Procedure in case of goods not cleared, warehoused, or transhipped within thirty days after unloading
Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with procedure in case of goods not cleared, warehoused, or transhipped within thirty days after unloading. If any goods brought into India from a place outside India are not cleared for home consumption or warehoused or transhipped [within [thirty days]] from the date of the unloading thereof thereof at a customs station or within such further time as the proper officer may allow or if the title to any i The Act came into force on 01 Feb 1963.
48. Procedure in case of goods not cleared, warehoused, or transhipped within 1[thirty days] after unloading.--If any goods brought into India from a place outside India are not cleared for home consumption or warehoused or transhipped 2[within 3[thirty days]] from the date of the unloading thereof thereof at a customs station or within such further time as the proper officer may allow or if the title to any imported goods is relinquished, such goods may, after notice to the importer and with the permission of the proper officer be sold by the person having the custody thereof:
Provided that --
(a) animals, perishable goods and hazardous goods, may, with the permission of the proper officer, be sold at any time;
(b) arms and ammunition may be sold at such time and place and in such manner as the Central Government may direct.
Explanation.-- In this section, "arms" and "ammunition" have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959).
Section 48, The Customs Act, 1962 (Act 52 of 1962).
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.
-
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: Sale of uncleared goods after 30 days. Parallel provision to MPT Act showing similar scheme of liability on importers.
-
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: After thirty days uncleared goods may be sold after notice to importer, establishing parallel disposal mechanism in customs law
-
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: Parallel to MPT Act Sections 61-62, establishing that both Acts contemplate uncleared goods must be sold. Notice to 'importer' under Customs Act aligns with Port Trust liability recovery from importer
-
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: If goods not cleared within 30 days, may be sold after notice to importer; parallel provision to Port Act section 61-62
-
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: If goods not cleared within 30 days, may be sold after notice to importer; importer responsible for clearing goods or arranging sale; steamer agent not mentioned as responsible party
-
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: If goods not cleared within 30 days of unloading, may be sold after notice to importer; importer responsible for timely clearance
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.
-
… Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted as follows: - i. The Corporate Debtor is the owner of the goods. The learned Senior Counsel referred to Section 48 of the Customs Act and stated that it only applies to goods which are neither cleared nor warehoused by the importer. This Section, however, is not applicable to the present case as the notice issued and Form C filed by the respondent are in relation to warehoused goods. Thus, the notice issued by the respondent …
-
… Ltd., a shipping agent and also an Intervenor in these proceedings, reiterated the submissions made by the predecessor counsel, and further stressed on sections 29, 30, 33, 45, 48 and 150 of the Customs Act. He also argued that once goods have been landed, a ship-owner's agent can never be made liable for demurrage charges, which should be to the account of the owner or the beneficial owner of the goods. - 12.Having heard the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of all parties, it is necessary …
-
… Ltd., a shipping agent and also an Intervenor in these proceedings, reiterated the submissions made by the predecessor counsel, and further stressed on sections 29, 30, 33, 45, 48 and 150 of the Customs Act. He also argued that once goods have been landed, a ship-owner's agent can never be made liable for demurrage charges, which should be to the account of the owner or the beneficial owner of the goods. - 12.Having heard the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of all parties, it is necessary …
Made under this section, and citing it
8 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
- Procedure for disposal of unclaimed/ uncleared cargo under section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, lying with the custodians - Circular NO.52/2005-Customs, dated 9.12.2005Circular 2005
- Procedure for disposal of unclaimed/ uncleared cargo under section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, lying with the custodians - Circular No.50/2005-Customs, dated 1.12.2005Circular 2005
- Procedure for disposal of unclaimed/ uncleared cargo under section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 lying with the custodians ,whether Public Sector or Private Sector, at Air Cargo Complexes/ Ports/ICDs /CFSs. - Circular No.35/2004-Customs, dated 20.5.2004Circular 2004
- Procedure for disposal of unclaimed/ uncleared cargo under section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, lying with the custodians.- Circular No.7/2004-Customs, dated 28.1.2004Circular 2004
- Delayed, incomplete or incorrect filing of Import menifest.- Circular No.14/2017-Cus. dated 11.4.17Circular 2017
- International transshipment of LCL containers at Indian Ports- Circular No.17/2007-Customs, dated 16.3.2007Circular 2007
- Procedure for disposal of unclaimed/ uncleared cargo u/ s 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 lying in Air Cargo Complexes - Circular No.11/1998-Customs, dated 11.02.1998Circular 1998
- Dwell time of import cargo in Air Cargo Complex - Steps for improvement. - Circular No.54/1997-Customs, dated 23.10.1997Circular 1997
Questions about Section 48
What have the courts held on Section 48 of the Customs Act?
Chairman, Board of Trustees, C. P. T vs Arebee Star Maritime Agen. Pvt. L (05 Aug 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Sale of uncleared goods after 30 days. Parallel provision to MPT Act showing similar scheme of liability on importers. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court.
How do I find court cases under Section 48 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 48, section 48 Customs Act 1962, section 48 of the Customs Act. People searching for it also type customs act 1962 section 48. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Chairman, Board of Trustees, C. P. T vs Arebee Star Maritime Agen. Pvt. L (05 Aug 2020).
What should I read with Section 48 of the Customs Act, and has it changed?
8 instruments name it without being made under it, most recently Procedure for disposal of unclaimed/ uncleared cargo under section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, lying with the custodians - Circular NO.52/2005-Customs, dated 9.12.2005 (2005), then Procedure for disposal of unclaimed/ uncleared cargo under section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, lying with the custodians - Circular No.50/2005-Customs, dated 1.12.2005 (2005).
When did Section 48 of the Customs Act come into force?
Section 48 of the Customs Act, cited as Customs Act 1962 48, 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.