The Global trade ecosystem relies on strict customs compliance, with importers bearing significant responsibilities to comply with the regulations. In India, Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, gives about when imported goods are liable to confiscation, covering both deliberate violations like smuggling and technical errors like mis-declarations. This article explores the scope of Section 111, the obligations of the Importer, the extent of confiscation.
Stay Updated with the Latest Audit Report Formats & Audit Trials Requirements! Click here
Importers must comply with customs laws which are necessary to avoid confiscation, penalties, and operational disturbances. Section 111 gives power to authorities to seize or confiscate goods for violations of the provisions from importing prohibited items to procedural lapses. It also leads to financial losses, supply chain delays, and reputational damage, particularly for businesses on timely imports.
Section 111- Breakdown
Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, lists 17 sub-clauses (a to q) which specify conditions for confiscation of imported goods. These conditions include,
This broad scope makes Section 111 a powerful enforcement tool, targeting goods rather than penalizing importers personally. The Courts strictly interpret these provisions, requiring precise evidence of violations.
Importers have responsibilities to ensure compliance with customs regulations, as failure to do so can lead to confiscation and penalties. These responsibilities include:
Importers must import goods through officially notified ports, airports, or routes. Unloading at unauthorized locations leads to confiscation under Sections 111(a) and (b).
Importers are required to truthfully declare all material particulars, including value, quantity, and classification, in import manifests or bills of entry. Mis Declarations, even unintentional, can lead to confiscation under Sections 111(f), (l), and (m).
The Importers must ensure goods which are desired for importing are not prohibited or restricted under any law. The importers should not import goods which are prohibited by the government.
Dutiable or prohibited goods must not be concealed, as this triggers confiscation under Sections 111(e) and (i).
Goods must not be removed from customs areas without permission, and unloading/storage procedures must be followed (Sections 111(g), (h), (j)).
Valid licenses or permits must be obtained for restricted goods. In M/s K Kiran Tyres vs Commissioner of Customs (2023), goods were confiscated for lack of a valid license.
Importers must maintain proper records, such as proof of duty payment. Failure to maintain records may lead to fines and confiscation.
Conditions attached to duty exemptions must be strictly observed, or goods may be confiscated under Section 111(o).
These responsibilities highlight the importer’s role for ensuring compliance, with even minor errors leading to severe consequences.
Read More: Freight and Insurance Included in Assessable Value for FOR Destination Sales: CESTAT [Read Order]
Section 111 states about a wide range of violations that can lead to the confiscation of imported goods. The provision applies to:
Intentional acts like smuggling, concealment, or importing prohibited goods causes confiscation of goods of the importer. In Sterling Agro Products vs Commissioner of Customs (2023), arecanut imported below the MIP was deemed prohibited under Section 111(d), leading to confiscation.
The Errors found in declarations like undervaluation or misclassification, or failure to meet exemption conditions may cause seizure of goods. In Javeria Impex vs Commissioner of Customs (2023), undervalued electric motors were confiscated under Section 111(m) due to significant discrepancies in declared value.
Read More: Duty paid under Sugar Cess Act can be Claimed as CENVAT Credit: Calcutta HC [Read Order]
Actions like unloading goods at unauthorized ports or removing them from customs areas without permission, covered under Sections 111(a), (b), (j).
Violations of transit or transhipment rules under Chapter VIII can lead to confiscation (Section 111(n)). For instance, goods rerouted without customs approval during transit may be seized.
Goods claiming preferential duty rates but failing to comply with Chapter VAA rules, introduced in 2020, are liable under Section 111(q). This is particularly relevant for imports under free trade agreements, where incorrect origin declarations can trigger confiscation.
Confiscation of high-value items (e.g., electronics, gold) or sensitive goods (e.g., chemicals, arms),causes revenue risks to the importer. In Kashi Kumar Aggarwal vs Commissioner of Customs (2023), foreign-marked gold was confiscated under Section 111(d) for failure to produce proof of duty payment.
The extent of confiscation also depends on the nature of the goods and the violation’s severity. For perishable goods, authorities may expedite proceedings to avoid spoilage, sometimes allowing provisional release. For prohibited goods like narcotics, confiscation is absolute, with no redemption option.
In contrast, dutiable goods involved in technical errors (e.g., mis declarations) are often eligible for redemption upon payment of a fine.
Confiscation is not a blanket measure. Customs authorities exercise discretion, opting for penalties or warnings in minor cases, especially where intent is absent. Proportionality plays a key role, with courts ensuring penalties match the violation’s gravity.
In Pathange & Co. vs Commissioner of Customs (2020), confiscation was set aside for Multi-Functional Digital Copiers imported before a prohibition, emphasizing that timing and intent matter.
Similarly, in M/s Raj Metals & Alloys vs Commissioner of Customs (2024), confiscation under Section 111(m) for a classification error was rejected, but upheld under Sections 111(d) and (o) for lack of registration, showing nuanced enforcement.
Seized shipments affect the supply chains and cause delays in production particularly it can affect time-sensitive industries like pharmaceuticals or electronics. Importers may also be affected or face financial consequences like storage fees or legal expenses.
| Case Name | Section Invoked | Issue | Outcome | Implication for Importer |
| Shashi Dhawal Hydraulics Pvt Ltd vs CC (2023) | 111(m) | Misdeclaration of particulars | Confiscation upheld, ₹20,00,000 fine | Ensure accurate declarations |
| M/s Raj Metals & Alloys vs CC (2024) | 111(m), (d), (o) | Classification error, no registration | Confiscation rejected for 111(m), upheld for 111(d), (o) | Technical errors may not trigger confiscation |
| Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd vs CC (2024) | 111 | No misdeclaration | Confiscation quashed, ₹71.74 crore duty | Evidence critical to avoid confiscation |
| Sterling Agro Products vs CC (2023) | 111(d) | Below MIP import | Confiscation upheld, penalty reduced to ₹2,00,000 | Comply with price restrictions |
| Pathange & Co. vs CC (2020) | 111(d) | Pre-prohibition importsetting aside confiscation | Confiscation set aside | Verify legal status at import time |
The Customs Act provides procedural safeguards to ensure fairness:
These mechanisms balance enforcement with due process, ensuring confiscation is not arbitrary.
Thus Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, gives a wide range of responsibilities which is to be complied by the importers. It stretches from intentional smuggling to technical errors which may lead to confiscation.
Importers must adopt a statutory compliant approach and ensure accurate declarations, obtain valid licenses, and follow all the regulations given by the customs act. By understanding the provisions and complexities in the Section 111, importers can safeguard their operations and contribute to a trade system.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
