Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter XVII — Miscellaneous

Section 143. Power to allow import or export on execution of bonds in certain cases

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Power to allow import or export on execution of bonds in certain cases. —

(1) Where this Act or any other law requires anything to be done before a person can import or export any goods or clear any goods from the control of officers of customs and the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case, such thing cannot be done before such import, export or clearance without detriment to that person, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or such other law, grant leave for such import, export or clearance on the person executing a bond in such amount, with such surety or security and subject to such conditions as the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs approves, for the doing of that thing within such time after the import, export or clearance as may be specified in the bond.

(2) If the thing is done within the time specified in the bond, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs shall cancel the bond as discharged in full and shall, on demand, deliver it, so cancelled, to the person who has executed or who is entitled to receive it; and in such a case that person shall not be liable to any penalty provided in this Act or, as the case may be, in such other law for the contravention of the provisions thereof relating to the doing of that thing.

(3) If the thing is not done within the time specified in the bond, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs shall, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, be entitled to proceed upon the bond in accordance with law.

Judgments on Section 143

  • Cochin-Cce vs Maliakkal Industral Enterprises — CESTAT, 5 Dec 2025. Goods provisionally cleared on a bond under Section 18 of the Customs Act pursuant to High Court directions, with the prescribed end-use condition complied with, cannot attract confiscation under Section 111(d), penalty…
  • A. R. Sulphonates Private Limited vs Union Of India Thr. The Secretary… — Bombay High Court, 9 Apr 2025. The amendment to Section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 — importing the Customs Act's interest, offence and penalty provisions into IGST levied under Section 3(7) — is prospective…
  • Ceat Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Mumbai Export… — CESTAT, 2 Sep 2026. Where the importer has fulfilled the export obligation and the customs authorities themselves have accepted the EODC and cancelled the bonds executed under Section 143, duty demands confirmed solely on the premise of…
  • Mapaex Consumer Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India — Madhya Pradesh High Court, 18 Aug 2026. Where a fiscal statute provides a complete, self-contained hierarchy of statutory remedies, the High Court should not entertain an Article 226 writ petition that short-circuits the regular statutory appeal against a…
  • -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…
  • Sree Koppammal Cotton Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Tuticorin — CESTAT, 27 Apr 2026. Once an EODC or EPCG instrument has been issued by the DGFT and has not been cancelled or suspended by the competent authority under the FTDR Act, the customs authorities cannot go behind it or confirm duty demands and…
  • 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…
  • M/S.Core Plasto Enterprises vs Joint Director General Of Foreigntrade — Madras High Court, 14 Oct 2025. Where an effective appeal remedy is available against an order before the appellate authority under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, an Article 226 writ petition filed without…
  • Msc Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A vs Union Of India — Madras High Court, 17 Jan 2020. Public notices that merely offer importers and exporters an optional facility, in furtherance of Section 143AA of the Customs Act, 1962, to pay terminal handling charges directly to port terminals are neither arbitrary…