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

Section 47. Clearance of goods for home consumption

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Clearance of Imported goods: Section 47. Clearance of goods for home consumption. —

(1) Where the proper officer is satisfied that any goods entered for home consumption are not prohibited goods and the importer has paid the import duty, if any, assessed thereon and any charges payable under this Act in respect of the same, the proper officer may make an order permitting clearance of the goods for home consumption:

Provided that such order may also be made electronically through the customs automated system on the basis of risk evaluation through appropriate selection criteria:

Provided further that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, permit certain class of importers to make deferred payment of said duty or any charges in such manner as may be provided by rules.

(2) The importer shall pay the import duty-

(a) on the date of presentation of the bill of entry in the case of self assessment; or

(b) within one day (excluding holidays) from the date on which the bill of entry is returned to him by the proper officer for payment of duty in the case of assessment, reassessment or provisional assessment; or

(c) in the case of deferred payment under the proviso to sub-section (1), from such due date as may be specified by rules made in this behalf, and if he fails to pay the duty within the time so specified, he shall pay interest on the duty not paid or short-paid till the date of its payment, at such rate, not less than ten per cent. but not exceeding thirty-six per cent. per annum, as may be fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette.

Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the class or classes of importers who shall pay such duty electronically:

Provided further that where the bill of entry is returned for payment of duty before the commencement of the Customs (Amendment) Act, 1991 and the importer has not paid such duty before such commencement, the date of return of such bill of entry to him shall be deemed to be the date of such commencement for the purpose of this section:

Provided also that if the Board is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, by order for reasons to be recorded, waive the whole or part of any interest payable under this section.

Judgments on Section 47

Balaji Niryat Pvt Ltd vs Kolkata-Port — CESTAT, 22 Jul 2026. Preferential tariff treatment under a trade agreement cannot be denied merely because the overseas supplier failed to cooperate in an origin verification, where the Certificates of Origin covering the importer's own…
Gururaj Steel vs Union Of India — Bombay High Court, 12 Feb 2026. Where a preferential duty claim is disputed pending origin verification, the goods should be provisionally assessed under Section 18 and released on bonds and bank guarantees securing the differential duty — as…
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…
Vicky Ramchand Asrani vs Mumbai-Air Port — CESTAT, 19 Dec 2024. Illicit import of gold must be deterred, but not by alienation of possession from its owner — where goods are merely restricted and not truly prohibited, absolute confiscation under section 125 fails and the owner is…
Seco Tools India (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Air Cargo… — CESTAT, 29 Sep 2022. A Board circular cannot curtail the amendatory power under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 by imposing time limits or restrictions not contemplated in the parent statute, so a request for conversion of shipping…
Itc Ltd vs Cce, Kolkata Iv — Supreme Court of India, 18 Sep 2019. A refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be entertained unless the order of assessment or self-assessment is first modified in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings, because refund…
Larsen And Toubro Limited vs Union Of India — Gujarat High Court, 20 Mar 2019. Goods issued from a bonded warehouse for manufacture under Section 65 are subsumed in the manufacturing process, so their retention in the warehouse beyond one year without extension does not breach Section 61(2)(ii)…
M/S. Videocon Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Appeals),… — CESTAT, 29 Jul 2015. Section 69 and the right of relinquishment under Section 68 operate only during the validity of the warehousing period under Section 61, and once the bond period expires, Section 72(b) applies and duty with penalties,…
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…
Manyata Promoters Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore Customs — CESTAT, 30 Jul 2026. Where no 'Out of Charge' order under Section 47(1) is passed and the amount paid is never appropriated towards any duty demand, the payment retains the character of a deposit rather than duty and is refundable, since…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Commissioner Of Customs, Ahmedabad vs Baroda Rayons Corporation Ltd — Gujarat High Court, 2 Jan 2023. If recourse to a Board circular, read in isolation, would have the effect of nullifying an adjudication confirming duty that has attained finality, such interpretation is necessarily bad in law.
Posco Maharashtra Steel Pvt Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs-Mumbai… — CESTAT, 7 Dec 2022. An amendment request under section 149, Customs Act, 1962, may be refused only for sufficient reason after notice and hearing; ascertainability of the facts at the time of export — not mere lapse of time under a…
Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha vs Commissioner Of Customs Mumbai Import -… — CESTAT, 23 Jun 2022. Provisional release of seized goods under section 110A is an independent proceeding that must be allowed immediately upon seizure notwithstanding pendency of adjudication, and the security demanded must be…
Sachin Kshirsagar vs Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 9 Jun 2022. A claim to an exemption benefit does not by itself establish intent to evade duty, and penalties on individuals cannot be sustained where the classification issue is contentious and their role in the alleged…

All 24 judgments