2025 (12) TMI 1157 - HC - Customs

Customs refusal to amend shipping bills u/s149 challenged over unsigned order lacking decision-maker identity; court mandates clear authorship.

The dominant issue was whether a Customs communication rejecting amendment of shipping bills under s.149 of the Customs Act, 1962 could stand when it was ... Rejection of application for amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 - communication signed by the authority other than the one who issued it - HELD THAT:- In the opinion of this Court, the explanation given cannot be a justifiable reason given for not signing the actual order. 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 accountability of the Officials considerably depletes if the name is not mentioned in the order. This Court in Qamar Jahan v. Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors. [2025 (5) TMI 2024 - DELHI HIGH COURT] had approved the Standard Operating Procedure (hereinafter, ‘SOP’) for the Customs Department when dealing with baggage cases wherein it was clearly 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. Accordingly, while accepting the explanation for the purpose of this case, it is directed that in future it shall be ensured that in all the Customs matters, all communications and orders ought to be 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. List for hearing on 23rd April, 2026. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether an order/communication of the Customs Department that does not reflect the name and designation of the officer who actually passed it, and is digitally signed/communicated by another officer, is procedurally improper so as to warrant judicial directions ensuring accountability and authenticity. (ii) Whether the requirement that the name of the officer passing an order be clearly mentioned (as contained in an SOP earlier approved by the Court for baggage cases) should be applied to all orders and communications issued by the Customs Department, and what operative directions should follow. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Validity/propriety of Customs orders not reflecting the actual decision-maker Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court examined administrative law requirements of transparency and accountability in governmental decision-making, in the context of Customs orders. It treated the identification of the decision-maker and proper signing as essential to the integrity of the process and to avoid doubts about authenticity. Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned order was dated 26 July 2025 but was signed later, and the officer who digitally signed/communicated it was stated not to be the officer who actually passed it. The Court found it 'strange' that the name and designation of the person actually passing the order were not reflected in the order. The responsible officer appeared and admitted passing the order, explaining staffing shortages and workload as the reason for requesting a Superintendent to communicate it. The Court held that such explanation is not a justifiable reason for not signing the actual order. It emphasized that while communication can be carried out by another official for administrative convenience, the order must clearly reflect the identity of the actual officer who passed it; otherwise, there is 'no way of knowing as to who has passed the order,' undermining accountability and enabling doubts as to genuineness. Conclusion: The Court conclusively held that orders must be signed by the officer who passes them and must clearly mention the name and designation of that officer; communication may be done by others, but the identity of the decision-maker cannot be absent or misrepresented. Issue (ii): Extension of SOP requirement (naming the officer passing the order) beyond baggage matters; operative directions Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court referred to an SOP earlier approved by it for Customs handling of baggage cases, which required that the name of the officer passing the order be mentioned in full along with designation, and noted that the SOP had been published by the competent authority. The Court treated this SOP requirement as embodying a broader principle applicable to Customs administration generally. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that the safeguard of clearly identifying the officer passing an order cannot be confined to baggage matters alone. Since Customs orders and communications affect rights and entail legal consequences, the same minimum standards of identification, signing, and traceability must apply across Customs matters to preserve accountability and prevent doubts about authenticity. Conclusion and directions: While accepting the explanation for purposes of the present case, the Court issued a binding prospective direction that in future, in all Customs matters, all communications and orders must be signed with the name and designation of the officer who passed the order being mentioned. The Court further directed that preferably physical or digital signatures should be affixed; otherwise doubts may arise as to the genuineness of the order. It clarified that other officials may communicate orders for administrative convenience, but the name/designation of the actual officer cannot be misrepresented.