Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter XV — Appeals and Revision
Section 129E. Deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing appeal
Customs Act, 1962
Bare Act
Deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing appeal. — - The Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, shall not entertain any appeal, -
(i) under sub-section (1) of section 128, unless the appellant has deposited seven and a half per cent. of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of a decision or an order passed by an officer of customs lower in rank than the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs;
(ii) against the decision or order referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1)of section 129A, unless the appellant has deposited seven and a half per cent. of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of the decision or order appealed against;
(iii) against the decision or order referred to in clause (b) of sub-section(1) of section 129A, unless the appellant has deposited ten per cent. of the duty, in case where duty or duty and penalty are in dispute, or penalty, where such penalty is in dispute, in pursuance of the decision or order appealed against:
Provided that the amount required to be deposited under this section shall not exceed rupees ten crores:
Provided further that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the stay applications and appeals pending before any appellate authority prior to the commencement of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014.
Judgments on Section 129E
- M/S. A.P.P. Enterprises vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 29 Apr 2026. Consistent miscoding of export scheme codes and use of parallel invoices across numerous consignments amounts to wilful suppression within Section 28(4) — not a bonafide clerical mistake — and a DRI clean chit cannot…
- 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…
- Nosch Labs Pvt Ltd vs Hyderabad - Customs — CESTAT, 11 Mar 2022. Section 113(d) of the Customs Act applies only where the export of goods is itself prohibited by law and only to export goods not yet out of India; a notification under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act…
- Sinder Pal S/O Late Sh. Ram Sarup vs Commissioner Of Customs, Inland… — Delhi High Court, 16 Sep 2026. The pre-deposit under Section 129E is a mandatory condition for an appeal, and a person who does not pay it cannot use a writ petition to get the High Court to decide the merits instead.
- Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha vs Commissioner Of Customs Mumbai Import -… — CESTAT, 23 Jun 2022. Provisional release of seized goods under section 110A is an independent proceeding that must be allowed immediately upon seizure notwithstanding pendency of adjudication, and the security demanded must be…
- The Daily Thanthi vs Commissioner Of Customs (Appeals) — Madras High Court, 25 Jan 2021. Amounts deposited 'under protest' at the appellate stage, in the nature of a pre-deposit under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962, must be refunded without invoking the unjust enrichment bar or limitation of Section…
- Gujarat State Fertilizer Co Ltd vs Union Of India Thro — Gujarat High Court, 11 Mar 2013. A confirmed demand remains recoverable because a pending appeal is not a stay, but a recovery notice issued while the assessee's stay application is still undisposed of for reasons not attributable to the assessee…
- M/S.Huawei Telecommunications… vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 1 Sep 2026. Interim relief in writ proceedings may be calibrated to the single operative paragraph of an Order-in-Original directing adjustment/appropriation of duty amounts, without disturbing the statutory pre-deposit obligation…