Extended limitation cannot rest on a later change in classification view where goods were not misdeclared in description.

A mere claim for classification under a particular tariff heading does not, by itself, establish suppression of facts or mala fide intent. Where imported goods were not misdeclared in description and were cleared by customs under the claimed heading, the Revenue could not invoke the extended period of limitation merely because it later changed its view on classification. On these facts, a prima facie case was made out against application of the longer limitation period, and pre-deposit was dispensed with unconditionally.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the allegation that the imported goods were wrongly classified and whether, on that basis, pre-deposit should be dispensed with.

Analysis: The goods were not misdeclared in description. A claim for classification under a particular tariff heading, by itself, does not amount to suppression of facts or mala fide intent. Where the goods were cleared by the customs authorities under the claimed heading, the Revenue could not later invoke the longer limitation period merely on a change of view regarding classification. On these facts, a prima facie case was made out against application of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not applicable, and the stay petitions were allowed unconditionally.

---