Seizure of goods, documents and things
Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with seizure of goods, documents and things. If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods: [Provided that where it is not practicable to remove, transport, store or take physical possession of the seized goods for any reason, the proper officer may give custody of The Act came into force on 01 Feb 1963.
(1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods:
1[Provided that where it is not practicable to remove, transport, store or take physical possession of the seized goods for any reason, the proper officer may give custody of the seized goods to the owner of the goods or the beneficial owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer, or any other person from whose custody such goods have been seized, on execution of an undertaking by such person that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer:
Provided further that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve an order on the owner of the goods or the beneficial owner or any person holding himself out to be importer, or any other person from whose custody such goods have been found, directing that such person shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with such goods except with the previous permission of such officer.]
2[(1A) The Central Government may, having regard to the perishable or hazardous nature of any goods, depreciation in the value of the goods with the passage of time, constraints of storage space for the goods or any other relevant considerations, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the goods or class of goods which shall, as soon as may be after its seizure under sub-section (1), be disposed of by the proper officer in such manner as the Central Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.
(1B) Where any goods, being goods specified under sub-section (1A), have been seized by a proper officer under sub-section (1), he shall prepare an inventory of such goods containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mark, numbers, country of origin and other particulars as the proper officer may consider relevant to the identity of the goods in any proceedings under this Act and shall make an application to a Magistrate for the purpose of--
(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or
(b) taking, in the presence of the Magistrate, photographs of such goods, and certifying such photographs as true; or
(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such goods, in the presence of the Magistrate, and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.
(1C) Where an application is made under sub-section (1B), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.]
3[(1D) Where the goods seized under sub-section (1) is gold in any form as notified under sub-section (1A), then, the proper officer shall, instead of making an application under sub-section (1B) to the Magistrate, make such application to the Commissioner (Appeals) having jurisdiction, who shall, as soon as may be, allow the application and thereafter, the proper officer shall dispose of such goods in such manner as the Central Government may determine.]
(2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized:
4[Provided that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period so specified:
Provided further that where any order for provisional release of the seized goods has been passed under section 110A, the specified period of six months shall not apply.]
(3) The proper officer may seize any documents or things which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act.
(4) The person from whose custody any documents are seized under sub-section (3) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer of customs.
5[(5) Where the proper officer, during any proceedings under the Act, is of the opinion that for the purposes of protecting the interest of revenue or preventing smuggling, it is necessary so to do, he may, with the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, by order in writing, provisionally attach any bank account for a period not exceeding six months:
Provided that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform such extension of time to the person whose bank account is provisionally attached, before the expiry of the period so specified.]
Section 110, The Customs Act, 1962 (Act 52 of 1962).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Siddachalam Exports Private LTD vs Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-iii
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The procedure prescribed under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 must be strictly adhered to for determining the value of goods entered for exportation, irrespective of whether any duty is leviable. Once the transaction value is challenged, the Revenue must bear the burden of proving mis-valuation by sequentially proceeding through Rules 5 to 8, with market enquiry permissible only as a last resort after exhausting alternative methods. Deviation from this mandatory statutory procedure vitiates the proceedings and warrants remand for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
On this section: Goods were seized under this section but subsequently released provisionally on bond and bank guarantee by the exporter
-
Inspector of Customs, Akhnoor J & K vs Yash Pal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the examination of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is mandatory in warrant cases and should generally be conducted personally, procedural flexibility may be introduced in special exigencies where personal attendance causes genuine hardship involving substantial expense or physical incapacity, provided the court has satisfied itself as to the genuineness of the hardship. However, when omission to put incriminating materials to an accused has in fact occurred at trial, the trial court must ordinarily eschew such materials from its consideration unless the accused is afforded opportunity to explain them, either during trial or by appellate-stage explanation. In this case, because the foundation of the prosecution case (voluntary confessions to Customs authorities) was not put to the accused at all, their acquittal could not be set aside.
On this section: The court cited this section in relation to the seizure of the contraband heroin by Customs authorities. The seizure was conducted under this provision with proper panchnama and witnesses.
-
Union of India vs Naman Singh Sekhawat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While a departmental proceeding can lawfully be initiated against a government employee even after criminal acquittal on the same facts, such proceeding must be initiated bona fide with independent evidence the employer possesses and must be conducted in strict accordance with principles of natural justice and fair procedure. If the Inquiry Officer is biased or conducts the proceeding unfairly—such as by cross-examining the delinquent officer when a Presenting Officer is appointed, refusing to examine relevant defense witnesses without valid reason, or denying the employee adequate representation—the proceeding becomes void and cannot be validated by the appellate authority. Furthermore, if the criminal court has given positive findings of acquittal (not mere benefit of doubt) on the same core facts and these findings have not been contradicted by fresh evidence, the disciplinary authority cannot simply override such findings without basis. The standards of proof differ between criminal and departmental proceedings, but this does not permit the disciplinary authority to ignore conclusions of fact established before other competent authorities.
On this section: Customs Act charges—proceedings under this Act resulted in acquittal. Customs Department found no evidence that goods belonged to respondent or were acquired through unauthorized route.
-
Union of India vs A. M. Overseas
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When seized funds are withdrawn from a bank account before an interim stay order is granted by the appellate court, the appeal becomes infructuous in relation to those funds. However, the seizure orders can be lifted prospectively to permit future operation of the account, and the authorities may proceed with fresh legal action based on completed investigation.
On this section: Authority of customs officials to issue directions regarding seized goods or amounts
-
Mohammad Zaid Salim v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where goods seized under Customs s.110(1) and no s.124(a) SCN within six months (extendable once), s.110(2) mandates return; detention without SCN and disposal without notice is illegal — compensation directed after gold already melted. DATE VERIFIED Final Order 2023-09-04 (order-1.pdf).
On this section: s.110(2) return of seized goods if no s.124(a) SCN within six months; relief after improper disposal.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The recovered substance from the black coloured trolley bag, was kept in two transparent boxes. Thereafter, the substance was tested and the result revealed that the said substance is "Heroine". The substance was then seized under section 43(a) of NDPS Act and section 110 of the Customs Act for violation of Section 8 & 23, as these were found to be liable for confiscation under 60 of NDPS Act, read with Section 111 of the Customs Act as the same were brought Into India illegally. Later, statement of the accused was recorded on 13.11.2022 under Section 67 NDPS Act. 21. It is a …
-
… According to NLC India Ltd, the goods were never confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. The order made was only an order of Seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Even assuming that there was a confiscation order and it would amount to deprivation of title to the goods, it would only apply for the goods that were imported in the year 2000 and not for the entire plant. Pointing out that the assessable value of the goods that were imported was only …
-
… The search resulted in the recovery of huge stock of electronic goods of foreign origin and the Indian Currency of Rs. 14,10,000/-. The same were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the reasons to believe that the same have been imported/acquired/possessed and kept in custody in contravention of EXIM Policy, Chapter-1A of FTP-ITC (HS) Classification 2004-09 read with Standards of Weight & Measures (SWM Act), and Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977, and thus were liable …
Made under this section, and citing it
4 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
- Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007Rule 2007
- Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007Rule 2007
- Appointment of offiicers of Directorate of Valuation as officers of Customs.- Circular No.2/1999-Customs, dated 25.1.99Circular 1999
- Clearance of cellular phones and battery cells in the guise of plastic buttons - modus operandi. - Circular No.20/99-Customs, dated 5.5.99Circular 1999
Questions about Section 110
What have the courts held on Section 110 of the Customs Act?
Siddachalam Exports Private LTD vs Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-iii (01 Apr 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Goods were seized under this section but subsequently released provisionally on bond and bank guarantee by the exporter. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 110 of the Customs Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Customs Act 1962 110, section 110 Customs Act 1962, section 110 of the Customs Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Siddachalam Exports Private LTD vs Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-iii (01 Apr 2011).
What should I read with Section 110 of the Customs Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 110A (Provisional release of goods, documents and things seized pending adjudication), section 124 (Issue of show cause notice before confiscation of goods, etc), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. 4 instruments name it without being made under it, most recently Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 (2007), then Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 (2007).
When did Section 110 of the Customs Act come into force?
Section 110 of the Customs Act, cited as Customs Act 1962 110, came into force on 01 Feb 1963, having been enacted on 13 Dec 1962. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 28. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded2145 words
- 2. Definitions1638 words
- 129A. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal1170 words
- 27. Claim for refund of duty1060 words
- 127C. Procedure on receipt of an application under section 127B1056 words
- 138C. Admissibility of micro films, facsimile copies of documents and computer print outs as documents and as evidence872 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.