In my opinion, there's nothing that prohibits you from reporting values that fall below some "magical" threshold. Most of such cut-off values are more or less arbitrary anyway. "Negative" findings can be just as important as "positive" findings when it comes to scale evaluation.

What I see as more important is to figure out and explain in the paper why you are getting suboptimal values for your measurements. Perhaps the results indicate that the measures/scales are rather heterogeneous and/or multidimensional or that some of the items should be revised, dropped, or replaced.

AVE (Average Variance Extracted) is a measure of the proportion of variance in a construct's indicators that can be attributed to the construct itself, rather than measurement error. AVE values should ideally be greater than 0.50 to indicate that the construct has sufficient measurement quality. Similarly, CR (Composite Reliability) is a measure of the internal consistency of a construct's indicators, and values should ideally be greater than 0.70 to indicate that the indicators are consistent in their measurement of the construct.

It is generally not recommended to report AVE or CR values that fall below these thresholds, as they may indicate a lack of measurement quality or internal consistency in the construct. However, some researchers may choose to report these values if they are aware of the limitations and provide explanations and qualifications in their findings.

There are some papers that have reported AVE and CR values below the threshold values, but they usually provide explanations and qualifications for the results. It is better to check the literature in your field to see if similar values have been reported and if it is acceptable. Also, it is always good to consult with your supervisor or a statistician before making a decision.