DBOD No. BP. BC. 15/21.04.048/2003-2004, Dt. 22/08/2003
Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances
Dear Sir,
Please refer to the Master Circular No. DBOD. BP. BC. 1/ 21.04.048/ 2002- 2003 dated 4 July 2002 consolidating instructions/ guidelines issued to banks till 30 June 2002 on matters relating to prudential norms on income recognition, asset classification and provisioning pertaining to advances. The Master Circular has been suitably updated by incorporating instructions issued up to 30 June 2003 and has also been placed on the RBI web-site (http://www.rbi.org.in).
This Master Circular is a compilation of all the instructions contained in the circulars issued by RBI on the above subject, which are operational as on the date of this circular.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
( M. R. Srinivasan )
Chief General Manager-in-Charge
Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances1. General1.1 In line with the international practices and as per the recommendations made by the Committee on the Financial System (Chairman Shri M. Narasimham), the Reserve Bank of India has introduced, in a phased manner, prudential norms for income recognition, asset classification and provisioning for the advances portfolio of the banks so as to move towards greater consistency and transparency in the published accounts.
1.2 The policy of income recognition should be objective and based on record of recovery rather than on any subjective considerations. Likewise, the classification of assets of banks has to be done on the basis of objective criteria which would ensure a uniform and consistent application of the norms. Also, the provisioning should be made on the basis of the classification of assets based on the period for which the asset has remained non-performing and the availability of security and the realisable value thereof.
1.3 With the introduction of prudential norms, the Health Code-based system for classification of advances has ceased to be a subject of supervisory interest. As such, all related reporting requirements, etc. under the Health Code system also cease to be a supervisory requirement. Banks may, however, continue the system at their discretion as a management information tool.
2. Definitions2.1 Non-performing assets
2.1.1 An asset, including a leased asset, becomes non-performing when it ceases to generate income for the bank. A ‘non-performing asset’ (NPA) was defined as a credit facility in respect of which the interest and/ or instalment of principal has remained ‘past due’ for a specified period of time. The specified period was reduced in a phased manner as under:
| Year ending March 31 | Specified period
|
| 1993 | four quarters
|
| 1994 | three quarters
|
| 1995 onwards | two quarters |
2.1.2 An amount due under any credit facility is treated as "past due" when it has not been paid within 30 days from the due date. Due to the improvements in the payment and settlement systems, recovery climate, upgradation of technology in the banking system, etc., it was decided to dispense with ‘past due’ concept, with effect from March 31, 2001. Accordingly, as from that date, a Non-performing Asset (NPA) shall be an advance where
i. interest and/or instalment of principal remain overdue for a period of more than 180 days in respect of a Term Loan,
ii. the account remains ‘out of order’ as indicated at paragraph 2.2 below, in respect of an Overdraft/Cash Credit (OD/CC),
iii. the bill remains overdue for a period of more than 180 days in the case of bills purchased and discounted,
iv. interest and/or instalment of principal remains overdue for two harvest seasons but for a period not exceeding two half years in the case of an advance granted for agricultural purposes, and
v. any amount to be received remains overdue for a period of more than 180 days in respect of other accounts.
2.1.3 With a view to moving towards international best practices and to ensure greater transparency, it has been decided to adopt the ‘90 days’ overdue’ norm for identification of NPAs, from the year ending March 31, 2004. Accordingly, with effect from March 31, 2004, a non-performing asset (NPA) shall be a loan or an advance where;
i. interest and/ or instalment of principal remain overdue for a period of more than 90 days in respect of a term loan,
ii. the account remains ‘out of order’ as indicated at paragraph 2.2 below, in respect of an Overdraft/Cash Credit (OD/CC),
iii. the bill remains overdue for a period of more than 90 days in the case of bills purchased and discounted,
iv. interest and/or instalment of principal remains overdue for two harvest seasons but for a period not exceeding two half years in the case of an advance granted for agricultural purposes, and
v. any amount to be received remains overdue for a period of more than 90 days in respect of other accounts.
As a facilitating measure for smooth transition to 90 days norm, banks have been advised to move over to charging of interest at monthly rests, by April 1, 2002. However, the date of classification of an advance as NPA should not be changed on account of charging of interest at monthly rests. Banks should, therefore, continue to classify an account as NPA only if the interest charged during any quarter is not serviced fully within 180 days from the end of the quarter with effect from April 1, 2002 and 90 days from the end of the quarter with effect from March 31, 2004.
2.2 'Out of Order' status
An account should be treated as 'out of order' if the outstanding balance remains continuously in excess of the sanctioned limit/drawing power. In cases where the outstanding balance in the principal operating account is less than the sanctioned limit/drawing power, but there are no credits continuously for 180 days (to be reduced to 90 days, with effect from March 31, 2004) as on the date of Balance Sheet or credits are not enough to cover the interest debited during the same period, these accounts should be treated as 'out of order'.
2.3 ‘Overdue’
Any amount due to the bank under any credit facility is ‘overdue’ if it is not paid on the due date fixed by the bank.
3. Income Recognition3.1 Income recognition - Policy
3.1.1 The policy of income recognition has to be objective and based on the record of recovery. Internationally income from non-performing assets (NPA) is not recognised on accrual basis but is booked as income only when it is actually received. Therefore, the banks should not charge and take to income account interest on any NPA.
3.1.2 However, interest on advances against term deposits, NSCs, IVPs, KVPs and Life policies may be taken to income account on the due date, provided adequate margin is available in the accounts.
3.1.3 Fees and commissions earned by the banks as a result of re-negotiations or rescheduling of outstanding debts should be recognised on an accrual basis over the period of time covered by the re-negotiated or rescheduled extension of credit.
3.1.4 If Government guaranteed advances become NPA, the interest on such advances should not be taken to income account unless the interest has been realised.
3.2 Reversal of income
3.2.1 If any advance, including bills purchased and discounted, becomes NPA as at the close of any year, interest accrued and credited to income account in the corresponding previous year, should be reversed or provided for if the same is not realised. This will apply to Government guaranteed accounts also.
3.2.2 In respect of NPAs, fees, commission and similar income that have accrued should cease to accrue in the current period and should be reversed or provided for with respect to past periods, if uncollected.
3.2.3 Leased Assets
i. The net lease rentals (finance charge) on the leased asset accrued and credited to income account before the asset became non-performing, and remaining unrealised, should be reversed or provided for in the current accounting period.
ii. The term 'net lease rentals' would mean the amount of finance charge taken to the credit of Profit & Loss Account and would be worked out as gross lease rentals adjusted by amount of statutory depreciation and lease equalisation account.
iii. As per the 'Guidance Note on Accounting for Leases' issued by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), a separate Lease Equalisation Account should be opened by the banks with a corresponding debit or credit to Lease Adjustment Account, as the case may be. Further, Lease Equalisation Account should be transferred every year to the Profit & Loss Account and disclosed separately as a deduction from/addition to gross value of lease rentals shown under the head 'Gross Income'.
3.3 Appropriation of recovery in NPAs
3.3.1 Interest realised on NPAs may be taken to income account provided the credits in the accounts towards interest are not out of fresh/ additional credit facilities sanctioned to the borrower concerned.
3.3.2 In the absence of a clear agreement between the bank and the borrower for the purpose of appropriation of recoveries in NPAs (i.e. towards principal or interest due), banks should adopt an accounting principle and exercise the right of appropriation of recoveries in a uniform and consistent manner.
3.4 Interest Application
There is no objection to the banks using their own discretion in debiting interest to an NPA account taking the same to Interest Suspense Account or maintaining only a record of such interest in proforma accounts.
3.5 Reporting of NPAs
3.5.1 Banks are required to furnish a Report on NPAs as on 31st March each year after completion of audit. The NPAs would relate to the banks’ global portfolio, including the advances at the foreign branches. The Report should be furnished as per the prescribed format given in the Annexure I.
3.5.2 While reporting NPA figures to RBI, the amount held in interest suspense account, should be shown as a deduction from gross NPAs as well as gross advances while arriving at the net NPAs. Banks which do not maintain Interest Suspense account for parking interest due on non-performing advance accounts, may furnish the amount of interest receivable on NPAs as a foot note to the Report.
3.5.3 Whenever NPAs are reported to RBI, the amount of technical write off, if any, should be reduced from the outstanding gross advances and gross NPAs to eliminate any distortion in the quantum of NPAs being reported.
4. Asset Classification4.1 Categories of NPAs
Banks are required to classify non-performing assets further into the following three categories based on the period for which the asset has remained non-performing and the realisability of the dues:
a) Sub-standard Assets
b) Doubtful Assets
c) Loss Assets
4.1.1 Sub-standard Assets
A sub-standard asset was one, which was classified as NPA for a period not exceeding two years. With effect from 31 March 2001, a sub-standard asset is one, which has remained NPA for a period less than or equal to 18 months. In such cases, the current net worth of the borrower/ guarantor or the current market value of the security charged is not enough to ensure recovery of the dues to the banks in full. In other words, such an asset will have well defined credit weaknesses that jeopardise the liquidation of the debt and are characterised by the distinct possibility that the banks will sustain some loss, if deficiencies are not corrected.
With effect from 31 March 2005, a sub-standard asset would be one, which has remained NPA for a period less than or equal to 12 months.
4.1.2 Doubtful Assets
A doubtful asset was one, which remained NPA for a period exceeding two years. With effect from 31 March 2001, an asset is to be classified as doubtful, if it has remained NPA for a period exceeding 18 months. A loan classified as doubtful has all the weaknesses inherent in assets that were classified as sub-standard, with the added characteristic that the weaknesses make collection or liquidation in full,-on the basis of currently known facts, conditions and values-highly questionable and improbable.
With effect from March 31, 2005, an asset would be classified as doubtful if it remained in the sub-standard category for 12 months.
4.1.3 Loss Assets
A loss asset is one where loss has been identified by the bank or internal or external auditors or the RBI inspection but the amount has not been written off wholly. In other words, such an asset is considered uncollectible and of such little value that its continuance as a bankable asset is not warranted although there may be some salvage or recovery value.
4.2 Guidelines for classification of assets
4.2.1 Broadly speaking, classification of assets into above categories should be done taking into account the degree of well-defined credit weaknesses and the extent of dependence on collateral security for realisation of dues.
4.2.2 Banks should establish appropriate internal systems to eliminate the tendency to delay or postpone the identification of NPAs, especially in respect of high value accounts. The banks may fix a minimum cut off point to decide what would constitute a high value account depending upon their respective business levels. The cut off point should be valid for the entire accounting year. Responsibility and validation levels for ensuring proper asset classification may be fixed by the banks. The system should ensure that doubts in asset classification due to any reason are settled through specified internal channels within one month from the date on which the account would have been classified as NPA as per extant guidelines.
4.2.3 Accounts with temporary deficiencies
The classification of an asset as NPA should be based on the record of recovery. Bank should not classify an advance account as NPA merely due to the existence of some deficiencies which are temporary in nature such as non-availability of adequate drawing power based on the latest available stock statement, balance outstanding exceeding the limit temporarily, non-submission of stock statements and non-renewal of the limits on the due date, etc. In the matter of classification of accounts with such deficiencies banks may follow the following guidelines:
a) Banks should ensure that drawings in the working capital accounts are covered by the adequacy of current assets, since current assets are first appropriated in times of distress. Drawing power is required to be arrived at based on the stock statement which is current. However, considering the difficulties of large borrowers, stock statements relied upon by the banks for determining drawing power should not be older than three months. The outstanding in the account based on drawing power calculated from stock statements older than three months, would be deemed as irregular. A working capital borrowal account will become NPA if such irregular drawings are permitted in the account for a continuous period of 180 days even though the unit may be working or the borrower's financial position is satisfactory.
With effect from March 31, 2004, a working capital borrowal account will become NPA if such irregular drawings are permitted in the account for a continuous period of 90 days even though the unit may be working or the borrower's financial position is satisfactory.
b) Regular and ad hoc credit limits need to be reviewed/ regularised not later than three months from the due date/date of ad hoc sanction. In case of constraints such as non-availability of financial statements and other data from the borrowers, the branch should furnish evidence to show that renewal/ review of credit limits is already on and would be completed soon. In any case, delay beyond six months is not considered desirable as a general discipline. Hence, an account where the regular/ ad hoc credit limits have not been reviewed/ renewed within 180 days from the due date/ date of ad hoc sanction will be treated as NPA.
4.2.4 Upgradation of loan accounts classified as NPAs
If arrears of interest and principal are paid by the borrower in the case of loan accounts classified as NPAs, the account should no longer be treated as non-performing and may be classified as ‘standard’ accounts.
4.2.5 Accounts regularised near about the balance sheet date
The asset classification of borrowal accounts where a solitary or a few credits are recorded before the balance sheet date should be handled with care and without scope for subjectivity. Where the account indicates inherent weakness on the basis of the data available, the account should be deemed as a NPA. In other genuine cases, the banks must furnish satisfactory evidence to the Statutory Auditors/Inspecting Officers about the manner of regularisation of the account to eliminate doubts on their performing status.
4.2.6 Asset Classification to be borrower-wise and not facility-wise
i. It is difficult to envisage a situation when only one facility to a borrower becomes a problem credit and not others. Therefore, all the facilities granted by a bank to a borrower will have to be treated as NPA and not the particular facility or part thereof which has become irregular.
ii. If the debits arising out of devolvement of letters of credit or invoked guarantees are parked in a separate account, the balance outstanding in that account also should be treated as a part of the borrower’s principal operating account for the purpose of application of prudential norms on income recognition, asset classification and provisioning.
4.2.7 Advances under consortium arrangements
Asset classification of accounts under consortium should be based on the record of recovery of the individual member banks and other aspects having a bearing on the recoverability of the advances. Where the remittances by the borrower under consortium lending arrangements are pooled with one bank and/or where the bank receiving remittances is not parting with the share of other member banks, the account will be treated as not serviced in the books of the other member banks and therefore, be treated as NPA. The banks participating in the consortium should, therefore, arrange to get their share of recovery transferred from the lead bank or get an express consent from the lead bank for the transfer of their share of recovery, to ensure proper asset classification in their respective books.
4.2.8 Accounts where there is erosion in the value of security
i. A NPA need not go through the various stages of classification in cases of serious credit impairment and such assets should be straightaway classified as doubtful or loss asset as appropriate. Erosion in the value of security can be reckoned as significant when the realisable value of the security is less than 50 per cent of the value assessed by the bank or accepted by RBI at the time of last inspection, as the case may be. Such NPAs may be straightaway classified under doubtful category and provisioning should be made as applicable to doubtful assets.
ii. If the realisable value of the security, as assessed by the bank/ approved valuers/ RBI is less than 10 per cent of the outstanding in the borrowal accounts, the existence of security should be ignored and the asset should be straightaway classified as loss asset. It may be either written off or fully provided for by the bank.
4.2.9 Advances to PACS/FSS ceded to Commercial Banks
In respect of agricultural advances as well as advances for other purposes granted by banks to ceded PACS/ FSS under the on-lending system, only that particular credit facility granted to PACS/ FSS which is in default for a period of two harvest seasons (not exceeding two half years)/two quarters, as the case may be, after it has become due will be classified as NPA and not all the credit facilities sanctioned to a PACS/ FSS. The other direct loans & advances, if any, granted by the bank to the member borrower of a PACS/ FSS outside the on-lending arrangement will become NPA even if one of the credit facilities granted to the same borrower becomes NPA.
4.2.10 Advances against Term Deposits, NSCs, KVP/IVP, etc
Advances against term deposits, NSCs eligible for surrender, IVPs, KVPs and life policies need not be treated as NPAs. Advances against gold ornaments, government securities and all other securities are not covered by this exemption.
4.2.11 Loans with moratorium for payment of interest
i. In the case of bank finance given for industrial projects or for agricultural plantations etc. where moratorium is available for payment of interest, payment of interest becomes 'due' only after the moratorium or gestation period is over. Therefore, such amounts of interest do not become overdue and hence NPA, with reference to the date of debit of interest. They become overdue after due date for payment of interest, if uncollected.
ii. In the case of housing loan or similar advances granted to staff members where interest is payable after recovery of principal, interest need not be considered as overdue from the first quarter onwards. Such loans/advances should be classified as NPA only when there is a default in repayment of instalment of principal or payment of interest on the respective due dates
4.2.12 Agricultural advances
i. In respect of advances granted for agricultural purpose where interest and/or instalment of principal remains unpaid after it has become past due for two harvest seasons but for a period not exceeding two half-years, such an advance should be treated as NPA. The above norms should be made applicable to all direct agricultural advances as listed at items 1.1, 1.1.2 (i) to (vii), 1.1.2 (viii)(a)(1) and 1.1.2 (viii)(b)(1) and 1.1.2 (viii)(b)(8) of Master Circular on lending to priority sector No. RPCD. PLAN. BC. 42A /04.09.01/ 2002- 2003 dated 11 November 2002. An extract of the list of these items is furnished in the Annexure II. In respect of agricultural loans, other than those specified above, identification of NPAs would be done on the same basis as non agricultural advances which, at present, is the 180 days delinquency norm. The delinquency norm would become 90 days with effect from March 31, 2004.
ii. Where natural calamities impair the repaying capacity of agricultural borrowers, banks may decide on their own as a relief measure - conversion of the short-term production loan into a term loan or re-schedulement of the repayment period; and the sanctioning of fresh short-term loan, subject to various guidelines contained in RBI circulars RPCD. No.PLFS.BC.128/ 05.04.02/ 97-98 dated 20.06.98 and RPCD.No.PLFS.BC.9/ 05.01.04/ 98-99 dated 21.07.98.
iii. In such cases of conversion or re-schedulement, the term loan as well as fresh short-term loan may be treated as current dues and need not be classified as NPA. The asset classification of these loans would thereafter be governed by the revised terms & conditions and would be treated as NPA if interest and/or instalment of principal remains unpaid, for two harvest seasons but for a period not exceeding two half years.
iv. In case of Kharif crop loans in the districts affected by failure of the South-West monsoon as notified by the State Government, recovery of any amount either by way of principal or interest during the financial year 2002-03 need not be effected. Further, the principal amount of crop loans in such cases should be converted into term loans and will be recovered over a period of minimum 5 years in case of small and marginal farmers and 4 years in case of other farmers. Interest due in the financial year 2002-03 on crop loans should also be deferred and no interest should be charged on the deferred interest. In such cases of conversion or reschedulement of crop loans into term loans, the term loans may be treated as current dues and need not be classified as NPA. The asset classification of these loans would thereafter be governed by the revised terms and conditions and would be treated as NPA if interest and / or instalment of principal remain unpaid for two harvest seasons, not exceeding two half years.
4.2.13 Government guaranteed advances
The credit facilities backed by guarantee of the Central Government though overdue may be treated as NPA only when the Government repudiates its guarantee when invoked. This exemption from classification of Government guaranteed advances as NPA is not for the purpose of recognition of income. With effect from 1st April 2000, advances sanctioned against State Government guarantees should be classified as NPA in the normal course, if the guarantee is invoked and remains in default for more than two quarters. With effect from March 31, 2001 the period of default is revised as more than 180 days, and with effect from March 31, 2004 the period of default would be revised as more than 90 days.
4.2.14 Restructuring/ Rescheduling of Loans
i) A standard asset where the terms of the loan agreement regarding interest and principal have been renegotiated or rescheduled after commencement of production should be classified as sub-standard and should remain in such category for at least one year of satisfactory performance under the renegotiated or rescheduled terms. In the case of sub-standard and doubtful assets also, rescheduling does not entitle a bank to upgrade the quality of advance automatically unless there is satisfactory performance under the rescheduled / renegotiated terms. Following representations from banks that the foregoing stipulations deter the banks from restructuring of standard and sub-standard loan assets even though the modification of terms might not jeopardise the assurance of repayment of dues from the borrower, the norms relating to restructuring of standard and sub-standard assets were reviewed in March 2001. In the context of restructuring of the accounts, the following stages at which the restructuring / rescheduling / renegotiation of the terms of loan agreement could take place, can be identified:
a. before commencement of commercial production;
b. after commencement of commercial production but before the asset has been classified as sub standard,
c. after commencement of commercial production and after the asset has been classified as sub standard.
In each of the foregoing three stages, the rescheduling, etc., of principal and/or of interest could take place, with or without sacrifice, as part of the restructuring package evolved.
ii) Treatment of Restructured Standard Accounts
a. A rescheduling of the instalments of principal alone, at any of the aforesaid first two stages would not cause a standard asset to be classified in the sub standard category provided the loan/credit facility is fully secured.
b. A rescheduling of interest element at any of the foregoing first two stages would not cause an asset to be downgraded to sub standard category subject to the condition that the amount of sacrifice, if any, in the element of interest, measured in present value terms, is either written off or provision is made to the extent of the sacrifice involved. For the purpose, the future interest due as per the original loan agreement in respect of an account should be discounted to the present value at a rate appropriate to the risk category of the borrower (i.e., current PLR+ the appropriate credit risk premium for the borrower-category) and compared with the present value of the dues expected to be received under the restructuring package, discounted on the same basis.
c. In case there is a sacrifice involved in the amount of interest in present value terms, as at (b) above, the amount of sacrifice should either be written off or provision made to the extent of the sacrifice involved.
iii) Treatment of restructured sub-standard accounts
a. A rescheduling of the instalments of principal alone, would render a sub-standard asset eligible to be continued in the sub-standard category for the specified period, provided the loan/credit facility is fully secured.
b. A rescheduling of interest element would render a sub-standard asset eligible to be continued to be classified in sub standard category for the specified period subject to the condition that the amount of sacrifice, if any, in the element of interest, measured in present value terms, is either written off or provision is made to the extent of the sacrifice involved. For the purpose, the future interest due as per the original loan agreement in respect of an account should be discounted to the present value at a rate appropriate to the risk category of the borrower (i.e., current PLR + the appropriate credit risk premium for the borrower-category) and compared with the present value of the dues expected to be received under the restructuring package, discounted on the same basis.
c. In case there is a sacrifice involved in the amount of interest in present value terms, as at (b) above, the amount of sacrifice should either be written off or provision made to the extent of the sacrifice involved. Even in cases where the sacrifice is by way of write off of the past interest dues, the asset should continue to be treated as sub-standard.
iv) Upgradation of restructured accounts
The sub-standard accounts which have been subjected to restructuring etc., whether in respect of principal instalment or interest amount, by whatever modality, would be eligible to be upgraded to the standard category only after the specified period i.e., a period of one year after the date when first payment of interest or of principal, whichever is earlier, falls due, subject to satisfactory performance during the period. The amount of provision made earlier, net of the amount provided for the sacrifice in the interest amount in present value terms as aforesaid, could also be reversed after the one year period. During this one year period, the sub-standard asset will not deteriorate in its classification if satisfactory performance of the account is demonstrated during the period. In case, however, the satisfactory performance during the one year period is not evidenced, the asset classification of the restructured account would be governed as per the applicable prudential norms with reference to the pre-restructuring payment schedule.
v) General
a. These instructions would be applicable to all type of credit facilities including working capital limits, extended to industrial units, provided they are fully covered by tangible securities.
b. As trading involves only buying and selling of commodities and the problems associated with manufacturing units such as bottleneck in commercial production, time and cost escalation etc. are not applicable to them, these guidelines should not be applied to restructuring/ rescheduling of credit facilities extended to traders.
c. While assessing the extent of security cover available to the credit facilities, which are being restructured/ rescheduled, collateral security would also be reckoned, provided such collateral is a tangible security properly charged to the bank and is not in the intangible form like guarantee etc. of the promoter/ others.
4.2.15 Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR System)
A. Background
i. Inspite of their best efforts and intentions, sometimes corporates find themselves in financial difficulty because of factors beyond their control and also due to certain internal reasons. For the revival of the corporates as well as for the safety of the money lent by the banks and FIs, timely support through restructuring in genuine cases is called for. However, delay in agreement amongst different lending institutions often comes in the way of such endeavours.
ii. Based on the experience in other countries like the U.K., Thailand, Korea, etc. of putting in place institutional mechanism for restructuring of corporate debt and need for a similar mechanism in India, a Corporate Debt Restructuring System was evolved, and detailed guidelines were issued vide circular DBOD No. BP.BC. 15/21.04.114/2000-01 dated August 23, 2001 for implementation by banks. Based on the recommendations made by the Working Group to make the operations of the CDR mechanism more efficient (Chairman: Shri Vepa Kamesam, Deputy Governor, RBI), which was constituted pursuant to the announcement made by the Finance Minister in the Union Budget 2002-2003, and consultations with the Government, the guidelines of Corporate Debt Restructuring system have since been revised and detailed hereunder for implementation by banks/ FIs. The revised guidelines are in supersession of the guidelines outlined in the aforesaid circular dated August 23, 2001.
iii. One of the main features of the revised guidelines is the provision of two categories of debt restructuring under the CDR system. Accounts, which are classified as ‘standard’ and ‘sub-standard’ in the books of the lenders, will be restructured under the first category (Category 1). Accounts which are classified as ‘doubtful’ in the books of the lenders would be restructured under the second category (Category 2).
The main features of the CDR system are given below:
B. Objective
The objective of the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) framework is to ensure timely and transparent mechanism for restructuring the corporate debts of viable entities facing problems, outside the purview of BIFR, DRT and other legal proceedings, for the benefit of all concerned. In particular, the framework will aim at preserving viable corporates that are affected by certain internal and external factors and minimize the losses to the creditors and other stakeholders through an orderly and coordinated restructuring programme.
C. Structure
CDR system in the country will have a three tier structure:
CDR Standing Forum and its Core Group
CDR Empowered Group
CDR Cell
i) CDR Standing Forum
a. The CDR Standing Forum would be the representative general body of all financial institutions and banks participating in CDR system. All financial institutions and banks should participate in the system in their own interest. CDR Standing Forum will be a self- empowered body, which will lay down policies and guidelines, and monitor the progress of corporate debt restructuring.
b. The Forum will also provide an official platform for both the creditors and borrowers (by consultation) to amicably and collectively evolve policies and guidelines for working out debt restructuring plans in the interests of all concerned.
c. The CDR Standing Forum shall comprise of Chairman & Managing Director, Industrial Development Bank of India; Chairman, State Bank of India; Chairman, ICICI Bank Limited; Chairman, Indian Banks' Association and Executive Director, Reserve Bank of India as well as Chairmen and Managing Directors of all banks and financial institutions participating as permanent members in the system. Since institutions like Unit Trust of India, General Insurance Corporation, Life Insurance Corporation may have assumed exposures on certain borrowers, these institutions may participate in the CDR system. The Forum will elect its Chairman for a period of one year and the principle of rotation will be followed in the subsequent years. However, the Forum may decide to have a Working Chairman as a whole-time officer to guide and carry out the decisions of the CDR Standing Forum.
d. The CDR Standing Forum shall meet at least once every six months and would review and monitor the progress of corporate debt restructuring system. The Forum would also lay down the policies and guidelines to be followed by the CDR Empowered Group and CDR Cell for debt restructuring and would ensure their smooth functioning and adherence to the prescribed time schedules for debt restructuring. It can also review any individual decisions of the CDR Empowered Group and CDR Cell. The CDR Standing Forum may also formulate guidelines for dispensing special treatment to those cases which are complicated and are likely to be delayed beyond the time frame prescribed for processing.
e. A CDR Core Group will be carved out of the CDR Standing Forum to assist the Standing Forum in convening the meetings and taking decisions relating to policy, on behalf of the Standing Forum. The Core Group will consist of Chief Executives of IDBI, SBI, ICICI Bank Limited, Bank of Baroda, Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Indian Banks' Association, Deputy Chairman of Indian Banks' Association representing foreign banks in India and a representative of Reserve Bank of India.
f. The CDR Core Group would lay down the policies and guidelines to be followed by the CDR Empowered Group and CDR Cell for debt restructuring. These guidelines shall also suitably address the operational difficulties experienced in the functioning of the CDR Empowered Group. The CDR Core Group shall also prescribe the PERT chart for processing of cases referred to the CDR system and decide on the modalities for enforcement of the time frame. The CDR Core Group shall also lay down guidelines to ensure that over-optimistic projections are not assumed while preparing / approving restructuring proposals especially with regard to capacity utilization, price of products, profit margin, demand, availability of raw materials, input-output ratio and likely impact of imports / international cost competitiveness.
ii) CDR Empowered Group
a. The individual cases of corporate debt restructuring shall be decided by the CDR Empowered Group, consisting of ED level representatives of IDBI, ICICI Bank Ltd. and SBI as standing members, in addition to ED level representatives of financial institutions and banks who have an exposure to the concerned company. While the standing members will facilitate the conduct of the Group’s meetings, voting will be in proportion to the exposure of the lenders only. In order to make the CDR Empowered Group effective and broad based and operate efficiently and smoothly, it would have to be ensured that participating institutions / banks approve a panel of senior officers to represent them in the CDR Empowered Group and ensure that they depute officials only from among the panel to attend the meetings of CDR Empowered Group. Further, nominees who attend the meeting pertaining to one account should invariably attend all the meetings pertaining to that account instead of deputing their representatives.
b. The level of representation of banks/ financial institutions on the CDR Empowered Group should be at a sufficiently senior level to ensure that concerned bank / FI abides by the necessary commitments including sacrifices, made towards debt restructuring. There should be a general authorisation by the respective Boards of the participating institutions / banks in favour of their representatives on the CDR Empowered Group, authorising them to take decisions on behalf of their organization, regarding restructuring of debts of individual corporates.
c. The CDR Empowered Group will consider the preliminary report of all cases of requests of restructuring, submitted to it by the CDR Cell. After the Empowered Group decides that restructuring of the company is prima-facie feasible and the enterprise is potentially viable in terms of the policies and guidelines evolved by Standing Forum, the detailed restructuring package will be worked out by the CDR Cell in conjunction with the Lead Institution. However, if the lead institution faces difficulties in working out the detailed restructuring package, the participating banks / financial institutions should decide upon the alternate institution / bank which would work out the detailed restructuring package at the first meeting of the Empowered Group when the preliminary report of the CDR Cell comes up for consideration.
d. The CDR Empowered Group would be mandated to look into each case of debt restructuring, examine the viability and rehabilitation potential of the Company and approve the restructuring package within a specified time frame of 90 days, or at best within 180 days of reference to the Empowered Group. The CDR Empowered Group shall decide on the acceptable viability benchmark levels on the following illustrative parameters, which may be applied on a case-by-case basis, based on the merits of each case:
- Return on Capital Employed (ROCE),
- Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR),
- Gap between the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and the Cost of Fund (CoF),
- Extent of sacrifice.
e. The Boards of each bank / FI should authorise its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and / or Executive Director (ED) to decide on the restructuring package in respect of cases referred to the CDR system, with the requisite requirements to meet the control needs. CDR Empowered Group will meet on two or three occasions in respect of each borrowal account. This will provide an opportunity to the participating members to seek proper authorisations from their CEO / ED, in case of need, in respect of those cases where the critical parameters of restructuring are beyond the authority delegated to him / her.
f. The decisions of the CDR Empowered Group shall be final. If restructuring of debt is found to be viable and feasible and approved by the Empowered Group, the company would be put on the restructuring mode. If restructuring is not found viable, the creditors would then be free to take necessary steps for immediate recovery of dues and / or liquidation or winding up of the company, collectively or individually.
iii) CDR Cell
a. The CDR Standing Forum and the CDR Empowered Group will be assisted by a CDR Cell in all their functions. The CDR Cell will make the initial scrutiny of the proposals received from borrowers / lenders, by calling for proposed rehabilitation plan and other information and put up the matter before the CDR Empowered Group, within one month to decide whether rehabilitation is prima facie feasible. If found feasible, the CDR Cell will proceed to prepare detailed Rehabilitation Plan with the help of lenders and, if necessary, experts to be engaged from outside. If not found prima facie feasible, the lenders may start action for recovery of their dues.
b. All references for corporate debt restructuring by lenders or borrowers will be made to the CDR Cell. It shall be the responsibility of the lead institution / major stakeholder to the corporate, to work out a preliminary restructuring plan in consultation with other stakeholders and submit to the CDR Cell within one month. The CDR Cell will prepare the restructuring plan in terms of the general policies and guidelines approved by the CDR Standing Forum and place for consideration of the Empowered Group within 30 days for decision. The Empowered Group can approve or suggest modifications but ensure that a final decision is taken within a total period of 90 days. However, for sufficient reasons the period can be extended up to a maximum of 180 days from the date of reference to the CDR Cell.
c. The CDR Standing Forum, the CDR Empowered Group and CDR Cell shall be initially housed in IDBI and thereafter at a place as may be decided by the Standing Forum. The administrative and other costs shall be shared by all financial institutions and banks. The sharing pattern shall be as determined by the Standing Forum.
d. CDR Cell will have adequate members of staff deputed from banks and financial institutions. The CDR Cell may also take outside professional help. The initial cost in operating the CDR mechanism including CDR Cell will be met by IDBI initially for one year and then from contribution from the financial institutions and banks in the Core Group at the rate of Rs.50 lakh each and contribution from other institutions and banks at the rate of Rs.5 lakh each.
D. Other features
i) Eligibility criteria
a. The scheme will not apply to accounts involving only one financial institution or one bank. The CDR mechanism will cover only multiple banking accounts / syndication / consortium accounts with outstanding exposure of Rs.20 crore and above by banks and institutions.
b. The Category 1 CDR system will be applicable only to accounts classified as 'standard' and 'sub-standard'. There may be a situation where a small portion of debt by a bank might be classified as doubtful. In that situation, if the account has been classified as ‘standard’/ ‘substandard’ in the books of at least 90% of lenders (by value), the same would be treated as standard / substandard, only for the purpose of judging the account as eligibile for CDR, in the books of the remaining 10% of lenders. There would be no requirement of the account / company being sick, NPA or being in default for a specified period before reference to the CDR system. However, potentially viable cases of NPAs will get priority. This approach would provide the necessary flexibility and facilitate timely intervention for debt restructuring. Prescribing any milestone(s) may not be necessary, since the debt restructuring exercise is being triggered by banks and financial institutions or with their consent.
c. In no case, the requests of any corporate indulging in wilful default, fraud or misfeasance, even in a single bank, will be considered for restructuring under CDR system.
d. The accounts where recovery suits have been filed by the lenders against the company, may be eligible for consideration under the CDR system provided, the initiative to resolve the case under the CDR system is taken by at least 75% of the lenders (by value). However, for restructuring of such accounts under the CDR system, it should be ensured that the account meets the basic criteria for becoming eligible under the CDR mechanism.
e. BIFR cases are not eligible for restructuring under the CDR system. However, large value BIFR cases, may be eligible for restructuring under the CDR system if specifically recommended by the CDR Core Group. The Core Group shall recommend exceptional BIFR cases on a case-to-case basis for consideration under the CDR system. It should be ensured that the lending institutions complete all the formalities in seeking the approval from BIFR before implementing the package.
ii) Reference to CDR system
a. Reference to Corporate Debt Restructuring System could be triggered by (i) any or more of the creditor who have minimum 20% share in either working capital or term finance, or (ii) by the concerned corporate, if supported by a bank or financial institution having stake as in (i) above.
b. Though flexibility is available whereby the lenders could either consider restructuring outside the purview of the CDR system or even initiate legal proceedings where warranted, banks / FIs should review all eligible cases where the exposure of the financial system is more than Rs.100 crore and decide about referring the case to CDR system or to proceed under the new Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 or to file a suit in DRT etc.
iii) Legal Basis
a. CDR will be a non-statutory mechanism which will be a voluntary system based on Debtor-Creditor Agreement (DCA) and Inter-Creditor Agreement (ICA).
b. The Debtor-Creditor Agreement (DCA) and the Inter-Creditor Agreement (ICA) shall provide the legal basis to the CDR mechanism. The debtors shall have to accede to the DCA, either at the time of original loan documentation (for future cases) or at the time of reference to Corporate Debt Restructuring Cell. Similarly, all participants in the CDR mechanism through their membership of the Standing Forum shall have to enter into a legally binding agreement, with necessary enforcement and penal clauses, to operate the System through laid-down policies and guidelines. The ICA signed by the creditors will be initially valid for a period of 3 years and subject to renewal for further periods of 3 years thereafter. The lenders in foreign currency outside the country are not a part of CDR system. Such lenders and also lenders like GIC, LIC, UTI, etc., and other third parties who have not joined the CDR system, could join CDR mechanism of a particular corporate by signing transaction to transaction ICA, wherever they have exposure to such corporate.
c. The Inter-Creditor Agreement would be a legally binding agreement amongst the creditors, with necessary enforcement and penal clauses, wherein the creditors would commit themselves to abide by the various elements of CDR system. Further, the creditors shall agree that if 75 per cent of creditors by value, agree to a restructuring package of an existing debt (i.e., debt outstanding), the same would be binding on the remaining creditors. Since Category 1 CDR Scheme covers only standard and sub-standard accounts, which in the opinion of 75 per cent of the creditors, are likely to become performing after introduction of the CDR package, it is expected that all other creditors (i.e., those outside the minimum 75 per cent) would be willing to participate in the entire CDR package, including the agreed additional financing. However, in case for any internal reason, any creditor (outside the minimum 75 per cent) does not wish to commit additional financing, that creditor will have the option. At the same time, in order to avoid the "free rider" problem, it is necessary to provide some disincentive to the creditor who wishes to exercise this option. Such creditor can either (a) arrange for his share of additional financing to be provided by a new or existing creditor, or (b) agree to deferment of the first year’s interest due to him after the CDR package becomes effective. The first year’s deferred interest as mentioned above, without compounding, will be payable along with the last instalment of the principal due to the creditor.
iv) Stand-Still Clause
a. One of the most important elements of Debtor-Creditor Agreement would be 'stand still' agreement binding for 90 days, or 180 days by both sides. Under this clause, both the debtor and creditor(s) shall agree to a legally binding 'stand-still' whereby both the parties commit themselves not to taking recourse to any other legal action during the 'stand-still' period, this would be necessary for enabling the CDR System to undertake the necessary debt restructuring exercise without any outside intervention, judicial or otherwise. However, the stand-still clause will be applicable only to any civil action either by the borrower or any lender against the other party and will not cover any criminal action. Further, during the stand-still period, outstanding foreign exchange forward contracts, derivative products, etc., can be crystallised, provided the borrower is agreeable to such crystallisation. The borrower will additionally undertake that during the stand-still period the documents will stand extended for the purpose of limitation and also that he will not approach any other authority for any relief and the directors of the borrowing company will not resign from the Board of Directors during the stand-still period.
b. During pendency of the case with the CDR system, the usual asset classification norms would continue to apply. The process of reclassification of an asset should not stop merely because the case is referred to the CDR Cell. However, if restructuring under the CDR system takes place, the asset classification status should be restored to the position which existed when the reference to the Cell was made. Consequently, any additional provisions made by banks towards deterioration in the asset classification status during the pendency of the case with the CDR system may be reversed.
v) Additional finance
a. The providers of additional finance, whether existing lenders or new lenders, shall have a preferential claim, to be worked out under the restructuring package, over the providers of existing finance with respect to the cash flows out of recoveries, in respect of the additional exposure.
b. The additional finance extended to borrowers in terms of restructuring packages approved under the CDR system may be exempted from provisioning requirement for the specified period as defined at paragraph 5.2.3 below.
vi) Exit Option
a. As mentioned in paragraph 4.3.3 above, the proposals for restructuring package should provide for option to a particular lender or lenders (outside the minimum 75 per cent who have agreed for restructuring) who for any internal reason, does/do not fully abide by the CDR Empowered Group's decision on restructuring. The lenders who wish to exit from the package would have the option to sell their existing share to either the existing lenders or fresh lenders, at an appropriate price, which would be decided mutually between the exiting lender and the taking over lender. The new lenders shall rank on par with the existing lenders for repayment and servicing of the dues since they have taken over the existing dues to the exiting lender. In addition, the 'exit option' will also be available to all other lenders within the minimum 75 per cent, provided the purchaser agrees to abide by the restructuring package approved by the Empowered Group.
b. The exiting lenders may be allowed to continue with their existing level of exposure to the borrower provided they tie up with either the existing lenders or fresh lenders for taking up their share of additional finance.
vii) Conversion option
a. The CDR Empowered Group, while deciding the restructuring package, should decide on the issue regarding convertibility (into equity) option as a part of restructuring exercise whereby the banks / financial institutions shall have the right to convert a portion of the restructured amount into equity, keeping in view the statutory requirement under Section 19 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, (in the case of banks) and relevant SEBI regulations.
b. Exemptions from the capital market exposure ceilings prescribed by RBI in respect of such equity acquisitions should be obtained from RBI on a case-to-case basis by the concerned lenders.
viii) Category 2 CDR System
a. There have been instances where the projects have been found to be viable by the lenders but the accounts could not be taken up for restructuring under the CDR system as they fell under ‘doubtful’ category. Hence, a second category of CDR is introduced for cases where the accounts have been classified as ‘doubtful’ in the books of lenders, and if a minimum of 75% (by value) of the lenders satisfy themselves of the viability of the account and consent for such restructuring, subject to the following conditions:
i. It will not be binding on the creditors to take up additional financing worked out under the debt restructuring package and the decision to lend or not to lend will depend on each creditor bank / FI separately. In other words, under the proposed second category of the CDR mechanism, the existing loans will only be restructured and it would be up to the promoter to firm up additional financing arrangement with new or existing lenders individually.
ii. All other norms under the CDR mechanism such as the standstill clause, asset classification status during the pendency of restructuring under CDR, etc., will continue to be applicable to this category also.
b. No individual case should be referred to RBI. CDR Core Group may take a final decision whether a particular case falls under the CDR guidelines or it does not.
c. All the other features of the CDR system as applicable to the First Category will also be applicable to cases restructured under the Second Category.
E. Accounting treatment for restructured accounts
i. The accounting treatment of accounts restructured under CDR system, including accounts classified as 'doubtful' under Category 2 CDR, would be governed by the prudential norms indicated in circular DBOD.BP.BC.98/21.04.048/2000-01 dated March 30, 2001. Restructuring of corporate debts under CDR system could take place in the following stages:
a. before commencement of commercial production;
b. after commencement of commercial production but before the asset has been classified as ‘sub-standard’;
c. after commencement of commercial production and the asset has been classified as ‘sub-standard’ or ‘doubtful’.
ii. The prudential treatment of the accounts, subjected to restructuring under CDR system, would be governed by the following norms:
iii. Treatment of ‘standard’ accounts restructured under CDR
a. A rescheduling of the instalments of principal alone, at any of the aforesaid first two stages [paragraph E.1(a) and E.1(b) above] would not cause a standard asset to be classified in the sub-standard category, provided the loan / credit facility is fully secured.
b. A rescheduling of interest element at any of the foregoing first two stages would not cause an asset to be downgraded to sub-standard category subject to the condition that the amount of sacrifice, if any, in the element of interest, measured in present value terms, is either written off or provision is made to the extent of the sacrifice involved. For the purpose, the future interest due as per the original loan agreement in respect of an account should be discounted to the present value at a rate appropriate to the risk category of the borrower (i.e. current PLR + the appropriate credit risk premium for the borrower-category) and compared with the present value of the dues expected to be received under the restructuring package, discounted on the same basis.
c. In case there is a sacrifice involved in the amount of interest in present value terms, as at (b) above, the amount of sacrifice should either be written off or provision made to the extent of the sacrifice involved.
iv. Treatment of ‘sub-standard’ / ‘doubtful’ accounts restructured under CDR
a. A rescheduling of the instalments of principal alone, would render a sub-standard / ‘doubtful’ asset eligible to be continued in the sub-standard / ‘doubtful’ category for the specified period, provided the loan / credit facility is fully secured.
b. A rescheduling of interest element would render a sub-standard / ‘doubtful’ asset eligible to be continued to be classified in sub-standard / ‘doubtful’ category for the specified period subject to the condition that the amount of sacrifice, if any, in the element of interest, measured in present value terms, is either written off or provision is made to the extent of the sacrifice involved. For the purpose, the future interest due as per the original loan agreement in respect of an account should be discounted to the present value at a rate appropriate to the risk category of the borrower (i.e., current PLR + the appropriate credit risk premium for the borrower-category) and compared with the present value of the dues expected to be received under the restructuring package, discounted on the same basis.
c. In case there is a sacrifice involved in the amount of interest in present value terms, as at (b) above, the amount of sacrifice should either be written off or provision made to the extent of the sacrifice involved. Even in cases where the sacrifice is by way of write off of the past interest dues, the asset should continue to be treated as sub-standard / ‘doubtful’.
v. The sub-standard / doubtful accounts at E. iv (a), (b) and (c) above, which have been subjected to restructuring, etc. whether in respect of principal instalment or interest amount, by whatever modality, would be eligible to be upgraded to the standard category only after the specified period, i.e., a period of one year after the date when first payment of interest or of principal, whichever is earlier, falls due under the rescheduled terms, subject to satisfactory performance during the period. The amount of provision made earlier, net of the amount provided for the sacrifice in the interest amount in present value terms as aforesaid, could also be reversed after the one-year period.
vi. During this one-year period, the sub-standard / doubtful asset will not deteriorate in its classification if satisfactory performance of the account is demonstrated during the period. In case, however, the satisfactory performance during the one year period is not evidenced, the asset classification of the restructured account would be governed as per the applicable prudential norms with reference to the pre-restructuring payment schedule.
vii. The asset classification under CDR would continue to be bank-specific based on record of recovery of each bank, as per the existing prudential norms applicable to banks.
F. Disclosure
Banks / FIs should also disclose in their published annual Balance Sheets, under "Notes on Accounts", the following information in respect of corporate debt restructuring undertaken during the year:
a. Total amount of loan assets subjected to restructuring under CDR.
[(a) = (b)+(c)+(d)]
b. The amount of standard assets subjected to CDR.
c. The amount of sub-standard assets subjected to CDR.
d. The amount of doubtful assets subjected to CDR.
G. Implementation of the revised guidelines
The above guidelines will be implemented with prospective effect. The ICA and DCA will have to be suitable amended for incorporating the changes introduced in the scheme.
4.2.16 Projects under implementation
It was observed that there were instances, where despite substantial time overrun in the projects under implementation, the underlying loan assets remained classified in the standard category merely because the project continued to be under implementation. Recognising that unduly long time overrun in a project adversely affected its viability and the quality of the asset deteriorated, a need was felt to evolve an objective and definite time-frame for completion of projects so as to ensure that the loan assets relating to projects under implementation were appropriately classified and asset quality correctly reflected. In the light of the above background, it was decided to extend the norms detailed below on income recognition, asset classification and provisioning to banks with respect to industrial projects under implementation, which involve time overrun.
(i) The projects under implementation are grouped into three categories for the purpose of determining the date when the project ought to be completed:
Category I: Projects where financial closure had been achieved and formally documented.
Category II: Projects sanctioned before 1997 with original project cost of Rs.100 crore or more where financial closure was not formally documented.
Category: III: Projects sanctioned before 1997 with original project cost of less than Rs.100 crore where financial closure was not formally documented.
Asset classification
(ii) In case of each of the three categories, the date when the project ought to be completed and the classification of the underlying loan asset should be determined in the following manner:
Category I (Projects where financial closure had been achieved and formally documented): In such cases the date of completion of the project should be as envisaged at the time of original financial closure. In all such cases, the asset may be treated as standard asset for a period not exceeding two years beyond the date of completion of the project, as originally envisaged at the time of initial financial closure of the project.
In case, however, in respect of a project financed after 1997, the financial closure had not been formally documented, the norms enumerated for category III below, would apply.
Category II (Projects sanctioned before 1997 with original project cost of Rs.100 crore or more where financial closure was not formally documented): For such projects sanctioned prior to 1997, where the date of financial closure had not been formally documented, an independent Group was constituted with experts from the term lending institutions as well as outside experts in the field to decide on the deemed date of completion of projects. The Group, based on all material and relevant facts and circumstances, has decided the deemed date of completion of the project, on a project-by-project basis. In such cases, the asset may be treated as standard asset for a period not exceeding two years beyond the deemed date of completion of the project, as decided by the Group. Banks, which have extended finance towards such projects, may approach the lead financial institutions to which a copy of the independent Group’s report has been furnished for obtaining the particulars relating to the deemed date of completion of project concerned.
Category III (Projects sanctioned before 1997 with original project cost of less than Rs.100 crore where financial closure was not formally documented): In these cases, sanctioned prior to 1997, where the financial closure was not formally documented, the date of completion of the project would be as originally envisaged at the time of sanction. In such cases, the asset may be treated as standard asset only for a period not exceeding two years beyond the date of completion of the project as originally envisaged at the time of sanction.
(iii) In all the three foregoing categories, in case of time overruns beyond the aforesaid period of two years, the asset should be classified as sub-standard regardless of the record of recovery and provided for accordingly.
(iv) As regards the projects to be financed by the FIs/ banks in future, the date of completion of the project should be clearly spelt out at the time of financial closure of the project. In such cases, if the date of commencement of commercial production extends beyond a period of six months after the date of completion of the project, as originally envisaged at the time of initial financial closure of the project, the account should be treated as a sub-standard asset.
Income recognition(v) Banks may recognise income on accrual basis in respect of the above three categories of projects under implementation, which are classified as ‘standard’.
(vi) Banks should not recognise income on accrual basis in respect of the above three categories of projects under implementation which are classified as a ‘substandard’ asset. Banks may recognise income in such accounts only on realisation on cash basis.
Consequently, banks which have wrongly recognised income in the past should reverse the interest if it was recognised as income during the current year or make a provision for an equivalent amount if it was recognised as income in the previous year(s). As regards the regulatory treatment of ‘funded interest’ recognised as income and ‘conversion into equity, debentures or any other instrument’ banks should adopt the following:
a) Funded Interest: Income recognition in respect of the NPAs, regardless of whether these are or are not subjected to restructuring/ rescheduling/ renegotiation of terms of the loan agreement, should be done strictly on cash basis, only on realisation and not if the amount of interest overdue has been funded. If, however, the amount of funded interest is recognised as income, a provision for an equal amount should also be made simultaneously. In other words, any funding of interest in respect of NPAs, if recognised as income, should be fully provided for.
b) Conversion into equity, debentures or any other instrument: The amount outstanding converted into other instruments would normally comprise principal and the interest components. If the amount of interest dues is converted into equity or any other instrument, and income is recognised in consequence, full provision should be made for the amount of income so recognised to offset the effect of such income recognition. Such provision would be in addition to the amount of provision that may be necessary for the depreciation in the value of the equity or other instruments, as per the investment valuation norms. However, if the conversion of interest is into equity which is quoted, interest income can be recognised at market value of equity, as on the date of conversion, not exceeding the amount of interest converted to equity. Such equity must thereafter be classified in the "available for sale" category and valued at lower of cost or market value. In case of conversion of principal and /or interest in respect of NPAs into debentures, such debentures should be treated as NPA, ab initio, in the same asset classification as was applicable to loan just before conversion and provision made as per norms. This norm would also apply to zero coupon bonds or other instruments which seek to defer the liability of the issuer. On such debentures, income should be recognised only on realisation basis. The income in respect of unrealised interest which is converted into debentures or any other fixed maturity instrument should be recognised only on redemption of such instrument. Subject to the above, the equity shares or other instruments arising from conversion of the principal amount of loan would also be subject to the usual prudential valuation norms as applicable to such instruments.
Provisioning(vii) While there will be no change in the extant norms on provisioning for NPAs, banks which are already holding provisions against some of the accounts, which may now be classified as ‘standard’, shall continue to hold the provisions and shall not reverse the same.
4.2.17 Availability of security / net worth of borrower/ guarantor
The availability of security or net worth of borrower/ guarantor should not be taken into account for the propose of treating an advance as NPA or otherwise, as income recognition is based on record of recovery.
4.2.18 Take-out Finance
Takeout finance is the product emerging in the context of the funding of long-term infrastructure projects. Under this arrangement, the institution/the bank financing infrastructure projects will have an arrangement with any financial institution for transferring to the latter the outstanding in respect of such financing in their books on a pre-determined basis. In view of the time-lag involved in taking-over, the possibility of a default in the meantime cannot be ruled out. The norms of asset classification will have to be followed by the concerned bank/financial institution in whose books the account stands as balance sheet item as on the relevant date. If the lending institution observes that the asset has turned NPA on the basis of the record of recovery, it should be classified accordingly. The lending institution should not recognise income on accrual basis and account for the same only when it is paid by the borrower/ taking over institution (if the arrangement so provides). The lending institution should also make provisions against any asset turning into NPA pending its take over by taking over institution. As and when the asset is taken over by the taking over institution, the corresponding provisions could be reversed. However, the taking over institution, on taking over such assets, should make provisions treating the account as NPA from the actual date of it becoming NPA even though the account was not in its books as on that date.
4.2.19 Post-shipment Supplier's Credit
i. In respect of post-shipment credit extended by the banks covering export of goods to countries for which the ECGC’s cover is available, EXIM Bank has introduced a guarantee-cum-refinance programme whereby, in the event of default, EXIM Bank will pay the guaranteed amount to the bank within a period of 30 days from the day the bank invokes the guarantee after the exporter has filed claim with ECGC.
ii. Accordingly, to the extent payment has been received from the EXIM Bank, the advance may not be treated as a non-performing asset for asset classification and provisioning purposes.
4.2.20 Export Project Finance
i. In respect of export project finance, there could be instances where the actual importer has paid the dues to the bank abroad but the bank in turn is unable to remit the amount due to political developments such as war, strife, UN embargo, etc.
ii. In such cases, where the lending bank is able to establish through documentary evidence that the importer has cleared the dues in full by depositing the amount in the bank abroad before it turned into NPA in the books of the bank, but the importer's country is not allowing the funds to be remitted due to political or other reasons, the asset classification may be made after a period of one year from the date the amount was deposited by the importer in the bank abroad.
4.2.21 Advances under rehabilitation approved by BIFR/ TLI
Banks are not permitted to upgrade the classification of any advance in respect of which the terms have been re-negotiated unless the package of re-negotiated terms has worked satisfactorily for a period of one year. While the existing credit facilities sanctioned to a unit under rehabilitation packages approved by BIFR/term lending institutions will continue to be classified as sub-standard or doubtful as the case may be, in respect of additional facilities sanctioned under the rehabilitation packages, the Income Recognition, Asset Classification norms will become applicable after a period of one year from the date of disbursement.
NEXT