Extended limitation in customs demands requires proof of fraud or suppression; absent that, a belated duty demand is time-barred.

Extended limitation for customs demand cannot be invoked unless the record shows fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Here, the import was assessed on the basis of the supplier's invoice and catalogue, and the orders did not contain any such foundational allegation. As the differential duty was demanded more than three years and eight months after import, the notice was barred by limitation. The duty demand and consequential penalty were therefore unsustainable, and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of differential customs duty was barred by limitation on the ground that the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period without any allegation of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

Analysis: The import was declared on the basis of the invoice and catalogue furnished by the overseas supplier, and the goods were cleared on assessment at the time of import. The impugned orders did not record any allegation of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. In the absence of such foundational allegations, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked for a demand raised after more than three years and eight months from the date of import.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and the impugned orders could not be sustained; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeds on limitation, and the duty demand and consequential penalty do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended period for customs demand is invocable only on proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; absent such ingredients, a belated demand is barred by limitation.

---