The accounting treatment of accounts restructured under 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 could take place in the following stages:

1. before commencement of commercial production;

2. after commencement of commercial production but before the asset has been classified as sub-standard;

3. after commencement of commercial production and the asset has been classified as sub-standard.

The prudential treatment of the accounts, subjected to restructuring under CDR, would be governed by the following norms:

1. A rescheduling of the instalments of principal alone, at any of the aforesaid first two stages [paragraph 5(a) and (b) above] would not cause a standard asset to be classified in the sub-standard category, provided the loan / credit facility is fully secured.

2. 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.

3. 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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

The sub-standard accounts at (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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

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.

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.

There will be no change in the existing instructions on income recognition. Consequently, banks should not recognise income on accrual basis in respect of the projects even though the asset is classified as a standard asset if the asset is a "non performing asset" in terms of the extant instructions. In other words, while the accounts of the project may be classified as a standard asset, banks shall recognise income in such accounts only on realisation on cash basis if the asset has otherwise become 'non performing' as per the extant delinquency norm of 180 days. The delinquency norm would become 90 days with effect from 31 March 2004.

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 income recognised as 'funded interest' and 'conversion into equity, debentures or any other instrument' banks should adopt the following:

1. 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.

2. 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.

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.

Availability of security / net worth ofborrower/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.

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.

Post-shipment Supplier's Credit: 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.

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

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.