CESTAT allowed the appeal challenging anti-dumping duty demand...

CESTAT allowed the appeal challenging anti-dumping duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellant and its director. The tribunal held that extended limitation period under section 28(4) of the Customs Act was incorrectly invoked, as mere incorrect valuation without evidence of deliberate suppression does not constitute suppression of material facts. The appellant had made bonafide declarations in Bills of Entry, which were examined and cleared by customs officers. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Commissioner vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., CESTAT ruled that bonafide belief in correct duty discharge, even if ultimately wrong, cannot be deemed malafide. Penalties under sections 112 and 114AA against the director were set aside as valuation was bonafide without bad motive. The impugned order was completely set aside.