Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter XIV — Confiscation of goods and conveyances and imposition of penalties

Section 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

SECTION 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. — Any person, -

(a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or

(b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111, shall be liable, -

(i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater;

(ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, subject to the provisions of section 114A, to a penalty not exceeding ten per cent. of the duty sought to be evaded or five thousand rupees, whichever is higher:

Provided that where such duty as determined under sub-section (8) of section 28 and the interest payable thereon under section 28AA is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order of the proper officer determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be twenty-five per cent. of the penalty so determined;

(iii) in the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under section 77 (in either case hereafter in this section referred to as the declared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a penalty not exceeding the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater;

(iv) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the highest;

(v) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (ii) and (iii), to a penalty not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees, whichever is the highest.

Judgments on Section 112

  • Rissala Electric Motors P Ltd vs Principal Commissioner, Customs… — CESTAT, 13 Oct 2026. An incomplete or knocked-down import that, as presented, has the essential character of the complete article is classifiable as the complete article under Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation, but a…
  • Sony India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs - Chennai Ii… — CESTAT, 9 Oct 2026. Where an importer raises an alternative classification in reply to a show cause notice reopening its assessment, the adjudicating authority is duty bound to examine that plea on merits, because inherent in the power of…
  • Mobis India Module Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs -Ii Chennai — CESTAT, 9 Oct 2026. An electric steering lock assembly, whose only function is anti-theft immobilisation of the steering wheel after the vehicle has stopped, is not a part of a steering wheel, steering column or steering box under CTH 8708…
  • Cc Sea Ch - Ii vs Poddar Global Limited — CESTAT, 8 Sep 2026. Where newsprint is imported and warehoused by a non-RNI registered entity prior to the amendment of FTP policy on 03.06.2016, and subsequently sold to RNI-registered actual users who clear it on filing ex-bond Bills of…
  • M/S Ascent Circuits Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore Customs — CESTAT, 4 Sep 2026. Goods that are merely 'restricted' (not prohibited) under the Foreign Trade Policy cannot be absolutely confiscated absent specific recorded reasons, since Section 125 confers a discretion to allow redemption on fine…
  • Entire Logistics Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs Import-New… — CESTAT, 2 Sep 2026. A customs broker who knowingly advises mis-classification to enable an importer to claim an inadmissible exemption or clear prohibited goods is liable to penalty under Sections 112 and 114AA, and a voluntary,…
  • M/S. A.P.P. Enterprises vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 29 Apr 2026. Consistent miscoding of export scheme codes and use of parallel invoices across numerous consignments amounts to wilful suppression within Section 28(4) — not a bonafide clerical mistake — and a DRI clean chit cannot…
  • Commissioner Of Customs -Commissioner… vs Home Designers And Fabricators Pvt Ltd — CESTAT, 26 Mar 2026. Where imported goods violate import policy or regulatory conditions but are not absolutely prohibited, confiscation under Section 111(d) may be upheld, but absolute confiscation is unsustainable and the adjudicating…
  • Hitesh Miglani vs Union Of India & Ors — Delhi High Court, 23 Mar 2026. Where seized goods are not 'prohibited goods' under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, grant of the redemption option under Section 125(1) is obligatory and not discretionary, and a later notification restricting imports…
  • Navnath Zanje vs Chennai Iii — CESTAT, 13 Mar 2026. Where gold is seized under reasonable belief that it is smuggled, Section 123 casts the burden of proving it is not smuggled on the person from whose possession it was seized even if the gold is melted and bears no…
  • Mukesh Kumar vs Commissioner Of Customs (Ii), Chennai — CESTAT, 17 Feb 2026. Penalties under sections 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act can be imposed only where mens rea or active involvement is established, and retracted statements recorded u/s 108 cannot sustain duty demands unless tested…
  • The Principal Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S. Lucky Exports — Karnataka High Court, 12 Dec 2025. A person invoking an exemption notification must strictly comply with and clearly establish every condition of the notification, and in case of doubt or ambiguity the benefit goes to the State, not the assessee.
  • Cochin-Cce vs Maliakkal Industral Enterprises — CESTAT, 5 Dec 2025. Goods provisionally cleared on a bond under Section 18 of the Customs Act pursuant to High Court directions, with the prescribed end-use condition complied with, cannot attract confiscation under Section 111(d), penalty…
  • M/S Xiaomi Technology India Private… vs Commissioner Of Customs Air… — CESTAT, 14 Nov 2025. Royalty and licence fee paid by an importer under agreements with IPR holders, not disclosed to the customs authorities, is includible in the assessable value under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007,…
  • Van Oord India Pvt Ltd vs Customs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 13 Nov 2025. Physical non-availability of goods is no bar to confiscation under Section 111 or redemption fine under Section 125, but the fine must be commensurate with the duty benefit actually accrued, and a Section 114AA penalty…
  • Manasa Impex Services vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise, Coimbatore) With — CESTAT, 21 Aug 2025. A customs broker's failure to perform duties under CHALR attracts disciplinary action under CHALR alone; a penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act requires proof of abetment or active collusion — involvement beyond…
  • P C Jain vs Kolkata-Port — CESTAT, 15 May 2025. A charge of undervaluation cannot be sustained on diary entries and statements alone without independent evidence such as NIDB data, market enquiry or contemporaneous higher values, and an adjudication in which…
  • Mumbai Travel Retail Private Limited vs Mumbai-Air Cargo Import — CESTAT, 9 May 2025. A monetary penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for a wrong claim of exemption is a civil contravention, not a penalty 'for an offence under the Customs Act' within Regulation 3(2)(c) of the Special Warehouse…
  • A. R. Sulphonates Private Limited vs Union Of India Thr. The Secretary… — Bombay High Court, 9 Apr 2025. The amendment to Section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 — importing the Customs Act's interest, offence and penalty provisions into IGST levied under Section 3(7) — is prospective…
  • Commissioner Of Customs Import 1 Zone 1 vs M/S Essar Bulk Terminal Salaya Limited — CESTAT, 3 Apr 2025. Alleged overvaluation without duty consequence cannot sustain confiscation under section 111(m) or penalties under sections 112/114AA, and the price of goods for export to a country other than India is expressly barred…

All 146 judgments