https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251374 The High Court found that the importer intentionally misdeclared the grade of imported goods to evade anti-dumping duty, despite relying on a certificate from the supplier. The Court highlighted discrepancies in certificates and importer's knowledge, ruling in favor of intentional misdeclaration. The demand notice for duty was considered barred by limitation by the Tribunal due to a delay in issuance. The Court upheld the imposition of duty, penalty, and interest, emphasizing accurate classification and assessment of goods to prevent duty evasion. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was reinstated, setting aside the Tribunal's order. en-us Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:01:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251374 The High Court found that the importer intentionally misdeclared the grade of imported goods to evade anti-dumping duty, despite relying on a certificate from the supplier. The Court highlighted discrepancies in certificates and importer's knowledge, ruling in favor of intentional misdeclaration. The demand notice for duty was considered barred by limitation by the Tribunal due to a delay in issuance. The Court upheld the imposition of duty, penalty, and interest, emphasizing accurate classification and assessment of goods to prevent duty evasion. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was reinstated, setting aside the Tribunal's order. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251374