vi. Offering circular dated July 16, 2019 for USD 650 million Senior Secured Notes issued by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited (page 183), vii. Offering circular dated July 22, 2015 for USD 650 million issued by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited (page 172), viii. Offering circular dated June 22, 2017 for USD 500 million issued by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited (page 204), ix. Offering circular dated July 26, 2021 for USD 750 million issued by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited (page 222 - 223). The relevant excerpts are annexed hereto as Annexure 2. The order of Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) of August 2015, setting aside all the allegations of DRI and confirming that all exports & imports transactions of diamond were valid & genuine is annexed as Annexure 3. The orders of the Supreme Court of India upholding the order of the Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) are further annexed as Annexure 4 and Annexure 5. The Hindenburg report clearly omits the fact that the above mentioned order of the Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was upheld on further appeal by Supreme Court of India. Lastly, none of these disproven allegations have any relevance in relation to the promotion of Mr. Samir Vora. 5/ (Allegation #3) As part of the DRI investigation into over-invoicing of power imports, Adani claimed that inod Adani was “not at all having any involvement in any Adani roup of companies”, except as shareholder. Despite this claim, a pre-IPO prospectus for Adani Power from 2009 detailed that inod was director of at least 6 Adani roup companies. Were Adani’s original statements about Vinod, made to regulators, false? There were two DRI investigations initiated against us in respect of over-invoicing of power imports. The first DRI investigation (initiated pursuant to show cause notice issued to Maharashtra Eastern Grid Power Transmission Company Limited & others) has been adjudicated before the courts and has been closed and dismissed in our favour and consequently it has been determined that there was no over-invoicing. The second DRI investigation (initiated pursuant to show cause notice issued to Adani Power Maharashtra Limited, Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. & others) has been decided in our favour both in the lower court as well as in appeal before the CESTAT and consequently it has been determined that there was no over-invoicing. Whilst an appeal in this respect has been preferred and is pending, we strongly believe this will be decided in our favour in line with the decision of the lower court and CESTAT. Each of these investigations are part of disclosures already made by us in the public domain, including the below and our stakeholders are aware of the same for many years. i. Offering circular dated February 5, 2020 for the U.S.$1 bn Senior Secured Notes by Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited (page 34), and ii. Offering circular dated July 13, 2021 for the U.S.$2 bn Global Medium Term Note Programme by Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited (page 53) iii. Offering circular dated July 28, 2016 for the U.S.$500 mn Senior Secured Notes issued by Adani Transmission Limited (page 37 and149) 28