Extended limitation in customs cases requires proved suppression or misrepresentation; time-barred demand and penalties failed.

Where imported goods were duly declared, physically examined, and cleared by customs, the extended period of limitation could be invoked only on a specific and proved allegation of conscious suppression, concealment, or misrepresentation. As the notice was issued after clearance and the record disclosed no substantiated discrepancy or proof of fraud-like conduct, the customs demand was time-barred. The consequential confiscation and penalty proceedings also failed for the same reason.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs demand and consequential confiscation and penalty proceedings were barred by limitation for want of any allegation or proof of fraud, concealment, suppression of facts, or other conscious act enabling invocation of the extended period.

Analysis: The imported goods had been declared, examined by customs officers, and cleared on payment of duty. The record showed no discrepancy at the stage of clearance, and the notice was issued long after the goods had been removed from customs control. In such circumstances, the extended period could be invoked only if the department specifically alleged and established a positive act of concealment, suppression, or misrepresentation. The notice and the adjudication did not disclose such material, and the adjudicating authority itself recorded that the charge of undeclared items was not substantiated after physical examination. The proceedings, therefore, could not survive beyond the normal period of limitation.

Conclusion: The limitation objection succeeded, and the demand, confiscation, and penalty order was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods have been duly declared, physically examined, and cleared by customs, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of a specific and proved allegation of conscious suppression, concealment, or misrepresentation.

---