Extended limitation barred where goods classification was already disclosed and differential duty notice failed on limitation grounds.

Disclosure of the appellant's Chapter 39 classification to the department barred invocation of the extended limitation period for recovering differential duty on the disputed classification. The earlier appellate order had only required a fresh classification decision after notice, so the department could not treat the matter as one involving suppression or other grounds justifying extended time. The notice for differential duty was therefore not sustainable on limitation grounds, and the duty demand was without authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation was available for the duty demand on the disputed classification of the goods.

Analysis: The appellant's classification of the goods under Chapter 39 had already been disclosed to the department, and the earlier appellate order had only directed fresh determination of classification after notice. In these circumstances, the department could not treat the matter as one justifying invocation of the extended limitation period for recovery of duty. The notice issued for the differential duty was therefore not sustainable on limitation grounds.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available, and the duty demand was without authority.

---