India Dual Citizenship Mega Thread (Merged)

[basis]

The indialiaison site then states "Investment in agricultural property, plantation and farmhouse is prohibited for all classes of persons resident outside India, be it NRIs/OCBs/ foreign citizens or other foreign entities." [So if a simple panjabi farmer goes to toronto for six months to be with his grandson, he automatically loses his farm??? Which law says this? Poor farmers of India will be up in arms! Nepal is looking like a safe haven!]

PIO1 - In your given example the Punjabi farmer does not become a 'person resident outside India' as per FEMA.

As per FEMA - Person Residing Outside India is defined as 'being a person who has gone out of India or who stays outside India for the purpose of employment or carrying on business or vocation outside India or any other circumstances which indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period'.

Now the farmer going out of India to visit his son etc still remains a person resident in India and therefore, no need to worry about any of the things above.

Remember definition of NRI is different under FEMA, 1999 (earstwhile FERA 1973) than Income Tax Act, 1961. And the definition of Resident / Non-resident under FEMA prevails in all cases except for the purpose of Income Tax. Income tax has another status called RNOR - Resident but not Ordinarily Resident (FEMA does not have such class).

One good link on all FEMA related matters is http://www.femaonline.com/index.htm

and specially section related to immoveable property is http://www.femaonline.com/fema/FAQ/acquisition_and_transfer_of_immovable_property.htm

 

[gotia]

PIO1 - In your given example the Punjabi farmer does not become a 'person resident outside India' as per FEMA.

As per FEMA - Person Residing Outside India is defined as 'being a person who has gone out of India or who stays outside India for the purpose of employment or carrying on business or vocation outside India or any other circumstances which indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period'.

Now the farmer going out of India to visit his son etc still remains a person resident in India and therefore, no need to worry about any of the things above.

Remember definition of NRI is different under FEMA, 1999 (earstwhile FERA 1973) than Income Tax Act, 1961. And the definition of Resident / Non-resident under FEMA prevails in all cases except for the purpose of Income Tax. Income tax has another status called RNOR - Resident but not Ordinarily Resident (FEMA does not have such class).

One good link on all FEMA related matters is http://www.femaonline.com/index.htm

and specially section related to immoveable property is http://www.femaonline.com/fema/FAQ/acquisition_and_transfer_of_immovable_property.htm

as for i know from income tax point of view just staying over 180 days make you liable for i tax even on fcnr/nri account interest.
but one NRI staying for treatment in india for 1 year won case against I tax notice for tax liability.
supreme court new delhi ruled staying has to be taking emploment doing business. making it a permanent intion to stay.
just staying still keeps you in NRI status.

 

[PIO1]

PIO1 - In your given example the Punjabi farmer does not become a 'person resident outside India' as per FEMA.

As per FEMA - Person Residing Outside India is defined as 'being a person who has gone out of India or who stays outside India for the purpose of employment or carrying on business or vocation outside India or any other circumstances which indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period'.

Now the farmer going out of India to visit his son etc still remains a person resident in India and therefore, no need to worry about any of the things above.

Remember definition of NRI is different under FEMA, 1999 (earstwhile FERA 1973) than Income Tax Act, 1961. And the definition of Resident / Non-resident under FEMA prevails in all cases except for the purpose of Income Tax. Income tax has another status called RNOR - Resident but not Ordinarily Resident (FEMA does not have such class).

One good link on all FEMA related matters is http://www.femaonline.com/index.htm

and specially section related to immoveable property is http://www.femaonline.com/fema/FAQ/acquisition_and_transfer_of_immovable_property.htm

Basis, femaonline like indialiason is wrong. The definition of NRI they have is wrong. They have missed the first sentence ... This is what the FEMA Act says!!!

In terms of Section 2(v) of FEMA, 1999, a 'person resident in India' means –

a person residing in India for more than one hundred and eighty-two days during the course of the preceding financial year but does not include –
(A) a person who has gone out of India or who stays outside India, in either case -
for or on taking up employment outside India, or
for carrying on outside India a business or vocation outside India, or
for any other purpose, in such circumstances as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period;

(B) a person who has come to or stays in India, in either case, otherwise than –
for or on taking up employment in India, or
for carrying on in India a business or vocation in India, or
for any other purpose, in such circumstances as would indicate his intention to stay in India for an uncertain period;

any person or body corporate registered or incorporated in India,
an office, branch or agency in India owned or controlled by a person resident outside India,
an office, branch or agency outside India owned or controlled by a person resident in India;

i.e. 6 months!!! If you take up a job, or leave india for an uncertain time then it is less.

I.e. taking a break from his farm for 6 months (or uncertain period) while he spends time with his grandson in every definition of the term makes him an NRI according to FEMA!!! According to indialiason he loses his farm.

My point is simply this: Where does it say that you cannot keep an investment in a farm if you leave the country? Of course you can! Indialiason is completely and totally wrong.

Basis ... FEMA is an RBI rule. femaonline.com is another dodgy non-government site and if you take this advice, it is just like indialiason!!! They are doing a public service, but the site has no legal standing - I think they are missleading. Just because they managed to register the domain name femaonline doesn't make it legitimate!!! They are WRONG!!! There are 100s of sites that are trying to lure NRI investment - they are not even doing a socail service. Why can't we just stick to the FEMA controls themselves, because they are so easy to read? And none of the sites that people are posting is offering anything better than what RBI provides and as I keep repeating RBI is so easy to follow

femaonline has just copied (in some cases word for word) the info from RBI - so why not go to the horse's mouth???? Where they have written their own stuff they have got it wrong. Everyone: RBI has published simple information that anyone can understand, especially in the FAQs. Even the regulations themselves are easy to read. http://rbi.org.in please do not give any attention to the non-official/private sites, because if you follow their advice, you will be on your own.

 

[PIO1]

as for i know from income tax point of view just staying over 180 days make you liable for i tax even on fcnr/nri account interest.
but one NRI staying for treatment in india for 1 year won case against I tax notice for tax liability.
supreme court new delhi ruled staying has to be taking emploment doing business. making it a permanent intion to stay.
just staying still keeps you in NRI status.

Good point gotia, problem is that the Tax definition (Of Non Resident) is different to the FEMA/RBI definition (Of Non Resident INDIAN).

Also I think you are talking not about the Supreme Court, but a judgment by the High Court in Gujarat (Pradip J. Mehta vs CIT).

Untill and unless the court throws out a definition, it remain valid. FEMA's definition therefore stands... But all this is besides the point.

If you own a farm as a resident you can continue to own it as a non resident according to FEMA. This is contrary to information provided on some sites.

 

[PIO1]

http://dipp.nic.in/nri_ready_recokner/Ready Reckoner For NRI_Final_2005.pdf

Thanks ginnu,

This is from the government but note that it says:

This Ready Reckoner for Non-resident Indians(NRIs) Investments is intended to provide information on investment opportunities at a glance, available to non-resident Indians(NRIs)/ Persons of Indian Origin(PIO)& does not purport to be a legal document. In case of any variance between what is stated in this Ready Rekoner and the provision contained in the relevant Act, Rules, Regulations, Policy statements etc, the latter shall prevail.

In other words this paper is useless. Go to the source. RBI. Or CIT. It's easy to follow.

Here is an example of the *%&#$ that is in the paper:

Who is a Non Resident Indian (NRI)? Non Resident Indian (NRI) means a person who has gone out of India or who stays outside India, in either case for or on taking up employment outside India, or for carrying on outside India a business or vocation outside India, or for any other purpose, in such circumstances as would indicate his intention to stay outside India for an uncertain period. Simply, it means a person resident outside India who is a citizen of India or is a Person of Indian Origin.

Is this the definition of a person an NRI according to the citizenship act of India? No. An NRI must be a citizen of India according to the Act.

Is this the definition of a person an NRI according to FEMA/RBI? No. See above.

Is this the definition of a person an NR or RNOR according to CIT? No.

I.e. this is WRONG. indialiason, femaonline, sify, nri_ready_recokner, are all complete ........ (fill in the blank)

 

[basis]

Basis, femaonline like indialiason is wrong. The definition of NRI they have is wrong. They have missed the first sentence ... This is what the FEMA Act says!!!

I.e. taking a break from his farm for 6 months (or uncertain period) while he spends time with his grandson in every definition of the term makes him an NRI according to FEMA!!! According to indialiason he loses his farm.

My point is simply this: Where does it say that you cannot keep an investment in a farm if you leave the country? Of course you can! Indialiason is completely and totally wrong.

Basis ... FEMA is an RBI rule. femaonline.com is another dodgy non-government site and if you take this advice, it is just like indialiason!!! They are doing a public service, but the site has no legal standing - I think they are missleading. Just because they managed to register the domain name femaonline doesn't make it legitimate!!! They are WRONG!!! There are 100s of sites that are trying to lure NRI investment - they are not even doing a socail service. Why can't we just stick to the FEMA controls themselves, because they are so easy to read? And none of the sites that people are posting is offering anything better than what RBI provides and as I keep repeating RBI is so easy to follow

femaonline has just copied (in some cases word for word) the info from RBI - so why not go to the horse's mouth???? Where they have written their own stuff they have got it wrong. Everyone: RBI has published simple information that anyone can understand, especially in the FAQs. Even the regulations themselves are easy to read. http://rbi.org.in please do not give any attention to the non-official/private sites, because if you follow their advice, you will be on your own.

PIO1 - Sorry but you are little over excitied on the topic. I never said dont go to RBI site or original legislation. I think if someone is providing information (like we do here) to people then nothing wrong in it - yes they must be factually correct. But I dont think anything wrong for someone to collate the information and publish it. They have a proper disclaimer there as this immigrationportal has. So they are not claiming to be the best, the correct or sacrsanct - they have also given link to main RBI site etc.And I think the form, circulars, notifications - all can be found at one place which is useful.

Secondly couple of statements in your post are not correct IMHO -

1. 'FEMA is an RBI rule' -

No. FEMA is an act passed by parilament. It is not RBI rule. RBI has been given powers to issue general / special permissions or make rules in various sections of the Act. It is a piece of legislation and not RBI rule. The powers given to RBI under the Act can easily be repelled by amendment to the Act. RBI is an administrative authority under the Act.

2. 'The definition of NRI they have is wrong. They have missed the first sentence ... This is what the FEMA Act says!!!'

No that's wrong. First of all the definition given by you is that of 'Resident In India'. The act defines a person to be resident out of India in negative i.e. 'A person who is not resident in India'.

The correct definition of both the terms as per the Act is given in the site - pls go to http://www.femaonline.com/nricorner/nri_defin.htm

So the site has not given wrong information there. It is verbatim as per the Act and so it has to be.

What I posted was merely interpretation to define NRI and it is a correct interpretation.

3. 'i.e. 6 months!!! If you take up a job, or leave india for an uncertain time then it is less. '

True. But in the example you have given of a Panjabi Farmer - I believe his intention was to visit his son. Not to take up employment, or carry business / vocation outside India or for uncertain period. Remember here the 'undertain period' does not mean uncertain number of days but an indefinite period. Simply because one leaves the country for tourism / social purpose and does not whether he / she will be back in 5 months / 6 months and not exact days does not mean it is uncertain period. It is the intention that matters.

And again 6 months test comes in play only to define a resident in India not a non-resident.

 

[basis]

Thanks ginnu,

This is from the government but note that it says:

In other words this paper is useless. Go to the source. RBI. Or CIT. It's easy to follow.
Here is an example of the *%&#$ that is in the paper:

Is this the definition of a person an NRI according to the citizenship act of India? No. An NRI must be a citizen of India according to the Act.

Is this the definition of a person an NRI according to FEMA/RBI? No. See above.

Is this the definition of a person an NR or RNOR according to CIT? No.

I.e. this is WRONG. indialiason, femaonline, sify, nri_ready_recokner, are all complete ........ (fill in the blank)

I think again let's not slate against some sites. Are you saying that no one should be allowed to express their views / interpretations. Anyone who uses the info should be wise enough to use it properly and not rely on the content on these site or indeed the threads on this portal.

Again some errors in your post IMHO

1. 'Is this the definition of a person an NRI according to the citizenship act of India? No. An NRI must be a citizen of India according to the Act.'

CoI Act does not define the term NRI at all.

2. 'Is this the definition of a person an NRI according to FEMA/RBI? No. See above.'

Yes. It is. It is a correct interpretation of the definitions of the terms 'resident outside India', NRI and PIO as per the FEMA, F.E.M.(Deposit) Regulations,2000'.

According to Sec 2(vi) of [Regulation (vi) of F.E.M. (Deposit) Regulations, 2000 ] 'Non-Resident Indian (NRI)' means a person resident outside India who is a citizen of India or is a person of Indian origin;

And Section 2(w) read together with Section 2(v) of FEMA,1999 defines person resident outside India.

I dont see anything wrong when one reads the above provisions together (one has to as sec 2(vi) of FEM (deposit) regulations defines the term NRI
in that way.

3. 'Is this the definition of a person an NR or RNOR according to CIT? No'

The term in question here is NRI and not non-resident. RNOR anyway is term for resident (but not ordinarily resident). And as I said for the terms NRI, resident etc one should refer to FEMA and related legislation only (except for Income Tax purpose),

 

[basis]

Good point gotia, problem is that the Tax definition (Of Non Resident) is different to the FEMA/RBI definition (Of Non Resident INDIAN).

Also I think you are talking not about the Supreme Court, but a judgment by the High Court in Gujarat (Pradip J. Mehta vs CIT).

Untill and unless the court throws out a definition, it remain valid. FEMA's definition therefore stands... But all this is besides the point.

If you own a farm as a resident you can continue to own it as a non resident according to FEMA. This is contrary to information provided on some sites.

That's correct.

One rule -

1. For Indian Income Tax Purpose - Resident / Non-resident definitions from IT Act would prevail. And it is about 180 days - the intentions is not at all a criteria. There is a sub-status in resident as per IT Act called RNOR (resident but not ordinarily resident'.

2. For all other purposes - Definition under FEMA prevails. Remember NRI is defined to include Indian Citizens and PIOs as per FEM deposit regulations. But PIO is defined differently between FEM Dep and FEM Immoveable Property regulations.

Person of Indian Origin(PIO) defined under Regulations re: Immovable Property in India:

i) who held an Indian Passport at any time,
an individual other than citizens of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, China, Iran, Nepal and Bhutan,or
ii) who himself or his father or grandfather was a citizen of India.

[Section 2(w) of FEMA,1999 ]

F.E.M.(Deposit) Regulations define a Person of Indian Origin (PIO) as:
i) a person, being a citizen of any country other than Pakistan and Bangladesh, who at any time held an Indian Passport. or
ii) a person who himself or either of his parents or any of his grand parents were citizens of India, or
iii) a spouse of an Indian citizen, or
iv) a spouse of a person covered under (i) or (ii) above.
[ Para 2(xii) of F.E.M.(Deposit) Regulations,2000]

 

[PIO1]

I made a few simple observations.

1) The definition that the ready reconner has of an NRI is that it includes PIOs. An NRI is a "Non resident Indian". The Consitution and the citizenship act define what an Indian is. A PIO with a foreign passport is not an Indian. He is not a Resident Indian, a non-resdient Indian, a wealthy Indian or a happy Indian - he is not an Indian.

2) Many Acts are administered/enforced by departments - yes they are passed by parliament - e.g. income tax. Guess who Administers FEMA? RBI. So go to RBI not to some other site for the rules regarding it. Try this simple test. Phone Income Tax, the speaker of parliament or MOIA regarding a FEMA provision. If they don't hang up the phone, there is a good chance that they will send you to the RBI.

3) In black and white Indialiason said that investment in agricultural land for NRIs is not permitted. This is wrong. They can own agricultural land if it was inherited or they acquired it as a resident.

4) If you read the definition of an NRI in the femaonline it leaves out the 182 days from the initial definition. If you are not resident in India for 182 days in a financial year, FEMA makes it very clear that you are a not a resident - If you are an indian citizen and are not resident, then what are you??? Resident and Non Resident are mutually exclusive. Happy to argue this one.

5) I am not saying people should not publish articles - but all these articles have aspects that are plain WRONG. All I am saying is go to the source.

 

[basis]

I made a few simple observations.

1) The definition that the ready reconner has of an NRI is that it includes PIOs. An NRI is a "Non resident Indian". The Consitution and the citizenship act define what an Indian is. A PIO with a foreign passport is not an Indian. He is not a Resident Indian, a non-resdient Indian, a wealthy Indian or a happy Indian - he is not an Indian.

2) Many Acts are administered/enforced by departments - yes they are passed by parliament - e.g. income tax. Guess who Administers FEMA? RBI. So go to RBI not to some other site for the rules regarding it. Try this simple test. Phone Income Tax, the speaker of parliament or MOIA regarding a FEMA provision. If they don't hang up the phone, there is a good chance that they will send you to the RBI.

3) In black and white Indialiason said that investment in agricultural land for NRIs is not permitted. This is wrong. They can own agricultural land if it was inherited or they acquired it as a resident.

4) If you read the definition of an NRI in the femaonline it leaves out the 182 days from the initial definition. If you are not resident in India for 182 days in a financial year, FEMA makes it very clear that you are a not a resident - If you are an indian citizen and are not resident, then what are you??? Resident and Non Resident are mutually exclusive. Happy to argue this one.

5) I am not saying people should not publish articles - but all these articles have aspects that are plain WRONG. All I am saying is go to the source.

1. NRI is clearly defined in FEMA to include PIO. We have discussed this even before. CoI Act (not the constitution) defines the term 'Indian Citizen' and not 'Indian' or 'non-resident Indian'. And even if they did for the purpose of FEMA the definition is clear as I have given in previous post and includes a PIO.

2. Is correct. I never said dont go to RBI site for FEMA. Just wanted to put the right perspective to layman reader that 'FEMA is not a rule by RBI' but an act passed by parilament. RBI is one of the enforcement authorities along with tibunals, enforcement directorate etc. If we want others to be perfect then we also need to perfect in making statement ourselves.

3. I agree that NRIs can continue to hold agricultural property. The statement by Indialiason can also be read as the investment (as in fresh acquisition) is not permitted though holding of existing title / inherting is permitted. I agree that they need to be more accurate.

4. Yes they have omiitted that part from definition of NRI. But I contacted myself RBI (yes the horse itself in Mumbai) for this. They said that if you return to India with intention for employement, business or other purpose of indefinite period then you become resident from that day. When I cited 182 days they said that their view and that of tribunals / courts till now has been that FEMA tried to bring that in line with IT Act but does not go with the intent of the Act. The earstwhile FERA did not have 182 days provision. They brought this more to bring FEMA in line with IT Act.

It has created anything but clarity. there are plethora of cases and everyone including RBI is puzzled. Want to know what causes this have a look at http://www.rashminsanghvi.com/femabook4.htm

5. I understand what you are saying and support that too. But one should not ignore all these including FEMA (which is an act passed by the parliament) and is open for interpretation. So one may find different views not necessarily wrong.

finally one good link defining all these for a layman
http://in.rediff.com/getahead/2005/oct/27nri.htm

 

[PIO1]

basis, happy to call it a truce you , mangal and others have contributed lots to this forum and will continue to do so - nice to have a healthy debate every now and then.

I guess the message is that these sites might give you some pointers, but if anyone is relying on information for serious work ... you really need to do your homework, as there is no one line answer to many questions. Here is a good case for the governement to simplify the laws and remove restrictions for PIOs NRIs etc.

 

[basis]

basis, happy to call it a truce you , mangal and others have contributed lots to this forum and will continue to do so - nice to have a healthy debate every now and then.

I guess the message is that these sites might give you some pointers, but if anyone is relying on information for serious work ... you really need to do your homework, as there is no one line answer to many questions. Here is a good case for the governement to simplify the laws and remove restrictions for PIOs NRIs etc.

agreed....as they say lets agree to disagree or in fact this is a case where we are 'viloently agreeing' with each other........

healthy, informative debates are always good....we get to know new aspects and 'other' side...

 

[gotia]

Good point gotia, problem is that the Tax definition (Of Non Resident) is different to the FEMA/RBI definition (Of Non Resident INDIAN).

Also I think you are talking not about the Supreme Court, but a judgment by the High Court in Gujarat (Pradip J. Mehta vs CIT).

Untill and unless the court throws out a definition, it remain valid. FEMA's definition therefore stands... But all this is besides the point.

If you own a farm as a resident you can continue to own it as a non resident according to FEMA. This is contrary to information provided on some sites.

Decision was from supreme court new delhi.
a bench comprising of Justice SP Brarucha,Justice SS mohmad quadri. and Justice N santosh Hegde.
since court rould in favour of NRI. stay should include factor of intention should be included in his stay.
NRi who won the case was liviing with family for nearly 3 years

 

[basis]

Good point gotia, problem is that the Tax definition (Of Non Resident) is different to the FEMA/RBI definition (Of Non Resident INDIAN).

Also I think you are talking not about the Supreme Court, but a judgment by the High Court in Gujarat (Pradip J. Mehta vs CIT).

Untill and unless the court throws out a definition, it remain valid. FEMA's definition therefore stands...

Decision was from supreme court new delhi.
a bench comprising of Justice SP Brarucha,Justice SS mohmad quadri. and Justice N santosh Hegde. since court rould in favour of NRI. stay should include factor of intention should be included in his stay. NRi who won the case was liviing with family for nearly 3 years

gotia - I think you are referring to the case referred in following case
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000811/nation.htm#5

It is indeed a Supreme Court decision.

However, remember the issue there was whether the person was Non Resident under then FERA, 1973 (now FEMA, 1999). It was to decide whether the appelant could hold NRE account designated under FERA and taxability of the interest earned on the NRE account.

It was not to decide residential status under Income Tax Act. The person still would have been resident under IT Act after staying in the country for 180+ days in a financial year.

Courts have to go by definition in the legislations under consideration, intent of the law and practice. In case of IT the clear rule is if you stay in India 182 days or more in a financial year you become a resident for that perticular financial year for Income Tax purpose. Resident can either be an ROR (resident and ordinarily resident) or RNOR (Resident but not ordinarily resident).

For the benefit of everyone one good link on the topic of NRI / PIO - status determination, taxability, NRE accounts etc is http://www.utibank.com/nri/nritaxation.htm

Mangal this can be added in the other thread under Finance related links

 

[gotia]

gotia - I think you are referring to the case referred in following case
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000811/nation.htm#5

It is indeed a Supreme Court decision.

However, remember the issue there was whether the person was Non Resident under then FERA, 1973 (now FEMA, 1999). It was to decide whether the appelant could hold NRE account designated under FERA and taxability of the interest earned on the NRE account.

It was not to decide residential status under Income Tax Act. The person still would have been resident under IT Act after staying in the country for 180+ days in a financial year.

Courts have to go by definition in the legislations under consideration, intent of the law and practice. In case of IT the clear rule is if you stay in India 182 days or more in a financial year you become a resident for that perticular financial year for Income Tax purpose. Resident can either be an ROR (resident and ordinarily resident) or RNOR (Resident but not ordinarily resident).

For the benefit of everyone one good link on the topic of NRI / PIO - status determination, taxability, NRE accounts etc is http://www.utibank.com/nri/nritaxation.htm

Mangal this can be added in the other thread under Finance related links

Great Job Basis.
you got it.
forum is hot and going good for real benefit.
getting more beneficial every day

 

[hornplease]

Toronto - OCI - Got it !

Having ranted on this forum about the excess charges one pays if applying in Canada, I have to say I am impressed with the way things happen at the CGI in Toronto.

I applied early Feb 2006, was given an appointment March 20th to submit my application to the OCI incharge at the CGI Toronto. No attestation or notary requirements were needed. (I was at the embassy for just 5 minutes, no queues, or waiting - they were expecting me).

Having submitted the application, I was told that the status would be updated on the site. This was done on the same day (under process). Within 20 days, the status had changed to 'granted', and yesterday - april 25th, i got a call from the embassy to let me know that my OCI was ready for collection. Again - I was in and out of the embassy in 5 minutes ! (oci in hand). So all in all, the polite, efficient and responsive service i received, makes me feel the extra amount paid was well justified !

jai hind

 

[tariqs]

After four weeks since I mailed in my daughter's application to CGI-Houston, the Online Status Inquiry form shows "Under Process". Does this mean that the application has been sent to New Delhi or are the lazy butts in Houston still sitting on it?

-Tariq

 

[SDQmer]

any status fm CGISF

Mailed in Feb 2006 (for whole family). Still MHA website says file number yet to assign in concern mission... Anybody got file numbers assigned recently?

 

[dilipjaju]

Mailed in Feb 2006 (for whole family). Still MHA website says file number yet to assign in concern mission... Anybody got file numbers assigned recently?

I applied on March 13th 2006 for whole family at CGISFO. I also get same message as you. Please post here as soon as your case goes under process.

 

[csc092000]

I applied in February 2nd week for the family in SFO. The status got updated in last week of March to "Granted" directly and then the names apperared in SF consulate website.

I have send our passports and still waiting for them to send these back. There was no communication from consulate during the complete process.