https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237152 Confiscation and penalty against an SEZ unit could not be sustained because the adjudicating authority had not properly examined the applicability of the SEZ import procedure, the alleged misdeclaration, or the effect of Regulation 4 of the Special Economic Zone (Customs Procedure) Regulations, 2003. The Tribunal noted that the relevance of import restrictions for goods under Chapter 72 and the DGFT communication required reconsideration, as their bearing on SEZ imports had not been fully addressed and the appellant lacked a full opportunity to respond. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with all issues kept open. en-us Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237152 Confiscation and penalty against an SEZ unit could not be sustained because the adjudicating authority had not properly examined the applicability of the SEZ import procedure, the alleged misdeclaration, or the effect of Regulation 4 of the Special Economic Zone (Customs Procedure) Regulations, 2003. The Tribunal noted that the relevance of import restrictions for goods under Chapter 72 and the DGFT communication required reconsideration, as their bearing on SEZ imports had not been fully addressed and the appellant lacked a full opportunity to respond. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with all issues kept open. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237152