No Importer Named: Madras HC Rejects DFIA Probe PIL, Says CESTAT Can Read FTP In Customs Exemption Appeals

The petitioner, a Chennai resident, brought a public interest writ petition alleging misuse of the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) scheme.

He sought an inquiry into officers who had permitted imports without enforcing value caps and actual-user conditions in the relevant Standard Input Output Norms (SION), show-cause notices to affected importers and exporters, and directions requiring future compliance.

Relying on two CESTAT decisions concerning imports of dried cranberries and citric acid, he also sought declarations that CESTAT could not interpret the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) in a manner binding on the DGFT, and that the DGFT—not the RoDTEP Committee—had final authority over eligibility for RoDTEP benefits.

The petitioner identified no specific importer, bill of entry, officer, or quantified loss, and had made no representation to the respondents.

A writ of mandamus requires a clear legal duty owed by the respondent.

Public interest litigation requires good faith, carefully pleaded facts, and relief that the Court can properly grant; it is not a vehicle for settling policy or reopening decisions of other forums.

Recovery of customs duty is governed by the Customs Act, 1962 and requires proceedings against an identified person on particular facts by the proper officer; a roving inquiry against unnamed persons is not appropriate.

CESTAT exercises jurisdiction under Section 129A of the Customs Act, and an aggrieved party may pursue the statutory appellate remedies under Chapter XV; the FTP’s Paragraph 2.58 cannot displace jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal by Parliament.

The Court also held that whether to issue a notification to impose the disputed conditions is a matter of executive policy and cannot be compelled by the Court.

The petition rested on internet reports and general assertions of regular imports, without identifying a transaction, importer, officer, or loss; it therefore did not provide the factual foundation needed for the requested inquiry or notices.

Because the legal force of the SION conditions was itself disputed, the Court found no clear duty warranting mandamus to enforce them.

Nor could it direct the executive to adopt a particular policy through a notification.

The CESTAT orders were judicial decisions in appeals where the Revenue had participated and had statutory remedies available.

The petitioner, who was a stranger to those proceedings, could not seek to do what the Union had not chosen to do; moreover, a blanket declaration that CESTAT could never interpret the FTP would improperly disregard its statutory jurisdiction.

The Court dismissed the petition without determining the substantive merits of the disputed RoDTEP eligibility question.

It declined to compel executive action or grant the broad declaration sought concerning CESTAT’s jurisdiction.

No costs were ordered, and the connected writ miscellaneous petition was closed.