2010 (9) TMI 340 - AT - Customs

DEPB scheme - syrup/oral suspension - opinion of Basic Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics Export Promotion Council only to the effect that the goods in may be covered under Serial No. 40 of the DEPB - specific opinion of the Chemical Examiner that the goods in the form of powder and hence the same cannot be considered as syrup/oral suspension Order set aside Appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of DEPB scheme for Oral Rehydration Salts B.P.
2. Discrepancy between the opinion of CHEMEXIL and the Chemical Examiner regarding the form of the exported item.
3. Applicability of DEPB benefit to goods in powder form.

Analysis:

1. The appeal involved the interpretation of the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scheme for 'Oral Rehydration Salts B.P.' The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, stating that the item falls under Sr. No. 40(b) of DEPB. The appellant contested this decision, arguing that there is a difference between 'powder' and 'suspension,' and that the goods in question were in powder form, not syrup or oral suspension.

2. The Revenue contended that the DEPB benefit is available to syrup or oral suspension, not powder form goods. They relied on the report of the Chemical Examiner, which specifically stated that the sample in question was in powder form. The Commissioner (Appeals) had based their decision on the opinion of CHEMEXIL, which suggested that the product might be covered under Serial No. 40 of the DEPB scheme. The Revenue argued that the CHEMEXIL opinion was not as specific as the Chemical Examiner's opinion, making the Commissioner's order unsustainable.

3. The Tribunal found that the DEPB benefit is indeed available to syrup or oral suspension, not powder form goods. The report of the Chemical Examiner clearly indicated that the goods in question were in powder form. While the opinion of the Export Promotion Council suggested possible coverage under Serial No. 40 of the DEPB, the Tribunal emphasized the specificity of the Chemical Examiner's report. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the specific form of the exported item as determined by the Chemical Examiner, which contradicted the broader interpretation suggested by CHEMEXIL. This case underscores the importance of precise technical assessments in determining eligibility for benefits under trade schemes like DEPB.