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

Section 111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods etc

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. — The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation: -

(a) any goods imported by sea or air which are unloaded or attempted to be unloaded at any place other than a customs port or customs airport appointed under clause (a) of section 7 for the unloading of such goods;

(b) any goods imported by land or inland water through any route other than a route specified in a notification issued under clause (c) of section 7 for the import of such goods;

(c) any dutiable or prohibited goods brought into any bay, gulf, creek or tidal river for the purpose of being landed at a place other than a customs port;

(d) any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian customs waters for the purpose of being imported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force;

(e) any dutiable or prohibited goods found concealed in any manner in any conveyance;

(f) any dutiable or prohibited goods required to be mentioned under the regulations in an arrival manifest or import manifest or import report which are not so mentioned;

(g) any dutiable or prohibited goods which are unloaded from a conveyance in contravention of the provisions of section 32, other than goods inadvertently unloaded but included in the record kept under sub-section (2) of section 45;

(h) any dutiable or prohibited goods unloaded or attempted to be unloaded in contravention of the provisions of section 33 or section 34;

(i) any dutiable or prohibited goods found concealed in any manner in any package either before or after the unloading thereof;

(j) any dutiable or prohibited goods removed or attempted to be removed from a customs area or a warehouse without the permission of the proper officer or contrary to the terms of such permission;

(k) any dutiable or prohibited goods imported by land in respect of which the order permitting clearance of the goods required to be produced under section 109 is not produced or which do not correspond in any material particular with the specification contained therein;

(l) any dutiable or prohibited goods which are not included or are in excess of those included in the entry made under this Act, or in the case of baggage in the declaration made under section 77;

(m) any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under section 77 in respect thereof, or in the case of goods under trans-shipment, with the declaration for trans-shipment referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 54;

(n) any dutiable or prohibited goods transitted with or without trans-shipment or attempted to be so transitted in contravention of the provisions of Chapter VIII;

(o) any goods exempted, subject to any condition, from duty or any prohibition in respect of the import thereof under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, in respect of which the condition is not observed unless the non-observance of the condition was sanctioned by the proper officer;

(p) any notified goods in relation to which any provisions of Chapter IVA or of any rule made under this Act for carrying out the purposes of that Chapter have been contravened.

(q) any goods imported on a claim of preferential rate of duty which contravenes any provision of Chapter VAA or any rule made thereunder.

Judgments on Section 111

  • M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs — Telangana High Court, 30 Oct 2026. Whether imported goods meet an exemption or import policy condition is tested on the law in force on the date the Bill of Entry is presented (Section 15), and a later amendment without express retrospective effect…
  • Rissala Electric Motors P Ltd vs Principal Commissioner, Customs… — CESTAT, 13 Oct 2026. An incomplete or knocked-down import that, as presented, has the essential character of the complete article is classifiable as the complete article under Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation, but a…
  • Mobis India Module Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs -Ii Chennai — CESTAT, 9 Oct 2026. An electric steering lock assembly, whose only function is anti-theft immobilisation of the steering wheel after the vehicle has stopped, is not a part of a steering wheel, steering column or steering box under CTH 8708…
  • M/S Ascent Circuits Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore Customs — CESTAT, 4 Sep 2026. Goods that are merely 'restricted' (not prohibited) under the Foreign Trade Policy cannot be absolutely confiscated absent specific recorded reasons, since Section 125 confers a discretion to allow redemption on fine…
  • Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) Lko. vs Anand Navalchand Pugaliya — Allahabad High Court, 2 Sep 2026. Reasonable belief backed by substantive evidence of foreign origin is a sine qua non for seizure and for shifting the burden of proof under Section 123; mere suspicion is insufficient, and the customs authorities must…
  • 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,…
  • Imperial Fibres Pvt Ltd vs Mundra — CESTAT, 31 Aug 2026. The extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked, and a beneficial exemption cannot be denied, where the department's delayed, partial and unauthenticated foreign verification of Certificates…
  • Shri Gagan Vohra vs Commissioner Central Excise, Customs,… — CESTAT, 24 Aug 2026. A declared transaction value may be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and re-determined sequentially under Rules 4–9, because voluntary Section 108 statements to Customs officers (who are not…
  • Smt.Geetha vs The Union Of India — Madras High Court, 23 Jul 2026. Redemption of confiscated goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act is a discretionary relief and not a matter of right, and goods imported in breach of statutory restrictions (here, Baggage Rules, 2016 conditions on…
  • 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…
  • Uday Shankar Rai vs Commissioner-Kolkata(Admn Airport) — CESTAT, 11 Jun 2026. Where gold notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 is seized, the onus lies on the person from whose possession it is taken to prove bona fide procurement or possession, and ingenious concealment of the gold…
  • M/S. A.P.P. Enterprises vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 29 Apr 2026. Consistent miscoding of export scheme codes and use of parallel invoices across numerous consignments amounts to wilful suppression within Section 28(4) — not a bonafide clerical mistake — and a DRI clean chit cannot…
  • Commissioner Of Customs -Commissioner… vs Home Designers And Fabricators Pvt Ltd — CESTAT, 26 Mar 2026. Where imported goods violate import policy or regulatory conditions but are not absolutely prohibited, confiscation under Section 111(d) may be upheld, but absolute confiscation is unsustainable and the adjudicating…
  • 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…
  • Mahesh Agarwal Partner vs Cc Sea Ch - Ii — CESTAT, 13 Mar 2026. Where higher-value parallel documents are recovered from the importer's own possession and corroborated by voluntary Section 108 admissions and extra-commercial payments, declared transaction value may be rejected, the…
  • 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.
  • Cochin-Cce vs Maliakkal Industral Enterprises — CESTAT, 5 Dec 2025. Goods provisionally cleared on a bond under Section 18 of the Customs Act pursuant to High Court directions, with the prescribed end-use condition complied with, cannot attract confiscation under Section 111(d), penalty…
  • M/S Xiaomi Technology India Private… vs Commissioner Of Customs Air… — CESTAT, 14 Nov 2025. Royalty and licence fee paid by an importer under agreements with IPR holders, not disclosed to the customs authorities, is includible in the assessable value under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007,…
  • Van Oord India Pvt Ltd vs Customs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 13 Nov 2025. Physical non-availability of goods is no bar to confiscation under Section 111 or redemption fine under Section 125, but the fine must be commensurate with the duty benefit actually accrued, and a Section 114AA penalty…
  • A. R. Sulphonates Private Limited vs Union Of India Thr. The Secretary… — Bombay High Court, 9 Apr 2025. The amendment to Section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 — importing the Customs Act's interest, offence and penalty provisions into IGST levied under Section 3(7) — is prospective…

All 162 judgments