Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter IV — Prohibitions on importation and exportation of goods

Section 11. Power to prohibit importation or exportation of goods

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Power to prohibit importation or exportation of goods. —

(1) If the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (2), it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit either absolutely or subject to such conditions (to be fulfilled before or after clearance) as may be specified in the notification, the import or export of goods of any specified description.

(2) The purposes referred to in sub-section (1) are the following:-

(a) the maintenance of the security of India;

(b) the maintenance of public order and standards of decency or morality;

(c) the prevention of smuggling;

(d) the prevention of shortage of goods of any description;

(e) the conservation of foreign exchange and the safeguarding of balance of payments;

(f) the prevention of injury to the economy of the country by the uncontrolled import or export of 1 gold or silver or any other goods;

(g) the prevention of surplus of any agricultural product or the product of fisheries;

(h) the maintenance of standards for the classification, grading or marketing of goods in international trade;

(i) the establishment of any industry;

(j) the prevention of serious injury to domestic production of goods of any description;

(k) the protection of human, animal or plant life or health;

(l) the protection of national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value;

(m) the conservation of exhaustible natural resources;

(n) the protection of patents, trademarks, copyrights, designs and geographical indications;

(o) the prevention of deceptive practices;

(p) the carrying on of foreign trade in any goods by the State, or by a Corporation owned or controlled by the State to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens of India;

(q) the fulfilment of obligations under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security;

(r) the implementation of any treaty, agreement or convention with any country;

(s) the compliance of imported goods with any laws which are applicable to similar goods produced or manufactured in India;

(t) the prevention of dissemination of documents containing any matter which is likely to prejudicially affect friendly relations with any foreign State or is derogatory to national prestige;

(u) the prevention of the contravention of any law for the time being in force; and

(v) any other purpose conducive to the interests of the general public.

(3) Any prohibition or restriction or obligation relating to import or export of any goods or class of goods or clearance thereof provided in any other law for the time being in force, or any rule or regulation made or any order or notification issued thereunder, shall be executed under the provisions of that Act only if such prohibition or restriction or obligation is notified under the provisions of this Act, subject to such exceptions, modifications or adaptations as the Central Government deems fit.

Judgments on Section 11

  • 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…
  • Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. — Delhi High Court, 8 Apr 2025. Where Rule 16 of the Duty Drawback Rules prescribes no period of limitation, the general three-year limitation cannot be presumed to apply by default, especially where there are strong suspicions of fraudulent availment…
  • M/S Navayuga Engineering Co.Ltd vs Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 23 Jul 2024. When the owner of confiscated goods redeems them on payment of fine under Section 125(1), the liability to duty arising under Section 125(2) must be assessed and determined under Section 28, and interest on delayed…
  • Union Of India vs M/S Raj Grow Impex Llp — Supreme Court of India, 17 Jun 2021. Goods imported in contravention of import restrictions notified under the FTDR Act, 1992 are liable to absolute confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, and equity cannot aid importers who imported under the cover of…
  • 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…
  • Hazel Mercantile Limited vs Kandla Customs — CESTAT, 7 Sep 2026. Where the department's test reports are inconclusive or bested by more specialized reports under the 'most akin' test, and the disputed goods are merely a species of the declared genus (NGL within Naphtha) covered by…
  • Donald Mcarthy Trading Pte Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs — Bombay High Court, 3 Sep 2026. Import through non-existent firms without an Importer-Exporter Code violates Section 7 of the FTDR Act, 1992, making the goods 'prohibited' and liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and…
  • Lucknow Prev vs Narpat Singh — CESTAT, 11 Aug 2026. Gold cannot be confiscated as smuggled goods on the basis of uncorroborated or retracted statements alone; absent foreign markings or independent evidence of foreign origin, the burden of proof under Section 123 remains…
  • Maa Kamakhya Traders vs The Union Of India — Patna High Court, 24 Jul 2026. Where a confiscation order has been passed under Section 124, the seizure merges with it and a party who ignored the show cause notice and hearing must pursue the equally efficacious statutory appeal under Section 128…
  • Sameer Industries vs Kandla — CESTAT, 10 Jul 2026. There is no bar on the simultaneous imposition of penalty on a partnership firm and its partner under the Customs Act, 1962, provided the partner's active knowledge and involvement in the acts leading to contravention…
  • -Kolkata(Prev) vs Shri Gouse Gaffar Shaikh — CESTAT, 3 Jul 2026. Where exotic birds and animals are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden lies on the Revenue to prove by tangible and corroborative evidence that they were smuggled, and mere possession or…
  • Glamstone Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Thr… vs The Union Of India And Ors — Bombay High Court, 9 Mar 2026. Goods importable only subject to statutory conditions (such as CDSCO registration for cosmetics) become prohibited goods under Section 11 read with Section 125 of the Customs Act when imported without compliance, and…
  • M/S Bhagwan Corporation vs Commissioner Of Customs, Icd Patparganj — Delhi High Court, 9 Feb 2026. Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, employing the word 'may', confers a discretion rather than an absolute or vested right to redemption of confiscated goods—especially prohibited goods—and Article 226 cannot be…
  • M/S Gold Ripe International Pvt Ltd vs C.C. Noida — CESTAT, 12 Dec 2025. Where imported goods are found on official testing to be mis-declared restricted items, they are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, with redemption only under Section 125 on payment of a fine,…
  • 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,…
  • M/S.Askar Sea Shell Merchant vs The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests Heard The — Madras High Court, 5 Nov 2025. Goods that are not restricted or prohibited under the Import-Export Policy cannot be confiscated under the Customs Act, and a prohibition under another statute such as the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 can be invoked…
  • Shri Samsir Uddin vs -Siliguri Commissionerate — CESTAT, 15 Oct 2025. Where goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the department bears the burden of proving smuggled/illegal import, and in the absence of evidence a mere documentary discrepancy such as a wrong…
  • Royal Industries Ltd vs C. Ludhiana — CESTAT, 30 Jun 2025. An adjudication order that relies on evidence not relied upon in the show cause notice and ignores the assessee's uncontradverted evidence, including re-warehousing certificates, while denying effective…
  • South India Krishna Oils And Fats Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner, Central Goods And… — Delhi High Court, 18 Dec 2024. Tax paid under a mistake of law on a levy later declared unconstitutional must be refunded with applicable statutory interest, and such a refund claim cannot be defeated by limitation since retention of tax collected…
  • ) The Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S Isha Exim — Madras High Court, 6 Dec 2024. An Advance Ruling validly obtained under the Customs Act, 1962 binds the Department, which must follow the classification it directs as per Section 28J, and goods detained contrary to such a ruling must be released with…

All 35 judgments