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

Section 28A. Power not to recover duties not levied or short-levied as a result of general practice

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Power not to recover duties not levied or short-levied as a result of general practice. —

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the Central Government is satisfied -

(a) that a practice was, or is, generally prevalent regarding levy of duty (including non-levy thereof) on any goods imported into, or exported from, India; and

(b) that such goods were, or are, liable -

(i) to duty, in cases where according to the said practice the duty was not, or is not being, levied, or

(ii) to a higher amount of duty than what was, or is being, levied, according to the said practice, then, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the whole of the duty payable on such goods, or, as the case may be, the duty in excess of that payable on such goods, but for the said practice, shall not be required to be paid in respect of the goods on which the duty was not, or is not being, levied, or was, or is being, short-levied, in accordance with the said practice.

(2) Where any notification under sub-section (1) in respect of any goods has been issued, the whole of the duty paid on such goods, or, as the case may be, the duty paid in excess of that payable on such goods, which would not have been paid if the said notification had been in force, shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 27:

Provided that the person claiming the refund of such duty or, as the case may be, excess duty, makes an application in this behalf to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, in the form referred to in sub-section (1) of section 27, before the expiry of six months from the date of issue of the said notification.

Judgments on Section 28A

M/S Bisco Limited Through Its Managing… vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise — Supreme Court of India, 20 Mar 2024. Goods kept outside a bonded warehouse but within the premises under a proper officer's permission under Section 64(d), which is never cancelled or revoked, are not 'improperly or unauthorisedly removed' under Sections…
Messrs Aztec Fluids And Machinery Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India — Gujarat High Court, 1 Apr 2022. A show cause notice for recovery of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act can be issued only by the 'proper officer', and notices issued by the DRI are without authority and liable to be quashed per M/s Canon India,…
I.G. International vs Cc (Import) Nhavasheva — CESTAT, 25 Oct 2019. Payment of differential duty before issuance of the show cause notice does not bar imposition of penalty where undervaluation by suppression/fraud is established, but confiscation and redemption fine cannot be sustained…
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. — Supreme Court of India, 19 Dec 1996. Nothing can be collected or retained under a taxing Act beyond what the charging section read with the machinery provisions authorises; amounts collected in excess are not duty at all, and their retention offends…
Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad Etc. Etc.. Vs. vs Union Of India Etc. Etc — Supreme Court of India, 19 Dec 1996. A claimant for refund of duty paid under mistake of law who has passed on the burden to the consumer and suffered no loss or injury cannot maintain an action for restitution under Section 72 of the Contract Act, and the…
Samarth Diamonds vs Commissioner Of Customs-Air Special… — CESTAT, 22 Jan 2026. Where the Central Government, in exercise of powers under section 28A of the Customs Act, 1962, directs that duty on goods covered by a generally prevalent practice of non-levy shall not be required to be paid for the…
Ms Puma Sports India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Mumbai Adj — CESTAT, 19 Aug 2024. An addition to assessable value under rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 can stand only on a specific finding that the payment was a condition of sale of the imported goods, with the initial onus of…
Chennai( Port Import) vs Tamilnadu Petroproducts Ltd — CESTAT, 19 Jul 2023. Once an exemption notification is withdrawn, the value of materials supplied free of cost must be included in the assessable value under Rule 9(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and an appellate challenge…
P K Exim vs Mundra — CESTAT, 31 Aug 2021. A test report on samples drawn from one consignment cannot be applied to determine the classification of other consignments, and where imports were declared on supplier documents and the bills of entry were finally…
Cc (Export) Nhavasheva vs Fenil Enterprises — CESTAT, 15 Jan 2019. Under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, the penalty is equal to the duty or the interest, as the case may be, as determined under Section 28 — the disjunctive 'or' means the penalty is not duty plus interest.
M/S.Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India — Madras High Court, 22 Dec 2018. The GST Council's power is merely recommendatory — it cannot determine the classification of goods, which must be strictly in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and independently determined by the Assessing…
Jindal Saw Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Export) — CESTAT, 5 Feb 2018. Duty prevailing under the statute cannot be reduced to NIL by mere interpretation, and if the Government intends not to levy duty for an intervening period it must do so by a retrospective notification under Section 28A…
Bharat Hotels Limited vs Commissioner, Central Excise… — Delhi High Court, 29 Nov 2017. To invoke the extended period of limitation, the Revenue must prove deliberate suppression of facts with intent to evade tax — a burden equally applicable to cognate provisions such as Section 28A of the Customs Act —…
Commnr.,Central Excise, Madras vs M/S. Adison & Co. Ltd — Supreme Court of India, 29 Aug 2016. Refund of duty can be allowed only where the incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person, including the ultimate consumer — the claimant must show it actually bore the burden of the duty.
M/S Jmd Oils Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 14 Jan 2016. The declared transaction value must be accepted as the correct assessable value unless the Revenue produces contrary evidence, such as proof of extra payment or remittance over the invoice price; general statements of…
Al Amin Exports vs Commssioner Of Central Excise… .Opponent — Gujarat High Court, 27 Jan 2014. A mere assertion that the appeal has an excellent case on merits, without pleading and proving undue hardship, does not justify complete waiver of pre-deposit under Section 129E, as an arguable point in appeal is not…
4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To… vs M/S Rivaa Exports — CESTAT, 29 May 2012. An undertaking given to customs authorities for duty-free imports under an advance licence creates a contractual liability to pay duty and interest on failure to discharge the export obligation, enforceable as directed…
Venus Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 20 Feb 2006. A show cause notice under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act can validly be issued after the goods have been cleared under Section 47 where short-levy of duty is attributable to mis-declaration or suppression of facts by…
Century Textiles And Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) — Bombay High Court, 29 Nov 2002. A duty concession extended by the Central Government under Section 28A of the Customs Act, 1962 to certain importers of specified goods for a specified period cannot be denied to other similarly placed importers of the…
Collr. Of Cus. vs Indo-Swiss Synthetic Gem Mfg. Co. Ltd. — Madras High Court, 22 Nov 1995. Customs duty collected without authority of law is refundable in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the Section 27 remedy is futile - the Assistant Collector cannot entertain a time-barred claim unless the duty…

All 23 judgments