https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450167 Where the importer had disclosed in the import documents that the goods were in coil form, no suppression of facts could be attributed merely because classification was disputed. The distinction under Chapter 74 between bars and rods on one hand and wire on the other depended on whether the products were in coils, and that material fact was already recorded in the order-in-original. As all relevant facts were fully stated, invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified. The notice was therefore barred by limitation, and the penalty and duty-related consequences could not survive on the basis of suppression. en-us Fri, 23 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450167 Where the importer had disclosed in the import documents that the goods were in coil form, no suppression of facts could be attributed merely because classification was disputed. The distinction under Chapter 74 between bars and rods on one hand and wire on the other depended on whether the products were in coils, and that material fact was already recorded in the order-in-original. As all relevant facts were fully stated, invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified. The notice was therefore barred by limitation, and the penalty and duty-related consequences could not survive on the basis of suppression. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 23 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450167