to why :-
under 11 bills of entry, as detailed at Annexure B (refer sr.nos. 1
to 11), having cumulative declared value of Rs. 13,84,01,139/-
(CIF) (individual bill of entry-wise CIF value shown under column
K of Annexure B) should not be rejected under Rule 12 of the Cus-
toms Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules,
2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

of 111
b) the actual cumulative value of goods at (a) above should not be re-
determined as Rs. 6,21,09,145/- (CIF) (individual bill of entry-
wise re-determined CIF value shown under column- N of Annexure
B) in terms of Rule 9 of the CVR-2007 respectively, read with Sec-
tion 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 as detailed in para 15 above.
c) Goods at (a) above having aggregate declared value of
Rs.13,84,01,139/- (CIF) and actual value ofRs. 6,21,09,145/-
(CIF) seized under proviso to Section 110(1) of the Customs Act,
1962 vide order bearing F. No. DRI/MZU/CI-224/2013/4381 Dt.
12-05-2014 (RUD/D-69) should not be confiscated under Section
111(d) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
be imposed on them.
Vinod Shantilal Shah; Shri Jatin Shah & Shri Moreshwar Vasant Rabade -
both Directors/Employees/Representatives of M/s Electrogen Infra FZE, UAE
are required to show cause to the adjudicating authority as to why:
a) Penalty under Section 112 (a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962
b) Penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 should not
be imposed on them.
21.0 Each of the above noticees, is required to submit a written reply to
the Adjudicating Authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of this
notice. In their written reply, the noticees may also indicate as to whether they
would like to be heard in person. In case no reply is received within the time
limit stipulated above or any further time which may be granted and/or if
nobody appears for personal hearing, when the case is posted for the same, the
case will be decided ex-parte on the basis of evidence on record and without
any further reference to the notice(es).
22.0 The relied upon documents (RUD) for issuance of this notice are
listed in Annexure ‘R’, softcopies of which are being supplied along-with this
notice in a CD. If, before filing replies to this notice, the noticees desire to
inspect any documents, which are relied upon, they may do so with prior
permission of the Deputy Director, Commercial Intelligence (C.I.) Cell, 5th

of 111
Floor, 13, Sir VithaldasThackersey Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020
on any working day.
23.0 This show cause notice is being issued under section 124 of the
Customs Act-1962, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken in
respect of the above goods and / or the persons / firms mentioned in the notice
under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and / or any other law for the
time being in force, in the Republic of India.
(P.K. DASH)
ADDITIONAL DIRECTORGENERAL
Encl. : Annexures A, B & R.
To :
1. ADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA LIMITED
ADANI HOUSE, MITHAKHALI CIRCLE,
NAVRANGPURA,
AHMEDABAD-380 009
2. ADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LIMITED
ADANI HOUSE, MITHAKHALI CIRCLE,
NAVRANGPURA,
AHMEDABAD-380 009
3. M/S ELECTROGEN INFRA FZE,
SAIF PLUS, R4, 38/A, SAIF ZONE,
P.O.BOX 122528,
SHARJAH
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
4. SHRI VINOD SHANTILA SHAH alias VINOD SHANTILAL ADANI,
P.O.BOX 122528,
SHARJAH
5. SHRI JATIN SHAH
SAIF PLUS, R4, 38/A,SAIF ZONE,
P.O.BOX 122528,
SHARJAH
6. SHRI MORESHWAR VASANT RABADE
P.O.BOX 122528,
SHARJAH

of 111
Copy to:
i) The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla
ii) The Commissioner of Customs, (Import), NhavaSheva
iii) The Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad
iv) The Deputy Director, B Cell, DRI, MZU, Mumbai

DRI 2014.pdf

More Related Content

What's hot

More from Hindenburg Research

Recently uploaded

DRI 2014.pdf