Topic

Customs & Import Law

2 articlesLatest July 2026
Section 112(a)(i) Customs Act | Penalty Requires Direct Link to Goods Rendered Confiscable Under Section 111, Not Just CBLR Breach : CESTAT Chandigarh
Case Law Analysis
|Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Section 112(a)(i) Customs Act | Penalty Requires Direct Link to Goods Rendered Confiscable Under Section 111, Not Just CBLR Breach : CESTAT Chandigarh

CESTAT Chandigarh has ruled that penalties under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act cannot be imposed solely for violations of Customs Broker Liability Rules unless the act or omission directly renders the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111. This decision shields customs brokers from punitive action for procedural lapses that do not facilitate smuggling or concealment of prohibited goods, reinforcing the principle that penalty must flow from substantive harm, not technical non-compliance.

Body Concealment of Gold Establishes Presumptive Smuggling Intent Under Section 111(d) & (i) Customs Act 1962 : CESTAT Kolkata
Case Law Analysis
|Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Body Concealment of Gold Establishes Presumptive Smuggling Intent Under Section 111(d) & (i) Customs Act 1962 : CESTAT Kolkata

CESTAT Kolkata ruled that secretly smuggling gold via internal body concealment, without any documentation, constitutes conclusive evidence of smuggling intent under Sections 111(d) and (i) of the Customs Act 1962, triggering automatic confiscation and penalty. This sets a critical precedent for airport customs enforcement, shifting the burden to travelers to explain clandestine transport of high-value goods.

Continue exploring