Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter XIII — Searches, seizure and arrest

Section 110. Seizure of goods, documents and things

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Seizure of goods, documents and things. —

(1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods:

Provided that where it is not practicable to remove, transport, store or take physical possession of the seized goods for any reason, the proper officer may give custody of the seized goods to the owner of the goods or the beneficial owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer, or any other person from whose custody such goods have been seized, on execution of an undertaking by such person that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer:

Provided further that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve an order on the owner of the goods or the beneficial owner or any person holding himself out to be importer, or any other person from whose custody such goods have been found, directing that such person shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with such goods except with the previous permission of such officer.

(1A) The Central Government may, having regard to the perishable or hazardous nature of any goods, depreciation in the value of the goods with the passage of time, constraints of storage space for the goods or any other relevant considerations, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the goods or class of goods which shall, as soon as may be after its seizure under sub-section (1), be disposed of by the proper officer in such manner as the Central Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.

(1B) Where any goods, being goods specified under sub-section (1A), have been seized by a proper officer under sub-section (1), he shall prepare an inventory of such goods containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mark, numbers, country of origin and other particulars as the proper officer may consider relevant to the identity of the goods in any proceedings under this Act and shall make an application to a Magistrate for the purpose of -

(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or

(b) taking, in the presence of the Magistrate, photographs of such goods, and certifying such photographs as true; or

(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such goods, in the presence of the Magistrate, and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.

(1C) Where an application is made under sub-section (1B), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.

(1D)Where the goods seized under sub-section (1) is gold in any form as notified under sub-section (1A), then, the proper officer shall, instead of making an application under sub-section (1B) to the Magistrate, make such application to the Commissioner (Appeals) having jurisdiction, who shall, as soon as may be, allow the application and thereafter, the proper officer shall dispose of such goods in such manner as the Central Government may determine.

(2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized:

Provided that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period so specified:

Provided further that where any order for provisional release of the seized goods has been passed under section 110A, the specified period of six months shall not apply.

(3) The proper officer may seize any documents or things which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act.

(4) The person from whose custody any documents are seized under sub-section (3) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer of customs.

(5)Where the proper officer, during any proceedings under the Act, is of the opinion that for the purposes of protecting the interest of revenue or preventing smuggling, it is necessary so to do, he may, with the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, by order in writing, provisionally attach any bank account for a period not exceeding six months:

Provided that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform such extension of time to the person whose bank account is provisionally attached, before the expiry of the period so specified.

Explanation in plain English

Section 110 lets customs officers seize goods they believe can be confiscated. The officer can also seize documents and things useful for a case. Sometimes the goods stay with the owner on a written undertaking. Seized goods must go back if no confiscation notice comes within six months. A broker cares because seizure can hit a client's goods, papers and bank accounts.

  • If goods cannot be moved or stored, the officer can leave them with the owner on an undertaking.
  • If seizure itself is not practical, the officer can order the owner not to deal with the goods.
  • The Magistrate can certify the inventory, certify photographs, or certify a list of samples.
  • The six month return rule does not apply once goods are provisionally released under Section 110A.
  • The officer can attach a bank account only with the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner's written approval.
  • Extension of both six month periods needs written reasons and telling the person before expiry.

Judgments on Section 110

  • M/S. Dhruv Jewellers, vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 11 Sep 2026. A bank account frozen under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act cannot stay frozen beyond the maximum of six months plus a six-month extension, and a pending show cause notice does not extend that period.
  • Mohammad Sadiq vs Commissioner Of Customs — Delhi High Court, 2 Sep 2026. A mere printed waiver or unilateral recital in a Section 108 statement cannot by itself satisfy the mandatory requirements of Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act; the validity of any oral notice and the…
  • M/S Anax Air Services Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi — Delhi High Court, 10 Apr 2026. A Customs Broker's contravention of the obligations under the CBLR attracts disciplinary sanction—revocation, forfeiture of security and penalty—even without proof of criminal intention, since the agent cannot plead…
  • Isgec Heavy Engineering Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs (Export)-New… — CESTAT, 16 Oct 2025. The FOB/transaction value of exported goods cannot be modified by any customs officer; re-determination under the Valuation Rules only fixes the assessable value, and drawback payable as a percentage of FOB must be…
  • 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 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,…
  • Mihir Maheshkumar Chevli vs Union Of India — Gujarat High Court, 18 Feb 2022. Under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, seized goods must be returned to the person from whom they were seized if no confiscation notice under clause (a) of Section 124 is issued within six months of seizure (or…
  • Malabar Diamond Gallery Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai & Ors. (W.A. No. 377 of 2016) — Madras High Court, 28 Jul 2016. Goods imported in breach of the conditions for import are prohibited goods; provisional release of seized goods is discretionary.
  • The Deputy Commissioner Of Customs… vs S R Rajarajendiran — Madras High Court, 28 Sep 2026. Goods seized on a mere suspicion of prohibition must be released on indemnity when tests do not support customs and the prohibiting notification is not shown.
  • M/S Nxtify Technologies Private… vs The Union Of India — Patna High Court, 11 Sep 2026. An extension of provisional attachment of a bank account under the proviso to Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires a pre-decisional hearing and reasons recorded in writing; an extension passed without…
  • Shweta Kishinchand Kodwani vs Union Of India Thr Dedicated Legal Cell… — Bombay High Court, 7 Sep 2026. Where seized goods are disposed of even before issuance of the show cause notice, the High Court may dispose of the writ petition by directing expeditious disposal of the statutory appeal while leaving the noticee's…
  • Saiyyada Khatoon vs Commissioner Of Customs — Delhi High Court, 2 Sep 2026. The mandatory return-of-goods consequence under Section 110(2) arises only where no notice under Section 124(a)—which may be oral at the request of the person concerned under the first proviso—is actually issued within…
  • Mohammad Umar vs Commissioner Of Customs — Delhi High Court, 2 Sep 2026. A pre-printed waiver cannot by itself substitute for the statutory notice under Section 124, but a writ court will refuse release of detained goods where the alleged non-compliance rests on disputed factual assertions…
  • Irfan vs Commissioner Of Customs — Delhi High Court, 2 Sep 2026. A High Court will ordinarily decline to entertain a writ petition challenging a concluded Customs adjudication where the statutory appeal under Section 128 is available and has not been availed, and the petitioner…
  • M/S M.Y. Impex vs Commissioner Of Customs -Nagpur — CESTAT, 2 Sep 2026. Provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 is a discretionary power of the adjudicating authority, and the Tribunal will not interfere with refusal of provisional release of…
  • 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…
  • -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…
  • Shri Pawan Kumar vs -Shillong(Preventive) — CESTAT, 17 Jun 2026. Where seized goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the onus of proving that they are of foreign origin lies on the Revenue, and mere seizure on a belief or suspicion of foreign origin cannot…

All 51 judgments