https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774948 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal challenging cancellation of Public Bonded Warehouse License under Section 58(B) of the Customs Act, 1962. During stock verification, shortage was detected but customs duty of ? 17.14 lakhs was deposited before and on verification date, indicating prior payment for detected shortage which Department failed to consider. Actual shortage was only 12 cases, not 50 as stated in impugned order. No evidence established collusion between appellant and another party for clandestine removal. CESTAT held license cancellation was harsh and unreasonable, particularly when maximum penalty of ? 4 lakhs under Section 117 was already imposed and appellant was not habitual offender. Considering totality of circumstances and that cancellation would deprive appellant of livelihood, CESTAT set aside license cancellation while upholding the penalty, finding it sufficient punishment. en-us Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:19:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774948 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal challenging cancellation of Public Bonded Warehouse License under Section 58(B) of the Customs Act, 1962. During stock verification, shortage was detected but customs duty of ? 17.14 lakhs was deposited before and on verification date, indicating prior payment for detected shortage which Department failed to consider. Actual shortage was only 12 cases, not 50 as stated in impugned order. No evidence established collusion between appellant and another party for clandestine removal. CESTAT held license cancellation was harsh and unreasonable, particularly when maximum penalty of ? 4 lakhs under Section 117 was already imposed and appellant was not habitual offender. Considering totality of circumstances and that cancellation would deprive appellant of livelihood, CESTAT set aside license cancellation while upholding the penalty, finding it sufficient punishment. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774948