Export of leather cannot be denied on a later report alone where misdeclaration and ineligibility were not established.

Export of leather could not be denied merely because a later Customs sample report differed from an earlier CLRI certificate. The record did not establish deliberate mis-declaration, nor did it show that the goods were not finished leather or were otherwise ineligible under Public Notice No. 21/2009-14. In the absence of material proving contumacious conduct or a clear finding that the goods were semi-finished, the discrepancy between the two reports was insufficient to upset the appellate relief granted to the exporter. The Department's challenge therefore failed and the relief order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the export of leather was liable to be denied on the basis of the later CLRI test report and alleged mis-declaration under the applicable public notice.

Analysis: The goods had earlier been accompanied by a CLRI certificate and the dispute arose because a subsequent sample tested by Customs was reported as not satisfying the norms in Public Notice No. 21/2009-14. The later report was not treated as conclusive of deliberate mis-declaration, particularly when the record did not establish that the goods were not finished leather and no material showed contumacious conduct. The discrepancy between the two reports, together with the absence of a clear finding that the goods were semi-finished or otherwise ineligible, meant that interference with the appellate order was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The challenge by the Department failed and the order granting relief to the exporter was sustained.

---