3.7 4.0 4.5 4.7 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 m$_{t}$ GLYPH<OverBar> 1 GLYPH<LBracket1> GeV GLYPH<RBracket1> m t GLYPH<OverBar> 2 GLYPH<LBracket1> GeV GLYPH<RBracket1> $_{GLYPH<Cross>}$10 $_{GLYPH<Minus>}$4 FIG. 5: This is contour plot of Br( b → sγ ) for M$_{2}$ = 200GeV, ϵ$_{1}$ = 0 . 0096, ϵ$_{2}$ = 0 . 00086, 2 ϵ$_{3}$v $^{2}$sin 2 β = 708GeV 2 and tan β = 1 . 9. This is calculated by SuperIso v2.3[24] stop mass should be less than 160 GeV which is certainly lighter than the top quark. It is generally the case for different choice of tan β and other supersymmetry breaking parameters. Wino/higgsino mass also should be light since large loop corrections due to small tan β and light charged Higgs have to be canceled by supersymmetric counter terms (stop-chargino loop) which can be sizable when stop and chargino are light enough. This provides an interesting connection between our scenario and the electroweak baryogenesis which works only when the right-handed stop is lighter than top quark. The detailed study of the implication of BMSSM operators to b → sγ and muon g − 2 will be given elsewhere [26]. In this paper we explored the phenomenology of light Higgs scenario in BMSSM. More specifically, we found that h and A production at the Z pole is kinematically allowed in BMSSM. For very light A ( ≤ 10 GeV) and h slightly lighter than Z ( ∼ 70 GeV) which is still consistent with the LEP data, h and A are produced with small momentum. Bottom quark pairs produced from h are close to back to back and tau pairs from A are soft enough. VI. CONCLUSION 16