Customs duty demands fail without suppression, and finally assessed Bills of Entry cannot be reopened without first challenging the assessment.

Extended limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 is unavailable where import declarations and invoices disclose the goods and the dispute is only about concessional notification eligibility or classification; in such facts, suppression or wilful misstatement is not established. Differential duty cannot be pursued by show cause notice against finally assessed Bills of Entry unless those assessments are first challenged in the prescribed manner, because self-assessment remains an assessment order. Redemption fine is unavailable where the goods are not available for confiscation, and interest and penalty depend on a sustainable duty demand and proof of the requisite ingredients for penalty under Section 114A.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) whether differential duty could be demanded without the Department first challenging the finally assessed Bills of Entry; (iii) whether redemption fine, interest and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period after assessment and the dispute turned on eligibility to a concessional notification benefit, which was a technical issue. The imported declarations and invoices disclosed the nature of the goods, and the Department was already aware of the import pattern and the claimed notification benefit. In these circumstances, mere claim of a notification benefit or classification position could not be treated as suppression of facts or wilful misstatement.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the duty demand founded on such invocation could not survive.

Issue (ii): Whether differential duty could be demanded without the Department first challenging the finally assessed Bills of Entry.

Analysis: The Bills of Entry had been finally assessed and the goods were cleared for home consumption. A self-assessment order remains an assessment order and, if the Department is aggrieved, the proper course is to challenge that assessment in appeal rather than reopen it through a show cause notice. Since no appeal was filed against the assessments, the adjudication could not be sustained on this ground.

Conclusion: The demand of differential duty was unsustainable because the assessed Bills of Entry had not been challenged.

Issue (iii): Whether redemption fine, interest and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The goods were not available for confiscation, so redemption fine could not be imposed. As the principal demand itself failed, interest could not be levied. Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 required the requisite ingredients of collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression, which were not established on the facts found.

Conclusion: Redemption fine, interest and penalty were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in entirety and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand based on extended limitation cannot stand in the absence of suppression or wilful misstatement, and finally assessed Bills of Entry cannot be reopened through a show cause notice unless the assessment itself is first challenged in the manner known to law.

---