Introduction: The Move Toward a Faceless Regime
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has ushered in a new era of digital transformation in customs administration through the Turant Customs Programme, embodying the vision of a “Faceless, Contactless, and Paperless” clearance system. This reform seeks to minimise physical interface between importers, exporters, and customs officials — thereby promoting transparency, uniformity, and speed in cargo clearance.
Under this initiative, assessments are carried out remotely by officers located in different jurisdictions, rather than at the port of import. By leveraging technology and data analytics, the faceless assessment model aims to reduce discretion, curb corruption, and align with the Government’s broader “Ease of Doing Business” and Digital India goals.
Legal Framework: Section 17 of the Customs Act and CBIC Circulars
The legal foundation for faceless assessment is rooted in Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, which empowers customs officers to verify, assess, and re-assess duty on imported goods. Traditionally, this function was performed by officers physically stationed at the port of import. However, with the issuance of a series of CBIC Circulars and Instructions (2020–2023) — particularly Circular No. 40/2020-Customs, 50/2020-Customs, and 09/2021-Customs — the Board operationalised the Faceless Assessment system across all ports in India.
These circulars established National Assessment Centres (NACs), comprising expert officers from various zones, tasked with ensuring uniform assessment practices. They also detailed the workflow of faceless assessment, including:
- Automated assignment of Bills of Entry to assessment groups,
- Online query resolution through ICEGATE, and
- Virtual communication of assessment orders and reasons for re-assessment.
The transition is legally supported by Section 143AA of the Act, which authorizes CBIC to issue instructions for implementing electronic systems for customs procedures.
Advantages: Efficiency, Uniformity, and Transparency
The digitalization of customs assessment has yielded several administrative and economic benefits:
- Enhanced Transparency– The reduction in face-to-face interaction between trade and officers minimizes scope for subjectivity or rent-seeking behaviour.
- Speed and Predictability– Automation and centralized processing have shortened clearance timelines, aligning with global trade facilitation standards.
- Uniform Classification and Valuation– NACs ensure consistency in decision-making across ports, reducing disputes and litigation.
- Data-Driven Governance– Digital documentation allows analytics-based monitoring, risk management, and policy formulation.
These reforms mark a decisive shift toward a rules-based, technology-driven customs ecosystem in India.
Challenges: Procedural Fairness and Implementation Gaps
Despite its promise, the faceless assessment system has encountered teething troubles and procedural challenges that raise concerns about fairness and accountability.
- Lack of Effective Communication: Traders often face difficulties responding to queries raised electronically, with inadequate opportunity for personal hearings or clarification.
- Accountability Issues: Since assessments are done remotely, identifying the officer responsible for an erroneous or delayed order can be complex.
- Technical and Connectivity Issues: Inconsistent ICEGATE functioning and system downtimes can delay processing and create compliance uncertainty.
- Limited Natural Justice: Many stakeholders argue that faceless assessments have become paper-heavy but not necessarily fairer, as decisions are sometimes taken without meaningful consideration of replies.
Thus, while the process has become digital, the human element of adjudicatory fairness remains a pressing concern.
Judicial Perspective: Early Case Law on Faceless Assessment
The judiciary has begun to grapple with legal questions arising from the implementation of faceless assessments — particularly in relation to principles of natural justice.
In B.E. Office Automation Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2021, Madras High Court), the Court held that even in a faceless regime, the customs authorities are bound to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before finalizing assessments. Similarly, in R.K. Impex v. Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court, 2022), it was emphasized that technology cannot override fundamental procedural rights and that trade facilitation cannot come at the cost of fairness.
Courts have also underlined the need for clear audit trails, speaking orders, and proper electronic record maintenance to ensure that digital processes remain legally robust and reviewable.
Balancing Technology with Legal Safeguards:
India’s digital transformation in customs is undeniably a step toward global competitiveness. Yet, the success of faceless assessment will depend on integrating technological efficiency with legal due process.
To that end, policy experts and trade bodies have suggested:
- Establishing Virtual Facilitation Cells for clarifications and hearings,
- Strengthening system-driven accountability mechanisms,
- Periodic review of NAC orders for consistency, and
- Updating CBIC Circulars to explicitly incorporate procedural fairness safeguards.
Ultimately, technology should be an enabler of justice, not a substitute for it.
Conclusion:
The faceless assessment model represents a transformative leap in India’s customs landscape — reflecting the country’s commitment to modern, technology-led governance. However, as law and policy evolve, transparency must be complemented by fairness, and efficiency must coexist with accountability.
In this digital era, the true measure of reform lies not merely in automation but in ensuring that the rule of law remains intact in every click.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content may not reflect the most current legal developments and is not guaranteed to be accurate, complete, or up-to-date. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional before taking any action based on the information provided. The authors and publishers disclaim any liability for any loss or damage incurred as a result of reliance on this article. This article does not create an attorney-client relationship.