A Comprehensive Guide: Ten Common Scenarios Where Customs Has the Right to Seize Goods

In import and export trade, customs seizure of goods is a critical regulatory scenario that enterprises may encounter. Many enterprises, due to a lack of understanding of customs seizure authority and applicable circumstances, respond inappropriately when their goods are seized. This not only incurs additional costs such as port detention fees and warehousing fees but also may delay project schedules. In fact, customs seizure of goods is not an “arbitrary act” but a administrative compulsory measure implemented in accordance with laws and regulations such as the Customs Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Regulations on Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, targeting specific illegal or high-risk situations.

Based on import and export practices, this article summarizes ten common scenarios where customs has the right to seize goods. Each scenario is explained with legal basis, applicable situations, and typical cases, helping enterprises quickly understand the boundaries of seizure, make advance compliance preparations, and reduce the risk of goods being seized.

I. Scenario 1: Goods Inbound/Outbound Without Completing Customs Declaration Procedures

Legal Basis: Articles 24 and 61 of the Customs Law

Applicable Situations: When goods are imported or exported, if the consignee or consignor fails to declare to customs, submit a customs declaration form and supporting documents (e.g., invoices, contracts, bills of lading), or arbitrarily transports/loads/unloads goods without completing customs clearance procedures, customs may directly seize the involved goods.

Practical Points:

• Seizure is not only triggered by “complete failure to declare” but also by “delayed declaration.” For example, if goods arrive at a port but are not declared within 14 days (for sea freight) or 15 days (for air freight), customs may initiate the seizure process;
• Goods in special supervision areas (e.g., bonded zones, free trade zones) may also be seized if they fail to complete customs declaration procedures for “cross-zone inbound/outbound” in accordance with regulations.

Typical Case: In 2023, a trading company imported a batch of rubber from Vietnam. After the goods arrived at Guangzhou Port, the company’s financial staff negligently failed to submit the customs declaration form in a timely manner, and customs clearance procedures remained incomplete for over 20 days. Customs determined this constituted “unauthorized entry” and seized the rubber, resulting in port detention fees of 12,000 yuan. The company later supplemented the declaration procedures and paid a fine before customs lifted the seizure.

II. Scenario 2: Goods with False Declaration or Concealment of Name, Value, or Quantity

Legal Basis: Articles 26 and 61 of the Customs Law

Applicable Situations: To evade supervision or avoid paying taxes, consignees/consignors intentionally make false declarations about the name of goods (e.g., declaring “construction machinery” as “ordinary mechanical parts”), underdeclare the value of goods (e.g., declaring equipment worth 1 million yuan as 500,000 yuan), or underdeclare the quantity of goods (e.g., declaring 80 units while actually importing 100 units). Upon verification, customs may seize the involved goods.

Practical Points:

• Seizure is triggered not only by “intentional false declaration” but also by “significant inconsistencies between declared content and actual goods.” For example, if the customs declaration lists “stainless steel plates” but the actual goods are “ordinary steel plates,” the goods may be seized due to “declaration errors” even if the inconsistency is unintentional;
• Customs verifies false declarations or concealment by comparing contracts, invoices, bills of lading with the actual goods, or entrusting third-party institutions to conduct appraisals (e.g., price appraisal, composition testing).

Typical Case: An electronics company imported a batch of chips from South Korea. To reduce customs duties, it falsely declared “high-end processor chips” (with a customs duty rate of 10%) as “ordinary memory chips” (with a customs duty rate of 3), declaring a value of 500,000 yuan while the actual value was 2 million yuan. During inspection, customs found inconsistencies between the declared chip model and the actual goods. After entrusting a professional institution to conduct an appraisal and confirming the false declaration, customs seized the chips and imposed a fine of 150,000 yuan on the company.

III. Scenario 3: Imported/Exported Goods Concealing Contraband or Restricted Goods

Legal Basis: Articles 40 and 61 of the Customs Law

Applicable Situations: If legal goods conceal contraband prohibited by the state from import/export (e.g., drugs, firearms and ammunition, products of endangered wildlife), or if restricted goods are imported/exported without obtaining required permits (e.g., precursor chemicals, controlled knives, products of endangered plants), customs may seize the entire batch of goods (including legal parts) upon discovery.

Practical Points:

• “Concealment” includes not only physical “hiding inside goods” but also “mixed loading without declaration.” For example, if a small quantity of controlled switchblades is mixed in a container of ordinary clothing, even if legal clothing accounts for 90% of the cargo, the entire batch may still be seized;
• Import/export of restricted goods requires advance application for corresponding permits (e.g., Permit for Import/Export of Dual-Use Items and Technologies, Certificate for Permitted Import/Export of Endangered Species). Goods without valid permits or with expired permits will be seized.

Typical Case: A logistics company was entrusted to transport a batch of “ordinary toys” to Europe. During inspection, customs found 200 undeclared controlled switchblades hidden at the bottom of the container. Customs determined the goods involved concealed restricted items, seized the entire batch of toys and switchblades, later confiscated the controlled switchblades in accordance with the law, and imposed a fine equal to 20% of the goods’ value on the logistics company.

IV. Scenario 4: Imported/Exported Goods Suspected of Infringing Intellectual Property Rights

Legal Basis: Articles 12 and 16 of the Regulations on Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights

Applicable Situations: If an intellectual property right holder (e.g., trademark owner, patentee) discovers that imported/exported goods are suspected of infringing their trademark rights, patent rights, copyrights, etc., and submits a written application for seizure to customs along with a guarantee, customs may seize the involved goods.

Practical Points:

• Such seizure requires two conditions: “application by the right holder + provision of a guarantee.” Customs will not initiate seizure proactively—even if goods are suspected of infringement, customs will not take seizure measures if the right holder does not file an application;
• The guarantee amount must be sufficient to cover potential losses caused by erroneous seizure, usually 10%-20% of the goods’ value. Customs will reject the seizure application if no guarantee is provided or the guarantee is insufficient;
• The seizure period is 20 working days. If no court notice for enforcement assistance is received within this period, customs must release the goods.

Typical Case: A sports brand company (trademark owner) discovered that a batch of sports shoes exported from China to the United States by an enterprise used its registered trademark without authorization. The brand company submitted a seizure application to Shanghai Customs and provided a bank guarantee of 500,000 yuan. After verifying the trademark infringement suspicion, customs seized the 10,000 pairs of sports shoes. Since the right holder did not file a lawsuit with the court within 20 working days, customs released the goods in accordance with the law.

V. Scenario 5: Goods Subject to Tax Preservation Due to Taxpayers Suspected of Transferring Assets

Legal Basis: Articles 61 and 62 of the Customs Law

Applicable Situations: If a taxpayer of imported/exported goods shows signs of “obviously transferring or concealing taxable goods or other property” (e.g., transferring inventory, canceling bank accounts) within the prescribed tax payment period, and fails to provide valid guarantees after being ordered by customs to do so, customs may seize goods worth an amount equivalent to the payable tax.

Practical Points:

• The core of “tax preservation seizure” is “preventing tax loss” rather than addressing existing tax arrears. Customs may initiate the process as long as there is evidence proving the taxpayer is likely to transfer assets;
• The value of seized goods must be equivalent to the payable tax, and over-seizure is prohibited. For example, if the payable tax is 500,000 yuan, only goods worth approximately 500,000 yuan may be seized. If goods worth 1 million yuan are seized, the enterprise may apply to lift the seizure of the excess portion;
• Customs must immediately lift the seizure once the taxpayer pays the tax; if the tax remains unpaid after the deadline, customs may lawfully sell the seized goods to offset the tax.

Typical Case: An import enterprise imported a batch of mechanical equipment from Germany, with a total payable customs duty and value-added tax of 800,000 yuan. The tax payment period was 15 days from the date customs issued the tax payment certificate. Customs discovered the enterprise had recently transferred most of its bank deposits to an affiliated company and failed to provide valid guarantees. After obtaining approval, customs seized mechanical equipment worth 800,000 yuan. The enterprise paid all taxes five days later, and customs lifted the seizure.

VI. Scenario 6: Goods Violating Inspection and Quarantine Regulations Without Quarantine

Legal Basis: Articles 11 and 32 of the Law on Import and Export Commodity Inspection

Applicable Situations: For imported/exported goods subject to mandatory inspection and quarantine (e.g., food, cosmetics, animal/plant products, medical devices), if they are imported/exported without applying for inspection and quarantine to customs, or without passing inspection and quarantine after application, customs may seize the goods until they pass inspection and quarantine or are disposed of in accordance with the law.

Practical Points:

• Mandatory inspection and quarantine goods require “inspection application first, customs declaration later.” Both “declaring to customs without applying for inspection” and “declaring for inspection but not obtaining quarantine clearance” are violations. For example, imported beef sold without obtaining the Certificate of Inspection and Quarantine for Inbound Goods will be seized;
• If non-qualified goods can meet standards through technical treatment, the enterprise may apply for rectification. Customs will lift the seizure once the goods pass inspection after rectification; unrectifiable goods will be lawfully destroyed or returned.

Typical Case: A food company imported a batch of milk powder from Australia and completed customs declaration procedures without applying for inspection and quarantine to customs, attempting to transport the milk powder to a warehouse for sale. During inspection, customs found the milk powder lacked the inspection and quarantine certificate, determined it violated inspection and quarantine regulations, and seized the milk powder. The company later supplemented the inspection application and obtained the certificate after passing inspection, upon which customs released the goods and imposed a fine of 30,000 yuan.

VII. Scenario 7: Goods Related to Smuggling Case Investigations

Legal Basis: Articles 6 and 61 of the Customs Law

Applicable Situations: During the investigation of smuggling cases, if customs discovers imported/exported goods related to the case (e.g., tools used by smuggling gangs, goods of the same batch as smuggled goods, goods carried by transportation vehicles used for smuggling), it may seize the goods as evidence for the case investigation.

Practical Points:

• “Case-related goods” include not only directly smuggled goods but also “relevant goods.” For example, when investigating a case of underdeclared price smuggling of electronic products by an enterprise, customs may seize other batches of electronic products imported by the enterprise during the same period to collect price evidence;
• The usual seizure period is 1 year, which may be extended by another year if necessary for investigation. After the case is closed, if the goods are determined to be smuggled proceeds, they will be lawfully confiscated; if unrelated to the case, customs must return them promptly.

Typical Case: When investigating a gang smuggling automobiles, customs discovered the gang had imported “automotive parts” in the name of a trading company, which were actually disassembled parts of whole smuggled automobiles. In addition to seizing the involved “parts,” customs also seized other automotive parts imported by the trading company within 3 months to verify the smuggling chain. After the case was clarified, customs confiscated the smuggled parts and returned the parts unrelated to the case.

VIII. Scenario 8: Bonded Goods Sold Domestically or Used for Unauthorized Purposes

Legal Basis: Articles 32 and 61 of the Customs Law

Applicable Situations: If bonded goods (e.g., goods stored in bonded zones, bonded materials for processing trade, bonded exhibition goods) are sold domestically, used, or diverted to unauthorized purposes (e.g., using bonded materials for processing trade in non-bonded production) without completing “bonded verification” or “tax payment procedures” in accordance with regulations, customs may seize the involved bonded goods upon discovery.

Practical Points:

• The core feature of bonded goods is “deferred tax payment,” requiring them to be used for specified purposes within a prescribed period (e.g., re-export after processing). Unauthorized domestic sale requires payment of customs duties and value-added tax; goods sold without tax payment will be seized;
• If a processing trade enterprise needs to sell bonded materials domestically, it must apply to customs for “domestic sale and tax payment” in advance. Sales without approval are deemed “unauthorized domestic sale.”

Typical Case: A processing trade enterprise imported a batch of bonded plastic pellets from Japan (intended for processing into toys for re-export). Due to strong domestic market demand, it arbitrarily sold 50 tons of the plastic pellets domestically without applying to customs for domestic sale and tax payment. When verifying the processing trade manual, customs found anomalies in material verification and discovered the domestic sale after on-site inspection, seizing the remaining 30 tons of unsold plastic pellets. The enterprise paid the overdue taxes and late fees before customs lifted the seizure.

IX. Scenario 9: Imported/Exported Goods Without Valid Proof of Origin

Legal Basis: Articles 56 and 61 of the Customs Law

Applicable Situations: If imported/exported goods cannot provide valid proof of origin documents (e.g., no authentic contracts, invoices, or bills of lading, or documents with forgery or alteration traces), and customs cannot verify the legality of the goods’ origin, it may seize the goods and require the enterprise to supplement and provide supporting materials.

Practical Points:

• “Without valid proof of origin” includes not only “lack of documents” but also “invalid documents.” For example, using forged foreign invoices or altered bills of lading may result in goods being seized due to document issues, even if the goods themselves are legal;
• Enterprises must supplement and provide authentic, valid supporting materials within the period specified by customs. If unable to provide them within the deadline, customs may dispose of the goods as “unclaimed goods” (e.g., confiscation, return).

Typical Case: An enterprise imported a batch of textiles from India. The invoices and contracts submitted during customs declaration were all copies without foreign signatures/seals. When customs requested original documents, the enterprise was unable to provide them, claiming “the foreign supplier could only provide copies.” Customs determined the goods lacked valid proof of origin and seized them. The enterprise later contacted the foreign supplier to obtain original documents, which were verified by customs before the seizure was lifted.

X. Scenario 10: Goods Suspected of Violating Other Customs Supervision Regulations

Legal Basis: Article 6 of the Customs Law, Article 3 of the Regulations on the Implementation of Customs Administrative Penalties

Applicable Situations: Beyond the above nine scenarios, if goods violate other customs supervision regulations during import/export (e.g., failing to mark shipping marks as required, arbitrarily altering customs supervision seals, failing to extend the validity period of bonded goods on time), customs may seize the goods based on the specific violation.

Practical Points:

• This scenario serves as a “catch-all provision,” covering unlisted acts that violate customs supervision. For example, if the shipping marks on exported goods are inconsistent with those declared in the customs declaration and no reasonable explanation is provided, customs may seize the goods and require rectification;
• For minor violations where the enterprise rectifies promptly, customs may refrain from seizure and only issue a warning or a small fine; severe violations (e.g., arbitrarily damaging customs supervision seals) will definitely trigger seizure.

Typical Case: An export enterprise exported a batch of furniture to Southeast Asia. The shipping marks declared in the customs declaration were “ABC-2023,” but the actual shipping marks on the goods were “ABC-2024.” Customs discovered the inconsistency during inspection, and the enterprise was unable to provide a reasonable explanation. Customs determined this violated supervision regulations, seized the furniture, and required the enterprise to reprint shipping marks consistent with the declaration. After rectification, customs released the goods and imposed a fine of 5,000 yuan.

Three Core Recommendations for Enterprises in Response to Customs Seizure

When facing potential goods seizure, enterprises are not “powerless.” Advance compliance preparations and timely responses can minimize losses:

1. Pre-Seizure: Strengthen Compliance Management to Avoid Risks at the Source

• Establish a compliance system for import/export operations, ensuring consistency between customs declarations, contracts, invoices, bills of lading, and actual goods to avoid false declarations or concealment;
• For restricted goods and permit-managed goods, apply for relevant permits in advance and avoid “shipping first, supplement