The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992
Section 11. Contravention of provisions of this Act, rules, orders and foreign trade policy.
The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992
Bare Act
1 [11. Contravention of provisions of this Act, rules, orders and foreign trade policy.-- (1) No export or import shall be made by any person except in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and orders made thereunder and the foreign trade policy for the time being in force.
(2) Where any person makes or abets or attempts to make any export or import in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder or the foreign trade policy, he shall be liable to a penalty of not less than ten thousand rupees and not more than five times the value of the goods or services or technology in respect of which any contravention is made or attempted to be made, whichever is more.
(3) Where any person signs or uses, or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document submitted to the Director General or any officer authorised by him under this Act, knowing or having reason to believe that such declaration, statement or document is forged or tampered with or false in any material particular, he shall be liable to a penalty of not less than ten thousand rupees or more than five times the value of the goods or services or technology in respect of which such declaration, statement or document had been submitted, whichever is more.
(4) Where any person, on a notice to him by the Adjudicating Authority, admits any contravention, the Adjudicating Authority may, in such class or classes or cases and in such manner as may be prescribed, determine, by way of settlement, an amount to be paid by that person.
(5) A penalty imposed under this Act may, if it is not paid by any person, be recovered by any one or more of the following modes, namely:--
(a) the Director General may deduct or require any officer subordinate to him to deduct the amount payable under this Act from any money owing to such person which may be under the control of such officer; or
(b) the Director General may require any officer of customs to deduct the amount payable under this Act from any money owing to such person which may be under the control of such officer of customs, as if the said amount is payable under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); or
(c) the Director General may require the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs or any other officer of Customs to recover the amount so payable by detaining or selling any goods (including the goods connected with services or technology) belonging to such person which are under the control of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner or Customs or any other officer of Customs, as if the said amount is payable under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); or
(d) if the amount cannot be recovered from such person in the manner provided in clauses (a), (b) and (c),--
(i) the Director General or any officer authorised by him may prepare a certificate signed by him specifying the amount due from such person and send it to the Collector of the District in which such person owns any property or resides or carries on business and the said Collector on receipt of such certificate shall proceed to recover from such person the amount specified thereunder as if it were an arrear of land revenue; or
(ii) the Director General or any officer authorised by him (including an officer of Customs who shall then exercise his powers under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) ) and in accordance with the rules made in this behalf, detain any movable or immovable property belonging to or under the control of such person, and detain the same until the amount payable is paid, as if the said amount is payable under the Customs Act, 1962; and in case, any part of the said amount payable or of the cost of the distress or keeping of the property, remains unpaid for a period of thirty days next after any such distress, may cause the said property to be sold and with the proceeds of such sale, may satisfy the amount payable and costs including cost of sale remaining unpaid and shall render the surplus, if any to such person.
(6) Where the terms of any bond or other instrument executed under this Act or any rules made thereunder provide that any amount due under such instrument may be recovered in the manner laid down in sub-section (5), the amount may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be recovered in accordance with the provisions of that sub-section.
(7) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in this section, the Importer-Exporter Code Number of any person who fails to pay any penalty imposed under this Act, may be suspended by the Adjudicating Authority till the penalty is paid or recovered, as the case may be.
(8) Where any contravention of any provision of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder or the foreign trade policy has been, is being, or is attempted to be, made, the goods (including the goods connected with services or technology) together with any package, covering or receptacle and any conveyances shall, subject to such conditions and requirement as may be prescribed, be liable to confiscation by the Adjudicating Authority.
(9) The goods (including the goods connected with services or technology) or the conveyance confiscated under sub-section (8) may be released by the Adjudicating Authority, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, on payment by the person concerned of the redemption charges equivalent to the market value of the goods or conveyance, as the case may be.]
Judgments on Section 11
- 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…
- M/S. Embio Limited vs Director General Of Foreign Trade — Supreme Court of India, 13 May 2024. Non-fulfilment of an export obligation under a licence does not amount to making or attempting an export or import in contravention of the FT Act, and since Section 11(2) is a penal provision that must be strictly…
- Union Of India vs M/S Raj Grow Impex Llp — Supreme Court of India, 17 Jun 2021. Goods imported in contravention of import restrictions notified under the FTDR Act, 1992 are liable to absolute confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, and equity cannot aid importers who imported under the cover of…
- Mungad Strips And Alloys Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs-Indore — CESTAT, 23 Jun 2026. Once a shipping bill is assessed and a Let Export Order issued, the adjudicating authority cannot reopen the assessment, and rejection of transaction value under the Export Valuation Rules affects only the assessable…
- M/S. Aliya Enterprise vs The Commissioner Of Customs… — Gauhati High Court, 19 Jun 2026. 'Reasons to believe' under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is a condition precedent to seizure: the officer must have material with a live link and rational nexus showing the goods are liable to confiscation…
- Standard Cartons Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs Export Icd… — CESTAT, 2 Apr 2026. An exporter who declares the transaction value reflected in its export documents cannot have its goods confiscated under section 113(i) or be penalized under sections 114(iii) and 114AA merely because the proper officer…
- Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited vs Union Of India And Ors — Delhi High Court, 28 Mar 2026. Where the adjudicating authority possesses subject-matter jurisdiction and power under Section 13 of the FT(DR) Act, 1992, an order at most amounting to an 'erroneous exercise of jurisdiction' cannot be assailed by…
- S And S Power Switchgear Ltd., vs The Joint Director General Of — Madras High Court, 27 Mar 2026. Non-fulfilment of an advance licence export obligation is independently penal under the FT(D&R) Act, and recovery of differential duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not foreclose that penalty, while…
- Adani Gangavaram Port Limited (Agpl) vs Union Of India — Telangana High Court, 8 Jan 2026. A policy circular ultra vires the FTDR Act—amending the FTP without a Section 5 notification—is a nullity once quashed and absent any stay, so all proceedings founded on it, including Section 28AAA duty recovery, must…
- M/S Gold Ripe International Pvt Ltd vs C.C. Noida — CESTAT, 12 Dec 2025. Where imported goods are found on official testing to be mis-declared restricted items, they are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, with redemption only under Section 125 on payment of a fine,…
- Modak Dyeing And Printing Co Pvt Ltd vs New Delhi-Icd Tkd — CESTAT, 29 Jul 2025. A proper officer may reject a declared transaction value and re-determine the assessable value, but cannot alter the transaction value itself; export benefits such as drawback and MEIS are computed on the FOB…
- Tukaram Bhat vs Director General Of Foreign Trade — Delhi High Court, 22 Apr 2025. A director cannot be fastened with personal liability under Section 11(2) of the FTDR Act for a company's export-obligation default merely because he was (or was a whole-time) director; specific allegations of his duty…
- Union Of India vs Agricas Llp — Supreme Court of India, 26 Aug 2020. Section 9A of the FTDR Act does not elide or negate the power of the Central Government to impose restrictions on imports under sub-section (2) to Section 3, so quantitative restrictions notified under Section 3(2) are…
- Ajit Gulabchand vs Director General Of Foreign Trade — Delhi High Court, 22 Apr 2025. A director cannot be held personally liable for a company's non-fulfilment of export obligations under the FTDR Act unless a Section 14 notice specifically alleges the duty or obligation cast on him and his conscious…