https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783617 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 signed by an official other than the decision-maker and did not disclose the name/designation of the officer who passed the order. The HC held that orders must bear the name and designation of the officer who actually makes the decision; otherwise, authorship, accountability, and verifiability are undermined, and mere communication by another official is insufficient. Relying on an SOP earlier approved by the HC, the Court directed that, in all Customs matters, orders/communications must disclose the decision-maker's name/designation and preferably carry physical or digital signatures, while accepting the explanation in this case and listing the matter for further hearing. en-us Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783617 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 signed by an official other than the decision-maker and did not disclose the name/designation of the officer who passed the order. The HC held that orders must bear the name and designation of the officer who actually makes the decision; otherwise, authorship, accountability, and verifiability are undermined, and mere communication by another official is insufficient. Relying on an SOP earlier approved by the HC, the Court directed that, in all Customs matters, orders/communications must disclose the decision-maker's name/designation and preferably carry physical or digital signatures, while accepting the explanation in this case and listing the matter for further hearing. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783617