Evasion of duty or prohibitions
Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with evasion of duty or prohibitions. Without prejudice to any action that may be taken under this Act, if any person-- (a) is in relation to any goods in any way knowingly concerned in misdeclaration of value or in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable thereon or of any prohibition for the time being impos The Act came into force on 01 Feb 1963.
1[(1) Without prejudice to any action that may be taken under this Act, if any person--
(a) is in relation to any goods in any way knowingly concerned in misdeclaration of value or in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable thereon or of any prohibition for the time being imposed under this Act or any other law for the time being in force with respect to such goods; or
(b) acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111 or Section 113, as the case may be; or
(c) attempts to export any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 113; or
(d) fraudulently avails of or attempts to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act in connection with 2[export of goods; or]
3[(e) obtains an instrument from any authority by fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts and such instrument has been utilised by such person or any other person,],
he shall be punishable,--
(i) in the case of an offence relating to,--
(A) any goods the market price of which exceeds one crore of rupees; or
(B) the evasion or attempted evasion of duty exceeding 4[fifty lakh] of rupees; or
(C) such categories of prohibited goods as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify; or
(D) fraudulently availing of or attempting to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty referred to in clause (d), if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds 5[fifty lakh] 6[of rupees; or] with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine:
7[(E) obtaining an instrument from any authority by fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts and such instrument has been utilised by any person, where the duty relatable to utilisation of the instrument exceeds fifty lakh rupees.]
Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be for less than one year;
(ii) in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.]
8[(2) If any person convicted of an offence under this section or under sub-section (1) of section 136 is again convicted of an offence under this section, then, he shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine:
Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the court such imprisonment shall not be for less than 9[one year].
(3) For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2), the following shall not be considered as special and adequate reasons for awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 9[one year], namely:--
(i) the fact that the accused has been convicted for the first time for an offence under this Act;
(ii) the fact that in any proceeding under this Act, other than a prosecution, the accused has been ordered to pay a penalty or the goods which are the subject matter of such proceedings have been ordered to be confiscated or any other action has been taken against him for the same act which constitutes the offence;
(iii) the fact that the accused was not the principal offender and was acting merely as a carrier of goods or otherwise was a secondary party to the commission of the offence;
(iv) the age of the accused.]
7[Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the expression "instrument" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation 1 to section 28AAA.]
Section 135, 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
Referred to by 9
- s. 28 Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded
- s. 104 Power to arrest
- s. 136 Offences by officers of customs
- s. 137 Cognizance of offences
- s. 138 Offences to be tried summarily
- s. 140A Application of section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
- Finance Act s. 78 Amendment of section 135
- Finance Act, 2019 (No. 2) s. 79 Amendment of section 135
- Odisha Urban Police Act s. 47 Removal of persons convicted of certain offences
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.
-
Om Prakash vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, are non-cognizable in the sense that police officers cannot arrest without warrant and cannot investigate without Magistrate's order under Section 155 Cr.P.C. However, such offences are also bailable, because (1) they relate to recovery of revenue rather than punishment for grave crimes, (2) Sections 20 and 104(3) mandatorily empower officers to release arrested persons on bail, (3) the legislative scheme indicates intent that such offences should be bailable, and (4) the deeming language in Sections 9A and 104(4) making offences non-cognizable does not negate bailability. Non-cognizable and bailable are separate characteristics, and a statute can make offences both non-cognizable (restricting arrest authority) and bailable (entitling accused to bail).
On this section: Defines offence of smuggling and evading customs duty, punishable with 3-7 years imprisonment depending on facts. Court holds Section 135 offences are bailable.
-
Asst. Collector of Customs, Goa vs Pascoal Dias
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a customs smuggling case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving through credible, authenticated evidence that the seized article is in fact the subject matter of the alleged offense (here, foreign gold). Mere assertion by prosecution officials that gold has been seized, without expert examination, proper certification, identification of the examining expert, and credible corroboration, is insufficient to discharge the burden of proof. Procedural non-compliance with Section 101 of the Customs Act (providing choice of search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer) further vitiates the seizure and prosecution. The burden of proof does not shift to the accused until the prosecution has established a prima facie case through credible evidence.
On this section: Offense of smuggling and breach of customs law; used for criminal prosecution of the accused
-
Union of India v. Gulam Mohd. Farooque
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
DATE VERIFIED Judgment: passenger green-channel customs declaration form recording "Nil" dutiable goods, followed by recovery of undeclared gold, sustains conviction under Customs Act ss.132 and 135(1)(a); false declaration document is crucial evidence; Sessions acquittal set aside; sentence moderated to period already undergone plus fine under s.135 proviso.
On this section: s.135(1)(a) — Evasion of duty or prohibitions; undeclared gold after false declaration
-
Senaul S/o. Afsar Shaikh vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person is convicted in two separate trials for two distinct offences under two different enactments arising from the same transaction or the same basic criminal act, the court has discretion under Section 427(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct that the sentences shall run concurrently rather than consecutively, particularly where the evidence in both cases is substantially the same and the offences are intimately connected. The exercise of this discretion should be guided by the totality principle, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences, the duration of litigation, and the principle that Section 427 is intended to provide amelioration to the prisoner. The single transaction rule applies even when the offences are under different enactments, provided the underlying criminal act is the same.
On this section: Smuggling of goods; offence for which petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment; relates to illegal import of counterfeit notes
-
Deepharma Ltd. vs The Chief Enforcement Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused person is exonerated on merits in departmental adjudication proceedings on identical charges and facts, and the departmental authorities themselves record a categorical and unambiguous finding that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act, it would be unjust and an abuse of process of law to allow criminal proceedings to continue against such person on the same allegations and facts. However, if the exoneration in departmental proceedings is on technical grounds or by giving benefit of doubt and not on merits, or if the adjudication proceedings were on different facts, the criminal proceedings can continue. The test is whether: (1) charges in departmental and criminal proceedings are identical, and (2) exoneration in departmental proceedings is on merits holding that there is no contravention of the provisions of any Act.
On this section: Basis for filing complaint by DRI against accused for alleged customs violations
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 disbursement of excess or erroneous drawback is recoverable only in terms of Section 142 of the Customs Act. and therefore, the disbursed duty drawback on export cannot be said to be the "proceeds of crime". 9. It is further submitted that Section 135 of the Customs Act is not applicable to the facts of the case as wrongly alleged in the predicate offence. Moreover, a declaration subjected to verification and determination by the authority is not a misdeclaration and would not invite the application of Section 132 of the Customs Act, hence there is no scheduled …
-
… Detenu Naseem inter alia admitted that he has been doing extraction of smuggled gold at his residence and that he has extracted more than 570 Kg. of gold valued about ₹1.7 Crores during the last eight months. The offence committed by the detenus Naseem and Thahim, is punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the detenus were arrested on 02.08.2018 invoking Section 104 of the Customs Act and the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kozhikode remanded them to judicial custody for 14 days. However, both were released on bail on conditions. 6. As seizure included some powder materials …
-
… | 9.The investigation carried out indicates that the petitioner herein, Shri Ravindra Kumar, with the help of other persons, is the key player in illegal removal of goods from the CFSs, using forged documents and storing the illegally removed goods. Hence, Shri Ravindra Kumar, has committed the offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, which reads as "if any person acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe, are liable to confiscation under …
Made under this section, and citing it
5 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
- Guidelines for compounding of offences under Customs Act, 1962 – Circular No.29/2009-Customs, dated 15.10.2009Circular 2009
- Notification No.118/2008-Cus(NT), dated 12.11.2008Notification 2008
- Customs (Compounding of offences) Rules, 2005Rule 2005
- Guidelines for compounding of offences under Customs and Central Excise Acts - Circular No.54/2005- Cus., dated 30.12.2005Circular 2005
- Notification No.114/2005-Cus(NT), dated 30.12.2005Notification 2005
Questions about Section 135
What have the courts held on Section 135 of the Customs Act?
Om Prakash vs Union of India (30 Sep 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Defines offence of smuggling and evading customs duty, punishable with 3-7 years imprisonment depending on facts. Court holds Section 135 offences are bailable. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2018.
How do I find court cases under Section 135 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 135, section 135 Customs Act 1962, section 135 of the Customs Act. People searching for it also type customs act 135 1 and custom act 135 punishment. 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 Om Prakash vs Union of India (30 Sep 2011).
What should I read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 28AAA (Recovery of duties in certain cases), section 111 (Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc), section 113 (Confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly exported, etc), section 136 (Offences by officers of customs), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 9 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. 5 instruments name it without being made under it, most recently Guidelines for compounding of offences under Customs Act, 1962 – Circular No.29/2009-Customs, dated 15.10.2009 (2009), then Notification No.118/2008-Cus(NT), dated 12.11.2008 (2008).
When did Section 135 of the Customs Act come into force?
Section 135 of the Customs Act, cited as Customs Act 1962 135, 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.