https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93680 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the Appellant's import of ENABLE 2005-CE under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus was valid. The Tribunal found the item was recognized as an input in the MEPZ LUT renewal of 26 Feb 2013 and thus fell within the SION coverage for the exported product; any non-conformity was procedural. No post-importation conditions of the notification were alleged to be breached. Consequently, confiscation under s.111(o) and penalty under s.112(a)(ii) could not be sustained. Allegations of mis-declaration were unsupported and s.111(m) was not invoked; appeal allowed, order set aside. en-us Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:22:06 +0530 Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:22:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93680 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the Appellant's import of ENABLE 2005-CE under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus was valid. The Tribunal found the item was recognized as an input in the MEPZ LUT renewal of 26 Feb 2013 and thus fell within the SION coverage for the exported product; any non-conformity was procedural. No post-importation conditions of the notification were alleged to be breached. Consequently, confiscation under s.111(o) and penalty under s.112(a)(ii) could not be sustained. Allegations of mis-declaration were unsupported and s.111(m) was not invoked; appeal allowed, order set aside. Highlights Customs Thu, 30 Oct 2025 08:22:06 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93680