One container described the contents as East Indian Rosewood Veneer under 6mm in thickness and used the Harmonized Tariff Code for veneer under 6mm in thickness.
Under India's HTC, Rosewood veneer under 6mm in thickness is legal to export.
The other container described the contents as finished wood products, including those for musical instruments and used the HTC code for those products (the HTC identifies those items as things like tuning pegs, violin bows, chess pieces).
Under India's HTC, Rosewood finished wood product are legal to export.
Neither container identified the contents as cut, split, or chipped wood over 6mm in thickness, which is what they contained. Under India's HTC, cut, split, or chipped Rosewood over 6mm in thickness is illegal to export.
Maybe Gibson made two honest mistakes, turning two illegal containers into two legal containers. Gibson knew what East Indian Veneer was; it imported that frequently to use as veneer on headstocks for all three plants, and for the sides of acoustic guitars at its Bozeman, Montana plant.
Maybe Gibson made those two honest mistakes while leaving its name off of the import papers and incorrectly showing the 'ultimate consignee' as a small company in California, but directing shipping to a warehouse in Nashville (a warehouse that had instruction to take possession on behalf of Gibson).
Maybe it was a mistake, like the East Indian Rosewood that was shipped through Canada to the same California "ultimate consignee" at the warehouse used by Gibson in Nashville, the warehouse that had an email from the California company instructing the warehouse that Gibson was the actual ultimate consignee for customs purposes.
The descriptions on those two cargo containers could have been a mistake.
Incidentally, Gibson retained another import company and was taking delivery of other woods at the warehouse in its own name and under customs papers correctly listing it as the ultimate consignee.
Can you please explain how you came to obtain this information? Can you provide any source you used so that I could see the original documentation you used to form these opinions?