Customs exemption for exported leather products denied after concurrent findings showed the goods failed prescribed notification conditions.

Customs exemption for exported leather products was denied because satisfaction of the notification conditions was found, on concurrent factual findings by the original authority, appellate authority and Tribunal, to be absent. The evidence, including the laboratory report, showed that the leather did not meet the prescribed norms since the protective coating was missing. As the dispute depended on appreciation of evidence rather than any debatable question of law, the refusal of exemption was upheld and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the customs exemption notification in respect of the exported leather products, and whether any substantial question of law arose from the concurrent factual findings denying the exemption.

Analysis: The benefit of exemption depended on satisfaction of the conditions in the relevant notification and public notice. The original authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal concurrently found, on the basis of the laboratory report and other evidence, that the leather did not satisfy the prescribed norms because the protective coating was absent. The Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, accepted the factual determination and rejected the claim based on the notification. In these circumstances, the dispute turned entirely on appreciation of evidence and not on interpretation of any debatable question of law.

Conclusion: The exemption benefit was rightly denied, and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

---