Unreliable customs test reports cannot defeat exemption claims when prescribed sampling and storage standards were not followed.

Customs exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus for crude palm oil could not be denied on the basis of laboratory reports where the prescribed sampling and storage standards were not followed. The Tribunal treated the test evidence as unreliable because the samples were not drawn or stored in the required manner, the chemical examiners lacked knowledge of the proper method, the samples were kept in plastic bottles rather than steel containers, and testing occurred after significant delay. It also held that the importer's failure to object at sampling did not amount to waiver of statutory standards. The exemption was therefore available and the assessees were granted consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the importer was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus for crude palm oil, and whether the Customs laboratory test reports could be relied upon when the samples were not drawn, stored, and tested in accordance with the prescribed standards.

Analysis: The decisive question was the reliability of the Dy. Chief Chemist's report. The prescribed standards for crude palm oil sampling and storage were relevant, and the evidence showed that the samples were not drawn or stored as required. The Chemical Examiners admitted lack of knowledge of the proper sampling method, the samples were kept in plastic bottles instead of steel containers, and the testing was conducted after substantial delay. The Tribunal also noted that carotene is unstable and can deteriorate with exposure to light, air, and time. In these circumstances, the Customs laboratory report could not be treated as reliable. The importer's representative not objecting at the time of sampling did not amount to waiver of the prescribed statutory standards.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the basis of the impugned laboratory reports, and the importer satisfied the notification conditions. The appeals were therefore allowed in favour of the assessee with consequential relief.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of exemption was set aside because the adverse test evidence was found unreliable, and the importer was held entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory or prescribed sampling and storage requirements are not followed and the resulting test report is unreliable, exemption cannot be denied on the basis of such report, and non-objection by the importer at sampling does not waive compliance with those standards.

---