https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95197 Rejection of an application to amend shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act was challenged on the ground that the order/communication was not signed by the officer who purportedly passed it and did not disclose the deciding officer's name and designation. The Court held that while communication may be issued through another official, the order must bear the deciding officer's name and designation (and preferably physical/digital signature) to ensure traceability, accountability, and authenticity; otherwise, the decision-maker cannot be identified and the order's genuineness may be doubted. The explanation was accepted for the present case, but a prospective direction was issued mandating compliance for all Customs matters. - HC en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:26 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95197 Rejection of an application to amend shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act was challenged on the ground that the order/communication was not signed by the officer who purportedly passed it and did not disclose the deciding officer's name and designation. The Court held that while communication may be issued through another official, the order must bear the deciding officer's name and designation (and preferably physical/digital signature) to ensure traceability, accountability, and authenticity; otherwise, the decision-maker cannot be identified and the order's genuineness may be doubted. The explanation was accepted for the present case, but a prospective direction was issued mandating compliance for all Customs matters. - HC Highlights Customs Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:26 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95197