Limitation in customs duty demand turns on absence of suppression where goods were properly declared as betel nuts.

Imported goods declared in the import documents as betel nuts were assessed accordingly, and the invoices supported that description; reference to the botanical name did not render the disclosure defective. On those facts, suppression with intent to evade duty was not established, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The duty demand was therefore time-barred, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression with intent to evade duty, and whether the goods were correctly declared and assessed as betel nuts.

Analysis: The imported goods were declared in the import documents as betel nuts and were assessed accordingly by the proper officer. The description in the invoices supported that declaration, and the reference to the botanical name did not make disclosure of the goods defective. On those facts, the allegation of suppression with intent to evade was not made out, and the extended limitation period could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---