Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Liquor Inventory Records Seizure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Howard County hearing on New Lisbon Liquors focuses on missing invoices and seized premium bottles; board takes matter under advisement

5453624 · July 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

ATCC agents and county personnel located six premium bourbon bottles at New Lisbon (Lisbon) Liquors on July 17, 2024 for which inspectors found no purchase invoices on site. The store’s representative said some inventory dated to prior owners; agents seized the bottles for evidence. The board took the case under advisement for a later decision.

The Howard County Alcohol Beverage Hearing Board on July 22, 2024 heard a petition concerning New Lisbon Liquors (trading as Lisbon Liquors, 16109 Frederick Road, Woodbine) after a state Alcohol, Tobacco and Cannabis Commission (ATCC) inspection on July 17, 2024. ATCC agent testimony described finding six premium bourbon bottles on the premises for which the store could not produce purchase invoices during the inspection.

Inspection findings: ATCC agent Sophocanic testified he and colleagues inspected the premises on July 17 and located six bottles of high‑value bourbon (examples include Booker’s and other allocated bourbons) that lacked purchase documentation. The bottles were observed in a case with a ripped‑off top and were located in a basement/storage area and on display. The agent described the ripped box as raising suspicion because delivery boxes normally show identifying marks or distributor labels.

Licensee response: The store owner, Kavanit (spelling in file varies) Chahil, testified he represented himself as owner to inspectors; he said he acquired the business in 2017 and that inventory was transferred in a bulk transfer when he purchased the business. When questioned, Chahil said he could not locate invoices for the specific six bottles during the on‑site inspection; agents seized the bottles and issued a receipt. Chahil’s counsel indicated invoices would be provided later and submitted documents during the hearing showing purchase records for other deliveries.

Seizure and forfeiture request: Agents seized the six bottles and transported them to ATCC headquarters and the ATCC indicated it would seek forfeiture. The ATCC witness testified the bottles remain in evidence storage and ATCC sought forfeiture of the seized bottles.

Board action: The board heard testimony from ATCC and the licensee, received the inspection report and additional documents, and closed evidence. The board said it would deliberate in closed session and issue a determination later. ATCC and county counsel flagged compliance concerns about recordkeeping and delivery documentation.

Why it matters: The case raises enforcement questions about recordkeeping obligations, distributor labeling and the handling of inventory transferred in a business sale. The board’s forthcoming decision will determine whether sanctions, restoration of records or other remedies are required.