S. Santhosh Kumar vs THE UNION OF INDIA

W.P.No.45612 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.11.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P. No. 45612 of 2026
CNR:{ HCMA012680362026 }
and W . M . P . No.51214 of 2026

S.Santhosh Kumar
S/o.Latha S.
No.27/89A, 1st Floor, PJL Towers
Periyar Pathai, Choolaimedu,
Chennai - 600 094.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Union of India
Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, Having his office
at Room No.14102, Kartavya Bhawan I,
New Delhi - 110 011.
2.The Director General of Foreign Trade,
having his office at Vanijya Bhawan,
A Wing, 16 Akbar Road,
New Delhi - 110 011.
3.The Commissioner of Customs
Chennai Custom House,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai.
Respondent(s)
______________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45612 of 2026
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus (a) directing the respondents
to take necessary steps and make a detailed inquiry against such
officers who had permitted import under DFIA without first recording
satisfaction of compliance with the condition of actual use and value
cap mentioned in the relevant SION, and to issue Show Cause Notices
against all importers/exporters/transferees, who had been beneficiaries
of such duty free import under DFIA; (b) directing the respondents to
take necessary steps to ensure that henceforth no import under DFIA is
permitted, without first recording satisfaction of compliance with the
condition of actual use and value cap mentioned in the relevant SION;
(c) declaring that the CESTAT has no jurisdiction in interpreting Foreign
Trade Policy matters and any interpretation by CESTAT is not binding on
the DGFT authorities; and (d) declaring that notwithstanding the
provisions of Paragraph 4.55A and Paragraph 4.55B of Foreign Trade
Policy, only Respondent No. 2, and not the RoDTEP Committee, is the
final authority in deciding the eligibility criteria of categories of
exporters to claim benefits under Scheme for Remission of Duties and
Taxes on Export Products (RoDTEP).
For Petitioner(s): Ms.Pooja Thorat
for Mr.S.Vedhavel
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Kumaraguru,
Senior Panel Counsel
for R1 and R2
Mr.M.Santhanaraman,
Senior Panel Counsel
for R3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
______________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45612 of 2026
A 26-year-old Chennai resident has filed this public interest
petition seeking orders to curb imports under the Duty Free Import
Authorisation (DFIA) scheme. The petitioner seeks a further
direction to the customs authorities to verify compliance with actual
user conditions and value caps prior to granting duty-free
clearances. Additionally, the petition seeks this court to declare that
rulings by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
(CESTAT) do not bind the Directorate General of Foreign Trade
(DGFT) on policy matters, and to confirm that the DGFT, rather than
the Remission of Duties and Taxes on Export Products ( RoDTEP)
Committee, retains sole authority over exporter eligibility under the
RoDTEP scheme.
2.1. The case in brief is that DFIA is a post-export scheme
under Chapter 4 of the Foreign Trade Policy ("FTP"). It is issued for
products for which Standard Input Output Norms ("SION") are
notified. The authorisation is transferable. The holder can import
inputs duty free.
______________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45612 of 2026
2.2. By Public Notice No.41 dated 02.11.2016, the Director
General of Foreign Trade ("DGFT") amended the SION for certain
food products. The said notice added value caps for some inputs
and an actual user condition for others. It is pleaded that importers
ignore these conditions, as such conditions cannot be imposed by a
public notice and can be imposed only by a notification in the
Official Gazette.
2.3. The petitioner relies on two orders of the Customs, Excise
and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT"). In Frunuts Exim LLP ,
Final Order No.85184/2026, dated 27.01.2026, the Mumbai Bench
allowed duty free import of dried cranberries. In Global Exim , Final
Order No.75721/2026, dated 18.06.2026, the Kolkata Bench allowed
duty free import of citric acid. Both Benches held that the value cap
and the actual user condition, imposed only by public notice, could
not be used to deny the exemption. They relied on a decision of the
1
Supreme Court in Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India , and on
decisions of the Bombay and Rajasthan High Courts.
1 2026 INSC 80
______________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45612 of 2026
2.4. The second grievance aired by the petitioner concerns the
RoDTEP. Notification No.70/2023 extended RoDTEP to exports by
Advance Authorisation holders, Export Oriented Units (EOUs) and
Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units. It did not mention DFIA. The
petitioner asserts that DFIA exporters still claim RoDTEP and so get
a double benefit. He points out that, on a reference, the DGFT
informed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ("CBIC")
that DFIA exports are not eligible for RoDTEP. CBIC passed this on to
its field officers by letter F.No.CBIC-140602/4/2026-DBK-CBIC, dated
07.09.2026.
2.5. In this backdrop, the present writ petition is filed for the
reliefs, referred to supra.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Sections 9 and
19 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992
(" the FTDR Act ") and on Paragraphs 1.03, 2.04 and 2.58 of the FTP.
She argued that the DGFT can lay down procedures, including value
caps and actual user conditions, and that its decision on policy is
final.
______________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45612 of 2026
4. A public interest litigation is meant for those who cannot
reach the Court themselves. It is not a tool for settling policy or for
reopening decisions of other forums. The Court must be satisfied
that the petitioner is acting in good faith, that the facts are pleaded
with care, and that the relief sought is one the Court can properly
grant.
5. The present petition does not meet the aforesaid standard.
The petitioner's own affidavit says he learnt of the alleged misuse
from reports on the internet. He did not mention the name of any
importer, nor any bill of entry is cited, or the amount of alleged loss
is stated. The statement that there are " regular imports " at the Port
of Chennai is not backed by a single instance. He admits that he
made no representation to any respondent. The two Tribunal orders
he relies on arose at Mumbai and Kolkata, not at Chennai.
6. A writ of mandamus needs a clear legal duty. We cannot
direct officers to enforce a condition whose legal force is itself in
serious doubt. If the Central Government or the DGFT is of the
opinion that such conditions are needed to protect revenue, the
remedy is simple. They can issue the proper notification. Whether to
______________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45612 of 2026
do so or not is a matter of policy. This Court cannot direct the
executive to frame it.
7. The prayer for an inquiry against officers is also
unsustainable. No officer is named in the petition. The prayer for
show cause notices to " all importers " is much wider. Recovery of
duty is governed by the Customs Act, 1962. It needs a notice to a
particular person, on particular facts, by the proper officer. A roving
inquiry against unnamed persons cannot be ordered in a public
interest petition.
8. The orders passed by the Tribunal orders are judicial orders.
They were passed on appeals under Section 129A of the Customs
Act, in cases where the question was whether a customs exemption
was available. In deciding that question, the Tribunal had to read the
FTP. The Revenue was a party before the Tribunal. If it felt
aggrieved, Chapter XV of the Customs Act gave it a remedy by way
of appeal. The Union of India is the first respondent here. It has not
said it is aggrieved by those orders. The petitioner, who is a
stranger, cannot do what the Union of India does not chose to do.
______________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45612 of 2026
9. The importers in the cases before the Tribunal, referred to
supra, are not before us. A declaration that CESTAT can never
interpret the FTP is far too wide. The Tribunals have jurisdiction
under the Customs Act. Paragraph 2.58 of the FTP, which makes the
DGFT's interpretation final, is a policy provision. It cannot take away
a jurisdiction that Parliament has given.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There
is no order as to costs. Connected W.M.P.No.51214 of 2026 is closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
11.11.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi
To:
1. The Secretary, Union of India
Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue, Having his office at Room
No.14102, Kartavya Bhawan I, New Delhi -
110 011.
2.The Director General of Foreign Trade,
having his office at Vanijya Bhawan,
A Wing, 16 Akbar Road,
New Delhi - 110 011.
3.The Commissioner of Customs
Chennai Custom House,
______________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45612 of 2026
Rajaji Salai, Chennai.
______________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )

W.P.No.45612 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
W.P. No. 45612 of 2026

11.11.2026
______________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 07:51:59 pm )