Section 58. Licensing of private warehouses

Judgments on Section 58

• Jms Mining Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Indore — CESTAT, 6 Jan 2026. A private bonded warehouse licence under section 58 can be cancelled under section 58B only if the licensee violates the Act, Rules or a condition of the licence — the Commissioner cannot review his own or his…
• Mumbai Travel Retail Private Limited vs Mumbai-Air Cargo Import — CESTAT, 9 May 2025. A monetary penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for a wrong claim of exemption is a civil contravention, not a penalty 'for an offence under the Customs Act' within Regulation 3(2)(c) of the Special Warehouse…
• Larsen And Toubro Limited vs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 5 Dec 2024. A curative amendment to a Section 58 bonded warehouse licence operates retrospectively from the date of the original licence where the department had full knowledge of the practice, the goods were not diverted, and…
• Shiv Probuild Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-New Delhi Acc… — CESTAT, 6 Aug 2024. Violations of bonded warehouse licence conditions that are merely typographical, curable, or not breaches of any legal provision are not serious enough to warrant cancellation of the licence under section 58B, and…
• Frigorifico Allana P Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva-I — CESTAT, 28 Jun 2024. Breach of conditions appended to a warehouse licence may warrant cancellation of the licence but not penalty under section 117, because imposition of penalty is in the realm of statutory enactment only and regulation 12…
• Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva-I — CESTAT, 22 Apr 2024. Storage or unloading of imported goods, even in non-bonded tanks or through pipelines into a bonded warehouse, attracts no confiscation, redemption fine or penalty where it is done with the prior permission of the…
• M/S Bisco Limited Through Its Managing… vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise — Supreme Court of India, 20 Mar 2024. Goods kept outside a bonded warehouse but within the premises under a proper officer's permission under Section 64(d), which is never cancelled or revoked, are not 'improperly or unauthorisedly removed' under Sections…
• Shm Shipcare P Ltd vs Mumbai-Air Cargo Import — CESTAT, 16 Feb 2024. Manufacture in a customs bonded warehouse under Sections 58 and 65 is a duty-deferment scheme: import duty on raw materials consumed in the final product is payable only on clearance of the final product under Section…
• Larsen And Toubro Limited vs Union Of India — Gujarat High Court, 20 Mar 2019. Goods issued from a bonded warehouse for manufacture under Section 65 are subsumed in the manufacturing process, so their retention in the warehouse beyond one year without extension does not breach Section 61(2)(ii)…
• Sbec Sugar Limited A Company… vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The Joint… — Bombay High Court, 3 Apr 2006. Warehoused goods that remain beyond the permitted bond period are deemed improperly removed under Section 72, duty being payable at the rate applicable on the date the bond expired, Sections 68 and 15(1)(b) having no…
• Baker Hughes Oilfield Services India Pvt Ltd vs Customs Authority For Advance Rulings And Anr — Delhi High Court, 19 Aug 2026. A re-import exemption presupposes sufficient continuity between the export and the return; where the original concessional transaction has concluded with export to an FTWZ/SEZ, a subsequent movement into the DTA under a…
• M/S Bhagwati Products Limited vs C.C. Noida — CESTAT, 12 Dec 2025. Equity has no place in the interpretation of a fiscal statute — 'there is no room for any intendment... there is no equity about a tax...
• Veetech Infoline Private Limited vs The Additional Commissioner Of Customs — Karnataka High Court, 24 Nov 2025. A cryptic, non-speaking adjudication order that reiterates a previous order without application of mind or cogent reasons violates principles of natural justice, and such violation permits writ interference under…
• Laxai Avanti Life Sciences Pvt Ltd vs Medchal - G S T — CESTAT, 10 Oct 2025. Where a Customs or Central Excise exemption notification is silent on the meaning of 'export of service', the term must be construed in accordance with section 2(e) of the FTDR Act, 1992 and the FTP governing the EOU,…
• Royal Industries Ltd vs C. Ludhiana — CESTAT, 30 Jun 2025. An adjudication order that relies on evidence not relied upon in the show cause notice and ignores the assessee's uncontradverted evidence, including re-warehousing certificates, while denying effective…
• Kundan Care Products Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-New Delhi Acc… — CESTAT, 31 Jul 2024. A penalty imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act for 'contravention' of statutory provisions is not a penalization for an 'offence', since offences and penalties are distinct categories; therefore, a licensee who…
• Plus Max Duty Free Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive)… — CESTAT, 14 Jun 2024. Where goods are deposited in and removed from a shifted special warehouse under the supervision and with the knowledge of Customs officers, mere failure to amend the licence for the new premises does not justify…
• Poonam Pundir vs C.C. Noida — CESTAT, 27 Mar 2024. Section 158 of the Customs Act, 1962 is an enabling rule-making provision under which no penalty can be directly imposed, and a warehouse licence cannot be cancelled on mere possibilities of intention without…
• Nuance Group (India) Pvt Ltd vs The Principal Commissioner Customs… — CESTAT, 10 Jan 2024. A duty-free shop/private bonded warehouse licensee who clears warehoused goods or fails to duly account for them in violation of the licence, bond and prescribed procedures is liable under Section 72 to pay the full…
• Belapur vs Flemingo Airport Retail Pvt Ltd — CESTAT, 24 Oct 2019. Sale of goods by an airport outlet in the Security Hold Area of the international departure terminal to outgoing international passengers is an export under the Customs Act, 1962 — the seller is the 'exporter' under…

All 26 judgments