Section 3. Powers to make provisions relating to imports and exports.

Judgments on Section 3

• Gimpex Private Limited vs Union Of India — Madras High Court, 15 Oct 2026. A change in export policy from Free to Restricted applies to exports made after the notification date; goods bought or stored at the port without a bill of lading or a registered ICLC get no transition protection under…
• Cc Sea Ch - Ii vs Poddar Global Limited — CESTAT, 8 Sep 2026. Where newsprint is imported and warehoused by a non-RNI registered entity prior to the amendment of FTP policy on 03.06.2016, and subsequently sold to RNI-registered actual users who clear it on filing ex-bond Bills of…
• Hitesh Miglani vs Union Of India & Ors — Delhi High Court, 23 Mar 2026. Where seized goods are not 'prohibited goods' under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, grant of the redemption option under Section 125(1) is obligatory and not discretionary, and a later notification restricting imports…
• 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…
• Mr. R. K. Digital Solutions vs Hyderabad - G S T — CESTAT, 28 Nov 2025. A notification or Explanation that changes or widens the scope of the main provision operates only prospectively and cannot apply to imports made before its date, and where no restriction existed on the date of import,…
• Union Of India vs M/S Raj Grow Impex Llp — Supreme Court of India, 17 Jun 2021. Goods imported in contravention of import restrictions notified under the FTDR Act, 1992 are liable to absolute confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, and equity cannot aid importers who imported under the cover of…
• Hazel Mercantile Limited vs Kandla Customs — CESTAT, 7 Sep 2026. Where the department's test reports are inconclusive or bested by more specialized reports under the 'most akin' test, and the disputed goods are merely a species of the declared genus (NGL within Naphtha) covered by…
• Rika Global Impex Limited vs Union Of India — Bombay High Court, 3 Aug 2026. Legitimate expectation is not an enforceable right against a well-reasoned policy decision, and judicial interference is warranted only where the decision suffers from arbitrariness so as to offend Article 14, since…
• Maa Kamakhya Traders vs The Union Of India — Patna High Court, 24 Jul 2026. Where a confiscation order has been passed under Section 124, the seizure merges with it and a party who ignored the show cause notice and hearing must pursue the equally efficacious statutory appeal under Section 128…
• -Kolkata(Prev) vs Shri Gouse Gaffar Shaikh — CESTAT, 3 Jul 2026. Where exotic birds and animals are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden lies on the Revenue to prove by tangible and corroborative evidence that they were smuggled, and mere possession or…
• M/S. Aliya Enterprise vs The Commissioner Of Customs… — Gauhati High Court, 19 Jun 2026. 'Reasons to believe' under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is a condition precedent to seizure: the officer must have material with a live link and rational nexus showing the goods are liable to confiscation…
• Enero Jewels Pvt.Ltd vs The Union Of India — Gujarat High Court, 20 Apr 2026. A DGFT notification restricting imports takes effect from the time of its publication/promulgation (digital signing/e-Gazette upload) and, absent statutory authorization, cannot operate retrospectively to goods that had…
• M/S Bhagwan Corporation vs Commissioner Of Customs, Icd Patparganj — Delhi High Court, 9 Feb 2026. Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, employing the word 'may', confers a discretion rather than an absolute or vested right to redemption of confiscated goods—especially prohibited goods—and Article 226 cannot be…
• Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 21 Jan 2026. A Notification issued under Section 3 of the FT (D&R) Act, 1992 acquires the force of law only upon its publication in the Official Gazette — in law it is born only upon such publication, and it is from that date alone…
• R.K.Jewels vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Acc… — CESTAT, 7 Jan 2026. Customs authorities cannot recover duty under section 28(1)/28AAA or deny benefits on the ground that an import licence or other instrument issued under the FTDR Act was wrongly obtained unless and until the DGFT itself…
• M/S Gold Ripe International Pvt Ltd vs C.C. Noida — CESTAT, 12 Dec 2025. Where imported goods are found on official testing to be mis-declared restricted items, they are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, with redemption only under Section 125 on payment of a fine,…
• Chillies Exporters Association India vs Directorate General Of Foreign Trade & Anr. — Delhi High Court, 10 Dec 2025. Delegated or subordinate legislation can only be prospective and not retrospective unless the statute specifically vests the rule-making authority with power to make it retrospective, and neither Section 3 nor Section 5…
• Skylark Electronics Private Limited vs -Kolkata(Port) — CESTAT, 28 Nov 2025. Multimedia speakers with added ancillary features of USB/SD/MMC playback and/or FM radio are properly classifiable under CTH 8518 — where MRP/RSP-based CVD does not apply — and not under CTH 8519/8527, and where the…
• Indu Shekhar vs Union Of India And Anr — Bombay High Court, 3 Oct 2025. The power to amend the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 — and hence to change the tariff classification of goods from one Chapter Heading to another — vests in the Central Government alone under Section…
• The Senior Intelligence Officer vs Sri. Karthikprabhu — Karnataka High Court, 7 Jul 2025. Live exotic animals seized from domestic premises away from the customs barrier are not 'goods' under Section 2(22) of the Customs Act, and Customs/DRI officers have no power to seize them there, such matters being…

All 31 judgments