Steel wire goods classification under Heading 73.08 confirmed, while extended limitation was denied for no wilful suppression.

Processed steel-wire goods used for industrial screens were held classifiable as articles of iron or steel under Heading 73.08 rather than as iron or steel wires under Heading 72.13, because the processing removed their character as wire. The extended period of limitation was not available since the goods had been disclosed in the classification list and the department was aware of their manufacture and supply, so there was no wilful suppression or intent to evade duty. Accordingly, the demand was confined to the normal period, with the penalty and redemption fine reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods described as Rima Profile steel wires were classifiable under Heading No. 72.13 as iron or steel wires or under Heading No. 73.08 as other articles of iron or steel; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked and what consequential relief followed on duty, penalty and redemption fine.

Issue (i): Whether the goods described as Rima Profile steel wires were classifiable under Heading No. 72.13 as iron or steel wires or under Heading No. 73.08 as other articles of iron or steel.

Analysis: The products were made by processing steel wires on Rima machines, resulting in looped goods used in the manufacture of industrial screens. On the tariff definition, wire meant cold-drawn products of solid section of specified dimensions, and the processed goods did not retain the character of iron or steel wire. The tariff entry for Heading No. 73.08 covered articles manufactured from iron or steel, and the goods answered that description more appropriately than Heading No. 72.13.

Conclusion: Classification under Heading No. 73.08 was upheld and the claim for Heading No. 72.13 was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked and what consequential relief followed on duty, penalty and redemption fine.

Analysis: The goods had been described in the classification list and the department was aware of their manufacture and supply under the earlier tariff regime. In that background, the material did not justify a finding of wilful suppression with intent to evade duty, so the extended period could not be applied. The demand was therefore confined to the normal period under the relevant limitation provision, and the penalty and redemption fine were reduced accordingly.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available, the duty demand was restricted to the normal period, and the penalty and redemption fine were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of restricting the demand to the normal limitation period and reducing the penal consequences, while the classification and duty liability were otherwise sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods processed from steel wire may lose the character of wire for tariff purposes, and where the department was aware of the goods and the assessee's description of them, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked absent wilful suppression or intent to evade duty.

---