Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc
Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation:-- (a) any goods imported by sea or air which are unloaded or attempted to be unloaded at any place other than a customs port or customs airport appointed under clause (a) of section 7 for the unloading of such go The Act came into force on 01 Feb 1963.
The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation:--
(a) any goods imported by sea or air which are unloaded or attempted to be unloaded at any place other than a customs port or customs airport appointed under clause (a) of section 7 for the unloading of such goods;
(b) any goods imported by land or inland water through any route other than a route specified in a notification issued under clause (c) of section 7 for the import of such goods;
(c) any dutiable or prohibited goods brought into any bay, gulf, creek or tidal river for the purpose of being landed at a place other than a customs port;
(d) any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian customs waters for the purpose of being imported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force;
(e) any dutiable or prohibited goods found concealed in any manner in any conveyance;
(f) any dutiable or prohibited goods required to be mentioned under the regulations in an 1[arrival manifest or import manifest] or import report which are not so mentioned;
(g) any dutiable or prohibited goods which are unloaded from a conveyance in contravention of the provisions of section 32, other than goods inadvertently unloaded but included in the record kept under sub-section (2) of section 45;
(h) any dutiable or prohibited goods unloaded or attempted to be unloaded in contravention of the provisions of section 33 or section 34;
(i) any dutiable or prohibited goods found concealed in any manner in any package either before or after the unloading thereof;
(j) any dutiable or prohibited goods removed or attempted to be removed from a customs area or a warehouse without the permission of the proper officer or contrary to the terms of such permission;
(k) any dutiable or prohibited goods imported by land in respect of which the order permitting clearance of the goods required to be produced under section 109 is not produced or which do not correspond in any material particular with the specification contained therein;
(l) any dutiable or prohibited goods which are not included or are in excess of those included in the entry made under this Act, or in the case of baggage in the declaration made under section 77;
(m) 2[any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under section 77 3[in respect thereof, or in the case of goods under transhipment, with the declaration for transhipment referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 54];
(n) any dutiable or prohibited goods transited with or without transhipment or attempted to be so transited in contravention of the provisions of Chapter VIII;
(o) any goods exempted, subject to any condition, from duty or any prohibition in respect of the import thereof under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, in respect of which the condition is not observed unless the non-observance of the condition was sanctioned by the proper officer;
4[(p) any notified goods in relation to which any provisions of Chapter IVA or of any rule made under this Act for carrying out the purposes of that Chapter have been contravened.]
5[(q) any goods imported on a claim of preferential rate of duty which contravenes any provision of Chapter VAA or any rule made thereunder.]
Section 111, 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
- s. 7 Appointment of customs ports, airports, etc
- s. 32 Imported goods not to be unloaded unless mentioned in arrival manifest or import manifest or import report
- s. 33 Unloading and loading of goods at approved places only
- s. 34 Goods not to be unloaded or loaded except under supervision of customs officer
- s. 45 Restrictions on custody and removal of imported goods
- s. 54 Transhipment of certain goods without payment of duty
- s. 77 Declaration by owner of baggage
- s. 109 Power to require production of order permitting clearance of goods imported by land
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.
-
Aban Offshore LTD vs Commnr. of Customs (import)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A foreign-going vessel which enters Indian territorial waters temporarily for the purpose of undergoing repairs and which is subsequently removed from Indian territorial waters does not constitute goods imported into India for home consumption merely by reason of such entry and repair. The completion of the act of importation requires not only that the goods enter Indian territorial waters, but also that they satisfy the requirement of being intended for primary use in India (home consumption). Mere repair of a vessel does not constitute putting the vessel to use or utility in India, and therefore does not satisfy the home consumption requirement. Consequently, customs duty is not chargeable on a foreign-going vessel that enters Indian territorial waters solely for repair purposes, despite such entry technically constituting the commencement of importation. However, foreign-going vessels remain subject to the procedural and regulatory compliance requirements of the Customs Act upon entering Indian territorial waters, and violation of these procedural provisions (such as failure to file appropriate documents or deliver import manifests) remains actionable even absent the completion of import.
On this section: Provides grounds for confiscation including clauses (f), (g), (h), (j) and (o). Court found violation of clauses (f), (g), (h), (j) but held confiscation not justified as import was not completed.
-
Kothari Filaments vs Commr. of Customs (port) Kolkata
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a statutory authority exercise quasi-judicial functions and pass orders resulting in confiscation of property, imposition of fines, or other civil consequences, they must comply with principles of natural justice including supply or inspection of investigative documents on which they intend to rely. An importer charged with mis-declaration is entitled to know the grounds for penalty and to have a proper hearing which includes access to investigative materials so that he may furnish an effective reply. The statutory authorities cannot use investigative findings as basis for penalty without disclosure or inspection of such documents by the affected party.
On this section: Grounds for confiscation of goods - goods imported contrary to any law and goods misdeclared. Court examined whether confiscation was justified without proper disclosure of investigative basis.
-
Commr. of Customs vs Sayed Ali
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A proper officer under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962, is only such a customs officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and reassessment of duty by the Board or Commissioner of Customs. Mere appointment as an officer of Customs with territorial jurisdiction over a port is insufficient to confer proper officer status. Accordingly, a show cause notice under Section 28 of the Act for reassessment of goods cleared for home consumption can only be issued by the officer assigned assessment functions in the jurisdictional area where the bill of entry was filed and the goods were cleared, not by any other officer even if he has territorial jurisdiction over that area. In the present case, since the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, was never assigned the specific function of assessment or reassessment of goods entered for home consumption under Section 28, he was not competent to issue the show cause notice, notwithstanding his territorial jurisdiction.
On this section: Grounds for confiscation of goods; cited in the show cause notice for alleged misuse of Export Pass Book scheme and selling duty-free goods in open market.
-
Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vs Gmr Energy LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where imported goods under a rotable exchange programme are valued at published catalogue prices that are list unit prices established worldwide without adjustment for return of used parts, and no 'sale' occurs under the agreement, the invoice value based on such catalogue prices constitutes the proper assessable value under customs law, and additional value corresponding to returned parts cannot be added merely because used parts are returned to the foreign supplier under the agreed rotable exchange programme, absent explicit evidence in the invoices themselves showing the prices were adjusted downward to account for such returns.
On this section: Confiscation of goods imported with mis-declared or suppressed value
-
The Commnr. of Customs(gen) Mumbai vs Abdulla Koyloth
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the burden of proof lies on customs authorities to establish that a transaction value declared by an importer is incorrect, once it is established through credible evidence (such as market surveys conducted with the importer's acknowledgment or clear misdeclaration of goods) that the declared value does not reflect the true transaction value, the transaction value may be rejected and the sequential valuation procedure under Rules 5-8 of the Customs Valuation Rules must be applied. The findings of misdeclaration, once established through consistent evidence including admissions by the importer, must be properly examined and weighed by the appellate authority rather than being ignored or dismissed summarily. A proper remand is warranted when the appellate tribunal has failed to appreciate material evidence on record, including the importer's own statements accepting the correctness of alternative valuations.
On this section: Confiscation of goods - goods subject to confiscation when imported in violation of laws or without required licenses
-
Chandna Impex P. LTD vs Commr. of Customs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A question regarding the jurisdiction of the authority issuing a show cause notice under the Customs Act (specifically whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Additional Director General is a proper officer under Section 28) constitutes a substantial question of law that must be examined on appeal by the High Court with reasoned orders. The High Court cannot dismiss statutory appeals by non-speaking orders that merely endorse lower court reasoning without independent application of mind. Where such a jurisdictional question is raised but not properly examined by the High Court, it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication rather than remit to the High Court first, particularly when new precedent (Sayed Ali) has emerged that was not available during the original Tribunal hearing, to avoid prolongation of litigation.
On this section: Confiscation Of Goods Imported Or Exported In Violation Of Customs Law
-
Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Finesse Creation Inc.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf CORAM dated August 25, 2009 (F.I. Rebello & D.G. Karnik JJ.) — index 2009-08-25; investigation fact-dates triggered cache FP but body CORAM matches. Substantial questions: whether goods improperly imported remain liable to confiscation under s.111 when already cleared and unavailable, and whether redemption fine under s.125 can then be imposed. Held: concept of redemption fine arises only if goods are available to be redeemed; if goods were cleared earlier and are not available, no confiscation/redemption fine under the s.111–125 scheme; Weston Components (bond release) distinguished.
On this section: s.111 confiscation (and linked s.125 redemption) unavailable when goods already cleared and not available — redemption fine concept requires redeemable goods.
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 adjudicating authority assessed the value of the imported goods at Rs.66,18,575/-. The adjudicating authority ordered recovery of differential customs duty of Rs.16,22,228/-. An order of confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act was passed, giving the appellant an option to redeem the goods on payment of a redemption fine of Rs.9,93,000/. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties of Rs.2,00,000/ and Rs.3,31,000/- on the importer under Sections 112(a) and 114AA respectively of the Customs Act. The appellant preferred an …
-
… Further the cost of services was to be paid separately by the Importer to their supplier. Hence, the Importer failed to make true declarations. Therefore, the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.260085 dated 26.06.2003 filed at Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi also appear to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to their aforesaid act of omission and commission. It also appears that they have rendered themselves liable for penal action under Section 112(a) and/or Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962." The appellant was thus asked to show cause why: - (a) the declared values should not …
-
… 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 matter of record that all procedural formalities had been complied with by the Department as per law, which has also been noted in the Order dated …
Made under this section, and citing it
6 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
- Clearance of Capital Goods under project Imports etc., in the case of imports under leasing arrangements with leasing companies - Circular No.44/1998-Customs, dated 26.6.1998Circular 1998
- Dwell time of import cargo in Air Cargo Complex - Steps for improvement. - Circular No.54/1997-Customs, dated 23.10.1997Circular 1997
- Imports by Airlines Crew - Clarification regarding. - Circular 73/1995-Cus., dated 26.6.95Circular 1995
- Customs (Publication of names) Rules, 1975Rule 1975
Questions about Section 111
What have the courts held on Section 111 of the Customs Act?
Aban Offshore LTD vs Commnr. of Customs (import) (02 Feb 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Provides grounds for confiscation including clauses (f), (g), (h), (j) and (o). Court found violation of clauses (f), (g), (h), (j) but held confiscation not justified as import was not completed. Another 6 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2017.
How do I find court cases under Section 111 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 111, section 111 Customs Act 1962, section 111 of the Customs Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 7 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Aban Offshore LTD vs Commnr. of Customs (import) (02 Feb 2017).
What should I read with Section 111 of the Customs Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 7 (Appointment of customs ports, airports, etc), section 32 (Imported goods not to be unloaded unless mentioned in arrival manifest or import manifest or import report), section 33 (Unloading and loading of goods at approved places only), section 34 (Goods not to be unloaded or loaded except under supervision of customs officer), and on 4 further provisions, so none of them can safely be read on its own. 4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. 6 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 111 of the Customs Act come into force?
Section 111 of the Customs Act, cited as Customs Act 1962 111, 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.