https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791840 In a customs classification dispute, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked unless suppression of facts or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty is specifically established. A mere difference of opinion on classification, or an error in self-assessment, does not by itself prove suppression, especially where the goods were physically examined and relevant particulars were disclosed. Penalty under section 114A fails when the foundation for extended limitation is absent, and confiscation under section 111(m) is not attracted merely because the importer adopted a different classification in the Bill of Entry. The duty demand, penalty, and confiscation were set aside. en-us Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 May 2026 08:18:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791840 In a customs classification dispute, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked unless suppression of facts or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty is specifically established. A mere difference of opinion on classification, or an error in self-assessment, does not by itself prove suppression, especially where the goods were physically examined and relevant particulars were disclosed. Penalty under section 114A fails when the foundation for extended limitation is absent, and confiscation under section 111(m) is not attracted merely because the importer adopted a different classification in the Bill of Entry. The duty demand, penalty, and confiscation were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791840