Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter VII — Clearance of imported goods and export goods

Section 45. Restrictions on custody and removal of imported goods

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Clearance of Imported goods: Section 45. Restrictions on custody and removal of imported goods. —

(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 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 or in such manner as may be prescribed.

(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 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.

Judgments on Section 45

  • 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…
  • M/S International Cargo Terminal Pvt… vs Commissioner Of Customs-Mumbai -… — CESTAT, 8 Jun 2026. Immediate suspension of a CFS/CCSP approval under Regulation 11 of HCCAR, 2009 is only a temporary measure and cannot be continued beyond a reasonable period (and beyond the 15-day limit indicated in Regulation 7(2))…
  • Speedy Multimodes Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs Ns-Gen… — CESTAT, 4 Mar 2024. A CFS custodian/CCSP cannot escape liability for pilferage of seized goods in its custody merely because third parties had access; it must indemnify the value of the lost goods under Regulation 5(6) of HCCAR and is…
  • Sundaresh Bhatt vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And… — Supreme Court of India, 26 Aug 2022. Once the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) approves the Liquidator's decision to sell the movable/immovable assets of the corporate debtor in liquidation by adopting a particular mode of sale, there is no provision in the…
  • International Cargo Services vs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 11 Apr 2022. Revocation of a Customs Broker's licence must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence and, being an extreme and harsh punishment, should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases of serious irregularity or…
  • Sahaj Impex vs Balmer Lawrie And Co. Ltd — Bombay High Court, 18 Jan 2021. A Customs Cargo Service Provider or custodian cannot charge rent or demurrage on goods seized, detained or confiscated by the proper officer of customs for the certified detention period, must release the goods 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…
  • Kannur International Airport Ltd vs Cochin-Cus — CESTAT, 23 Sep 2025. Interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is attracted only where the amount payable is 'duty' under Section 28, and therefore cannot be levied on cost recovery charges, which are not duty.
  • Apm Terminals India P Ltd Main vs The Commissioner Of Customs Ns-Gen… — CESTAT, 17 May 2024. Control of customs areas under HCCAR-2009 confers no authority on customs officers to enforce the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989, a public notice has no legal standing under the…
  • Central Board Of Excise And Customs vs M/S Gmr Hyderabad International… — Telangana High Court, 27 Mar 2024. Cost recovery charges in the nature of salaries of Customs officers performing statutory duties cannot be levied by regulation absent express statutory authorization, and such administrative charges, being a tax without…
  • Container Corporation Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva — CESTAT, 11 Sep 2023. A custodian/CCSP to whom seized goods are handed over for safe custody under a panchanama cannot escape liability for pilferage caused by negligence by pleading absence of supratnama or non-involvement of its employees,…
  • Trafigura India Private Limited vs Union Of India — Gujarat High Court, 5 May 2023. A treaty provision such as AIFTA Article 24 that is not transformed into municipal legislation cannot be invoked or enforced in Indian courts, and procedural time limits under Operational Certification Procedures stand…
  • M/S.Sherisha Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs The Chief Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 13 Jun 2022. Rent/demurrage on seized imported goods stored in a customs area is waivable for the investigation period under Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, but thereafter liability…
  • Green Gold Timbers Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Akhilesh Manglik vs Commissioner Of Customs — Gujarat High Court, 12 Jan 2022. A Customs Cargo Service Provider, as defined in Regulation 2(1)(b) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, is not entitled in law to charge any rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained or…
  • M/S.Unik Traders vs The Additional Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 29 Nov 2021. Investigation and assessment are distinct functions: the DRI may only gather and pass on intelligence, while the 'proper officer' under Section 2(34) read with Notification No.40/2012-Cus (N.T.) alone may assess Bills…
  • M/S.Sun Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India — Madras High Court, 2 Jun 2021. Cost Recovery Charges cannot be levied or collected from a Customs Cargo Service Provider in the absence of a notification/Government order specifying the rates under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations,…
  • The Supreme Industries Limited Through… vs The Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And… — Bombay High Court, 8 Mar 2021. In case of repugnancy between a validly made subordinate legislation and a private contract, the contract must yield; a detention cum demurrage waiver certificate issued under Regulation 10(1)(l) of the SCMTR, 2018…
  • M/S.South India Corporation… vs The Government Of India — Madras High Court, 9 Mar 2020. Penalty for short landing under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained where adjudication is unduly delayed—the liability cannot be kept alive beyond five years from discharge per Parekh Shipping—or…
  • Shree Shyam Enterprises vs Union Of India & Ors — Delhi High Court, 20 Dec 2019. The prohibition in Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 on charging rent or demurrage on seized, detained or confiscated goods is 'subject to any other law for the time being in…
  • Mumbai Port Trust vs M/S. Shri Lakshmi Steels And Ors. Etc. — Supreme Court of India, 27 Jul 2017. Where delay in release of detained imported goods is attributable partly to the importer, the importer cannot claim exemption from demurrage and detention charges, the remedy for remission lying under Section 53 of the…

All 31 judgments