CESTAT allowed the appeal of the importing company and its...

CESTAT allowed the appeal of the importing company and its Managing Director, holding that extended limitation under the Customs Act, 1962 was not invocable as there was no suppression, wilful mis-declaration, or intent to evade duty. The Tribunal noted that Bills of Entry were filed based on manufacturer's invoices/catalogues, the goods were examined by the proper officer, and duty was assessed and paid accordingly. Consequently, the demand of differential customs duty based on the extended period was set aside, though duty, if any, remains payable only for the normal limitation period. CESTAT further held that the goods were not liable to confiscation under s.111(m), thereby setting aside confiscation and redemption fine, and also vacated all penalties imposed on the company and its Managing Director.