Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter IX — Warehousing
Section 68. Clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption
Customs Act, 1962
Bare Act
Clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption. — Any warehoused goods may be cleared from the warehouse for home consumption, if -
(a) a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods has been presented in the prescribed form;
(b) the import duty, interest, fine and penalties payable in respect of such goods have been paid; and (c) an order for clearance of such goods for home consumption has been made by the proper officer:
Provided that the order referred to in clause (c) may also be made electronically through the customs automated system on the basis of risk evaluation through appropriate selection criteria:
Provided further that the owner of any warehoused goods may, at any time before an order for clearance of goods for home consumption has been made in respect of such goods, relinquish his title to the goods upon payment of
[Omitted] penalties that may be payable in respect of the goods and upon such relinquishment, he shall not be liable to pay duty thereon:
Provided also that the owner of any such warehoused 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 68
- 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…
- Shm Shipcare P Ltd vs Mumbai-Air Cargo Import — CESTAT, 16 Feb 2024. Manufacture in a customs bonded warehouse under Sections 58 and 65 is a duty-deferment scheme: import duty on raw materials consumed in the final product is payable only on clearance of the final product under Section…
- Sandeep Patil vs Union Of India And Ors — Bombay High Court, 7 Oct 2019. For imported warehoused goods, the taxable event is the crossing of the customs barrier, i.e., filing of a bill of entry for home consumption under section 68 of the Customs Act; until then, sales of warehoused goods…
- Sbec Sugar Limited A Company… vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The Joint… — Bombay High Court, 3 Apr 2006. Warehoused goods that remain beyond the permitted bond period are deemed improperly removed under Section 72, duty being payable at the rate applicable on the date the bond expired, Sections 68 and 15(1)(b) having no…
- Kesoram Reyon (A Unit Ofm/S Kesoram Industries Ltd.) Vs. vs The Collector Of Customs,Calcutta — Supreme Court of India, 23 Aug 1996. Where warehoused goods are not removed within the permitted period or its permitted extension under Section 61, they are deemed improperly removed under Section 72(1)(b) on the date that period expires, and duty is…
- M/S Vaibhav International vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Karnataka High Court, 9 Mar 2026. No show cause notice can be issued under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act while assessment remains provisional under Section 18, since the 'relevant date' under Explanation 1(b) to Section 28 runs only from adjustment…
- Veetech Infoline Private Limited vs The Additional Commissioner Of Customs — Karnataka High Court, 24 Nov 2025. A cryptic, non-speaking adjudication order that reiterates a previous order without application of mind or cogent reasons violates principles of natural justice, and such violation permits writ interference under…
- Akshay Logistics vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva-I — CESTAT, 7 Jul 2025. Confiscation under section 111(j) fails unless the goods are established to have been removed from the warehouse after bonding without the proper officer's permission or in breach of its terms, and minor, rectified…
- 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…
- Nuance Group (India) Pvt Ltd vs The Principal Commissioner Customs… — CESTAT, 10 Jan 2024. A duty-free shop/private bonded warehouse licensee who clears warehoused goods or fails to duly account for them in violation of the licence, bond and prescribed procedures is liable under Section 72 to pay the full…
- Industrial Dev.Bank Of India Through… vs Superintendent Of Central Excise And Customs — Supreme Court of India, 18 Aug 2023. Government dues under the Customs Act, even when preferential under Section 530 of the Companies Act, do not override the overriding preferential payments under Section 529A, so prior secured creditors may enforce their…
- Belapur vs Flemingo Airport Retail Pvt Ltd — CESTAT, 24 Oct 2019. Sale of goods by an airport outlet in the Security Hold Area of the international departure terminal to outgoing international passengers is an export under the Customs Act, 1962 — the seller is the 'exporter' under…
- 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…
- 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…
- Congress Building No vs The Commissioner Of Customs And — Bombay High Court, 14 Feb 2013. Where the Development Commissioner has extended a 100% EOU's letter of permission, customs authorities cannot, before expiry of the extended period, recover duty, interest, penalty or fine on the unit's warehoused…
- 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…
- (Ii) U. B. Venkatesh, Managing Director vs The Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 1 Jul 2011. Where duty-free import benefits under a notification are availed by assessment to nil rate of duty and its conditions are violated, the resultant short levy must be demanded under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, and…