Section 46. Entry of goods on importation

Explanation in plain English

This section tells an importer how to declare imported goods to customs. The importer files a bill of entry on the customs computer system. The bill can be for home use or for warehousing. It must be filed before the day the goods arrive, up to thirty days early. Brokers file this bill daily, so its timing and truth rules shape their work.

• Goods meant for transit or transhipment do not need this entry.
• The Commissioner can allow paper filing where electronic filing is not workable.
• Lacking details, the importer may declare so, then examine goods or deposit them in a public warehouse.
• Unless the officer permits otherwise, the bill must list every good named in the carrier's receipt.
• Holidays count, so the deadline runs even on a holiday.
• The Board may set other deadlines, none later than the end of arrival day.

Judgments on Section 46

• Shree Grotex Trade Links Pvt Ltd vs Cc Sea Ch - Iii — CESTAT, 3 Sep 2026. Where Customs itself obtained test reports on identical goods and consistently accepted the importer's declared classification, no deliberate or blameworthy conduct can be attributed to the importer, and the extended…
• M.M. Ceramics & Ferro Alloys vs Union Of India & Ors — Delhi High Court, 2 Sep 2026. An importer's truthful declaration under Section 46(4)—including the RVC particulars in a Certificate of Origin—is a substantive statutory obligation, and the power under Section 28 to recover duty escaped by…
• Imperial Fibres Pvt Ltd vs Mundra — CESTAT, 31 Aug 2026. The extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked, and a beneficial exemption cannot be denied, where the department's delayed, partial and unauthenticated foreign verification of Certificates…
• Parveen Kumar Jain vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs Import — Delhi High Court, 20 Aug 2026. An importer who discharges customs duty through purchased scrips without verifying their validity or availability cannot claim bona fide purchaser protection under caveat emptor, and where penalty is imposed under…
• Vrunda International vs Customs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 17 Aug 2026. Preferential/FTA duty benefit cannot be denied, nor duty, confiscation or penalty confirmed, on suspicion or third-party verification alone — the department must verify the importer's own Certificate of Origin from the…
• Mukesh Kumar vs Commissioner Of Customs (Ii), Chennai — CESTAT, 17 Feb 2026. Penalties under sections 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act can be imposed only where mens rea or active involvement is established, and retracted statements recorded u/s 108 cannot sustain duty demands unless tested…
• Shakti Insulated Wires Pvt Ltd vs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 9 Apr 2025. Products in coil form are 'wire' under note 1(f) to Chapter 74 and cannot be classified as 'bars and rods' under note 1(d), so declaring coiled copper as heading 7407 correctly forfeits the CEPA exemption confined to…
• Navakar Impex Pvt Ltd vs Chennai (Port Export) — CESTAT, 29 May 2024. If the charge of under-valuation cannot be supported either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer and the invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction…
• 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…
• Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 24 Jan 2023. A self-assessment recorded in a bill of entry is itself an appealable order under Section 128, and no refund can be claimed or entertained under Section 27 until that self-assessment is modified in accordance with law,…
• Cisco Commerce India Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 19 Oct 2022. Once the SVB has accepted a related-party transaction value under Rule 3(3)(a), the department cannot load value on the basis of the importer's own earlier higher-priced imports treated as 'contemporaneous', and any…
• Seco Tools India (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Air Cargo… — CESTAT, 29 Sep 2022. A Board circular cannot curtail the amendatory power under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 by imposing time limits or restrictions not contemplated in the parent statute, so a request for conversion of shipping…
• 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…
• M/S.N.C.Alexender vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 9 Jun 2022. Show cause notices and adjudication orders issued by DRI officers are valid because they are appointed as 'Officers of Customs' under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022…
• Sandeep Patil vs Union Of India And Ors — Bombay High Court, 7 Oct 2019. For imported warehoused goods, the taxable event is the crossing of the customs barrier, i.e., filing of a bill of entry for home consumption under section 68 of the Customs Act; until then, sales of warehoused goods…
• 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…
• 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)…
• Commissioner Of Customs, Calcutta Etc. Etc. vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr — Supreme Court of India, 17 Feb 2004. A show cause notice and demand contrary to an existing circular of the Board issued under Section 151A are ab initio bad, and while the circular remains in operation the Revenue is bound by it and cannot plead its…
• The Principal Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S. Gimpex Limited — Telangana High Court, 11 Aug 2026. Where an exemption/policy provision is genuinely ambiguous and the importer proceeds on an interpretation later upheld by High Courts, there is no intent to evade duty, and the extended period of limitation under the…
• 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…

All 51 judgments