https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773493 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the order imposing anti-dumping duty using extended limitation period under section 28(4) of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal held that incorrect valuation alone without evidence of deliberate suppression cannot invoke extended limitation period. Relying on SC precedent in Commissioner vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., the tribunal found appellant's valuation declaration was bonafide despite being ultimately incorrect. Penalties under sections 112 and 114AA on director were also set aside as there was no willful mis-declaration. Confiscation of goods was deemed unjustified. en-us Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jun 2025 08:25:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773493 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the order imposing anti-dumping duty using extended limitation period under section 28(4) of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal held that incorrect valuation alone without evidence of deliberate suppression cannot invoke extended limitation period. Relying on SC precedent in Commissioner vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., the tribunal found appellant's valuation declaration was bonafide despite being ultimately incorrect. Penalties under sections 112 and 114AA on director were also set aside as there was no willful mis-declaration. Confiscation of goods was deemed unjustified. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773493