TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
The legal boundaries of the country are commonly considered immutable points on a map, however, in the case of a maritime power such as India, the boundaries are not fixed but change with the international law and the need to do so. Section 56A to the Customs Act, 1962 that was introduced recently by the Finance Act 2026 is the most recent addition to this history. The amendment also expands the jurisdiction of India customs to beyond the traditional 12-nautical-mile territorial sea to fishing operations of Indian-flagged vessels in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the High Seas.
To appreciate the weight of this change, one has to turn back seventy years of legal proclamations, constitutional debates, international treaties which have gradually extended the reach of India into the ocean.
The Historical Proclamations (1955-1967)
Formal claims by India The maritime claims of India started in the mid 20th century in the form of successive presidential pronouncements gradually asserting the Indian rights over the sea and the seabed.
The First Proclamation (1955)
India gave its first proclamation on national jurisdiction over maritime zones on August 30, 1955. President Rajendra Prasad announced that India had all exclusive sovereignty over the sea-bed and sub-soil of the continental shelf adjacent to its territory, and beyond its territorial waters. This move came as a result of the realization that there were valuable natural resources in these submerged regions and that due to technological advancements these resources could be extracted.[1]
The Second Proclamation (1956)
By March 22, 1956, the emphasis was on the water column itself. The President realized that there was no international practice on the issue of territorial waters and he declared that the territorial waters of India was six nautical miles off the right place of the baseline. In December 1956, there was a second declaration establishing the boundary of the contiguous zone at twelve nautical miles. During this period, India retained a 6-mile exclusive sea where it had complete sovereignty, and a 6-mile exclusive control zone.[2]
The Third Proclamation (1967)
The commonplace was later changed to a broader sovereign belt. On September 30, 1967, President Zakir Husain made the announcement of the expansion of the territorial waters of India to twelve nautical miles. The proclamation replaced the 1956 orders and placed India on the same plane with an emerging international consensus, particularly among the developing countries, that a 12-mile boundary was required in order to protect territorial integrity and to effectively exploit natural resources. This 12-mile restriction was afterwards enshrined in the Parliament under Act 80 of 1976.[3]
The Domestic and International Legal Architecture
The power to control the actions deep into the ocean is not in a vacuum; it is backed by a complex of constitutional powers and global agreements.
UNCLOS and Flag State Jurisdiction
The High Seas is open to all States, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). But this liberty, such as the liberty of fishing, is conditional, on the understanding that vessels at sea are normally under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state to which they belong.[4] This Flag State Jurisdiction has been maintained by the international courts. In the case of MV Norstar, the Tribunal has observed that high seas vessels are not subject to any authority other than their Flag State.[5] It was also found in the case of M/V Saiga (No. 2) that a ship is regarded as one unit or as a unit that is connected to the Flag State, notwithstanding the nationality of the crew or the owners.
Constitutional Authority
In the domestic sphere, the Indian Constitution provides the Parliament with the power to make laws for the 'whole or any part of the territory of India'. Most importantly, Article 245(2) [6] provides that any law enacted by Parliament may not be invalid just because it is extra-territorial. This is complemented by Entry 57 of the Union List (List I) [7] that specifically gives the Union authority to legislate concerning fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters. This particular entry shows that the creators of the Constitution had the goal of the central government controlling deep sea fisheries.
The 2026 Customs Amendment: A New Horizon
Although it is beyond doubt that the Constitution has the constitutional authority to regulate fisheries that are beyond territorial waters, the Customs Act, 1962, was historical in its geographical scope. This posed a big economic obstacle to the Indian fishing industry.
The Problem
Until recently, fishing activities were limited in the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea under the Customs Act. As such, fish which was caught by an Indian-flagged vessel within the EEZ or the High Seas were considered imports when returned to Indian ports.
This led to:
- Duty Liability: Indian fishermen were compelled to pay custom duties on fish they had caught.
- Procedural Burdens: The process of landing the catch was characterized by complicated imported goods documentation making it time-consuming and unpredictable.
- Economic Disincentives: These extra costs deterred deep-sea fishing and constrained the sustainable use of marine resources.
The Solution: Section 56A [8]
The Finance Act 2026 attempts to solve these problems by amending the Customs Act to expand the jurisdiction of the Act in fishing by Indian-flagged vessels. The new Section 56A aims to:
1. It is necessary to have a clear legal framework of fish caught in EEZ and high seas.
2. Permit such fish to be landed in Indian ports duty-free.
3. Treat such catch as exports where landed on the foreign ports which ease in trade and diversify the export base.
This action is also justified by the guidelines on Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the High seas by Indian Flagged Fishing Vessels, 2025, which was adopted under the executive authority of the Union.
Analysis
The amendment of 2026 and the study of the maritime history of India shows that there was an elaborate legal policy that balances both sovereignty and international duties. This shift can be discussed at conceptual, economic, and constitutional levels, which are examined as follows.
1. The Resolution of the 'Import Paradox'
The main problem in this amendment is the solution of what may be termed as the Import Paradox. Since decades the Indian legal system has been running on a technicality, that fish that was harvested by an Indian citizen, in an Indian vessel, with Indian resources, was considered to be foreign goods as soon as it passed back into the 12-mile territorial sea of the EEZ. This is implied to have been not a policy targeting local fishermen but an incidental result of an archaic definition of geographically where India was defined in terms of customs.
The government has aligned the Customs Act with the real scope of the economic interests of the country by the introduction of Section 56A [9]. This change of emphasis no longer centers on the location of the fish catch (geography) but on the nationality/flag of the fish catchers. It is a crucial change of concept; it recognizes that in the contemporary global economy, the territory of a state accompanies its registered units (ships) to international waters.
2. Strengthening the 'Real Connection' Test
The use of the 'Real Connection' test of the case GVK Industries Ltd. v. ITO [10] is one of the most important analytical aspects of the research. One of the frequent criticisms of extra-territorial laws is that they are overreaching. This analysis however reveals that the 2026 amendment would be constitutionally bulletproof due to the exceptional existence of a deep-sea fishing and the Indian state because of the existence of a real connection.
The relationship is three-fold:
Economic Impact: The livelihoods of Indian citizens are related to the mainland, and the generated revenue.
Food Security: The harvest of the marine resources is to serve the Indian market or to serve as a source of foreign exchange to India by exporting.
Regulatory Responsibility: India owes a duty to the rest of the world (UNCLOS) with regard to the behavior of its vessels.
By controlling such vessels under the Customs Act, India is carrying out its police and revenue obligation in the Croft v. Dunphy case [11] so that its citizens can enjoy the fruits of the resources which they grow without being mired in the legal fiction of importing their own property.
3. The Flag as a Legal 'Bridge' and Safeguard
The research places a heavy emphasis on the Merchant Shipping Act (MSA) and the necessity of ship registration. The analysis of this connection reveals that the flag is not just a symbol; it is the essential legal bridge that makes the Customs amendment work. Without the MSA, the Customs Act would have no 'anchor' in the high seas.[12]
The requirement that these benefits only apply to 'Indian-flagged vessels' creates a robust regulatory filter. This ensures that the duty-free benefits of Section 56A are not exploited by foreign entities. For a vessel to be 'Indian,' it must adhere to strict standards of ownership, safety, and construction. Therefore, the amendment serves a dual purpose: it incentivizes the growth of the domestic deep-sea fleet while simultaneously ensuring that only vessels under the direct oversight of the Indian government can access these economic advantages. This 'selective jurisdiction' protects the national interest while adhering to the principle of 'exclusive jurisdiction' of the Flag State on the high seas.[13]
5. Alignment with the 'Blue Economy' and Global Standards
The comparative analysis of the examples of New Zealand and Australia gives a clear image of the strategic direction of India. These countries already are on the road to advanced 'High seas' permitting systems. The fact that India has chosen to accompany the Customs amendment with the 'Guidelines to sustainable harnessing of fisheries in the high seas, 2025' [14] suggests a transition towards a comprehensive system of the Blue Economy.
This discussion indicates that India is not considering the high seas as a no man land but rather as an economic zone that its laws need to be reflected to safeguard its citizens. The amendment, which permits the catch to be counted as an export once it is landed in foreign ports, is also an indicator of a desire to transform India into a world seafood destination. It eliminates the past pressure of return-to-port, which enables the Indian vessels to be competitive in international trade.
6. The Interplay of Executive and Legislative Power
One last analysis is the coordination between the Executive (2025 Guidelines) and the Legislature (2026 Finance Act). This policy alignment is high in this pincer movement in law-making. The Guidelines include the how (sustainable practices, permits), whereas the Customs Act includes the benefit (duty-free status). This formulation guarantees that the extension of jurisdiction is neither merely a tax cut, but a planned extension of the national industry into the international commons.
Conclusion
The development of maritime jurisdiction in India, with the initial claims of the 1950s to the ambitious extra-territorial scope of the 2026 Customs amendment, is indicative of a country becoming a maritime power. Section 56A fills the gap between the territorial and the High Seas, and in doing so, not only reduces taxes but also acknowledges the sea as an economic frontier that is essential. This amendment offers the seafood industry the legal assurance it requires since it is backed by the floating island doctrine of international law and the extra-territorial powers afforded to the Constitution.
The High Seas are no longer in a legal vacuum as India moves to use its marine resources to ensure food security and economic development, but rather an extension of the blue economy of the country into the High Seas. This expansion has been made legally valid, economically viable, and internationally acceptable by the integration of the Merchant Shipping Act, the UNCLOS principles and the Real Connection test.
[1] Nations, U. (1959) SUPPLEMENT TO LAWS AND REGULATIONS ON THE REGIME OF THE HIGH SEAS (VOLUMES I AND II) AND LAWS CONCERNING THE NATIONALITY OF SHIPS. Available at: https://legal.un.org/legislativeseries/pdfs/chapters/book8/book8_introduction.pdf (Accessed: 14 April 2026).
[2]JURIDICAL STATUS, BREADTH AND DELIMITATION OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA. Available at: https://legal.un.org/legislativeseries/pdfs/chapters/book6/book6_part1_1.pdf (Accessed: 14 April 2026).
[3]Fao.org (1967) FAOLEX Database | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at: https://www.fao.org/faolex/en/ (Accessed: 14 April 2026).
[4] United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 87(1), Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397
[5] United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 92, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397
[6]India Const. art. 245, cl. 2
[7]Entry 57, List I (Union List), Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India: 'Fishing and fisheries beyond territorial waters.'
[8] The Customs Act, 1962, No. 52, 56A, Act of Parliament (India).
[9] The Customs Act, 1962, No. 52, 56A, Act of Parliament (India).
[10]GVK INDS. LTD. & ANR. Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. - 2011 (3) TMI 1 - Supreme Court
[11]Croft, E.R. (sic) Versus Sylvester Dunphy - 1932 (7) TMI 12 - PRIVY COUNCIL
[12]REPUBLIC OF ITALY & Massimilano Latorre Versus U.O.I. & ORS - 2013 (1) TMI 739 - Supreme Court
[13]M/V 'Norstar' Case (Pan. v. It.), Judgment, 2019 I.T.L.O.S. Rep. 216-218; M/V 'Saiga' (No. 2) (St. Vincent v. Guinea), Judgment, 1999 I.T.L.O.S. Rep. 105-106.
[14] Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India, Guidelines for Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the High Seas by Indian-Flagged Fishing Vessels, 2025 (2025)