Customs limitation and valuation principles: extended period needs suppression evidence, and declared value cannot be rejected on an unproven export declaration.

Extended limitation under customs law requires evidence of collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; where importers declared invoice value in the Bills of Entry and Revenue produced no material of under-invoicing or extra payment, the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act was held inapplicable. Assessable value cannot be enhanced solely on an unverified export declaration from Hong Kong Customs, especially where the original document is not on record and authenticity is not established; value must be redetermined on legally admissible evidence. The earlier Bills of Entry succeeded on limitation, while the remaining valuation dispute was remanded for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand of customs duty in respect of the Bills of Entry where the declared invoice value was adopted. (ii) Whether the assessable value of the imported goods could be enhanced solely on the basis of the export declaration obtained from Hong Kong Customs.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand of customs duty in respect of the Bills of Entry where the declared invoice value was adopted.

Analysis: The demand under the extended period depended on proof that the importers had resorted to collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The record showed that the importers had declared the value in the Bills of Entry as per the invoices, and the Revenue did not produce material showing collusion with the foreign supplier or any payment over and above the declared price. In the absence of such material, the allegation of intent to evade duty could not be sustained for the relevant Bills of Entry.

Conclusion: The extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not invocable for those Bills of Entry, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessable value of the imported goods could be enhanced solely on the basis of the export declaration obtained from Hong Kong Customs.

Analysis: The sole basis for enhancement was a photocopy of the export declaration, and the original document was not placed on record. The Tribunal treated such a document as insufficient by itself to reject the declared transaction value, particularly where its authenticity was not firmly established and where comparable contemporaneous imports were not relied upon as the primary basis for valuation. The proper course was re-determination of value on legally admissible evidence rather than enhancement on the export declaration alone.

Conclusion: The assessable value could not be enhanced solely on the basis of the export declaration, and the matter was remanded for fresh determination of value in relation to the concerned Bill of Entry.

Final Conclusion: The limitation plea succeeded for the appeals concerning the earlier Bills of Entry, while the valuation dispute for the remaining Bill of Entry required fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended period of limitation under customs law requires evidence of collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, and assessable value cannot be enhanced merely on an unproven export declaration without reliable supporting evidence.

---