Extended limitation cannot be invoked when product composition is fully disclosed in the classification list and known to the department.

Where a classification list discloses the full composition of the product and the department is aware that it contains both active ingredients, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for duty demand. The article explains that the notice related to an ointment containing fluocinolone acetonide and chinoform, not a single-ingredient product, and that the disclosed facts defeated any claim of suppression or concealment. On that basis, the demand could not be sustained by resort to the extended limitation period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for demanding duty on the product in question when the classification list disclosed the presence of both active ingredients.

Analysis: The product covered by the notice was the ointment containing fluocinolone acetonide and chinoform, not the single-ingredient ointment referred to by the Commissioner. The classification list had shown both ingredients, and the department was therefore aware of the composition of the product. In these circumstances, there was no basis for treating the case as one warranting invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available, and the demand could not be sustained on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant facts are disclosed in the classification list and the department is aware of the product composition, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.

---