Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter VI — Provisions relating to conveyances carrying imported or exported goods

Section 35. Restrictions on goods being water-borne

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

Restrictions on goods being water-borne. — No imported goods shall be water-borne for being landed from any vessel, and no export goods which are not accompanied by a shipping bill, shall be water-borne for being shipped, unless the goods are accompanied by a boat-note in the prescribed form:

Provided that the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, give general permission, and the proper officer may in any particular case give special permission, for any goods or any class of goods to be waterborne without being accompanied by a boat-note.

Judgments on Section 35

  • Nayara Energy Limited vs Jamnagar(Prev) — CESTAT, 8 Apr 2025. Whether floating crane/unloading charges incurred in moving cargo from a vessel to barges are transport costs includible in assessable value under Section 14 or loading-unloading costs covered by the statutory 1% is a…
  • Bank Of Mahrashtra vs The Directorate Of Revenue… — Bombay High Court, 16 Jan 2024. The statutory first charge under Section 142A of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot impede recovery by a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, because Section 142A itself saves the SARFAESI Act (and the RDDBFI Act, 1993),…
  • Adani Enterprises Limited And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors — Bombay High Court, 17 Oct 2019. A Letter of Rogatory under Section 166-A Cr.P.C. can be issued only in aid of an investigation validly commenced under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C.; where the alleged customs offence is non-cognizable under Section 104(5)…
  • Bijan Halder And Anr. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. — Calcutta High Court, 14 May 1993. Since offences under the Customs Act are non-cognizable (Section 104(4)) and customs officers act under independent statutory powers rather than as police investigating officers, Section 167, Cr.P.C.
  • Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 27 Jul 2022. The argument about proportionality of punishment with reference to the nature of the scheduled offence is wholly unfounded and stands rejected.