Procedural cost may stand for delayed document production, but personal recovery from officers needs a clear factual basis.

A procedural cost imposed for delayed production of documents was upheld because the documents were in the Department's possession and the delay had impeded proceedings, even though the lapse was not treated as wilful default. However, directions to recover that cost personally from named officers, including the Principal Additional Director General, DRI, were set aside because the delay was not shown to be attributable to identified individuals and appeared to reflect systemic inertia. The Department could bear institutional responsibility, but retrospective personal financial liability was held excessive on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cost imposed by the Trial Court for delayed production of documents was liable to be interfered with. (ii) Whether the directions requiring recovery of the cost from specific officers, including the Principal Additional Director General, DRI, were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the cost imposed by the Trial Court for delayed production of documents was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The delay in prosecution and in placing the documents on record arose in the backdrop of prolonged litigation on the jurisdiction of DRI officers, including the effect of the Customs Act, the validating amendment, and later legislative intervention. Although the delay was not treated as wilful default or administrative indifference, the relevant documents were admittedly in the Department's possession and were not produced in time, which impeded the proceedings. The cost was treated as a measured response to the procedural lapse and not as a punitive interference warranting correction.

Conclusion: The cost imposed by the Trial Court was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the directions requiring recovery of the cost from specific officers, including the Principal Additional Director General, DRI, were sustainable.

Analysis: The Court found that the delay could not be definitively attributed to any identified officer and was more plausibly the result of systemic inertia. While the Department could be held collectively responsible, retrospective fixation of personal financial liability on named officers was not justified on the facts. Institutional accountability was appropriate, but the mechanism adopted by the Trial Court for recovery from specific officers was excessive.

Conclusion: The directions requiring recovery of the cost from specific officers and from the Principal Additional Director General, DRI, were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in part: the cost order survived, but the personal recovery directions were annulled, leaving the Department responsible without fastening individual liability on named officers.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a procedural lapse is attributable to institutional or systemic delay rather than identifiable individual negligence, the court may uphold a compensatory cost order against the department but should not fasten retrospective personal financial liability on specific officers without a clear factual basis.

---