https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782266 CESTAT Kolkata held that the importer's declaration of goods as orthopaedic/fracture appliances under CTH 90211000 was based on manufacturer's invoices/catalogues and that the goods were examined and assessed by the proper officer. Allegations of suppression and intent to evade duty were rejected, making invocation of the extended limitation period unsustainable; the demand of differential duty beyond the normal period was set aside, though duty for the normal period, if any, remained payable. Confiscation and redemption fine were quashed, as there was no misdeclaration warranting action under s.111(m). Penalties on the importing company and its Managing Director under ss.114A, 112(a)(ii), and 114AA were also set aside. en-us Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782266 CESTAT Kolkata held that the importer's declaration of goods as orthopaedic/fracture appliances under CTH 90211000 was based on manufacturer's invoices/catalogues and that the goods were examined and assessed by the proper officer. Allegations of suppression and intent to evade duty were rejected, making invocation of the extended limitation period unsustainable; the demand of differential duty beyond the normal period was set aside, though duty for the normal period, if any, remained payable. Confiscation and redemption fine were quashed, as there was no misdeclaration warranting action under s.111(m). Penalties on the importing company and its Managing Director under ss.114A, 112(a)(ii), and 114AA were also set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782266