Customs Orders Must Bear Name and Designation of Officer Passing Them: Delhi HC Rejects Staff Shortage Justification [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court explained that every Customs order must clearly show the name and designation of the officer who actually passed it, and that a shortage of staff cannot be used as a justification for leaving this information out.

Guru Kirpa Enterprises had earlier filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Customs Department to consider its representation for amendment of four shipping bills in which CESS amounts had not been declared due to an inadvertent mistake. On 22 July 2025, the High Court directed the department to take a decision on the representation by 30 September 2025 after considering the documents filed with the writ petition.’

The Customs Department later passed an order dated 26 July 2025, signed on 26 August 2025, rejecting the amendment request. The order stated that the shipping bills did not contain any CESS declaration and that no supporting documents showing CESS payment were available on the e‑Sanchit portal. The petitioner argued that this reasoning defeated the purpose of the earlier writ petition, as the Court had already directed Customs to consider the documents attached to the petition.

During the hearing on 14 November 2025, the Court directed that an affidavit be filed by the officer who had actually passed the impugned order. The government counsel initially stated that the officer whose digital signature appeared on the order had not passed it. On the next date, Assistant Commissioner Ajit Kumar appeared virtually and admitted that he had passed the order, explaining that due to a shortage of staff, he had asked his Superintendent to communicate it.

The division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain observed that such an explanation could not justify the absence of the officer’s name and designation in the order. The court pointed out that without this information, it becomes impossible to know who took the decision, which affects transparency and accountability.

The court referred to its earlier decision in Qamar Jahan v. Union of India, where it had approved a Standard Operating Procedure requiring that the officer’s full name be mentioned in baggage‑related orders, and explained that the same requirement must apply to all Customs matters.

The court directed that in future, all Customs orders and communications must clearly mention the name and designation of the officer who actually passes the order, and that physical or digital signatures should be used to avoid doubts about authenticity. It added that while another official may communicate the order for administrative convenience, the identity of the decision‑maker cannot be misrepresented.

The court exempted Assistant Commissioner Ajit Kumar from further appearance. It recorded that the counter affidavit had been filed and granted the petitioner four weeks to file a rejoinder. The matter was listed for further hearing on 23 April 2026.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates