Press Release
New Delhi April 15, 2013: Besides sending the letter below, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) spoke to concerned officials in the Union Ministry of Steel today and expressed its strong objection and concern about the transfer of shipbreaking work from Ministry of Steel to Ministry of Shipping.
TWA expressed its disagreement with Union Environment Ministry's discredited argument about 'virgin' loose asbestos waste in the matter of shipbreaking. As per Hazardous Wastes (Management,Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under Environment Protection Act, 1986, trade in asbestos waste (dust & fibers) is totally prohibited.
If embedded asbestos waste is allowed as is envisaged in the proposed Shipbreaking Code 2013, it will be in violation of the Rules. The very fact that Ministry of Environment & Forests is the Focal Point of Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal and in that role deal with the issue of end-of-life ships demonstrates that end-of-life ship is a hazardous waste. Even Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has given affidavits to this effect in the Supreme Court.
Proposal for allocation of decision making about ship breaking/recycling to Union Ministry of Shipping under Shipbreaking Code 2013 is deeply flawed. This particular aspect of 53 page Shipbreaking Code 2013 regarding allocation of ship breaking related work to Ministry of Shipping needs to be re-visited in order to comply with the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.If this aspect persists in the final Code, TWA will inform the Court about the violation of its orders.
In a letter sent to E K Bharat
Bhushan, Chairman, Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Shipbreaking, Union
Ministry of Steel, ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) has expressed its strong
reservation about the proposal mentioned at clause 8.3.6 in page 43 wherein it
is stated that “In the event of any question arising out of the interpretation
of any of the clauses of the regulations, the decision of the Ministry of
Shipping shall be final”. The
letter is attached.
The letter submits that the clause 1.3.7 of the
Draft Code on Regulations for Safe and Environmentally Sound Ship Recycling
dated 30.9.2010 published by Union Ministry of Steel reads: “Since the subject
matter of ship breaking at present remains with the Ministry of Steel as per the
list of subjects allocated to the Ministry of Steel, under the Government of
India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, the Ministry of Steel will oversee
implementation of the Code on Ship Recycling Regulations and be responsible for
its amendments and updating. “ We are unable understand why this provision has
been removed from the final Code.
In an affidavit filed in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court on July 16, 2012 by Shri Sugandh Shripad Gadkar, Deputy Director General
(Technical), DG Shipping, Mumbai stated that the Ministry of Shipping “does not
come in picture”. The affidavit was filed in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.657
of 1995. It is in this very petition that the Hon’ble Court gave the direction
for creation of Code. We wish to know if the Ministry of Shipping “does
not come in picture” till July 16, 2012, which internal and external forces
have brought it in the picture. The circumstances which led to this decision
merit a high level inquiry because issues of shipbreaking are also linked to
issues of maritime and national security as has been recorded repeatedly in the
minutes of the IMC.
This aspect appears to be influenced by the
supporters of the anti-India, Hong Kong Convention on ship breaking/recycling
of International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and proposed EU amendment to their
Waste Shipment Regulation. This proposal is contrary to all the work done by
Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Shipbreaking since its creation in 2004 in
compliance with the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated October 14,
2003 in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.657 of 1995. The proposed allocation of
decision making to Union Ministry of Shipping under Shipbreaking Code 2013 is
in violation of the Hon’ble Court order and Basel Convention on Transboundary
Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. It is an anti-worker and
anti-environment step.
It may be noted that Union Ministry of Shipping
informed the Rajya Sabha on August 10, 2010 about its failure to get “Different
type of dangerous and Hazardous goods” lying at different ports from different
dates starting from March 1983 removed. In a specific case of containers of
“Methyl Monomer” lying at New Mangalore port, it was stated that it is there
because of “Inadequate storage space in the factory premises of M/s BASF,
Mangalore”, the importer. BASF is the world's largest producer of acrylic
monomer. BASF is the largest chemical company in the world and is headquartered
in Germany. Is it convincing that such a company has “Inadequate storage space
in the factory premises”? The reply is attached.
TWA wants to know as to what is the rationale of
transferring decision making with regard to ship breaking to a ministry which
has admittedly failed to save country’s coastal environment from “Different
type of dangerous and Hazardous goods”.
TWA strongly apprehends that European lobbies are
at work to make Ministry of Shipping the focal point for ship
breaking/recycling because the Ministry in question and Gujarat Maritime Board
(GMB) appear to have been persuaded to support IMO’s anti-environment and
anti-worker Hong Kong Convention on Ship Recycling. GMB’s act of omission and
commission are numerous. Their compliance record with the recommendations of
IMC dated October 18, 2012 is a case in point.
TWA strongly objects to the clause 8.4.1 “(i) On
ratification of International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on ship
recycling by the Government of India and any subsequent changes to the IMO
Convention on ship recycling” because this Convention is against India’s
national interest. The text of the Convention was prepared by IMO’s Marine
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) at the behest of the ship owning
companies of the developed countries in general and European one in particular.
This Hong Kong Convention was adopted by the IMO in May 2009 amidst
condemnation and criticism by groups working on human rights, environmental,
labor and even the shipbreaking industry as it fails to prevent the
transboundary movement of hazardous wastes found within obsolete ships. It does
nothing to stop the human rights and environmental abuses of the infamous
shipbreaking yards like the located on Alang beach. The Convention fails to
comply with the letter and spirit of the Basel Convention with regard toxic
wastes like end-of-life ships.
It strongly objects to the meek endorsement of
the Hong Kong Convention on the Recycling of Ships. The Hong Kong Convention
does not represent an “equivalent level of control” to the Basel Convention as
was called for by the Parties to that United Nations Environment Programme
Convention. This promotes the status quo with regard to exploitation of workers
and the coastal environment by the global shipping industry at the end of the
life of a ship.
The Convention fails to reflect Basel
Convention’s core obligation - minimisation of transboundary movements of
hazardous waste, and as such will not prevent hazardous wastes such as
asbestos, PCBs, old fuels, and heavy metals from being exported to the poorest
communities and most desperate workers in developing countries.
It fails to end the fatally flawed method of
dismantling ships known as “beaching” where ships are cut open on tidal flats.
This is required because on a beach it is impossible to contain oils and toxic
contaminants from entering the marine environment; safely use cranes alongside
ships to lift heavy cut pieces or to rescue workers; bring emergency equipment
to the workers or the ships and protect the fragile coastal environmental zone
from the hazardous wastes on ships. It allows hazardous substances from
end-of-life ships to enter India outwitting the motive of the Basel Convention
and leaving a toxic legacy for generations to come. The Basel Convention covers
the ship recycling and disposal but ship owners of the developed countries do
not like it. In violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India which
calls for prior decontamination of the ship in the country of export, the Hong
Kong Convention fails to ensure the fundamental principle of “Prior Informed
Consent”. The “reporting” takes place only after the hazardous waste ship
arrives in the importing country’s territory that a competent authority has the
right to object and the objection allowed is not to the importation but to the
ship recycling plan or ship recycling facility permit. Thus, India is
forced to receive hazardous waste in the form of ships. The Convention
ignores Polluter Pays/Producer Responsibility Principle, Environmental Justice
Principle, Waste Prevention/Substitution Principles and Principle of National
Self Sufficiency in Waste Management.
The Convention grants legal recognition to
externalization of the real costs and liabilities of ships at end-of-life by
the shipping companies of Europe, USA, Japan and other developed countries. It
does not provide an “equivalent level of control” to that provided by the Basel
Convention. Even United Nations Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteur
has concluded that the Hong Kong Convention does not represent an Equivalent
Level of Control, developed countries like USA, Japan and countries of European
Union are complicit in writing the obituary of the Basel Convention’s rules
against transfer of toxic waste to developing countries like India. The
shipping companies of the developed countries have prevailed on UN’s IMO to
create a legal regime that suits their commercial interest unmindful of the
environmental and human cost setting a very bad precedent. These companies are
so powerful that in order to make national laws and ministries subservient they
have engineered the allocation of decision making regarding ship breaking from
Union Steel Ministry to Union Shipping Ministry despite the fact that the
latter does not have any competence to supervise secondary steel production.
The European Commission’s disregard for their
legal obligations under the Basel Convention is influenced shipping companies
to further facilitate the export of their hazardous end-of-life ships to
countries like India. The European Commission’s proposal on ship recycling
to amend European Waste Shipment Regulation was published on March 23, 2012.
The proposed amendment to the regulation seeks to
remove end-of-life ships from the European Waste Shipment Regulation, which is
the EU’s implementing legislation of the Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, and the Basel
Ban Amendment. Both related UN norms prohibit the export of all forms of
hazardous waste from EU Member States to non-OECD countries including
end-of-life ships. The Basel Convention includes ships under its regime when
they are to be recycled or disposed of and when they contain hazardous
materials. Both the EU and each EU Member State have ratified the Basel
Convention and the Basel Ban. Therefore, they have a treaty obligation to
adhere to them but the proposed amendment is an act of EU attempting to desert
Basel Convention and the Basel Ban. India has ratified the Convention.
Government of India should ratify the Basel Ban to stop hazardous waste
trade.
Under the Basel Convention end-of-life vessels
are considered hazardous wastes and is sensitive to adverse impact of hazardous
waste generating global shipping industry on coastal environmental health but
the proposed IMO and EU legislations puts profit above gnawing environmental
and occupational health concerns. The fact is that callousness and complicity
with regard to environmental and occupational health makes them fit cases of
corporate crimes. The European Commission’s proposal not only undermines the
Basel Ban, which Europe has implemented and championed, it is also illegal
under the Basel Convention. Any proposal to remove ships from the Waste
Shipment Regulation is in breach of EU and EU Member States’ legal obligations
under the Basel Convention. The EU’s proposed legislation attempting to
unilaterally exempt a certain category of hazardous waste covered by the Basel
Convention, namely end-of-life ships, from the control mechanisms of the
Convention is illegal under international law and EU law. The stark act of
European Commission unilaterally departing from its international legal
obligations under the Basel Convention merits strong criticism.
In view of the above, TWA has requested IMC to
ensure that Ministry of Shipping is not handed over the task of decision making
with regard to ship breaking and make efforts to ensure that entry of
end-of-life ships are compliant with obligations under Basel Convention since
the Hong Kong Convention does not provide “equivalent level of control” as it
does not have legal competence to undertake environmentally sound disposal of
such ships.
This development is surprising because after E K
Bharbhushan took over as the Chairman of IMC, the minutes of the IMC meetings
reveal sensitivity towards the most vulnerable migrant workers involved in ship
breaking with regard to their housing and hospital. TWA met the Chairman on
March 28, 2013 to apprise IMC about these concerns.
For Details: Gopal Krishna, Convener, ToxicsWatch
Alliance (TWA), Mb: 9818089660, E-mail:krishna1715@gmail.com, Web: http://www.toxicswatch.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gopal Krishna
Date: Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:42 PM
Subject: Fwd: Statement of concern on flawed proposal for allocation of shipbreaking work to Ministry of Shipping & Hong Kong Convention
To: toxicswatchalliance TWA
Shri E K Bharat Bhushan
We submit that the particular
aspect of 53 page Shipbreaking Code 2013 regarding allocation of ship breaking
related work to Ministry of Shipping needs to be re-visited in order to comply with the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India.
From: Gopal Krishna
Date: Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:42 PM
Subject: Fwd: Statement of concern on flawed proposal for allocation of shipbreaking work to Ministry of Shipping & Hong Kong Convention
To: toxicswatchalliance TWA
ToxicsWatch Alliance
(TWA)
To
Chairperson
Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Shipbreaking
Union Ministry of Steel
Government of India
New Delhi
March 29, 2013
Subject- Statement of
concern on the flawed proposal for allocation of decision making to Union
Ministry of Shipping under Shipbreaking Code 2013 & Hong Kong Convention
Sir,
Pursuant to our discussion in person on March 28, 2013 in your
office, this
is to draw your urgent attention towards the proposal for allocation of decision making about ship
breaking/recycling to Union Ministry of Shipping under Shipbreaking Code 2013
which is deeply flawed. This
is surprising because after you took over the sensitivity of IMC towards
the most vulnerable migrant workers involved in ship breaking is visible in
the minutes of the IMC.
We wish to express strong reservation about the proposal mentioned at clause 8.3.6 in page 43
wherein it is stated that “In the event of any question arising out of the
interpretation of any of the clauses of the regulations, the decision of the Ministry
of Shipping shall be final”.
We submit that the
clause 1.3.7 of the Draft Code on Regulations for Safe and Environmentally
Sound Ship Recycling dated 30.9.2010 published by Union Ministry of Steel
reads: “Since the subject matter of ship breaking at present remains with the
Ministry of Steel as per the list of subjects allocated to the Ministry of
Steel, under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, the
Ministry of Steel will oversee implementation of the Code on Ship Recycling
Regulations and be responsible for its amendments and updating. “ We are unable
understand why this provision has been removed from the final Code.
We submit that in an
affidavit filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on July 16, 2012 by Shri Sugandh
Shripad Gadkar, Deputy Director General (Technical), DG Shipping, Mumbai stated
that the Ministry of Shipping “does not come in picture”. The affidavit was
filed in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.657 of 1995. It is in this very petition that
the Hon’ble Court gave the direction for creation of Code. We wish to know if the Ministry of Shipping
“does not come in picture” till July 16, 2012, which internal and external
forces have brought it in the picture. The circumstances which led to this
decision merit a high level inquiry because issues of shipbreaking are also
linked to issues of maritime and national security as has been recorded
repeatedly in the minutes of the IMC.
This aspect appears to be influenced by the supporters of the anti-India, Hong Kong
Convention on ship breaking/recycling of International Maritime Organisation
(IMO) and proposed EU amendment to their Waste Shipment Regulation. This
proposal is contrary to all the work done by Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC)
on Shipbreaking since its creation in 2004 in compliance with the order of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated October 14, 2003 in the Writ Petition
(Civil) No.657 of 1995. The proposed allocation of decision making to Union
Ministry of Shipping under Shipbreaking Code 2013 is in violation of the
Hon’ble Court order and Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous
Wastes and Their Disposal. It is an anti-worker and anti-environment step.
We submit that a
Union Ministry of Shipping informed the Rajya Sabha on August 10, 2010 about
its failure to get “Different type of dangerous and Hazardous goods” lying at different
ports from different dates starting from March 1983 removed. In a specific case
of containers of “Methyl Monomer” lying at New Mangalore port, it was stated
that it is there because of “Inadequate storage space in the factory premises
of M/s BASF, Mangalore”, the importer. BASF is the world's largest producer of
acrylic monomer. BASF is the largest chemical company in the world and is
headquartered in Germany. Is it convincing that such a company has “Inadequate
storage space in the factory premises”? The
reply is attached.
We want to know as to
what is the rationale of transferring decision making with regard to ship
breaking to a ministry which has admittedly failed to save country’s coastal
environment from “Different type of dangerous and Hazardous goods”.
We
earnestly seek your attention towards the strong apprehension that European
lobbies are at work to make Ministry of Shipping the focal point for ship breaking/recycling
because the Ministry in question and Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) appear to
have been persuaded to support IMO’s anti-environment and anti-worker Hong Kong
Convention on Ship Recycling. GMB’s act of omission and commission are
numerous. Their compliance record with the recommendations of IMC dated October
18, 2012 is a case in point.
We
strongly object to the clause 8.4.1 “(i) On ratification of International
Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention on ship recycling by the Government of
India and any subsequent changes to the IMO Convention on ship recycling” because
this Convention is against India’s national interest. The text of the
Convention was prepared by IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC)
at the behest of the ship owning companies of the developed countries in
general and European one in particular. This Hong Kong Convention was adopted
by the IMO in May 2009 amidst condemnation and criticism by groups working on human
rights, environmental, labor and even the shipbreaking industry as it fails to
prevent the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes found within obsolete
ships. It does nothing to stop the human rights and environmental abuses of the
infamous shipbreaking yards like the located on Alang beach. The Convention
fails to comply with the letter and spirit of the Basel Convention with regard
toxic wastes like end-of-life ships.
We
strongly object to the meek endorsement of the Hong Kong Convention on the Recycling
of Ships. The Hong Kong Convention does not represent an “equivalent level of
control” to the Basel Convention as was called for by the Parties to that
United Nations Environment Programme Convention. This promotes the status quo
with regard to exploitation of workers and the coastal environment by the
global shipping industry at the end of the life of a ship.
We
submit that the Convention fails to reflect Basel Convention’s core obligation
- minimisation of transboundary movements of hazardous waste, and as such will
not prevent hazardous wastes such as asbestos, PCBs, old fuels, and heavy
metals from being exported to the poorest communities and most desperate
workers in developing countries.
It
fails to end the fatally flawed method of dismantling ships known as “beaching”
where ships are cut open on tidal flats. This is required because on a beach it
is impossible to contain oils and toxic contaminants from entering the marine
environment; safely use cranes alongside ships to lift heavy cut pieces or to
rescue workers; bring emergency equipment to the workers or the ships and
protect the fragile coastal environmental zone from the hazardous wastes on
ships. It allows hazardous substances from end-of-life ships to enter India
outwitting the motive of the Basel Convention and leaving a toxic legacy for
generations to come. The Basel Convention covers the ship recycling and
disposal but ship owners of the developed countries do not like it. In
violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India which calls for prior
decontamination of the ship in the country of export, the Hong Kong Convention
fails to ensure the fundamental principle of “Prior Informed Consent”. The “reporting”
takes place only after the hazardous waste ship arrives in the importing
country’s territory that a competent authority has the right to object and the
objection allowed is not to the importation but to the ship recycling plan or
ship recycling facility permit. Thus,
India is forced to receive hazardous waste in the form of ships. The Convention ignores Polluter Pays/Producer
Responsibility Principle, Environmental Justice Principle, Waste
Prevention/Substitution Principles and Principle of National Self Sufficiency
in Waste Management.
We
submit that the Convention grants legal recognition to externalization of the
real costs and liabilities of ships at end-of-life by the shipping companies of
Europe, USA, Japan and other developed countries. It does not provide an
“equivalent level of control” to that provided by the Basel Convention. Even United
Nations Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteur has concluded that the
Hong Kong Convention does not represent an Equivalent Level of Control, developed
countries like USA, Japan and countries of European Union are complicit in
writing the obituary of the Basel Convention’s rules against transfer of toxic
waste to developing countries like India. The shipping companies of the
developed countries have prevailed on UN’s IMO to create a legal regime that
suits their commercial interest unmindful of the environmental and human cost
setting a very bad precedent. These companies are so powerful that in order to
make national laws and ministries subservient they have engineered the
allocation of decision making regarding ship breaking from Union Steel Ministry
to Union Shipping Ministry despite the fact that the latter does not have any
competence to supervise secondary steel production.
We
submit that the European
Commission’s disregard for their legal obligations under the Basel Convention
is influenced shipping companies to further facilitate the export of their
hazardous end-of-life ships to countries like India. The
European Commission’s
proposal on ship recycling to amend European Waste Shipment Regulation was
published on March 23, 2012.
We
submit that the proposed amendment to the regulation seeks to remove
end-of-life ships from the European Waste Shipment Regulation, which is the
EU’s implementing legislation of the Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, and the Basel
Ban Amendment. Both related UN norms prohibit the export of all forms of
hazardous waste from EU Member States to non-OECD countries including
end-of-life ships. The Basel Convention includes ships under its regime when
they are to be recycled or disposed of and when they contain hazardous
materials. Both the EU and each EU Member State have ratified the Basel
Convention and the Basel Ban. Therefore, they have a treaty obligation to
adhere to them but the proposed amendment is an act of EU attempting to desert
Basel Convention and the Basel Ban. India has ratified the Convention.
Government of India should ratify the Basel Ban to stop hazardous waste
trade.
We
submit that under the Basel Convention end-of-life vessels are considered
hazardous wastes and is sensitive to adverse impact of hazardous waste
generating global shipping industry on coastal environmental health but the
proposed IMO and EU legislations puts profit above gnawing environmental and
occupational health concerns. The fact is that callousness and complicity with
regard to environmental and occupational health makes them fit cases of
corporate crimes. The European Commission’s proposal not only undermines the
Basel Ban, which Europe has implemented and championed, it is also illegal
under the Basel Convention. Any proposal to remove ships from the Waste
Shipment Regulation is in breach of EU and EU Member States’ legal obligations
under the Basel Convention. The EU’s proposed legislation attempting to
unilaterally exempt a certain category of hazardous waste covered by the Basel
Convention, namely end-of-life ships, from the control mechanisms of the
Convention is illegal under international law and EU law. The stark act of
European Commission unilaterally departing from its international legal
obligations under the Basel Convention merits strong criticism.
In
view of the above, we request you to ensure that Ministry of Shipping is not
handed over the task of decision making with regard to ship breaking and make efforts
to ensure that entry of end-of-life ships are compliant with obligations under
Basel Convention since the Hong Kong Convention does not provide “equivalent
level of control” as it does not have legal competence to undertake
environmentally sound disposal of such ships.
We
will share detailed comments on other aspects of the Shipbreaking Code 2013
shortly since we had given our comments on the Draft Code.
Thanking
You
Yours
faithfully
Gopal Krishna
Convener
ToxicsWatch Alliance
(TWA)
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
Phone: +91-11-2651781
Fax: +91-11-26517814
Cc
Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister
Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister
Shri Beni Prasad Verma, Union Minister of Steel
Shri Anand Sharma, Union Minister of Commerce & Industry
Shri G K Vasan, Union Minister of Shipping
Shri A K Antony, Union Defence Minister
Smt Jayanthi Natrajan, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Shri Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia, Union Minister of State, Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Chairman & Members, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science, Technology, Environment & Forests
Chairman & Members, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism & Culture
Shri Anand Sharma, Union Minister of Commerce & Industry
Shri G K Vasan, Union Minister of Shipping
Shri A K Antony, Union Defence Minister
Smt Jayanthi Natrajan, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Shri Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia, Union Minister of State, Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Chairman & Members, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science, Technology, Environment & Forests
Chairman & Members, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism & Culture
Shri
A K Seth, Cabinet Secretary, Government of India
Shri R K Singh, Secretary, Union Ministry of Home Affairs
Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Secretary, Union Ministry of Shipping
Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests
Secretary, Union Ministry of Defence
Secretary, Union Ministry of Steel
Shri R K Singh, Secretary, Union Ministry of Home Affairs
Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Secretary, Union Ministry of Shipping
Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests
Secretary, Union Ministry of Defence
Secretary, Union Ministry of Steel
Dr
Mrutunjay Sarangi, Secretary, Union Ministry of Labour
Smt.
Vijay Laxmi Joshi, Additional Secretary , Union Ministry of Commerce &
Industry
Ms Meera Mehrishi, Additional Secretary, HSMD, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Shri Madhusudan Prasad, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry Shri Rajeev Kher, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Ms Anita Agnihotri, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Shri Mukesh Bhatnagar, Additional DGFT, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Dr. Satish B. Agnihotri Director General of Shipping & Ex. Officio Additional Secretary, Govt. of India
Ms Meera Mehrishi, Additional Secretary, HSMD, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Shri Madhusudan Prasad, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry Shri Rajeev Kher, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Ms Anita Agnihotri, Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Shri Mukesh Bhatnagar, Additional DGFT, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Dr. Satish B. Agnihotri Director General of Shipping & Ex. Officio Additional Secretary, Govt. of India
Shri J P Shukla, Joint Secretary, Union Ministry of Shipping
Shri A C Buck, Director General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Union
Ministry of Finance
Shri S.S. Bajaj, Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai
Ms Aditi Das Rout, Director, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Dr. Manoranjan Hota, Director, HSMD, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Shri Sanjay Parikh, Lawyer, Supreme Court
Member Secretary, Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB)
Chairman, GPCB
Chairman, Gujarat Maritime Board
Shri S K Sharma, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
Shri L S Singh, Union Ministry of Steel
ACB, Gandhinagar, CBI
Office of Commissioner, Customs, Ahmedabad
Shri C A Joseph, Under Secretary, MF Desk, Union Ministry of Steel
Shri V. P. Patel, Collector, Bhavnagar District
Shri Maninder Singh Pawar, Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar District
Shri S.S. Bajaj, Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai
Ms Aditi Das Rout, Director, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Dr. Manoranjan Hota, Director, HSMD, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Shri Sanjay Parikh, Lawyer, Supreme Court
Member Secretary, Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB)
Chairman, GPCB
Chairman, Gujarat Maritime Board
Shri S K Sharma, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
Shri L S Singh, Union Ministry of Steel
ACB, Gandhinagar, CBI
Office of Commissioner, Customs, Ahmedabad
Shri C A Joseph, Under Secretary, MF Desk, Union Ministry of Steel
Shri V. P. Patel, Collector, Bhavnagar District
Shri Maninder Singh Pawar, Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar District
Post a Comment