Final customs assessment cannot be reopened without challenge; suppression and misdeclaration require evidence of non-disclosure.

A final customs assessment on bills of entry, after examination and clearance of the goods, cannot be reopened through a fresh demand unless the department lawfully challenges that assessment. On the facts stated, no departmental appeal had been filed, so the assessment had attained finality and the demand was unsustainable. A separate allegation of suppression and misdeclaration also failed because the importer had filed invoices and related documents, the goods were physically examined, and no evidence showed non-disclosure or false description. The extended demand and penalty were therefore not supportable, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the customs assessment finalised on the bills of entry could be reopened and duty demanded without the department challenging the assessment order; (ii) whether the demand and penalty could be sustained on the allegation of suppression and misdeclaration.

Issue (i): whether the customs assessment finalised on the bills of entry could be reopened and duty demanded without the department challenging the assessment order.

Analysis: The goods had been declared in the bills of entry, examined by the proper officer, and cleared after assessment. No appeal had been filed by the department against the assessed bills of entry. In such a situation, the assessment attained finality and could not be reopened after a long lapse of time by issuing a fresh demand on the same clearance.

Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained on a reopened assessment, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the demand and penalty could be sustained on the allegation of suppression and misdeclaration.

Analysis: The record showed that the importer had filed the invoices and related documents, the goods were physically examined, and the classification dispute arose from a subsequent view taken by the department. In the absence of evidence that the description of the goods had been suppressed, the allegation of misdeclaration was not made out, and the extended demand based on suppression was not supportable.

Conclusion: The allegation of suppression failed, and the demand and penalty were not sustainable; this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside, with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs assessment that has attained finality after examination and clearance of goods cannot be reopened by a subsequent demand unless the assessment is lawfully challenged, and a charge of suppression must be supported by evidence of non-disclosure or misstatement.

---