Here is the passage I was referring to:
CITES itself also doesn't require an import permit for Appendix II, but only an export permit. Appendix I requires both export and import permits. It isn't really a major point, though.
The claim that no L. borneensis have been exported from range states is made in the linked report from TRAFFIC. This isn't an 'article from Google', but from an organization that is basically a part of Cambridge University. In other words, a credible source.
If anyone has any actual documentation -- not simple denial and disparagement, but documentation -- that disputes any claims please post that documentation here. This is an informational thread, and the more actual information the better.
Shifting gears a bit: there is also a lot of discussion that could be had about the problem with inserting even a little bit of perceived legitimacy into the trade in a very widely smuggled endangered species. This is the same sort of discussion that is had with elephant ivory: carving out a small amount of the trade and legally legitimating it (in ivory, material that is antique/pre-ban, or confiscated and stockpiled by authorities) can and does serve to enable increased laundering of illegally trafficked material and thus undermine conservation goals.
Given that worry, it is hard to give a charitable interpretation to the eagerness to convince people that some few of these animals are of legal origin. It is something that certainly requires at the very least conclusive evidence, and a solid plan for ensuring that lineage gets traced accurately (perhaps something akin to the stud books for some chelonian species). None of that has been offered with this species, nor others in similar circumstances.