Export duty exemption cannot be denied by extending one test report to all shipping bills without a specific factual basis.

Export duty exemption could not be denied on the basis of a test report drawn from one sampled package, because the goods covered by the three shipping bills were not identical and were claimed under different entries and conditions in the public notice. No sample was drawn for one shipping bill, and the sample taken for another shipping bill satisfied the prescribed norms. In the absence of a specific factual basis, the same test report could not be extended to all packages and all shipping bills. The denial of exemption was therefore not sustainable, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the test report drawn from one sampled package under one shipping bill could be applied to all the shipping bills so as to deny exemption from export duty; and whether the goods covered by the different shipping bills satisfied the conditions of the relevant public notice and notification.

Analysis: The goods covered by the three shipping bills were not identical in description and were claimed under different entries and conditions of the public notice. Only one package was tested for Shipping Bill No. 194, while no sample was drawn from Shipping Bill No. 193 and the sample drawn from Shipping Bill No. 195 was found to satisfy the prescribed norms. The same test report could not, without any specific basis, be extended to all the goods under all the shipping bills, particularly when the appellant had not claimed the condition relating to burnishable leather for Shipping Bill No. 194.

Conclusion: The test result of one package could not be made applicable to all the packages or all the shipping bills, and the denial of export duty exemption was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---