Customs Act, 1962 · Chapter XIV: Confiscation of Goods and Conveyances and Imposition of Penalties
Section 112: Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc
Any person,—
(a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or
(b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111,
shall be liable,—
(i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty [not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees], whichever is the greater;
[(ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, subject to the provisions of section 114A, to a penalty not exceeding ten per cent. of the duty sought to be evaded or five thousand rupees, whichever is higher:
Provided that where such duty as determined under sub-section (8) of section 28 and the interest payable thereon under section 28AA is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order of the proper officer determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section shall be twenty-five per cent. of the penalty so determined;]
[(iii) in the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under section 77 (in either case hereafter in this section referred to as the declared value) is higher than the value thereof, to a penalty [not exceeding the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees], whichever is the greater;
(iv) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (i) and (iii), to a penalty [not exceeding the value of the goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees], whichever is the highest;
(v) in the case of goods falling both under clauses (ii) and (iii), to a penalty [not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or the difference between the declared value and the value thereof or five thousand rupees], whichever is the highest.]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 112
-
M/s. Bisco Limited v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise
The appellant had imported second hand steel mill machinery and parts covered by three transit bonds totalling 595 cases. The officials of the Preventive Branch of the Commissionerate searched the industrial premises of…
-
Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/S Ganpati
Whether the tribunal was justified in holding that enhancement of value of the imported goods and the penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs on the noticee-respondents could not be sustained and consequently…
- The Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur v. Prakash
- Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Amritsar (Punjab) v. M/S D.L. Steels Etc
- Indusind Media & Communications Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
- M/S. Star Industries v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Raigad
- M/S. Dr. Reddy'S Laboratories v. Commissioner of Customs
- Commnr. of Customs, New Delhi-Iv v. Mis.Aryan Electronics
- Fortis Hospital Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Import
- M/S. Gira Enterprises and Anr. v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
- M/S. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur
- M/S. Rajmal Lakhichand and Anr. v. Commr. Cen. Exc. & Customs, Aurnagabad
- M/S. Radhey Shyam Ratanlal & Anr. v. Commnr. of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai
- Union of India and Others v. Naman Singh Sekhawat
- Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. M.M.K. Jewellers & Anr.
- Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. M/S Phoenix International Ltd. & Anr.
- O. Konavalov v. Commander, Coast Guard Region and Ors.
- Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/S. Tullow India Operations Ltd.
- Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi Etc. Etc. v. M/S. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd. Etc. Etc.
- Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati. v. C.B.I., New Delhi
- Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/S. Elephanta Oil and Industries Ltd., Bombay
- Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd.
- Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai v. M/S. Jagdish Cancer and Research Centre
- Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa
- M/S Indian Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.
- Pine Chemical Suppliers and Ors. v. Collector of Customs (Bombay)
- Akbar Badrudin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs, Bombay