Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter XVI — Offences and Prosecutions

Section 135. Evasion of duty or prohibitions

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Evasion of duty or prohibitions. —

(1) Without prejudice to any action that may be taken under this Act, if any person -

(a) is in relation to any goods in any way knowingly concerned in misdeclaration of value or in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable thereon or of any prohibition for the time being imposed under this Act or any other law for the time being in force with respect to such goods; or

(b) acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111 or Section 113, as the case may be; or

(c) attempts to export any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 113; or

(d) fraudulently avails of or attempts to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty provided under this Act in connection with export of goods; or (e) obtains an instrument from any authority by fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts and such instrument has been utilised by such person or any other person, he shall be punishable, -

(i) in the case of an offence relating to, -

(A) any goods the market price of which exceeds one crore of rupees; or

(B) the evasion or attempted evasion of duty exceeding 4 fifty lakh of rupees; or

(C) such categories of prohibited goods as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify; or

(D) fraudulently availing of or attempting to avail of drawback or any exemption from duty referred to in clause (d), if the amount of drawback or exemption from duty exceeds fifty lakh of rupees; or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine: (E) obtaining an instrument from any authority by fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts and such instrument has been utilised by any person, where the duty relatable to utilisation of the instrument exceeds fifty lakh rupees Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the court, such imprisonment shall not be for less than one year;

(ii) in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(2) If any person convicted of an offence under this section or under sub-section (1) of section 136 is again convicted of an offence under this section, then, he shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine:

Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be recorded in the judgment of the court such imprisonment shall not be for less than one year.

(3) For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2), the following shall not be considered as special and adequate reasons for awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year, namely:-

(i) the fact that the accused has been convicted for the first time for an offence under this Act;

(ii) the fact that in any proceeding under this Act, other than a prosecution, the accused has been ordered to pay a penalty or the goods which are the subject matter of such proceedings have been ordered to be confiscated or any other action has been taken against him for the same act which constitutes the offence;

(iii) the fact that the accused was not the principal offender and was acting merely as a carrier of goods or otherwise was a secondary party to the commission of the offence;

(iv) the age of the accused.

Explanation. — For the purposes of this section, the expression"instrument" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 28AAA.

Judgments on Section 135

  • M/S Pigeon International vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs -… — CESTAT, 30 Apr 2024. In the absence of mens rea, a customs broker or courier agent acting as a mere facilitator of customs transactions cannot be penalized for the omissions or commissions of the importer/exporter, and a venial procedural…
  • Commr.Of Customs (Import) Mumbai vs M/S Ganpati Overseas Thr. Its… — Supreme Court of India, 6 Oct 2023. Undervaluation must be proved by the department through evidence or information of contemporaneous imports of like goods at higher prices, and mere suspicion of the invoice or reliance on foreign export…
  • Om Prakash & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr — Supreme Court of India, 30 Sep 2011. Offences under the Customs Act, 1962 — including those punishable under Section 135 — are non-cognizable but bailable, and an arrested person who offers bail must be released under Section 104(3) of the Customs Act if…
  • Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr. — Supreme Court of India, 18 Feb 2011. Adjudication and prosecution may run together; exoneration on merits in adjudication ends a prosecution on the same facts.
  • P.Baskar Naidu, M/62 Years vs The Assistant Commissioner Of — Madras High Court, 15 Sep 2026. Misdeclaring an export to hide prohibited goods is punishable under Sections 132 and 135; the higher seven-year limit under Section 135 applies only to goods covered by Section 123.
  • Lucknow Prev vs Narpat Singh — CESTAT, 11 Aug 2026. Gold cannot be confiscated as smuggled goods on the basis of uncorroborated or retracted statements alone; absent foreign markings or independent evidence of foreign origin, the burden of proof under Section 123 remains…
  • -Kolkata(Port) vs Jelenta Polytraders Private Limited — CESTAT, 10 Jun 2026. Once DGFT has issued EODCs and the customs bonds stand discharged, and a contemporaneous show-cause notice of another department records the EOU's receipt of the imported goods, co-noticees cannot be penalised under…
  • Shri Tara Chand Jain vs Commissioner Of Customs (Port) — CESTAT, 22 May 2026. Where DGFT has issued EODCs for the authorisations and the Customs Bond Cell has itself redeemed the bonds, the duty demand fails and the extended period under Section 28(4) is not invokable because the facts were…
  • M/S Bhagwati Products Limited vs C.C. Noida — CESTAT, 12 Dec 2025. Equity has no place in the interpretation of a fiscal statute — 'there is no room for any intendment... there is no equity about a tax...
  • Shri Ritesh Soni vs Lucknow Prev — CESTAT, 5 Aug 2025. A carrier who, per his corroborated Section 108 statement, knowingly transports smuggled gold is liable to penalty under Section 112(b) even though he is neither the owner nor the claimant of the goods.
  • Kakdiya Savitaben Dharamshi vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs Zone Ii… — CESTAT, 15 Jul 2025. A compounding application under Section 137(3) of the Customs Act may be filed at any stage — even before show cause notice or adjudication — and the Compounding Authority, being an 'adjudicating authority', must decide…
  • 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…
  • Ashok Kumar Goyal Manager vs Noida Customs — CESTAT, 3 Jun 2024. A retracted confessional statement is weak evidence which can at best be used as corroboration and cannot by itself sustain a penalty unless the Department establishes its voluntary character and supports it with…
  • Yamal Manojbhai vs Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 4 May 2023. Watches being goods to which Section 123 applies, the proviso to Section 127B bars recourse to the Settlement Commission for cases involving their illicit importation, though here the Bench's divergence of opinion led…
  • Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. — Supreme Court of India, 2 Feb 2007. Under Rule 5(4) of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005, the compounding amount for an offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is up to twenty per cent of the market value of the goods or…
  • Rajesh Kumar Sharma… Petitioner vs Union Of India & Ors.… Respondents — Supreme Court of India, 2 Feb 2007. Under Rule 5(4) of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005, the compounding amount for an offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is up to 20% of the market value of the goods or Rs.
  • Muhammed Ramsheed Thazhathethil vs State Of Kerala — Kerala High Court, 9 Sep 2026. Where the investigation is almost over, the recovery has been effected and the accused has no criminal antecedents, continued detention is not required for any purpose and regular bail should be granted on appropriate…
  • Sagaya Arul Dass vs The Senior Intelligence Officer — Madras High Court, 7 Sep 2026. Even in a serious case under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, a court may enlarge the accused on conditional bail by weighing the specific role attributed to him, the period of incarceration already undergone, and…
  • 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…
  • Adani Enterprises Limited And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors — Bombay High Court, 17 Oct 2019. A Letter of Rogatory under Section 166-A Cr.P.C. can be issued only in aid of an investigation validly commenced under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C.; where the alleged customs offence is non-cognizable under Section 104(5)…

All 23 judgments