Chevron Ohilips Chemicals India P Ltd vs Mumbai East on 20 December, 2019
17. For the period after 1.10.2014, on merit also, the appellant
cannot be called as an 'intermediary'. On a simple reading of the
agreement analyzed as above, it is clear that the appellants are
appointed by their overseas counterpart CPC Global for sales
promotion of the goods for their client in the defined territory.
The appellant has no role in fixation of price nor they negotiate
in any manner between CPC Global and their clients relating to
sales promotion of the goods sold. Therefore, in my view, the
appellant cannot be called as an intermediary. consequenlty, fall
outside the amended definition of 'intermediary' under Rule 2(f)
and Rule 9 of the POPS Rules, 2012. Similar view has been
expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Lubrizol Advance
Materials (supra) and R.S. Granite Machine (supra). This Tribunal
in the case of Lubrizol Advance Materials has held as under: -