Conflicting expert test reports on export fabric resolved by averaging both results for duty-free entitlement.

Where two equally credible testing institutions gave differing reports on polyester content in exported fabric, the lower figure was not treated as an automatic rule for duty-free entitlement. Because no reliable basis existed to prefer one report over the other, the discrepancy was reconciled by averaging both test results. The practical effect was that polyester content had to be recalculated on that basis, with the appellant's duty-free entitlement adjusted accordingly. The note rejects a mechanical preference for the lower report where expert evidence is evenly balanced and instead applies a fair averaging method to resolve the factual discrepancy.

---

---

Issues: Whether, where two recognised testing institutions gave differing reports on the polyester content of exported fabric, the Customs authorities were bound to adopt the lower report or whether the content should be determined by averaging both reports for the purpose of duty-free entitlement.

Analysis: The test reports were obtained from two institutions of comparable standing, and no sufficient basis was shown for preferring one over the other. The practice of always adopting the lower figure was not accepted as an inflexible rule. Since the Customs department itself chose to obtain two reports that were at variance, fairness required that neither side be given an arbitrary advantage and that the differing results be reconciled by averaging the two determinations.

Conclusion: The lower report was not to be adopted mechanically; the polyester content was to be worked out by averaging the figures in both reports, and the appellant's duty-free entitlement was to be recalculated accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the method of determining the polyester content was modified, resulting in a partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where equally credible expert test reports on a material factual issue conflict and no reliable basis exists for preferring one over the other, the dispute may be resolved by averaging the reports rather than mechanically adopting the lower or higher figure.

---