Delhi High Court Flags Customs' Practice Of Mentioning Communicating Officer's Name In Order Instead Of Deciding Officer

The Delhi High Court has disapproved of the Customs Department mentioning the name of such officer in the order who communicated it to the party, instead of the officer who actually passed the order.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,“Orders which are passed have to be signed by the Officials who pass the said orders. The communication of the same can be done by anyone else but the name and designation of the Official who is actually passing the order has to be reflected in the order or in any other communication like a Show Cause Notice, failing which there is no way of knowing as to who has passed the order.”The judges added that any failure to do so would considerably deplete the accountability of Customs Officials.The Court was dealing with a plea challenging Customs' refusal to permit amendment of Petitioner's shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.Earlier, the Court had asked the Department to consider the Petitioner's grievance. However, its application was rejected, prompting the Petitioner to move this petition.Perusing the rejection order, the High Court had called for an affidavit of Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the officer who has passed the impugned order. However, the Court was then informed that the impugned order was not passed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar i.e., the official who has digitally signed it.“It is strange as to how the name and designation of the person actually passing the order is not reflected in the impugned order,” the Court had then said and sought an explanation.Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs appeared before the Court and admitted that he had passed the impugned order.The officer added that due to the heavy load of work, he had asked his Superintendent to communicate the impugned order to the Petitioner.The Court however held that excess workload cannot be a justifiable reason given for not signing the actual order.It referred to Qamar Jahan v. Union of India (2025) where the Standard Operating Procedure for the Customs Department when dealing with baggage cases was approved and it was mentioned that the name of the officer concerned who is passing the order shall also be mentioned in the full along with the designation.“In the opinion of this Court, the same cannot be limited to issues pertaining to baggage cases should be applicable for all the orders and communications issued by the Customs Department,” the Court said.Accordingly, it ordered that in future it shall be ensured that in all the Customs matters, all communications and orders are signed with the Name and designation of the Officer who passed the order being mentioned. “Preferably – physical or digital signatures ought to be also put on the order, failing which there could be doubts raised as to the genuinity of the order itself. If so required, for the purpose of administrative convenience, they can be communicated by the other officials but the name and the designation of the actual Official cannot be misrepresented in the order or in the communication.”Appearance: Mr. Sholab Arora, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Assistant Commissioner for RespondentCase title: M/S Guru Kirpa Enterprises v. Office Of The Commissioner Of Customs (Export)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1746Case no.: W.P.(C) 17289/2025Click here to read order

Delhi High Court Flags Customs' Practice Of Mentioning Communicating Officer's Name In Order Instead Of Deciding Officer

Kapil Dhyani

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Delhi High Court Flags Customs' Practice Of Mentioning Communicating Officer's Name In Order Instead Of Deciding Officer

Kapil Dhyani

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers