Restrictions on custody and removal of imported goods
Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with restrictions on custody and removal of imported goods. Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force, all imported goods unloaded in a customs area shall remain in the custody of such person as may be approved by the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] until they are cleared for home consumption or are ware The Act came into force on 01 Feb 1963.
(1) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force, all imported goods unloaded in a customs area shall remain in the custody of such person as may be approved by the 1[Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] until they are cleared for home consumption or are warehoused or are transhipped in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VIII.
(2) The person having custody of any imported goods in a customs area, whether under the provisions of sub-section (1) or under any law for the time being in force,--
(a) shall keep a record of such goods and send a copy thereof to the proper officer;
(b) shall not permit such goods to be removed from the customs area or otherwise dealt with, except under and in accordance with the permission in writing of the proper officer 2[or in such manner as may be prescribed].
3[(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any imported goods are pilferred after unloading thereof in a customs area while in the custody of a person referred to in sub-section (1), that person shall be liable to pay duty on such goods at the rate prevailing on the date of delivery of an 4[arrival manifest or import manifest] or, as the case may be, an import report to the proper officer under section 30 for the arrival of the conveyance in which the said goods were carried.]
Section 45, 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.
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.
-
Sundaresh Bhatt vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once moratorium is imposed under Sections 14 or 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Customs authority has only limited jurisdiction to assess and determine the quantum of customs duty and other levies. The Customs authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale or confiscation as provided under the Customs Act. After such assessment, the Customs authority must submit its claims in accordance with the procedure laid down in the IBC and in strict compliance with prescribed time periods before the adjudicating authority. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overrides the Customs Act to this extent, and the Liquidator can immediately secure goods from the Customs authority to be dealt with appropriately under the IBC. Additionally, the Liquidator has discretion in choosing the mode of sale of corporate assets (auction or private contract), and no vested right accrues to any bidder merely by participation in a bidding process; the Liquidator's commercial decisions regarding asset sales are not subject to judicial review.
On this section: Specifies that imported goods remain in custody of approved person until cleared or warehoused; goods cannot be removed without payment of duties
-
Chairman, Cochin Port Trust vs Seahorse Ship Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
After the Port Trust takes charge of imported goods and issues a receipt therefor, liability for payment of storage charges and demurrage shifts exclusively from the steamer agent (who may remain liable only for unloading services up to custody point) to the owner of the goods, which may be the consignor, consignee, importer, or their agents. The passing of title in goods to the consignee, the endorsement of the bill of lading by the steamer agent, and whether delivery order is issued are all immaterial to determining demurrage liability post-custody. The steamer agent ceases all liability once goods are taken into Port custody as the statutory bailment relationship established between Port (as bailee) and shipowner (as bailor) is discharged by section 42(7) when receipt is given. Containers, being receptacles for goods and subject to return rather than consumption, are not themselves imported goods subject to demurrage in the same manner; demurrage ultimately charges against the cargo owner. Port Trust must exercise its discretion under sections 61-62 reasonably and within reasonable time (ordinarily four months) as required by Article 14 of the Constitution.
On this section: Imported goods remain in custody of approved person until cleared, warehoused or transhipped; establishes custody regimes parallel to Port Trust
-
Chairman, Board of Trustees, C. P. T vs Arebee Star Maritime Agen. Pvt. L
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The statutory scheme of the Major Port Trusts Act 1963 establishes a clear demarcation of liability for port charges at the critical juncture of Port Trust taking custody of goods and issuing receipt thereof. Prior to this point steamer agents may be liable for rates payable by vessel for services performed to the vessel including charges for landing and removal of goods to storage point. Subsequent to this point and for the entire period goods are stored in Port premises the only parties liable for demurrage and storage charges are the owner of the goods or other persons entitled to the goods whether beneficially entitled or not including importers consignees and consignors or their agents. The steamer agent is absolved of all liability for goods once Port Trust assumes custody as the master or owner of vessel stands relieved of responsibility for loss or damage to goods under section 42(7) of the Act. The passing of title to goods under general law or whether bill of lading is endorsed or delivery order issued are matters wholly irrelevant to determining post-custody liability as Port Trust takes charge from ship-owner becoming bailee to ship-owner as bailor not to consignee. Containers are merely receptacles in which goods are imported and must be distinguished from the goods themselves. Containers do not become part of the mass of goods within India for import duty purposes and must be returned to their owners once destuffing occurs. Accordingly containers themselves are not subject to demurrage or storage charges once destuffed. While sections 61 and 62 of the Act confer discretion on Port Trust to sell goods marked by word 'may' not mandatory word 'shall' the Port Trust as State under Article 12 Constitution is subject to Article 14 equality constraint and must exercise this discretion reasonably including implicit constitutional duty to sell goods within reasonable time ordinarily not exceeding four months from date of landing unless strong reasons exist justifying continued detention which must be capable of judicial review.
On this section: Custody of imported goods. Goods remain in custody of approved person until cleared indicating importer's ultimate responsibility.
-
Board of Trustees Cochin Port. Trust vs Marine Container Ser. (south)p. L
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
After Port Trust takes custody of imported goods and issues receipt therefor, only the importer, owner, consignee or their authorized agents are liable to pay storage charges and demurrage levied by the Port Trust. The steamer agent (shipping agent) and shipowner are absolved of all liability for storage charges post-custody, even if bill of lading has not been endorsed by the steamer agent or delivery order issued. The passing of title to goods is irrelevant in determining liability to pay storage charges. Containers that require destuffing are not 'goods' for purposes of imposing demurrage; they are receptacles and must be returned to their owners (steamer agents/shipping lines) within a reasonable period. Port Trust is constitutionally bound to exercise its discretion to sell uncleared goods within a reasonable period, ordinarily not exceeding four months from date of assuming custody, and must destuff containers and return them when consignee/owner does not clear goods.
On this section: Imported goods unloaded remain in approved custody until cleared for home consumption or warehoused, establishing custodial framework
-
Chairman, Cochin Port Trust vs A. P. Industries
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
After the Port Trust takes charge of imported goods and issues a receipt therefor, the steamer agent or vessel owner shall not be liable for demurrage, storage charges, or other dues to the Port Trust. Such liability passes exclusively to the importer, owner, consignee, or their agents. The point of time at which title to goods passes to the consignee is irrelevant in determining this liability. The Port Trust's duty is to recover such charges from persons beneficially entitled to the goods, which may be determined through the legal framework of the Customs Act (importer) or the Indian Bills of Lading Act (consignee). Containers fit for repetitive use are not 'imported goods' but mere receptacles and the Port Trust bears the duty to destuff such containers and return them within reasonable time. The discretion granted to Port Trust under Sections 61-62 of the MPT Act cannot be construed as a mandatory duty but must be exercised reasonably within approximately four months from the date of landing goods, subject to the constraints of Article 14 of the Constitution.
On this section: Establishes that imported goods unloaded remain in custody of person approved by Customs Commissioner until cleared/warehoused, establishing parallel custody framework
-
Chairman, Cochin Port Trust vs Maersk India Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The statutory scheme of the Major Port Trusts Act 1963 establishes a two-stage liability framework: (1) STAGE ONE (PRE-LANDING TO RECEIPT): Until the Port Trust takes charge of goods and issues a receipt therefor, services rendered are for the vessel and steamer agents may be liable for landing and ancillary charges under the statutory bailment that comes into existence between vessel (bailor) and Port (bailee). (2) STAGE TWO (POST-RECEIPT/POST-LANDING): Once the Port Trust takes charge and receipt is issued, the vessel and steamer agents are absolved of all liability for the goods per section 42(7) of the Act. From this point forward, demurrage and storage charges are the liability of the importer, owner, consignee or their agents (i.e., persons beneficially entitled to the goods), not the steamer agent or vessel. (3) TITLE IRRELEVANCE: The point of time at which title to goods passes to the consignee is immaterial to determining liability for post-landing storage charges. Liability follows statutory entitlement and beneficial ownership per the MPT Act scheme, not technical title transfer. (4) CONTAINERS: A container which is a receptacle for transport and must be returned is not goods for purposes of storage charge liability. The Port Trust must destuff containers entrusted to it and return empty containers within a feasible period. (5) PORT DISCRETION: The Port Trust's power under sections 61-62 to sell goods is discretionary (may, not shall) but must be exercised reasonably with outer limit ordinarily of four months from landing date per Article 14 constraints, after which Port must justify continued detention.
On this section: Imported goods remain in custody of approved person until cleared for home consumption or warehoused; establishes custodian
-
Chairman Cochin Port Trust vs Cma Cgm Agencies India Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
After a Port Trust takes charge of imported goods from a vessel and issues a receipt therefor, the Port Trust becomes the bailee of those goods. Demurrage and storage charges accruing thereafter for goods stored in the Port's premises are payable by the importer, owner, consignee or other person beneficially entitled to the goods, and NOT by the steamer agent or ship-owner. However, charges for services rendered at the time of landing of goods or their removal from the vessel to the Port's storage premises (such as unloading charges and labour dues) may be charged against the steamer agent as services rendered to the vessel. The time at which title in goods passes to the consignee is irrelevant in determining such liability. The Port Trust must act reasonably in exercising its discretion to sell goods under Sections 61-62 of the MPT Act and must attempt to sell goods within reasonable time from when it assumes custody, with four months from landing being the outer limit, failing which it must provide written explanation justifiable by the courts. Containers are receptacles for goods, not imported goods themselves, and must be destuffed and returned to the steamer agent or container owner within a short feasible period.
On this section: All imported goods remain in custody of persons approved by customs until cleared for home consumption or warehoused; establishes custody chain and control over goods in customs area
-
Chairman, Cochin Port Trust vs Hanjin Shipping India Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Upon the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963: (1) The point of time at which title to goods passes to the consignee is not relevant to determine the liability of the consignee or steamer agent in respect of charges to be paid to the Port Trust. (2) Once the Port Trust takes charge of goods and issues receipt therefor, the steamer agent may be held liable for Port Trust dues in connection with services rendered qua unloading of goods, but thereafter, the importer, owner, consignee or their agent is liable to pay demurrage charges for storage of goods. (3) The Port Trust, as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, is bound by Article 14 constraints and must ordinarily sell goods within four months from the date of landing, unless reasonably justified otherwise. (4) Containers are receptacles for imported goods, not imported goods themselves; containers must be returned to steamer agents, and carrying goods in containers makes no difference to the principle that only the owner of goods or person entitled to goods is liable to pay demurrage. (5) The Port Trust is under a duty to destuff every container entrusted to it and return destuffed containers to appropriate persons within as short a period as is feasible where the owner/person entitled to goods does not come forward to take delivery. (6) The statutory scheme of the MPT Act allocates liability for storage charges post-custody exclusively to the owner/beneficial owner of goods, whether consignor, consignee, importer, or their agents, and never to the steamer agent post-custody.
On this section: All imported goods unloaded in customs area remain in custody of approved person until cleared, warehoused, or transhipped; custody vests with customs authority, not with steamer agent
-
British Airways Plc vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An aircraft carrier engaged in the business of international air transport, though not technically the 'person incharge' as defined in Section 2(31) of the Customs Act, 1962, can be held liable under Section 116 for penalties regarding shortage in unloaded cargo, when the carrier's representatives physically handle the cargo, prepare the segregation report, account for goods against the cargo manifest, and represent themselves to customs officers as agents of the person incharge and are accepted as such. The issuance of a departure order under Section 42(2)(e) does not preclude subsequent penalty proceedings under Section 116, as these sections address different contingencies and involve different authorities with different objects.
On this section: Restrictions on custody and removal of imported goods. Cited to show the scheme of accountability for cargo.
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.
-
… However, in the present case, the warehoused goods cannot be termed as assets of the Corporate Debtor, until and unless the same are legally cleared from the warehouses upon payment of relevant dues and duties. The Corporate Debtor herein has not even paid the bill of entry for part of the goods. - iii. Section 45 of the Customs Act lays down restrictions on custody and removal of imported goods. It stipulates that all imported goods unloaded in the customs area shall remain in the custody of such person approved by the commissioner till the time the same are cleared for home consumption or are warehoused or transshipped. …
-
… Per corollary, no such rights can inure, in favour of the petitioners, even from the circular issued by the CBIC. 39.3 Mr. Sibal sought to draw upon Sections 7, 8, 45, 141 and 143AA of the Customs Act, as well as the provisions contained in the HCCAR, to contend that CFSs and ICDs were bound by all executive instructions issued by the CBIC. We have already examined these provisions, in detail, earlier in this judgement. We are unable to sustain …
-
… then in such circumstances whether the career of the goods who had a over the goods for non-payment of duty, can enforce the terms and conditions of the contract against the customs authorities, making the said authorities liable to pay the demurrage charges.‖ 79. The Supreme Court went on to reproduce Section 45 of the Customs Act and, after referring to the said Section, in juxtaposition with other provisions of the said Act, held that it was apparent, from the said provisions, that the Customs Authorities had full power and control over the imported goods and that, without their permission, the goods could not be …
Made under this section, and citing it
15 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
- Procedure for identification of goods pilfered after the unloading in a customs area until they are cleared for home consumption or for warehousing or are transshipped, and recovery of duty thereon from the Custodians as laid down under section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Circular No.58/1996-Customs, dated 29.11.1996Circular 1996
- Procedure for identification of goods pilfered after the unloading in a customs area until they are cleared for home consumption or for warehousing or are transshipped, and recovery of duty thereon from the Custodians as laid down under section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Circular No.58/1996-Customs, dated 29.11.96Circular 1996
- Customs Audit Regulations, 2018Regulation 2018
- Notification No.38/2018-Cus(NT), dated 11.5.2018Notification 2018
- Clarification regarding handling of cargo in customs areas Regulations, 2009.- Circular No.54/2011-Customs, dated 29.12.11Circular 2011
- Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009Regulation 2009
- Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009- Circular No.13/2009-Customs, dated 23.3.2009Circular 2009
- Appointment of custodian for Air Cargo Complex and Seaports. - Circular No.27/2004-Customs,dated 6.4.2004Circular 2004
- Special Economic Zones (Customs Procedures) Regulations, 2003Regulation 2003
- Standard set of guidelines for appointment of custodian of Sea Ports and Air Cargo Complexes. - Circular No.34/2002-Customs, dated 26.6.2002Circular 2002
- Speedy Customs clearance to avoid payment of detention/demurrage charges.- Circular No.42/2001-Customs, dated 31.07.2001Circular 2001
- Movement of Imported Cargo by Containers / Trucks from Airport / ACCs to ICDs / CFSs / Airports / ACCs - Circular No.69/99-Customs, dated 6.10.99Circular 1999
- Procedure for collection of duty on ship stores consumed during coastal run.- Circular No.58/1997-Customs, dated 6.11.1997Circular 1997
- Goods Imported (Conditions of Transhipment) Regulations, 1995Regulation 1995
- Standard set guidelines for appointment of custodian of EPZs/ ICDs/ CFSs.- Circular No.128/1995-Customs, dated 14.12.1995Circular 1995
Questions about Section 45
What have the courts held on Section 45 of the Customs Act?
Sundaresh Bhatt vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (26 Aug 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Specifies that imported goods remain in custody of approved person until cleared or warehoused; goods cannot be removed without payment of duties. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 45 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 45, section 45 Customs Act 1962, section 45 of the Customs Act. People searching for it also type customs act 1962 section 45. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sundaresh Bhatt vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (26 Aug 2022).
What should I read with Section 45 of the Customs Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 30 (Delivery of arrival manifest or import manifest or import report), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. 15 instruments name it without being made under it, most recently Procedure for identification of goods pilfered after the unloading in a customs area until they are cleared for home consumption or for warehousing or are transshipped, and recovery of duty thereon from the Custodians as laid down under section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Circular No.58/1996-Customs, dated 29.11.1996 (1996), then Procedure for identification of goods pilfered after the unloading in a customs area until they are cleared for home consumption or for warehousing or are transshipped, and recovery of duty thereon from the Custodians as laid down under section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Circular No.58/1996-Customs, dated 29.11.96 (1996).
When did Section 45 of the Customs Act come into force?
Section 45 of the Customs Act, cited as Customs Act 1962 45, 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.