Limitation in dimethicone classification dispute: disclosed facts defeated prima facie suppression and supported waiver of pre-deposit.

At the waiver stage in a dimethicone classification dispute, the tribunal examined whether the demands were prima facie time-barred and whether any suppression justified the extended limitation period. Because the manufacturing process had been disclosed in classification declarations, and the later classification view relied on by the Commissioner did not establish concealment, no prima facie suppression was found. The packing details were treated as relevant only to unmixed medicaments, not to products with mixed constituents. On that basis, the demands were treated as prima facie barred by limitation, and pre-deposit of duty and penalty was waived with stay of recovery pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demands were prima facie barred by limitation so as to justify waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis: The dispute related to classification of dimethicone, but at the stage of waiver the relevant question was whether the applicants had suppressed facts warranting invocation of the extended period. The declared manufacturing process had been disclosed in the classification declarations. The Commissioner had proceeded on the basis of a later Tribunal decision on classification, and the packing details were found to be relevant only where the product was an unmixed medicament, not where it consisted of mixed constituents. On that basis, no prima facie suppression could be attributed to the applicants for the earlier period in dispute.

Conclusion: The demands were held to be prima facie barred by limitation, and pre-deposit of duty and penalty was waived with stay of recovery pending the appeals.

---