Section 110A. Provisional release of goods, documents and things seized

Judgments on Section 110A

• M/S India Haat Agrotech Private Limited vs Kolkata-Port — CESTAT, 13 Oct 2026. Conditions for provisional release under Section 110A must be confined to protecting the duty actually at stake; the likely penalty and fine cannot be quantified into a bank guarantee before the authenticity of the…
• Richa Shipping Private Limited Through… vs Union Of India — Bombay High Court, 30 Sep 2026. Security for provisional release under Section 110A must be reasonable and based on relevant factors; terms given to a co-noticee in the same case are highly relevant, and clearly excessive conditions can be corrected…
• Malabar Diamond Gallery Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai & Ors. (W.A. No. 377 of 2016) — Madras High Court, 28 Jul 2016. Goods imported in breach of the conditions for import are prohibited goods; provisional release of seized goods is discretionary.
• M/S. Shreeji Corporation, vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Chennai… — Madras High Court, 30 Sep 2026. Where goods were handed over to the first carrier under a multimodal Bill of Lading before a restrictive policy amendment came into force, the amendment cannot be used to refuse the importer's request for provisional…
• M/S. C.S.Enterprises vs The Commissioner Of Customs, — Madras High Court, 24 Sep 2026. A notification or amendment applies only prospectively unless it expressly says otherwise, so it cannot govern imports whose relevant date fell before it came into force.
• M/S.Genx Trading Company vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Sez- Ftwz) — Madras High Court, 22 Sep 2026. Under Section 110A, detained goods can be provisionally released on payment of duty on the declared value, a bank guarantee for 30 percent of the differential duty and a bond for the rest, instead of an excessive…
• M/S. Arahant Automation vs The Commissioner Of Customs, — Madras High Court, 11 Sep 2026. A notification that does not expressly say it is retrospective applies only from its start date, so it cannot be used against goods whose relevant date came earlier.
• M/S. Smart Impex Solutions, vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Chennai… — Madras High Court, 11 Sep 2026. A notification that tightens an exemption applies only from the date it comes into force, unless it expressly says otherwise; it cannot be used against imports whose bill of lading is dated earlier.
• M/S.Smart Impex Solutions vs The Commissioner Of Customs(Chennai… — Madras High Court, 3 Sep 2026. Unless a statutory notification expressly provides for retrospective operation, it can only operate prospectively and cannot govern imports covered by a bill of lading issued prior to its commencement, the bill of…
• M/S.Maruti Enterprises, vs The Commissioner Of Customs(Chennai Ii… — Madras High Court, 3 Sep 2026. Unless a statutory notification expressly provides for retrospective operation, it can only operate prospectively and cannot govern imports covered by a Bill of Lading issued prior to its commencement, the Bill of…
• H R Enterprises vs Kandla Customs — CESTAT, 21 Aug 2026. Customs duty liability on goods imported into an SEZ/FTWZ for authorised operations arises only when the (manufactured) goods are cleared from the SEZ to the DTA, so a bank guarantee of differential duty cannot be…
• M/S Vaibhav International vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Karnataka High Court, 9 Mar 2026. No show cause notice can be issued under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act while assessment remains provisional under Section 18, since the 'relevant date' under Explanation 1(b) to Section 28 runs only from adjustment…
• M/S.Taanish Enterprises vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Chennai Ii) — Madras High Court, 10 Jul 2025. At the provisional release stage under Section 110A, where Customs cannot conclusively establish with available materials that seized imported goods are restricted or prohibited, and the goods are neither contraband nor…
• Mundhra Exim Pvt Ltd Represented By Its Director Mr Ashish Mundhra And Others Vs Union Of India vs Union Of India — Madhya Pradesh High Court, 21 Apr 2025. Provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 can be imposed only during the pendency of proceedings under Sections 28, 28AAA or 28B — that is, after issuance of a Show Cause…
• ) The Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S Isha Exim — Madras High Court, 6 Dec 2024. An Advance Ruling validly obtained under the Customs Act, 1962 binds the Department, which must follow the classification it directs as per Section 28J, and goods detained contrary to such a ruling must be released with…
• Ms Puma Sports India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Mumbai Adj — CESTAT, 19 Aug 2024. An addition to assessable value under rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 can stand only on a specific finding that the payment was a condition of sale of the imported goods, with the initial onus of…
• 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.
• 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…
• Amglo Resources Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 17 Jun 2022. Conditions of provisional release under section 110A must satisfy the 'golden mean' — the Tribunal can interfere where excessive bond or bank guarantee requirements amount to effective denial of release, and the section…
• M/S.Sada Sukhi Electronic Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 10 Jan 2014. Under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, goods seized under Section 110 must be provisionally released to the owner on a bond with such security and conditions as the Commissioner requires, and for non-prohibitory…

All 24 judgments