This compilation indexes twelve adjudicated matters — spanning CESTAT benches at Bangalore, Mumbai, Allahabad, and New Delhi, as well as the Madras, Calcutta, Bombay, Kerala, and Gujarat High Courts — in which Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was a section engaged. The rulings span September 2025 through April 2026 and arise across a diverse set of factual contexts including FTA-based import exemptions, advance authorisation schemes, confiscation orders, and customs penalty proceedings. This index is intended for use by customs law practitioners, in-house indirect tax teams, and legal researchers tracking how tribunals and High Courts have engaged with penalty provisions under the Customs Act.

Research index only. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or professional opinion of any kind. Readers must independently verify each ruling against the full text of the judgment, check for any subsequent stay, reversal, or appeal, and consult qualified legal counsel before acting on any matter.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for the imposition of a penalty on any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission renders such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act. The penalty quantum under the provision is subject to the ceiling prescribed in the section and is distinct from, though often imposed alongside, the redemption fine leviable under Section 125 and the enhanced penalty under Section 114A applicable in cases involving short-levy or non-levy of duty by reason of collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The section operates within the broader penal framework of the Customs Act and applies to importers, exporters, and third parties whose acts or omissions attract the specified consequences.

The 12 rulings

1. Ram Aabhoshan vs Bangalore-Cus

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 27 April 2026
Sections engaged: 111(d), 112(a), 125(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Customs Appeal No. C/21961/2018) arose out of Order-in-Appeal No. 338/2018 dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bengaluru. Per the source preview, the appellant is a registered proprietary firm engaged in trading jewellery articles with a retail shop in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, which imported '22K Assorted Jewellery' vide Bill of Entry No. 3552165 dated 09.10.2017, classifying it under Customs Tariff Item 7113 1990 and claiming nil Basic Customs Duty under Sl. No. 966(I) of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 (FTA Notification), along with a Certificate of Origin dated 06.10.2017; the appeal was filed before the Bangalore Regional Bench against the impugned appellate order and engages Sections 111(d), 112(a), and 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Avery Dennison India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva -

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 27 April 2026
Sections engaged: 28A, 125, 112(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (Customs Appeal No. 86471 of 2024) arose out of Order-in-Original No. 290/2023-24/COMMR/NS-II/CAC/JNCH dated 26.03.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (NS-II), Nhava Sheva-II, and was decided on 27.04.2026 as Final Order No. 85582/2026. Per the source preview, the central issues for consideration were whether interest could be levied on the demand of Integrated Goods and Service Tax that was deposited by the appellant, whether goods could be confiscated and a redemption fine imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act in lieu of such confiscation, and whether penalty could be imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

3. The Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S.Orion Enterprises

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 22 April 2026
Sections engaged: 114A, 112(a), 125
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (C.M.A. No. 1327 of 2019) was filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Madras High Court, reserved on 09.04.2026 and pronounced on 22.04.2026 (Neutral Citation 2026:MHC:1571). Per the source preview, the appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Commissionerate, seeking to set aside Final Order No. 42483 of 2018 dated 25.09.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, with Sections 114A, 112(a), and 125 of the Customs Act engaged in the proceedings.

4. Continental Automotive Brake Systems vs Commissioner Of Customs-Patparganj

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 22 April 2026
Sections engaged: 28(1), 112(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Customs Appeal No. 55862 of 2023) arose out of Order-in-Original No. 18/VC/COMMR/Continental Automotive/ICD-PPG/2023-24 dated 15.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (ICD PPG & Other ICDs), New Delhi, and was heard by the Principal Bench, Court No. III, New Delhi via e-hearing. Per the source preview, the matter involves the appellant — identified as M/s. Continental Automotive Brake Systems India Private Limited (now Continental Automotive Components (India) Private Limited) of Manesar, Gurugram — and engages Sections 28(1) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; the text preview contains tariff schedule extracts relating to the goods in question but does not disclose substantive findings in the available portion.

5. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) vs Shri Pramod Nahata

Bench: Calcutta High Court
Date: 9 April 2026
Sections engaged: 112(a), 114A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This statutory appeal (CUSTA/84/2025, with interlocutory applications GA/1/2025 and GA/2/2026) was preferred under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Calcutta High Court, directed against the Final Order passed by CESTAT, Kolkata dated 24th January 2025. Per the source preview, the court was satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing within the prescribed limitation period and accordingly condoned the delay (GA 1 of 2025 allowed and disposed of); the source preview further notes that by the impugned CESTAT judgment, the tribunal had set aside penalties imposed upon the respondent, with Sections 112(a) and 114A of the Customs Act engaged in the matter.

6. Nandkumar Pawar vs The Union Of India

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 4 February 2026
Sections engaged: 112(a), 112(b), 114A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This Writ Petition (No. 507 of 2026) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging Order-in-Original No. JC/SW/98/ADJN. APSC dated 3rd April 2024. Per the source preview, the impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs. 31,50,88,552/- under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) and Rs. 129,14,32,317/- under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, and its genesis lay in search proceedings carried out by officers of the Customs (Preventive), Marine and Preventive Wing, Mumbai at the offices of entities allegedly involved in fraudulent outward foreign exchange remittances.

7. Gtn Engineering India Ltd vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 20 January 2026
Sections engaged: 28(1), 111(o), 112(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Customs Appeal No. 85628 of 2024) arose out of Order-in-Original No. 29/SJ(29)/PCC(ADJN.)/MUMBAI/2023-24 dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, and was heard by the Mumbai Regional Bench, Court No. I. Per the source preview, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of industrial valves and components for export and had imported raw materials including forged body, springs, bearings, pad studs, and other components under the Advance Authorisation scheme of the Foreign Trade Policy on the basis of Advance Authorisation Licenses issued by DGFT (IEC No. 0903003953), importing across 175 Bills of Entry during the period 24.10.2017 to 24.09.2018 by availing import duty/IGST exemption under Notification No. 18/2015-Customs dated 01.04.2015 as amended.

8. Shafeeque Puthiyedathkuniyil vs Union Of India

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 12 January 2026
Sections engaged: 112(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This Writ Petition (Civil) No. 41568 of 2025 (2026:KER:1849) was taken up for admission on 12.01.2026 before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, with the court delivering its judgment on the same day. Per the source preview, the petitioner challenged an order passed by customs authorities, with respondents including the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Air Customs), Cochin International Airport, the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal), Cochin; Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is the section engaged, and further substantive details are not available within the source preview portion.

9. M/S Gold Ripe International Pvt Ltd vs C.C. Noida

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 12 December 2025
Sections engaged: 111(d), 112(a), 114A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter comprised five consolidated appeals (Customs Appeal Nos. 70615 to 70619 of 2025) heard by CESTAT, Allahabad Regional Bench, Court No. II via e-hearing, with the date of hearing on 21 August 2025 and date of pronouncement on 12 December 2025 (Final Order Nos. 70861–70865/2025). Per the source preview, the appeals arose out of Order-in-Appeal No. NOI-CUSTM-000-APP-199 to 203/24-25 dated 30/10/2024 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Goods & Services Tax, Noida, and were filed by M/s Golden Ripe International Pvt. Ltd. (Meerut) along with individual appellants, engaging Sections 111(d), 112(a), and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

10. M/S Mitesh Impex vs Union Of India

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 25 November 2025
Sections engaged: 112(a), 114(iii)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter (R/Special Civil Application No. 11791 of 2025, Neutral Citation C/SCA/11791/2025, reserved on 20.11.2025 and pronounced on 25.11.2025) was heard before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad. Per the source preview, the petitioners' counsel submitted at the outset that the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by respondent No. 2 was in complete defiance of the directions issued by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad in Customs Appeal No. 12442 of 2014, and accordingly liable to be quashed, with Sections 112(a) and 114(iii) of the Customs Act engaged in the proceedings.

11. Sadath Poyyathra vs Union Of India

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 14 October 2025
Sections engaged: 111(d), 112(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This Writ Petition (Civil) No. 37837 of 2025 (2025:KER:76871) was finally heard and decided on 14.10.2025 before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam. Per the source preview, the petitioner challenged an order passed by the customs authorities (referenced as Ext. P12, the order passed by the first respondent), with respondents including the Superintendent of Customs (Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin) and the Inspector of Customs (Preventive Officer), Air Intelligence Unit, Cochin International Airport; Sections 111(d) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 are the sections engaged.

12. Alpex Solar Pvt Ltd vs Principal Commissioner, Customs-New

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 16 September 2025
Sections engaged: 8B, 112(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (Customs Appeal No. 50175 of 2021) arose out of Order-in-Original No. 30/2020/U.G./Principal Commissioner dated 10.08.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import), New Customs House, Delhi West Commissionerate, and was heard by the CESTAT Principal Bench, New Delhi, Court No. III. Per the source preview, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture and export of solar modules, importing components such as solar cells, solar glass, back sheet, and junction boxes from China, Korea, Malaysia, and Taiwan; they imported Multi Silicon Solar Cell (Photovoltaic Solar Cell) CTH 85414011 vide Bills of Entry No. 7425274 dated 30.07.2018 and No. 7929763 dated 06.09.2018 at a prescribed nil rate of BCD by availing an exemption notification benefit, with Sections 8B and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 engaged in the proceedings.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 112(a) as part of a penalty cluster. In the majority of these matters, Section 112(a) does not appear in isolation. It is consistently invoked alongside related provisions — Section 111(d) (confiscation of prohibited goods), Section 125 (redemption fine), Section 114A (enhanced penalty), and in one instance Section 112(b) — indicating that adjudicating authorities typically frame customs penalty orders as a composite package addressing confiscation, redemption, and penalty simultaneously.
Exemption-notification-linked disputes. Several matters in this compilation involve importers who availed of specific exemption notifications — including an FTA notification (Case 1) and an advance authorisation scheme notification (Case 7) — and subsequently faced confiscation and penalty proceedings, suggesting that the correctness of exemption claims is a recurring trigger for Section 112(a) proceedings.
Multi-tier litigation paths. The rulings span CESTAT (at Bangalore, Mumbai, Allahabad, and New Delhi) as well as the Madras, Calcutta, Bombay, Kerala, and Gujarat High Courts. Several matters reached the High Court level via writ petitions under Article 226 or statutory appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, illustrating that Section 112(a) penalty orders routinely travel through multiple appellate tiers before attaining finality.
Procedural threshold issues at High Court stage. At least one High Court matter in this set (Case 5) engaged primarily with a procedural threshold — condonation of delay in filing — before the substantive Section 112(a) penalty question was taken up for admission, reflecting that limitation and delay-condonation disputes are a distinct procedural layer in customs penalty litigation.
Non-compliance with remand directions as a ground. In Case 10, the petitioner's primary contention at the outset was that the impugned adjudication order had been passed in defiance of specific directions issued by the tribunal in an earlier remand, pointing to a pattern where Section 112(a) penalty re-adjudications following tribunal remands may themselves become subject to fresh challenge on the ground of non-compliance with remand directions.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is structured as a first-pass research index. Each entry identifies the forum, date, sections engaged, and the procedural or factual context available from the source preview. Because all twelve source previews reflect only the opening portion of each judgment — and all twelve outcome fields are recorded as "Outcome not specified in source" — researchers must retrieve the full text of each judgment before drawing any conclusions about the ratio decidendi, the final order, or the relief granted or refused. Full texts are available on indiankanoon.org and the respective court portals (High Court of Madras at mhc.tn.gov.in/judis, High Court of Kerala at hcservices.ecourts.gov.in, High Court of Bombay, High Court of Gujarat, and High Court of Calcutta).

Before relying on any ruling listed here, researchers should verify whether the order has been stayed, set aside, or modified in a subsequent appeal or revision. Customs penalty matters — particularly those originating at CESTAT — may be subject to further challenge before the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, and High Court decisions may in turn be appealed to the Supreme Court. A ruling that appears final at the CESTAT or High Court level may therefore have a pending challenge that is not reflected in this index.

Researchers should also cross-check parallel executive instructions: the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) periodically issues circulars and instructions on penalty adjudication, dispute resolution schemes, and litigation policy thresholds that may affect the practical significance of any individual ruling. Neither this index nor any individual case listed here should be treated as a substitute for a thorough review of the applicable statutory text, the full judgment, and current CBIC circulars relevant to the specific factual context under examination.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Customs Act Section 112(a) Penalty: 12 CESTAT & HC Rulings (2025–2026)