Section 117. Penalties for contravention etc not expressly mentioned

Judgments on Section 117

• Pl Shipping And Logistics Ltd vs Tuticorin — CESTAT, 8 Sep 2026. A Customs Broker's deficient KYC/antecedent verification, absent evidence of any act, omission or abetment having nexus with the prohibited goods, cannot sustain a penalty under Section 114(i), and the residuary Section…
• Van Oord India Pvt Ltd vs Customs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 13 Nov 2025. Physical non-availability of goods is no bar to confiscation under Section 111 or redemption fine under Section 125, but the fine must be commensurate with the duty benefit actually accrued, and a Section 114AA penalty…
• Principal Commissioner Of Customs, Bangalore vs M/S Pigeon International — Karnataka High Court, 26 Sep 2025. Penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 attracts on a plain contravention or failure to comply without any requirement of mens rea, and it operates in a domain distinct from Regulation 14 of the 2010 Courier…
• Shiv Probuild Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-New Delhi Acc… — CESTAT, 6 Aug 2024. Violations of bonded warehouse licence conditions that are merely typographical, curable, or not breaches of any legal provision are not serious enough to warrant cancellation of the licence under section 58B, and…
• Frigorifico Allana P Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva-I — CESTAT, 28 Jun 2024. Breach of conditions appended to a warehouse licence may warrant cancellation of the licence but not penalty under section 117, because imposition of penalty is in the realm of statutory enactment only and regulation 12…
• M/S Orbit Trans Express & Freight Pvt Ltd vs The Principal Commissioner Customs… — CESTAT, 30 Apr 2024. Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 applies only where no express penalty is elsewhere provided, and a courier agent or customs broker acting as a mere facilitator, absent mens rea, cannot be penalized for the omission…
• M/S Pigeon International vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs -… — CESTAT, 30 Apr 2024. In the absence of mens rea, a customs broker or courier agent acting as a mere facilitator of customs transactions cannot be penalized for the omissions or commissions of the importer/exporter, and a venial procedural…
• Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva-I — CESTAT, 22 Apr 2024. Storage or unloading of imported goods, even in non-bonded tanks or through pipelines into a bonded warehouse, attracts no confiscation, redemption fine or penalty where it is done with the prior permission of the…
• Speedy Multimodes Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs Ns-Gen… — CESTAT, 4 Mar 2024. A CFS custodian/CCSP cannot escape liability for pilferage of seized goods in its custody merely because third parties had access; it must indemnify the value of the lost goods under Regulation 5(6) of HCCAR and is…
• 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…
• M/S. Videocon Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Appeals),… — CESTAT, 29 Jul 2015. Section 69 and the right of relinquishment under Section 68 operate only during the validity of the warehousing period under Section 61, and once the bond period expires, Section 72(b) applies and duty with penalties,…
• Union Of India (Uoi) Through The… vs Hoganas India Ltd. And Ors. [Alongwith… — Bombay High Court, 21 Jul 2005. The Settlement Commission under Chapter XIV-A has a very wide jurisdiction to entertain all kinds of settlement applications under Section 127B — including cases involving fraud or mis-declaration — provided the…
• Jaiprakash Associates Limited vs The Office Of The Commissioner Of… — Delhi High Court, 2 Sep 2026. Once a Resolution Plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, a pre-CIRP customs claim that was never submitted during the CIRP stands extinguished and cannot be enforced against the Corporate Debtor, Section 238…
• Lynx Express Pvt Ltd vs Cc (C S I Airport) Mumbai — CESTAT, 17 Jun 2026. A penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be imposed on an authorised courier agent where the show cause notice alleges only a failure to comply with Regulation 13 of the Courier Imports and Exports…
• Midas Treads (India) Pvt Ltd vs Cochin-Cus — CESTAT, 30 Mar 2026. Law is well settled that the substantial right of an exporter cannot be denied on procedural non-compliances, and an ISO certificate is not a condition for Advance Authorisation but only a procedural relaxation for…
• Kannur International Airport Ltd vs Cochin-Cus — CESTAT, 23 Sep 2025. Interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is attracted only where the amount payable is 'duty' under Section 28, and therefore cannot be levied on cost recovery charges, which are not duty.
• Akshay Logistics vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva-I — CESTAT, 7 Jul 2025. Confiscation under section 111(j) fails unless the goods are established to have been removed from the warehouse after bonding without the proper officer's permission or in breach of its terms, and minor, rectified…
• 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…
• Ashok Kumar Goyal Manager vs Noida Customs — CESTAT, 3 Jun 2024. A retracted confessional statement is weak evidence which can at best be used as corroboration and cannot by itself sustain a penalty unless the Department establishes its voluntary character and supports it with…
• Apm Terminals India P Ltd Main vs The Commissioner Of Customs Ns-Gen… — CESTAT, 17 May 2024. Control of customs areas under HCCAR-2009 confers no authority on customs officers to enforce the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989, a public notice has no legal standing under the…

All 33 judgments