Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter IX — Warehousing

Section 72. Goods improperly removed from warehouse, etc

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Goods improperly removed from warehouse, etc. —

(1) In any of the following cases, that is to say, -

(a) where any warehoused goods are removed from a warehouse in contravention of section 71;

(b) where any warehoused goods have not been removed from a warehouse at the expiration of the period during which such goods are permitted under section 61 to remain in a warehouse;

(c)[Omitted]

(d) where any goods in respect of which a bond has been executed under 2 section 59 [Omitted] and which have not been cleared for home consumption or export are not duly accounted for to the satisfaction of the proper officer, the proper officer may demand, and the owner of such goods shall forthwith pay, the full amount of duty chargeable on account of such goods together with interest, fine and penalties payable in respect of such goods.

(2) If any owner fails to pay any amount demanded under sub-section (1), the proper officer may, without prejudice to any other remedy, cause to be detained and sold, after notice to the owner (any transfer of the goods notwithstanding) such sufficient portion of his goods, if any, in the warehouse, as the said officer may deem fit.

Judgments on Section 72

Larsen And Toubro Limited vs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 5 Dec 2024. A curative amendment to a Section 58 bonded warehouse licence operates retrospectively from the date of the original licence where the department had full knowledge of the practice, the goods were not diverted, and…
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…
Sundaresh Bhatt vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And… — Supreme Court of India, 26 Aug 2022. Once the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) approves the Liquidator's decision to sell the movable/immovable assets of the corporate debtor in liquidation by adopting a particular mode of sale, there is no provision in the…
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,…
M/S Sbec Sugar Limited & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors — Supreme Court of India, 7 Feb 2011. Where warehoused goods are not cleared under Section 68 within the permitted or extended bond period, they are deemed improperly removed under Section 72(1)(b), duty being payable at the rate applicable on the date of…
Union Of India & Ors vs Shakti Lpg Ltd. & Anr — Supreme Court of India, 18 Feb 2008. An importer whose warehousing period under Section 61(1)(b) has expired and who has surrendered the goods cannot invoke Board circulars to claim re-export under Section 69 once the goods have been put to auction under…
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…
N.K. Bapna vs Union Of India And Ors — Supreme Court of India, 14 May 1992. Clandestine removal of goods from a bonded warehouse without the permission of the proper officer amounts to 'smuggling' even after assessment of duty, because import is not complete until clearance from the warehouse…
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…
Royal Industries Ltd vs C. Ludhiana — CESTAT, 30 Jun 2025. An adjudication order that relies on evidence not relied upon in the show cause notice and ignores the assessee's uncontradverted evidence, including re-warehousing certificates, while denying effective…
Kolkata(Port) vs Shriram Warehousing Pvt Ltd — CESTAT, 16 Apr 2025. Under Section 150(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, sale proceeds must be applied in the statutory order of priority—first to expenses of sale, next to freight and other charges payable to the carrier under Section…
Jj Glastronics Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore-I — CESTAT, 30 Aug 2024. Where a 100% EOU has fulfilled its export obligation and the excess waste remains available in the unit with no allegation of diversion, mere generation of wastage in excess of SION norms cannot be treated as improper…
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…
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.
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…

All 30 judgments