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

Section 114. Penalty for attempt to export goods improperly etc

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Penalty for attempt to export goods improperly, etc. — Any person 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 113, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, 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 three times the value of the goods as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, 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 any other goods, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods, as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is the greater.

Judgments on Section 114

Pl Shipping And Logistics Ltd vs Tuticorin — CESTAT, 8 Sep 2026. A Customs Broker's deficient KYC/antecedent verification, absent evidence of any act, omission or abetment having nexus with the prohibited goods, cannot sustain a penalty under Section 114(i), and the residuary Section…
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,…
Haji S International vs Commissioner Of Customs-Air Cargo… — CESTAT, 30 Apr 2026. Where the repealing 2017 Drawback Rules contain a specific saving provision in rule 20(2), section 159A of the Customs Act does not apply, and recovery of drawback under rule 16 or 16A of the repealed 1995 Rules cannot…
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.
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…
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…
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…
Ujjawal Chattopadhyay vs New Delhi-Icd Tkd — CESTAT, 20 Mar 2025. Penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA cannot be sustained on a retracted, uncorroborated admission alone; the department must independently prove the broker's knowledge of the falsity, and co-noticee statements…
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…
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…
M/S.N.C.Alexender vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 9 Jun 2022. Show cause notices and adjudication orders issued by DRI officers are valid because they are appointed as 'Officers of Customs' under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022…
Nosch Labs Pvt Ltd vs Hyderabad - Customs — CESTAT, 11 Mar 2022. Section 113(d) of the Customs Act applies only where the export of goods is itself prohibited by law and only to export goods not yet out of India; a notification under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act…
Union Of India (Uoi) Through The… vs Hoganas India Ltd. And Ors. [Alongwith… — Bombay High Court, 21 Jul 2005. The Settlement Commission under Chapter XIV-A has a very wide jurisdiction to entertain all kinds of settlement applications under Section 127B — including cases involving fraud or mis-declaration — provided the…
Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla vs M/S Essar Oil Limited & Ors — Supreme Court of India, 7 Oct 2004. A cheque tendered without actually available funds is not 'payment' of customs duty, and a declaration of fund availability made knowing funds are unavailable is a fraudulent mis-declaration that vitiates the clearance.
M/S.Newport Shipping And Logistics vs The Commissioner Of Customs… — Madras High Court, 17 Sep 2026. A Customs Broker cannot be penalised for abetting an improper export under Section 114 merely for filing documents and lacking diligence; there must be material showing it knew of the wrongdoing or consciously took part…
Fedex Express Transportation And Supply Chain Services vs -Commissioner Of Customs (Iv), Chennai — CESTAT, 9 Sep 2026. An authorised courier cannot be penalised under Sections 114(i)/114AA for concealed contraband absent evidence of knowledge, connivance or collusion, and neither non-collection of a second identity document (a mere…
Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya vs Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 2 Sep 2026. A judicial or quasi-judicial decision that relies on fake or hallucinated artificial intelligence-generated precedents without verification is no decision in the eyes of the law and must be set aside, even if an iota of…
Himalyani Gupta vs Commissioner Of Customs (Air Cargo… — CESTAT, 24 Aug 2026. Section 113 authorises confiscation of only 'export goods' (section 2(19)) — once goods are exported they cease to be export goods and become exported goods — so penalties under sections 114 and 114AA cannot stand…
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…
Tonira Pharma Ltd vs The Union Of Inida — Gujarat High Court, 18 Jun 2026. Excise duty paid on clearing goods into the DTA cannot be adjusted or abated against customs or anti-dumping duty liability, the two levies being distinct in nature with no statutory provision permitting such…

All 45 judgments