TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared failing which it will be tantamount to mis-declaration – Indeed in case of CC, New Delhi Vs. Vee Kay Polycoats Ltd. [2013 (8) TMI 775 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] tribunal held that technical literature shows that DOP and DEHP are used interchangeably and that contention of manufacturer of products and importer cannot be brushed aside that products were different in quality and price – Impugned order not found sustainable and therefore same is set aside – Decided in favour of Assesse. - Appeal Nos. C/109-111/2010-CU[DB] - Final Order Nos. 82086-52088/2015 - Dated:- 13-5-2015 - G. Raghuram, President And R. K. Singh, Member (T),JJ. For the Petitioner : Ms Surabhi Sinha, Adv For the Respondent : Ms Suchitra Sharma, DR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the invoice as Di Ethyl Pthalate and DOP as Di-Octyl Phthalate, DEHP (CAS No.[117-81-7] is also known as Di-Octyl Phthalate (DOP). It is the phthalate ester of the alcohol 2-ethyl hexanol. (Source: DEHP information centre). The contentions of the importers to the contrary are at best an after thought and are, therefore, liable to be rejected, of the two synonymous, that is DOP and DEHP, the latter happens to be more commonly used in the international market. However due to certain health concerns the trading activities of DEHP declined prompting the unscrupulous elements in India to exploit the situation where the product has been known as DOP and not as DEHP. They saw an opportunity to change the nomenclature of the product and underv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 29.07.2009, but the commissioner (the adjudicating authority in the present case) has not followed the same, thereby disregarding the judicial discipline, (ii) There is no evidence of any under-valuation and no grounds have given for rejecting the transaction value. Even if it is conceded that DEHP and DOP are same product, there was no mis-declaration as there was no requirement of declaring all the synonyms of the goods imported. The chemicals can be of different quality and while revising the value, the adjudicating authority has not taken into account the quality of the product. It cited the CESTAT judgement in the case of CC, New Delhi Vs. Vee Kay Polycoats Ltd. [2013 (292) ELT 254 (Tri. - Del.)] wherein it was held that DEHP and D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vour of the appellant and therefore the commissioner in the present case should have followed the said decision also has force but notwithstanding that we do not find any basis to reject the transaction value on the basis of the observations of the adjudicating authority that due to certain health concerns, the trading activity of the DEHP declined prompting the unscrupulous elements in India to exploit the situation where the product has been known as DOR and not as DEHP. They saw an opportunity to change the nomenclature of the product and undervalue it amidst publicized health concerns of the product DEHP . At best, the said observations could be a ground for raising suspicion but are devoid of any evidentiary basis. Indeed in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
