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

Section 51. Clearance of goods for exportation

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Clearance of export goods: Section 51. Clearance of goods for exportation. —

(1) Where the proper officer is satisfied that any goods entered for export are not prohibited goods and the exporter has paid the 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 and loading of the goods for exportation:

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 exporters to make deferred payment of said duty or any charges in such manner as may be provided by rules.

(2)Where the exporter fails to pay the export duty, either in full or in part, under the proviso to sub-section (1) by such due date as may be specified by rules, he shall pay interest on said duty not paid or short-paid till the date of its payment at such rate, not below five per cent and not exceeding thirty-six per cent per annum, as may be fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette.

Judgments on Section 51

  • Jsw Steel Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Ii), Chennai — CESTAT, 4 Sep 2026. Where excess export duty was never part of any assessment and comes to light only upon a subsequent reassessment, limitation for refund under Section 27(1B)(c) runs from the date of that reassessment, not from the…
  • 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…
  • M/S Jairath International And Another vs Union Of India And Others — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 4 Oct 2019. The customs department has no power under Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules, 1995 or the Valuation Rules, 2007 to re-assess a shipping bill duly assessed at the time of export, because goods already exported are not 'export…
  • Baker Hughes Oilfield Services India Pvt Ltd vs Customs Authority For Advance Rulings And Anr — Delhi High Court, 19 Aug 2026. A re-import exemption presupposes sufficient continuity between the export and the return; where the original concessional transaction has concluded with export to an FTWZ/SEZ, a subsequent movement into the DTA under a…
  • Rika Global Impex Limited vs Union Of India — Bombay High Court, 3 Aug 2026. Legitimate expectation is not an enforceable right against a well-reasoned policy decision, and judicial interference is warranted only where the decision suffers from arbitrariness so as to offend Article 14, since…
  • Bayer Crop Science Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva -… — CESTAT, 20 Jan 2026. Customs authorities cannot reclassify goods after export or deny/cancel MEIS scrips, since export benefits fall within the exclusive domain of the DGFT under the FTDR Act, 1992, exports attain finality under Section 51…
  • John Deere India P Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Pune — CESTAT, 13 Dec 2024. Where shipping bills are converted under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, the date of export for computing limitation under the Drawback Rules, 2017 must be deemed to be the date of conversion, not the original let…
  • 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…
  • Jindal Drugs P Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs -Nhava Sheva -… — CESTAT, 15 Dec 2022. A request to amend a shipping bill under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 should be permitted unless established evidence exists that the goods were not in conformity with the details furnished in the shipping bill,…
  • 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…
  • M/S Narula Tools International vs Commissioner, Commissionerate Of… — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 18 Oct 2019. A show cause notice issued after 1.10.2017 invoking Rule 16 of the repealed Drawback Rules, 1995 to recover drawback or reassess the value of goods already exported is unsustainable, both for want of saving under Rule…
  • Century Knitters (India) Ltd. And… vs Union Of India And Others — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 18 Oct 2019. A show cause notice issued after 01.10.2017 invoking Rule 16 of the repealed Drawback Rules, 1995 is not sustainable in view of Rule 20(2) of the Drawback Rules, 2017, the 1995 Rules contain no mechanism for raising…
  • Zee Knits And Weaves Private Limited And… vs Union Of India And Ors — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 18 Oct 2019. A demand of duty drawback under Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules, 1995 pursuant to a show cause notice issued more than five years after export/assessment or after 01.10.2017 (when the 1995 Rules stood repealed) is not…
  • M/S Famina Knit Fabs vs Union Of India And Others — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 20 Sep 2019. A demand of duty drawback as erroneously or excessively availed is bad in law where the rule invoked (Rule 16, Drawback Rules, 1995) prescribes no machinery or procedure for determining and demanding such drawback, and…
  • M/S.Umang Overseas vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 1 Mar 2012. Goods seized under Section 110 must be dealt with under Section 110A — releasable to the owner pending adjudication on a bond with such security and conditions as the Commissioner requires — and once the adjudicating…
  • Rare Crafts Overseas vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai — CESTAT, 12 Aug 2010. A let export order under Section 51 does not oust the jurisdiction of Customs at the gateway/exit port to seize the goods and initiate confiscation proceedings, since confiscation is an action in rem that depends on the…
  • Mr Nandeesha N vs Union Of India — Karnataka High Court, 28 Aug 2026. In a chain smuggling operation, non-recovery of contraband from an accused's person is not by itself a ground to quash proceedings at the threshold, for 'innocence is a defence to be demonstrated in the proceedings, not…