Court mandates clear identification of officials in Customs orders to prevent doubts over genuineness
In a significant judgment delivered on December 11, 2025, the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of accountability within the Customs Department concerning the issuance of orders. The case, M/s Guru Kirpa Enterprises v. Office of The Commissioner of Customs (Export), involved a petition challenging the rejection of a request for amendment of shipping bills by the Customs Department.
The petitioner, M/s Guru Kirpa Enterprises, sought amendments to shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, which were initially rejected due to the non-declaration of Cess in the submitted documents. The court highlighted the importance of proper documentation and accountability, emphasizing that all orders and communications issued by the Customs Department must include the name and designation of the official responsible for passing the order.
During the proceedings, it was revealed that the impugned order, dated July 26, 2025, had been signed on August 26, 2025, and communicated by a Superintendent under the direction of Mr. Ajit Kumar, Assistant Commissioner. The court criticized this practice, noting that it undermines the accountability of officials and may lead to doubts about the authenticity of the orders.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh, presiding over the matter, stated that orders must be signed by the officials who pass them, with their name and designation clearly mentioned. This requirement is crucial to maintaining transparency and accountability within the department. The court referred to a previous judgment in Qamar Jahan v. Union of India, which established a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Customs Department orders, mandating that the officer's name and designation be included.
The court's directive aims to ensure that all future communications and orders from the Customs Department include clear identification of the responsible officials. This measure is intended to prevent any misrepresentation and maintain the integrity of the department's operations.
The judgment has been welcomed by legal experts, who believe it will enhance accountability and transparency in the Customs Department, thereby improving the efficiency and reliability of its processes. The case is set for further hearing on April 23, 2026, to monitor compliance with the court's directives.
Bottom Line:
Customs Department must ensure that all orders and communications are signed by the official passing the order, with their name and designation clearly mentioned, to maintain accountability and avoid doubts about the genuineness of the orders.
Statutory provision(s): Customs Act, 1962 Section 149
