https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780408 CESTAT CHENNAI (AT) allowed the appeal, holding that the 100% EOU's import of ENABLE 2005-CE under N/N.52/2003 was effectively covered by SION norms as reflected in the MEPZ LUT renewal dated 26.02.2013; any breach was procedural. MEPZ had approved the import and no post-import conditions were shown to be violated, so goods were not liable to confiscation under s.111(o) nor was the appellant liable to penalty under s.112(a)(ii). Alleged mis-declaration lacked basis and s.111(m) was not invoked. The impugned order was set aside. en-us Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:22:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780408 CESTAT CHENNAI (AT) allowed the appeal, holding that the 100% EOU's import of ENABLE 2005-CE under N/N.52/2003 was effectively covered by SION norms as reflected in the MEPZ LUT renewal dated 26.02.2013; any breach was procedural. MEPZ had approved the import and no post-import conditions were shown to be violated, so goods were not liable to confiscation under s.111(o) nor was the appellant liable to penalty under s.112(a)(ii). Alleged mis-declaration lacked basis and s.111(m) was not invoked. The impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 28 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780408