Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter V — Levy of, and Exemption from, Customs Duties

Section 23. Remission of duty on lost, destroyed or abandoned goods

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Remission of duty on lost, destroyed or abandoned goods. —

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 13, where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs that any imported goods have been lost (otherwise than as a result of pilferage) or destroyed, at any time before clearance for home consumption, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs shall remit the duty on such goods.

(2) The owner of any imported goods may, at any time before an order for clearance of goods for home consumption under section 47 or an order for permitting the deposit of goods in a warehouse under section 60 has been made, relinquish his title to the goods and thereupon he shall not be liable to pay the duty thereon;

Provided that the owner of any such imported goods shall not be allowed to relinquish his title to such goods regarding which an offence appears to have been committed under this Act or any other law for the time being in force.

Judgments on Section 23

  • Union Of India vs The Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay — Supreme Court of India, 25 Aug 2026. Custody of imported goods derived from another statute, such as the Major Port Trusts Act, does not bar approval of that person as custodian under Section 45(1) or fasten liability on him under Section 45(3) for duty on…
  • J.M.Baxi And Co vs Government Of India — Madras High Court, 4 Dec 2019. A steamer or its agent cannot be held liable under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 merely because remission of customs duty was allowed to the importer under Section 23, and invocation of Section 116 long after 9…
  • N.K. Bapna vs Union Of India And Ors — Supreme Court of India, 14 May 1992. Clandestine removal of goods from a bonded warehouse without the permission of the proper officer amounts to 'smuggling' even after assessment of duty, because import is not complete until clearance from the warehouse…
  • Manyata Promoters Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore Customs — CESTAT, 30 Jul 2026. Where no 'Out of Charge' order under Section 47(1) is passed and the amount paid is never appropriated towards any duty demand, the payment retains the character of a deposit rather than duty and is refundable, since…
  • M/S Bhagwati Products Limited vs C.C. Noida — CESTAT, 12 Dec 2025. Equity has no place in the interpretation of a fiscal statute — 'there is no room for any intendment... there is no equity about a tax...
  • Jennex Granite Industries vs Chennai( Port Import) — CESTAT, 28 Nov 2025. Restricted goods become 'prohibited goods' under Section 111(d) once the required licence or condition is not complied with, so abandonment under Section 23(2) is unavailable to validate an otherwise invalid import,…
  • J M Baxi And Co vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva — CESTAT, 13 Dec 2024. Salvage equipment consigned to the master of a 'foreign going vessel' under salvage and used in her refloating constitutes 'stores' under section 88 of the Customs Act, 1962, and an agent such as a shipping agent is not…
  • Kundan Care Products Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-New Delhi Acc… — CESTAT, 31 Jul 2024. A penalty imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act for 'contravention' of statutory provisions is not a penalization for an 'offence', since offences and penalties are distinct categories; therefore, a licensee who…
  • New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S. Mudit Roadways — Supreme Court of India, 24 Nov 2023. Sections 22 and 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 (abatement and remission of duty on goods lost or destroyed) enure exclusively to 'importers' of the goods, so a bonded warehouse custodian/licensee remains liable for the…
  • M/S Allied Fibres Ltrd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), Mumbai — CESTAT, 21 Aug 2014. Once the warehousing period under Section 61 expires, the goods are deemed improperly removed under Section 72(1)(b), cease to be 'warehoused goods', and the owner must pay duty leviable as on the date of expiry…
  • Mavi Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise — CESTAT, 1 Feb 2012. Where a 100% EOU's letter of permission and private bonded warehousing licence have expired without renewal, the imported goods are deemed removed from bonded premises and become dutiable at the rate prevailing on the…
  • Petitioners vs State Of Odisha And Others… . Opposite… — Orissa High Court, 9 Oct 2012. In a taxing statute there is no equity about a tax and no presumption as to tax — nothing is to be read in, nothing implied; one can only look fairly at the language used, so where the entry tax definition covers goods…