Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter XIV — Confiscation of goods and conveyances and imposition of penalties

Section 113. Confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly exported

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

SECTION 113. Confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly exported, etc. — The following export goods shall be liable to confiscation:-

(a) any goods attempted to be exported by sea or air from any place other than a customs port or a customs airport appointed for the loading of such goods;

(b) any goods attempted to be exported by land or inland water through any route other than a route specified in a notification issued under clause (c) of section 7 for the export of such goods;

(c) any [Omitted] goods brought near the land frontier or the coast of India or near any bay, gulf, creek or tidal river for the purpose of being exported from a place other than a land customs station or a customs port appointed for the loading of such goods;

(d) any goods attempted to be exported or brought within the limits of any customs area for the purpose of being exported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force;

(e) any [Omitted] goods found concealed in a package which is brought within the limits of a customs area for the purpose of exportation;

(f) any [Omitted] goods which are loaded or attempted to be loaded in contravention of the provisions of section 33 or section 34;

(g) any [Omitted] goods loaded or attempted to be loaded on any conveyance, or water-borne, or attempted to be water-borne for being loaded on any vessel, the eventual destination of which is a place outside India, without the permission of the proper officer;

(h) any [Omitted] goods which are not included or are in excess of those included in the entry made under this Act, or in the case of baggage in the declaration made under section 77;

(i) any goods entered for exportation which do not correspond in respect of value or in any material particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under section 77;

(ia) any goods entered for exportation under claim for drawback which do not correspond in any material particular with any information furnished by the exporter or manufacturer under this Act in relation to the fixation of rate of drawback under section 75;

(j) any goods on which import duty has not been paid and which are entered for exportation under a claim for drawback under section 74;

(ja) any goods entered for exportation under claim of remission or refund of any duty or tax or levy to make a wrongful claim in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force;

(k) any goods cleared for exportation [Omitted] which are not loaded for exportation on account of any wilful act, negligence or default of the exporter, his agent or employee, or which after having been loaded for exportation are unloaded without the permission of the proper officer;

(l) any specified goods in relation to which any provisions of Chapter IVB or of any rule made under this Act for carrying out the purposes of that Chapter have been contravened.

Judgments on Section 113

  • Haji S International vs Commissioner Of Customs-Air Cargo… — CESTAT, 30 Apr 2026. Where the repealing 2017 Drawback Rules contain a specific saving provision in rule 20(2), section 159A of the Customs Act does not apply, and recovery of drawback under rule 16 or 16A of the repealed 1995 Rules cannot…
  • M/S Anax Air Services Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs New Delhi — Delhi High Court, 10 Apr 2026. A Customs Broker's contravention of the obligations under the CBLR attracts disciplinary sanction—revocation, forfeiture of security and penalty—even without proof of criminal intention, since the agent cannot plead…
  • The Principal Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S. Lucky Exports — Karnataka High Court, 12 Dec 2025. A person invoking an exemption notification must strictly comply with and clearly establish every condition of the notification, and in case of doubt or ambiguity the benefit goes to the State, not the assessee.
  • Isgec Heavy Engineering Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs (Export)-New… — CESTAT, 16 Oct 2025. The FOB/transaction value of exported goods cannot be modified by any customs officer; re-determination under the Valuation Rules only fixes the assessable value, and drawback payable as a percentage of FOB must be…
  • Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. — Delhi High Court, 8 Apr 2025. Where Rule 16 of the Duty Drawback Rules prescribes no period of limitation, the general three-year limitation cannot be presumed to apply by default, especially where there are strong suspicions of fraudulent availment…
  • Vicky Ramchand Asrani vs Mumbai-Air Port — CESTAT, 19 Dec 2024. Illicit import of gold must be deterred, but not by alienation of possession from its owner — where goods are merely restricted and not truly prohibited, absolute confiscation under section 125 fails and the owner 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…
  • 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…
  • 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…
  • 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…
  • Himalyani Gupta vs Commissioner Of Customs (Air Cargo… — CESTAT, 24 Aug 2026. Section 113 authorises confiscation of only 'export goods' (section 2(19)) — once goods are exported they cease to be export goods and become exported goods — so penalties under sections 114 and 114AA cannot stand…
  • Mungad Strips And Alloys Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs-Indore — CESTAT, 23 Jun 2026. Once a shipping bill is assessed and a Let Export Order issued, the adjudicating authority cannot reopen the assessment, and rejection of transaction value under the Export Valuation Rules affects only the assessable…
  • Tonira Pharma Ltd vs The Union Of Inida — Gujarat High Court, 18 Jun 2026. Excise duty paid on clearing goods into the DTA cannot be adjusted or abated against customs or anti-dumping duty liability, the two levies being distinct in nature with no statutory provision permitting such…
  • Shri.K.Ananthapadmanabha Rao vs The Commissioner Of Central Taxes — Karnataka High Court, 27 Apr 2026. An order of dismissal passed without granting a specifically requested personal hearing—despite pending parallel criminal discharge and customs appellate proceedings—violates the principles of natural justice, and such…
  • Charan Singh Surjit Singh Gujral vs Union Of India And Ors — Bombay High Court, 15 Apr 2026. On a conjoint reading of Sections 54 and 56 of the CGST Act, the Department must process export IGST refunds in a time-bound manner and delayed refunds attract interest under Section 56, even where the Department claims…
  • Bayer Crop Science Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva -… — CESTAT, 20 Jan 2026. Customs authorities cannot reclassify goods after export or deny/cancel MEIS scrips, since export benefits fall within the exclusive domain of the DGFT under the FTDR Act, 1992, exports attain finality under Section 51…
  • Vijay Ghanshyam Gadhiya Son Of Shri Ghanshyam Gadhiya vs Union Of India — Gujarat High Court, 20 Jan 2026. A person who, with knowledge, abets or facilitates the export of goods mis-declared in the shipping bill is liable to personal penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, and writ interference is unwarranted where a…
  • 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,…
  • Commissioner Of Customs Export vs Ravindra Kumar — Delhi High Court, 18 Sep 2025. Where a penalty under Section 114 has already been imposed and upheld, the Court may, having regard to the limited role of the person, treat it as sufficient and decline to impose the further Section 114AA penalty,…
  • Global Impex Trading vs The Additional Director General — CESTAT, 8 Aug 2025. Mere storage of goods is preparation, not an 'attempt to export' under Section 113(d), and neither confiscation, nor re-valuation based on an uncorroborated retracted statement, nor penalty under Section 114(i) (which…

All 32 judgments