Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter IX — Warehousing

Section 61. Period for which goods may remain warehoused

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Period for which goods may remain warehoused.

(1) Any warehoused goods may remain in the warehouse in which they are deposited or in any warehouse to which they may be removed, -

(a) in the case of capital goods intended for use in any hundred per cent export oriented undertaking or electronic hardware technology park unit or software technology park unit or any warehouse wherein manufacture or other operations have been permitted under section 65, till their clearance from the warehouse;

(b) in the case of goods other than capital goods intended for use in any hundred per cent. export oriented undertaking or electronic hardware technology park unit or software technology park unit or any warehouse wherein manufacture or other operations have been permitted under section 65, till their consumption or clearance from the warehouse; and

(c) in the case of any other goods, till the expiry of one year from the date on which the proper officer has made an order under sub-section (1) of section 60:

Provided that in the case of any goods referred to in this clause, the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, on sufficient cause being shown, extend the period for which the goods may remain in the warehouse, by not more than one year at a time:

Provided further that where such goods are likely to deteriorate, the period referred to in the first proviso may be reduced by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs to such shorter period as he may deem fit.

(2) Where any warehoused goods specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1) remain in a warehouse beyond a period of ninety days from the date on which the proper officer has made an order under sub-section (1) of section 60, interest shall be payable at such rate as may be fixed by the Central Government under section 47, on the amount of duty payable at the time of clearance of the goods, for the period from the expiry of the said ninety days till the date of payment of duty on the warehoused goods:

Provided that if the Board considers it necessary so to do, in the public interest, it may, -

(a) by order, and under the circumstances of an exceptional nature, to be specified in such order, waive the whole or any part of the interest payable under this section in respect of any warehoused goods;

(b) by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the class of goods in respect of which no interest shall be charged under this section;

(c) by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the class of goods in respect of which the interest shall be chargeable from the date on which the proper officer has made an order under sub-section (1) of section 60.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, -

(i) "electronic hardware technology park unit" means a unit established under the Electronic Hardware Technology Park Scheme notified by the Government of India;

(ii) "hundred per cent. export oriented undertaking" has the same meaning as in clause (ii) of Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944); and

(iii) "software technology park unit" means a unit established under the Software Technology Park Scheme notified by the Government of India.

Judgments on Section 61

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…
Shm Shipcare P Ltd vs Mumbai-Air Cargo Import — CESTAT, 16 Feb 2024. Manufacture in a customs bonded warehouse under Sections 58 and 65 is a duty-deferment scheme: import duty on raw materials consumed in the final product is payable only on clearance of the final product under Section…
Yash Pakka Limited vs Lucknow Prev — CESTAT, 14 Feb 2024. Under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, a shipping bill may be amended or converted even after export if supported by documentary evidence in existence at the time of export, and a circular's self-imposed time limit…
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)…
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…
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…
Ms Yash Pakka Limited vs C.C. Lucknow — CESTAT, 23 Aug 2023. A request under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for conversion of free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills cannot be rejected without affording the exporter an opportunity of hearing — an order passed…
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…
The Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S. Robert Bosch India Ltd — CESTAT, 6 Sep 2013. Confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962 is a discretionary power of the adjudicating authority, and where the authority, for recorded reasons and in view of payment of full duty and interest before show-cause notice,…
Congress Building No vs The Commissioner Of Customs And — Bombay High Court, 14 Feb 2013. Where the Development Commissioner has extended a 100% EOU's letter of permission, customs authorities cannot, before expiry of the extended period, recover duty, interest, penalty or fine on the unit's warehoused…
Mavi Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise — CESTAT, 1 Feb 2012. Where a 100% EOU's letter of permission and private bonded warehousing licence have expired without renewal, the imported goods are deemed removed from bonded premises and become dutiable at the rate prevailing on the…
(Ii) U. B. Venkatesh, Managing Director vs The Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 1 Jul 2011. Where duty-free import benefits under a notification are availed by assessment to nil rate of duty and its conditions are violated, the resultant short levy must be demanded under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, and…
Equinox vs Union — Gujarat High Court, 21 Feb 2011. Instructions issued under section 96(1) of the Finance Act, 1999 [1998] serve only the 'proper administration' of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and cannot curtail its scope by excluding classes of cases, such as…
Sri Vishnupriya Industries Ltd. (In… vs Superintendent Of Central Excise And Customs — Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana), 3 Sep 2004. A detention and sale of warehoused goods under Section 72(2) of the Customs Act without a proper demand under Section 72(1) and notice to the owner is non est and void ab initio, and where no sale has been effected…
Hi-Tech Engineers vs Union Of India (Uoi) — Bombay High Court, 28 Jul 2003. Where duty-free clearance of warehoused goods under Section 90 is obtained by misdeclaration, the clearance becomes an improper removal and, once the assessment is set aside and duty is found payable, Section 72 read…
Mr. Damodar Narcinva Naik, Mr. Narcinva… vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.,… — Bombay High Court, 15 Sep 2005. A dispute as to whether goods lying in a bonded warehouse are imported or indigenous is itself a dispute covered by the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, and the department cannot reject a declaration under KVSS by relying on…