Misdeclaration of yarn count defeats time-bar plea, but demand period must be verified on later sample evidence.

Misdeclaration of cotton yarn count defeated the plea of time-bar, because the tested count of 106.8 differed from the declared count of 100 and was confirmed on re-test. However, the demand period could not be fixed finally on that basis alone, as a later sample drawn on 8-4-1983 was said to conform to the declared count and that factual claim had not been examined. The matter was remanded for verification of the later sample and for fresh determination of the period and quantum of duty demand, including whether liability could run only up to 8-4-1983.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plea of time-bar could succeed in a case involving misdeclaration of the declared count of cotton yarn; (ii) whether the demand could be sustained for the entire period or required verification of the later sample and consequent limitation of the demand period.

Issue (i): whether the plea of time-bar could succeed in a case involving misdeclaration of the declared count of cotton yarn.

Analysis: The declared count of 100 was found to differ from the tested count of 106.8, and a re-test also confirmed the same result. On that footing, the matter was treated as one of misdeclaration.

Conclusion: The plea of time-bar was rejected against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the demand could be sustained for the entire period or required verification of the later sample and consequent limitation of the demand period.

Analysis: A later sample drawn on 8-4-1983 was stated to have been found in conformity with the declared count, and this factual assertion had not been examined. The period for which the adverse test report could be relied upon therefore required verification before quantifying the demand.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for verification of the factual position and for determining the quantum of demand accordingly, including whether the demand was enforceable only up to 8-4-1983.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained a remand for reconsideration of the demand period and quantification, while the objection based on time-bar did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later sample may show conformity with the declared specification, the period and quantum of a duty demand based on an earlier adverse test report must be verified on the facts before final quantification, even though a misdeclaration finding may defeat a limitation plea.

---