Extended limitation: absence of collusion or willful suppression bars extended period, confiscation and penalty; duty demand within normal limitation upheld.

Absent evidence of collusion, willful misstatement or active suppression with intent to evade duty, the extended limitation period cannot be invoked for alleged mis classification and associated penalties; misclassification in a self assessed Bill of Entry is treated as an assessment error, not a ground for confiscation or redemption fine, so confiscation and penalty are set aside. Separately, denial of exemption and classification on merits produced a sustainable demand for differential duty with interest within the normal limitation period, and that demand is upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked for alleged mis-classification of imported goods; (ii) Whether goods can be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for incorrect classification in the Bill of Entry; (iii) Whether penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 could be imposed where extended period of limitation is invoked for alleged willful misstatement or suppression; (iv) Whether demand of duty with interest is sustainable within the normal period of limitation.

Issue (i): Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged mis-classification of goods.

Analysis: The extended period applies only where non-payment or short payment of duty is by reason of collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The record showed imports on DDP basis and Bills of Entry filed by the supplier's broker using the appellant's IEC; there was insufficient evidence of active suppression or intent to evade despite departmental classification being undisputed.

Conclusion: Extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) cannot be invoked and this conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for incorrect classification.

Analysis: Section 111(m) applies to goods not corresponding with the declaration in value or particulars. Incorrect classification in a self-assessed Bill of Entry reflects assessment error regarding tariff entry, not a discrepancy in the goods themselves; mere incorrect self-assessment does not establish a ground for confiscation absent active misrepresentation of the goods.

Conclusion: Confiscation under Section 111(m) and consequential redemption fine under Section 125 cannot be sustained; this conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 where extended period is invoked for alleged willful misstatement or suppression.

Analysis: The elements required for penalty under Section 114A mirror those for invoking extended limitation under Section 28(4), namely collusion or willful misstatement/suppression with intent to evade. Given absence of sufficient evidence of such elements, penalty cannot stand.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 114A is set aside; this conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Confirmation of demand of duty with interest within the normal period of limitation.

Analysis: Classification and denial of exemption were accepted by the appellant and were upheld; the demand for differential duty subject to the normal two-year limitation period remains sustainable on merits.

Conclusion: Demand of duty with interest confirmed within the normal period of limitation; this conclusion is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed by upholding the confirmed duty demand within the normal limitation period while setting aside invocation of extended limitation, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty, resulting in consequential relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Absent clear evidence of collusion, willful misstatement or active suppression with intent to evade duty, mere incorrect classification in a self-assessed Bill of Entry does not justify invocation of extended limitation under Section 28(4), confiscation under Section 111(m), or penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

---