https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769335 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. en-us Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Apr 2025 09:13:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769335 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. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769335