Competing laboratory reports on exported leather were insufficient to prove misdeclaration and deny relief to the exporter.

Competing laboratory reports on exported leather did not justify treating the goods as misdeclared or non-conforming finished leather. Although Customs relied on a later CLRI report stating that the sample did not meet the relevant public notice norms, the earlier CLRI certificate and the divergence between the two reports left the material issue unresolved. The record also showed no independent evidence of deliberate misdeclaration or contumacious conduct by the exporter. In these circumstances, the adverse inference from the later report alone was insufficient to disturb the relief already granted, and the departmental challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the export goods were liable to be treated as misdeclared or non-conforming finished leather on the basis of the subsequent CLRI report, so as to justify interference with the order granting relief to the exporter.

Analysis: The goods were initially accompanied by a CLRI certificate, and a later sample sent by Customs produced a contrary report stating that the sample did not satisfy the norms prescribed in Public Notice No. 21/2009-14. The divergence between the two CLRI reports was material, and the later report did not establish that the goods were not finished leather or that they were semi-finished leather. The record also did not disclose any deliberate misdeclaration or contumacious conduct on the part of the exporter. In these circumstances, the adverse inference drawn from the later report was not sufficient to disturb the relief already granted.

Conclusion: The export goods were not proved to be misdeclared, and interference with the relief granted to the exporter was unwarranted.

Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge failed and the order in favour of the exporter was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where competing laboratory reports create uncertainty and there is no independent evidence of deliberate misdeclaration, the adverse test report alone is insufficient to deny relief to the exporter.

---