Natural justice and sample retesting protect against duty demands based on marginal test variation and unproven misdeclaration.

A marginal 0.1% variation in iron content was treated as potentially attributable to sampling or human error and, without reliable proof of deliberate misdeclaration, could not by itself justify denial of retesting or a differential duty demand. The inability to obtain a fresh CRCL opinion arose because the sample was received in torn condition, and the request for retesting had already been accepted. On these facts, reliance only on the first test report and an assumption of evasion was not warranted, and fresh testing with reconsideration after hearing the assessee was considered appropriate under natural justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revenue was justified in denying retest of the exported iron ore sample and levying differential duty on the basis of a marginal variation in iron content.

Analysis: The difference in iron content between the declared figure and the chemical test report was only 0.1%, which was treated as negligible and capable of being attributable to human or sampling error. The request for retesting had already been accepted, and the inability to obtain a fresh opinion from CRCL arose because the sample was received in torn condition. In the facts, reliance solely on the first test report and the assumption of deliberate misdeclaration was not warranted, particularly when the record did not establish an intention to evade duty. The Tribunal's direction for fresh testing and reconsideration after hearing the assessee was found justified.

Conclusion: The denial of retest and the consequential demand of differential duty were unjustified, and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A marginal and unexplained variation in test results, without reliable proof of deliberate misdeclaration, cannot by itself justify denial of retesting or sustain a duty demand where principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity to verify the sample.

---