https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218109 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. en-us Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218109 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. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218109