https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86915 The note discusses a customs classification dispute involving pigment preparations under Chapter 32, where the importers could not substantiate that the goods were inorganic and the show cause notice supported invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. It also explains that penalty pre-deposit relief was assessed separately for the company and the individual: the company's penalty request was reduced but not fully waived because of the confirmed misdeclaration charge and absence of undue hardship, while the individual's reduced deposit reflected his role in the omission together with his retirement and employee status. The differential duty pre-deposit was required in full. en-us Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:28:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86915 The note discusses a customs classification dispute involving pigment preparations under Chapter 32, where the importers could not substantiate that the goods were inorganic and the show cause notice supported invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. It also explains that penalty pre-deposit relief was assessed separately for the company and the individual: the company's penalty request was reduced but not fully waived because of the confirmed misdeclaration charge and absence of undue hardship, while the individual's reduced deposit reflected his role in the omission together with his retirement and employee status. The differential duty pre-deposit was required in full. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86915