Disclosure of coil-form imports defeated extended limitation, as reclassification alone did not establish suppression of facts.

Where the importer had disclosed in the import documents that the goods were in coil form, no suppression of facts could be attributed merely because classification was disputed. The distinction under Chapter 74 between bars and rods on one hand and wire on the other depended on whether the products were in coils, and that material fact was already recorded in the order-in-original. As all relevant facts were fully stated, invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified. The notice was therefore barred by limitation, and the penalty and duty-related consequences could not survive on the basis of suppression.

---

---

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts when the imported goods were declared in coil form and the dispute related to classification.

Analysis: The classification issue was not pressed and the controversy remained confined to penalty and limitation. The documents filed by the importer disclosed that the goods were in coil form, and this factual position was also recorded in the order-in-original. On the basis of Chapter 74 of the Customs Tariff, the distinction between bars and rods on the one hand and wire on the other turns on whether the products are in coils. Since the relevant facts were fully disclosed, no suppression could be attributed to the importer. In a classification matter where the material facts are correctly stated, invocation of the extended period is not justified.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation could not be invoked, and the notice was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was resolved in favour of the importer on limitation, with the penalty and duty-related consequence not surviving on the ground of suppression.

Ratio Decidendi: Where all material facts relevant to classification are disclosed in the import documents, mere reclassification does not by itself justify invocation of the extended period of limitation in the absence of suppression of facts.

---