https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772501 DRI officers were treated as proper officers under the Customs Act and competent to issue a show cause notice under Section 28, so the jurisdictional challenge failed. The imported goods were found to have been wrongly declared as to producer and exporter, and that misdeclaration was treated as suppression justifying reassessment, differential anti-dumping duty, limitation under the extended period, and penalty under Section 114A; the omission to cite the proviso to Section 28(1) in the notice was treated as a drafting error causing no prejudice. Confiscation and redemption fine were also upheld, as fine may be imposed even after release of goods on bond. en-us Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jun 2025 08:43:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772501 DRI officers were treated as proper officers under the Customs Act and competent to issue a show cause notice under Section 28, so the jurisdictional challenge failed. The imported goods were found to have been wrongly declared as to producer and exporter, and that misdeclaration was treated as suppression justifying reassessment, differential anti-dumping duty, limitation under the extended period, and penalty under Section 114A; the omission to cite the proviso to Section 28(1) in the notice was treated as a drafting error causing no prejudice. Confiscation and redemption fine were also upheld, as fine may be imposed even after release of goods on bond. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772501