Conflicting lab reports on imported goods justified retesting and cross-examination; duty demand and penalties were set aside.

Conflicting laboratory reports on imported goods required a fair evidentiary approach: one report described the samples as marble, while another classified them as limestone. Because the goods were imported before the departmental clarification relied on by the department, and the sample had already been sent to the departmental laboratory, refusal to allow retesting and cross-examination was unjustified. The record did not support exclusive reliance on the adverse report when another report supported the importer's claim. The duty demand, confiscation, fine, and penalty were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were correctly treated as marble for customs purposes in the face of conflicting laboratory reports, and whether denial of retesting and cross-examination was justified.

Analysis: One laboratory report stated that the samples had the physical characteristics of marble, while the other opined that the goods were a variety of limestone. The goods were imported before the Board clarification relied upon by the department, and the sample had already been sent to the departmental laboratory. In these circumstances, refusal to permit retesting and cross-examination was not justified. The material on record did not support exclusive reliance on the adverse report when the other report supported the importer's claim.

Conclusion: The importer had made out a case for interference, and the orders confirming duty demand, confiscation, fine, and penalty were set aside.

---