https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791576 Customs duty on imported bluetooth wireless headsets was upheld only for the normal limitation period because the importer's classification dispute did not, by itself, establish suppression with intent to evade duty. The extended period under the Customs Act could not be invoked on that basis, so the demand beyond the normal period and the corresponding penalty under section 114A were set aside. Interest under section 28AA required fresh quantification by the adjudicating authority after segregating the demand between the normal and extended periods. en-us Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 May 2026 08:40:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791576 Customs duty on imported bluetooth wireless headsets was upheld only for the normal limitation period because the importer's classification dispute did not, by itself, establish suppression with intent to evade duty. The extended period under the Customs Act could not be invoked on that basis, so the demand beyond the normal period and the corresponding penalty under section 114A were set aside. Interest under section 28AA required fresh quantification by the adjudicating authority after segregating the demand between the normal and extended periods. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791576